Miscellany: 12/31/13

Quote of the Day
Start with good people, 
lay out the rules, 
communicate with your employees, 
motivate them and reward them. 
If you do all those things effectively, 
you can’t miss.
Lee Iacocca

William Pauley vs. the Fourth Amendment

Pauley's Ruling via Washpo

The Post rightly calls this paragraph from my first nominee for Bad Judge of the Year 2014 as Kafkaesque. Imagine if Clinton had argued, "I never intended for you to know about that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
Just because the Congress passes a law doesn't make it constitutional. The people have a right to know about information being collected about them; otherwise, there wouldn't be due process of serving warrants. I don't even think Snowden has been found guilty in a court of law, although Pauley makes the assertion. And the Congress passes laws it doesn't read or understand all the time.

Facebook Corner

(Bastiat Institute). "The economic Progressive mindset is inherently arrogant. Take the example of the call for McDonalds to pay its workers $15/hr. Progressives making this argument think they know better than McDonald's CFO what the corporation should pay. They want to step into a business they don't understand and run it, substituting their judgment for that of the people who actually built/run the business.

"By contrast, the libertarian mindset is humility. I don't know your business. I don't know your life, or how much you should pay your employees. And I'm humble enough to admit that and let you get on with handling those things, if you return me the same favor." - Julian Adorney, writer at FEE
 The issue is a prohibition on voluntary transactions by third parties. On what moral authority does any progressive have to deprive another person of making a living or gaining invaluable job experience?

Political Humor

Courtesy of Lisa Benson and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Holiday Series

Guy Lombardo and the Royal Canadians. "Auld Lang Syne". This marks the end of my seasonal musical series. I'll resume my regular iPod Shuffle favorites series with my next post tomorrow.

Miscellany: 12/30/13

Quote of the Day
We didn't lose the game;
we just ran out of time.
Vince Lombardi

Now I Know Why Nobody Sang Me 'Happy Birthday' Today...

Nobody wanted to license it. You know you've got self-control when you go out to eat at a family diner to celebrate and order salmon with broccoli and carrots, while people around you are eating comfort food, fried chicken, breads and gravy and ordering pie or other blissful dessert....



The Worst of Michael "the Nanny" Bloomberg



Facebook Corner

(Cato Institute). "Put yourself in the position of a future historian and think about what you would put in a book to describe Obama’s biggest accomplishment."
Obama is a gifted orator and campaigner. He could talk the American people into reelecting him with an abysmal record.
Gay marriage I'd say. But I do hope Obama is no Hoover who after all was followed by FDR, not exactly a libertarian turn. FDR's historic accomplishment is easier: ending prohibition.
Explain the hell what he did---marriage is regulated by the states and at best his support/opposition was nuanced and unprincipled.
Withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Want to rethink that? Bush set the withdrawal date from Iraq; Obama didn't accelerate that and in fact failed to negotiate an extension. On Afghanistan, Obama doubled casualties Bush had in 2 terms. Again, Obama was negotiating an extension.

(Drudge Report). After Passing Background Checks in 1993, Dems Got Romped in 1994 
 Don't forget HillaryCare and the Clinton tax hike.

Political Cartoon

Courtesy.of Henry Payne and Townhall

Also Afghanistan....

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Holiday Series

Dan Fogelberg, "Same Old Lang Syne". This is still my favorite of Fogelberg's songs, although I remember it got so much airplay some of the women in our inner group at UH Catholic Newman positively hated the song.



A Little Boy, Cancer and a Teddy Bear

Miscellany: 12/29/13

Quote of the Day
Much of my success has been due to
keeping my mouth shut.
J. Ogden Armour
           
One of the Best Clips I've Seen on Healthcare

Familiar readers will recognize the point of shopping policies across state lines; I've pointed out this would be one of the few legitimate purposes of Congress regulating interstate commerce, i.e., promoting a free market. There's a reason why health insurance has costed more in Massachusetts than in Utah and Idaho, and it's not necessarily because the people are that much healthier; it has more to do with dysfunctional government policy. One of the major problems with ObamaCare is that it centralizes some of these mandates (take, for instance, guaranteed issue and community rating). A lot of mandates are added by special interest lobbies wanting to socialize their expenses. The argument here is insurers in high-mandate states losing market share to lower-mandate state-based insurers would finally argue for long overdue reforms vs. encouraging higher barriers to entry. "Progressives" understand this, which they call the race to the bottom.

Whereas "progressives" love to compare health to auto insurance (from a simplistic approach of demanding mandates) (keep in mind the real purpose of the mandate is to protect people and property from your causing an expensive accident beyond your means to reimburse), let's point out a few things. We don't include free preventive auto care, we don't pay for gas, oil changes, etc. with co-pays, we don't purchase auto insurance through our employers in tax-privileged benefits... I personally view this as an unintended consequences of the market corruption by government policy; health insurance as a way of controlling for a small risk of catastrophic health costs has mutated into a prepaid health services bundle where some health ordinary expenses are "more equal"--government is subsidizing ordinary expenses if you buy through an employer vs. on your own. But it probably doesn't make sense for auto insurers to handle the transactions for our ordinary auto expenses (imagine if we had to buy gas through only insurer-approved retailers); we probably know our local low-price gas station, our favorite reliable car mechanic, etc.

I do like one argument stressed in the clip: the employer chooses the healthcare vendor, not the individual policyholders....



Gary Galles, "In Trusting Politics and Politicians, It Is the Pope Who is Naïve": Thumbs UP!

I recently had a falling out with one of my favorite nephews over Pope Francis. My nephew is one of the 88% of American Catholics giving Francis high approval; he didn't like some comments I had to make about the Pope's economic illiteracy. I am more blunt than some Catholic libertarians; if Lew Rockwell or Jeffrey Tucker have written something, I haven't seen it. I've seen Tom Woods, a convert from Lutheranism,  seemingly taking on wolf pack attacks from "social justice" theologians, whom have no more idea on how to run a lemonade stand than Barry Obama. (What's interesting is that a lot of libertarians, including myself, have a fondness for the older, richer traditional liturgy.)

I have analyzed the exhortation in multiple posts over the past month. But to be honest, I'm extremely angry over what I regard as his lack of intellectual integrity; he should never have written on a topic on which he has no background; he paraphrases cliches. Let's take a very simple example: toilets. I haven't read the history of plumbing, but I would suppose the first people to have toilets were wealthy individuals whom paid handsomely for the innovation. Add in the economies of scale, and now probably most people, at least in the developed world, have access to this modern convenience at a fairly modest cost. Go to any supermarket and you will find a variety of foods and beverages beyond our ancestors' wildest dreams; yet the upper 1% can only eat so much. I'm left-handed and have wide feet; when I was younger, I had a devil of a time finding suits to accommodate my athletic fit (wide shoulders, deep chest, bigger upper arms with a tapering towards the waist): but there are vendors whom address my needs. None of these vendors required government intervention. It's the same invisible hand the pontiff so incompetently scoffs at. Do these vendors make a profit? Hopefully, yes; otherwise, I may find fewer vendors and selection.

But I know that businessmen are more than just greed and profits, and Francis' incompetent straw man argument undermines his own credibility and relevance. My maternal grandfather as a grocer never discussed how much money he made, but he told me more than once that during the Depression he would go to open up the store (a few blocks away) late at night because his customers needed certain items. My mom said that he wrote off a lot of bad debt  from deadbeat customers. He volunteered at church; he was a member of St. Vincent de Paul and gave to a number of charities.

One of the things in my more detailed analysis several posts back that I singled out (unlike a lot of people) was his talking point about discussing politics as a noble profession. One key point in Catholic doctrine is the importance of free will; Jesus talked about individual responsibility. And how Francis squares the circle with the parable of the talents is beyond me. In America we say "In God we trust", not "In politicians we trust". We fought a revolution over tyranny. Yet this same pope which scoffs at the idea of the invisible hand, although the evidence is all around him, has trust in politicians, like the Argentinian leadership which has run the economy into the ground?

I won't repeat Catholic economist Galles' piece here; it makes points complementary to my discussion; Galles is an economist whom effortlessly interleaves Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, Spencer, Reisman, etc., all of whom I'm aware of during my own pro-liberty evolution.

Facebook Corner

Courtesy of the original artist via Illinois Policy Institute

With corporations having our best interests in mind, why are regulations even necessary.
 I believe you're probably a sarcastic troll, but even economic illiterates stumble upon the truth by mistake. The fact is that corporations can't sustain a business model based on damaging or killing its customers and they still are responsible for any alleged harm to the rights of others. The first principle for any business is to know and serve the customer; since businesses can't force you to transact (without government protecting the business, establishing a mandate, etc.), they depend on their ability to persuade and/or loyal customers, favorable word of mouth, etc.

(Ron Paul). Government Policies Hurt Low-Wage Workers -- read my latest Texas Straight Talk at the link and find out why government attempts to help the poor end up hurting them more. And please share! tinyurl.com/mron9vc    [A lot of "progressive" trolls responded bitching about inadequacy of the minimum wage, pushing Card-Krueger nonsense, etc.
Some troll is talking Econ 101. Price-fixing that is not based on the market--and this includes minimum or maximum wages--violates core economic principles. Artificially high minimums result in surpluses, e.g., unemployment. (Artificially low prices result in shortages--think ice after a power failure and counter-productive price-gauging laws. ) There may be a surplus of low-skilled laborers; a politician trying to manipulate wages cannot force a business to hire a worker above his productivity. The way for a worker to increase his wage is not to rely on government to price him out of work opportunities but to gain value-added skills and knowledge which make him more productive from an employer standpoint.

As for the trolls griping about inflation undermining the artificial wage floor, blame bad government policy from easy money monetary policy to various dysfunctional legislation (including, but not restricted to, price supports, import tariffs/quotas, occupational licensing, employer mandates, etc.)

(John Stossel). ‪#‎Innovation‬ threatens centralized power.
Innovation is difficult to model; it can change markets, make laws obsolete and irrelevant, and overwhelm legislators and regulators. Government can't capture an invisible hand short of enslaving the population.

For Catholic Readers

Randy England posted the following limited-term offer on the Catholic libertarians Facebook group:

For all my friends at Catholic Libertarians, I want you to have a free ebook copy of Free is Beautiful. The coupon code is good as long as 2013 lasts. Please share this link with Catholic friends ~ Randy England
http://freeisbeautiful.net/catholic-libertarian-free-ebook/

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Holiday Series

Nat King Cole, "The Christmas Song"

Miscellany: 12/28/13

Quote of the Day
One of the greatest gifts you can give to anyone is 
the gift of attention.
Jim Rohn

Upcoming Publication Schedule

This is a temporary note that will likely be edited out on a future date. Over the coming weeks, I expect that the frequency and/or nature and extent of my daily posts may change. I probably won't spend as much time on Facebook and some posts may be abbreviated and/or prescheduled (e.g., on any travel dates).

The Gray Lady Tries to Help Obama and Clinton on the Benghazi Tragedy: Thumbs DOWN!

The Gray Lady released the report of an "investigation" which, in simple terms, looks to buttress the long-discredited attempt to blame the attack on a controversial Youtube video and tries to dismiss the Al Qaeda link to the attack. I have not read the full report yet but read enough from the email notification blurb on the report to know I wouldn't like it. It's not a prejudgment, but this isn't the first time the Gray Lady has come out with a questionable story: remember the attempt to link McCain with a lobbyist in an affair during the early months of 2008? Let's be clear: what's the likelihood if there was a "smoking gun" to exonerate the Administration's mismanagement of the circumstances of the tragedy, they would have waited for the Gray Lady to make their case?

The facts are irrefutable: Benghazi was unstable enough at the time for the British to withdraw diplomatic personnel; the weapons used in the attack were military, not the stones, etc., one might expect from protesters; there were repeated denied requests for more security. The very fact that the attack occurred on 9/11 is strong circumstantial evidence of an Al Qaeda/alliance link; I don't recall anyone arguing it was Al Qaeda directly so any hair-splitting over Al Qaeda or any of a number of allied fundamentalist radical groups doesn't really help the Administration's case. As for the film, there's scant evidence on social media before or on the day of  attack of mention of the scapegoated Youtube video. (For Congressman King's response to the Times' story, see here.)

Facebook Corner

On a Stossel thread putting capitalism over charity:
I'm a little confused to why Stossel is trashing private-sector initiatives which seek to address the consequences of government failures. Recall classical liberals like Adam Smith and Herbert Spencer specifically dealt with moral responsibilities. Unlike "government charity" monopolies, they have to compete for donor dollars and volunteers. Obviously we need to control for fraud in a free market, including charity. I would tweak what John wrote: "Capitalists, not government domestic programs, do the most to help the poor."

Where does the money go in a capitalist economy? Why are there so many poor right now? If money were water and someone dammed up the river and made you labour for just enough to barely keep you alive, I think you'd feel differently. Or would you lionize the water hoarder? You have dehumanized the poor and chosen to turn your backs. Jesus would be so proud of your rationalizations. You watch shows like this and pray as if that actually make a real difference.
Because we have a President whom doesn't understand business or the economy. If we got the government the hell out of the economy, the economy would boom.

Capitalists are great until they transfer jobs overseas and still want tax breaks at my expense.
Another economic illiterate progressive troll. If you want to attract job growth, you need to streamline regulation and taxes. Companies invest overseas for all sorts of reasons, including accessing local markets. For the government to demand a cut on income generated overseas is immoral: the government provides no services for that money. But the back office does benefit from external growth. You cannot compete where low-skill jobs are commodities. Jobs aren't a public resource; they don't belong to you or some bureaucrat; they are created to meet business objectives; higher pay is correlated to higher productivity, meaning among other things improved technology. You need seed corn to improve productivity: investment. The current clueless Administration is unable to do what is needed because of its Statist ideology.

(Jeffrey Tucker). I wonder how many took the plunge into the ideas of liberty as a direct result from their online activities? How did you come to understand liberty? 
I have been more of a fusion libertarian-conservative. I stumbled across a book by Woods on how the Catholic Church built Western Civilization. An essay on economic fascism by DiLorenzo on Rockwell's website. The Cafe Hayek blog. Bastiat's "The Law" online. Online-available books by Mises and Rothbard at the Mises Institute. Higgs and Friedman on the Depression. Read's "I, Pencil" and other resources at the Library of Economics and Liberty. A lot of my reading was driven by the 2008 economic tsunami and the megalomaniac Statist excesses of the 111th Congress.

(Cato Institute). "There’s one counterintuitive way to help bring much-needed focus to U.S. trade policy: stop worrying about fast track."
Anytime a populist puts a stipulation onto negotiating a trade agreement, the one certainty is that we are no longer talking "free trade".

(Drudge Report). DNC Sends Email Warning Democrats of Obama Impeachment Possibility
This is predictable nonsense: they have to do something to excite a disenchanted base. Even if the GOP flips the Senate next year, the Democrats will have more than enough support to block conviction in the Senate. Plus, Obama has the best impeachment insurance--President Joe Biden. Obama would have to do something that makes the Senate Dems throw him under the bus--removing the first black American President would alienate their most reliable constituency--it ain't gonna happen.

(Reason Magazine). Unhelpful science? 
 Morally reprehensible: parasitic lawyers suing scientists because they don't like a study's conclusions? It's bad enough government intervenes in the economy: now they're trying to intervene in science? What's next--the climate change industrial complex suing skeptic critiques? Whatever happened to academic freedom?
So the evidence in the report is based on the delivering Dr. saying they didn't use "excessive" force? Right. I love it when the perpetrators are allowed to make the definitions of their actions. "No! I wasn't robbing that bank, I was taking out a 0% loan!"
Do you know how to read? The burden of proof is on the plaintiff's attorney to establish alleged excess use of force. The standard of defense is reasonable doubt. Said article documents injuries can happen without use of force; I have not read the article, but presumably it went through peer review. As a former academic reviewer, I'm sure that reviewers would be skeptical of self-report claims. I'm not saying this happened, but it's possible the condition developed prior to birth, presumably there were independent observers of the birth process, etc. 

The parasitic lawyer is just frustrated that he failed to prove the doctor was responsible for injuring the child. He thought he had a slam dunk: "everybody knows" that "deep-pocketed" doctors cause defects, that defects can't have natural origins, etc. All the article would show is that it is possible for the condition to be natural.

This is from the journal article: "Six hours forty-five minutes after beginning Pitocin administration, the patient was fully dilated and began pushing. The head crowned 45 minutes later and the attending physician was called for delivery. The mother gave a single push with the next contraction, which delivered the entire infant. There was no shoulder dystocia; the head, shoulders, and body of the baby delivered simultaneously with the 1 push. There was no delay between the delivery of the head and the body, and there was no physician traction during the delivery. No fundal pressure had been used. These observations were noted in the medical record at the time by the delivering physician (E.S.) and the delivery room nurses. The mother herself confirmed that complete delivery of the baby occurred almost immediately after the doctor sat down and before the doctor even had a chance to put on her gloves. It was the mother’s observation that the only role the doctor played was to catch the baby before it went off the table."

(LFC). Slate has a column out (surprise!) about how libertarians are selfish, racist, cruel conspiracy nuts. If you'd like to prove the author wrong, the link is here: http://www.salon.com/2013/12/28/why_i_fled_libertarianism_and_became_a_liberal/

Salon, Slate....toilet paper of the Internet. Several discussants expose telling lines: "irrelevant" size of the federal government, "the lesson of the Great Depression"...

The first law of writing is to know your audience, so this guy is obviously writing to tell his target audience what they want to hear: that the Tea Party and libertarians are selfish, conspiracy kooks, racists, tools of the ungrateful elite; that social liberals care about real people.

I came to my own migration from the opposite direction: I grew up as an Air Force brat, I got my bachelor's degree from a progressive Catholic university (in fact, I worked in the campus' social work program library), and earned 3 graduate degrees at 2 other Texas universities. In fact, I once stood for Ted Kennedy in a Texas precinct caucus. I worked 5 years as a junior professor in progressive groupthink academia, never feeling free to discuss my emerging conservative views, not based on ideology but my growing exposure to business and economics. 

My original intent in going to a Catholic college was a potential vocation to the priesthood. I never lost sight of my religious ideals, but I lost faith in government as the means to those ends. We see the federal government's growth not in common goods/services but individual benefits. I also knew that the private sector provided solutions for related problems before the New Deal and Great Society (family support for aging parents, charities and fraternal societies, physician deep discounts and/or bartering, etc.).

Rick Santelli's clarion call for the Tea Party movement as the Democrats used their super-majority after the 2008 selection to run up the score on a progressive wishlist basically woke me up to the fact we can't tweak ourselves back to prosperity. Government empire building was part of the problem, not the solution.

Lyngar's ad hominem attacks are regrettable; even if some people in the liberty movement match the description provided, the Democrats have more than their fair share of crazies, racists, etc. (I know because I once served as a volunteer during a Democratic Presidential campaign.)

My evolution to a type of fusion libertarian-conservative is an ongoing process; for example, I migrated from a more neo-con perspective less from the polemical talking points of Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan and more from the government's maladministration of nation building and the realization that government waste is not restricted to the domestic side of the ledger.

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Tim Campbell via Illinois Policy Institute

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Holiday Series

Judy Garland, "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas"

Miscellany: 12/27/13

Quote of the Day
One of the hardest things in this world is 
to admit you are wrong. 
And nothing is more helpful in resolving a situation than 
its frank admission.
Benjamin Disraeli

Free Will and Human Dignity



NSA Gets One Legal Decision on NSA  Phone Tracking: Thumbs DOWN!

U.S. District Judge William Pauley is my initial nominee for the 2014 award for judges behaving badly. I seem to recall Billboard would run its calendar for certain annual charts from November through October. Since I have already named my 2013 winner/loser, Pauley will be in the running for next year's award.

This is one which will likely go to SCOTUS, given a contrary earlier verdict by Judge Richard Leon. Pauley basically argues that the broad search is a key to counter-terrorist activities and is necessary given the nature of decentralized terror cell networks. I clearly disagree; there's not enough discussion in the article to know what he did/did not write. But some of his points are at best dubious; for example, he argues that they would have known one of the 9/11 hijackers was in the US (the NSA had intercepted the call but did not know the details). Nobody is challenging that the NSA would get the fuller metadata given how they intercepted the message under a conventional warrant. Presumably the intercept was over an authorized wiretap.  But the idea you need to collect everything is patently absurd--you can filter for relevant targets. It still amounts to the equivalent of a general warrant, which as Judge Leon points out probably violated the Fourth Amendment.

Facebook Corner

(Patriot Post). A&E Folds...http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/ae-ducks-ends-suspension-bible-thumpin-phil-robertson
I thought this might be coming when they ran a Duck marathon over the holiday; of course the old saw is that all publicity is good publicity, but with the family suggesting it would stand behind Phil, A&E's move didn't make strategic sense building towards an aborted launch. I've noted even in this thread, the politically correct police are voicing their dissatisfaction for what they consider an unprincipled betrayal, but this wasn't a case where Phil's controversial comments were aired over their network

(Reason Magazine). Increasingly, the public may be seeing that the problem isn’t a handful of officials who illegally gamed the system, but a system that allows a powerful minority to legally game the majority.
Funny--play on words: Bell, CA. I think the ongoing pension crisis and increased transparency, in addition to well-known public bankruptcies, provide a basis for reform. The fact that the Dem major of San Jose is pushing more serious reform and the signs that public unions are seeing lower approval ratings make it clear that things are different than when the unions ran over the Governator's reforms just under a decade ago. It won't happen overnight; California judges are economically illiterate and in a state of denial, and public employees will fight reform every step of the way. It will be like pulling teeth.

A friend linked to this post where a writer gives kids a lesson on the power of words using the Duck Dynasty kerfuffle and Justine Stacco, all but immediately fired after posting a tweet joking about a business trip to Africa, AIDS in Africa, pointing out she was white. (By the time she reached Africa, she discovered her alleged tweet was trending worldwide and had alienated people to the point of getting death threats.)
I'm far more concerned about the judgmental, unforgiving attitude of other people; good people don't quote out of context and are more tolerant of the mistakes of others. It's a shame to see someone lose a job in 140 characters or less.

But we have to live in the real world, where our words can be used against us, a badly toned email can get you fired and/or forwarded behind your back, an indiscreet photo (remember Phelps caught smoking marijuana?) may be seen by prospective employers, etc. We need to control our messages, not let our messages define us.

Courtesy of Banksy via Catholic Libertarians

Powerful Christmas card by an artist known as Banksy, depicting Israel's West Bank barrier which would have prevented the Holy Family from ever reaching Bethlehem. ~Mark
Recall it was government that required a late-stage pregnant woman to travel...

(Ron Paul) Ron Paul in 1991: Both Parties are the Same. While speaking at the Libertarian Convention in Chicago, Ron says what he's been saying for decades; there's little difference between the two major parties and Americans are "unhappy, disenchanted & looking for something." 

Of course--3 years after he lost as standard bearer for the Libertarian Party. He would return to the GOP to run for Congress and twice for President. Let us recall that Taft and Buffett were part of the Old Right. The vast majority of twentieth century American casualties occurred during the watch of Democratic Presidents, and every major entitlement and program was initiated by the Dems. So don't argue that the parties are the same. It's hard to win the game when you're always playing defense. I do agree the GOP didn't make the most of their rare opportunity in 2003-2006 holding both the Congress and the White House--but the last 6 budget surpluses occurred under a GOP House or President. I regret there weren't more legislators with Paul's testicular fortitude, but it's very difficult to run against Santa Claus.

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Holiday Series

Andy Williams, "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year"

Miscellany: 12/26/13

Quote of the Day
Because we don't think about future generations,
they will never forget us.
Henrik Tikkanen

Reason's Nanny of the Year

And the lifetime achievement award goes to... hold the salt, trans fats and the size of those sugary drinks...




Facebook Corner

(Drudge Report). Do you miss Obama? Is your life lost while he is away? Or are you relieved that for a few short weeks you're being left alone?
The only drawback is the thought of Biden doing an Al Haig, saying "I'm in charge"...
We are not being left alone. His bureaucracy is still working hard.
His bureaucracy is still occupying the buildings. Bureaucracy working hard is somewhat oxymoronic...

(Reason Magazine). "In much of the country, Obamacare plans are so expensive that many people who make too much to qualify for subsidies are exempt from requirements that they purchase insurance under the Affordable Care Act."
You are right. All the more reason to let people buy a catastrophic policy. Unfortunately this was outlawed by Obamacare.
yes, because junk insurance is SO AWESOME...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/.../junk-insurance-comes-back..
"Progressive" trolls simply recycle the same old same old discredited lies and distortion. Other propaganda lies include the idea individuals find themselves canceled when they get sick. Health insurance is and has been regulated in all 50 states. Goodman has thoroughly debunked the fear-mongering. [Discussant] is correct--it's a matter of math; catastrophic incidents are low-probability. A lot of the increase he's seeing is cost-shifting from higher-risk (older/sicker) policyholders plus gold-plated/ordinary expenses. 

Yeah, trolls are proud of resting healthcare security in the hands of a federal government that has never balanced its health care budget, has failed to detect billions in fraud, and has unfunded tens of trillions in liabilities. If you have a contract issue with a private company, you can take it to a judge. When the government monopoly screws you--when in other countries with socialized you have to wait in pain for rationed care (that is, if you manage to survive the wait), who is there to protect you from government?

they are "shockingly unaffordable" in the idiot states where the state governments did not expand medicaid...thus forcing all the people who do pay for insurance to subsidize those that would have been covered IF they had expanded Medicaid with higher premiums... you want to yell...go protest at your state capitols...
Expansion of Medicaid, which essentially is cross-subsidized by private plans, costs both states and feds in the long run. Not to mention that government healthcare policyholders use nearly twice the medical services with little statistically better outcomes than the uninsured. Not to mention Medicaid doesn't guarantee you'll find a doctor willing to accept new patients--with onerous policies, more-trouble-than-it's-worth paperwork, payment delays, etc.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense realizes that if the cash-cow private plan subsidies are already hard put , what happens as they continue to shrink in market size? The kaleidoscope accounting of ObamaCare will be exposed for what it is...

(Drudge Report). VIDEO: Feds charge white 'knockout' suspect with hate crime

It's clear (assuming the reported allegations are correct) that the crime was motivated by the victim's skin color; he didn't attack for reasons of random violence, robbery, etc. The young man deserves a fair trial.

Do I think there's a double standard? Probably. But it was not up to him to attack another innocent elderly person to even the score or make a political point.

(Reason Magazine). The smartest thing A&E could do is wait out the controversy and then bring Phil Robertson back once the show resumes filming.
Anyone who doesn't acknowledge the fact that the fascist politically correct police didn't violate Robertson's freedom of speech is anti-liberty. Violations against negative liberties are not simply a matter of government violation--it happens whenever any majority or group attempts to suppress freedom. This was economic aggression against Mr. Robertson's right to make a living. And I can't believe so-called "libertarians" are assuming A&E had unlimited contractual rights against Robertson's opinion on his own time. If you don't see the chilling effect of attacking companies, demanding sanctions against employees or contractors that have absolutely nothing to do with the performance of the contract, then you are a hypocrite.

I'm disappointed in the post. It was a rather pathetic, shallow analysis. The Dixie Chick controversy had nothing to do with freedom of speech; they weren't singing an anti-war song or discussing interventionist policy on their own time--they personally attacked POTUS in front of an anti-American audience. Even so, over 80% of their concerts sold out the first day of sale over the kerfuffle. But I'm sure that they alienated a number of county fans, whom were put off by the lead singer's incivility to POTUS. I personally stopped buying Springsteen records after he became politically active--but I didn't try to take away his livelihood.


Just to pick another point (DeGeneres) a lot of people were tired of media sources promoting the gay or other politically correct agenda. The protest was not aimed at DeGeneres personally; it was not over her expressing her political views as a lesbian. It had to do directly with the program/campaign: yes, they are right to express their opinions. And I don't have a problem with the gay activists expressing their opinions on the Robertson kerfuffle. But economic attacks? Count me out.

The Parasitic City, Suburbs



Comment on a Libertarian Republican Post

Blog co-edtitor Clifford Thies had this to say about a retired rich atheist whom committed suicide after a stroke at the age of 86:

According to Pope Francis, rich people are evil, especially those who become rich through the stock market. It should warm his heart that another one of them is now dead. Robert Wilson, who turned $15,000 into a fortune estimated to be $800 million in by Business Week back in 2000, took his own life by jumping from his high rise apartment in New York City. He was 86 years old, and had suffered a stroke a couple months prior...An atheist, he also gave millions of dollars to Catholic inner city schools in New York and elsewhere throughout the country because he hated what the highly-unionized public schools were doing to the children of the poor. Now where will the Catholics get the money for their inner city schools, from the moochers and the looters that they love so much? 

I have a saintly retired uncle priest whom had mixed feelings about parish schools because they are a drain of parish finances, not a profit center. Most parishes operating schools often subsidize the costs of lower-income parishioners, especially multiple enrollments. I don't know the specifics, but teachers are often lower-paid and the administration leaner than public monopoly schools, there are fundraisers, anonymous gifts from benefactors, etc. I don't know how they invested this benefactor's money; the Church disapproves of suicide, by the way. Maybe infrastructure? But even in Jesus' times, if you consider how many times He knocked the rich, He still had benefactors (e.g., the Last Supper and His tomb). I am not happy with Pope Francis' economically illiterate populist views, as I've mentioned multiple times in my blog. I'm not part of his 88% approval among US Catholics. But CNN pointed out support for his economics views is maybe a quarter lower. He's been heavily criticized by every other prominent Catholic libertarian I know, including Rockwell, Andrew Napolitano, and Woods. (I haven't seen a recent blurb by Jeffrey Tucker, whom has a Youtube video on the Catholic case for free market.) I think a lot of people are cutting him some slack because he comes from a country with a repressed economy (Argentina).

On the Blogroll

I've restored Carpe Diem to the blogroll; I've had occasional difference with Mark Perry's "perky economics": I've thought he's pushed the inflation and jobs stories a little too optimistically, especially for a free market type. But the careful reader will have noticed I've done a few tips of the hat to Carpe Diem over the last few weeks.

I've also added Tom Woods' new podcast to the blogroll. I'm copying below a sample of his latest podcasts (I think he is on hiatus until the New Year); for a full list, I think there's an archive list on the website.

65. Want to Lose Weight? Don't Count Calories
Jonathan Bailor, author of The Calorie Myth, on why "counting calories" is a misguided approach to diet and health.
64. Doug Casey on the World
Renowned investor, author, and entrepreneur Doug Casey joins Tom to talk about investing, the Fed, the economy, and politics.
63. Separating the Sheep from the Goats
Today Tom takes on the three issues that separate the sheep from the goats: the Bush/Obama bailouts, state nullification, and foreign policy.
62. Separating School and State
Tom talks to Sheldon Richman, author of Separating School and State: How to Liberate America's Families.
61. The Poverty Cure
Michael Matheson Miller, who directs Poverty Cure, talks about entrepreneurial solutions instead of foreign aid for the developing world.

Pop/R&B Vocalist Beyoncé Makes Two Girls' Dreams Come True





Choose Life



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Michael Ramirez and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Holiday Series

Bing Crosby, "Adeste Fideles"

Miscellany: 12/25/13 Happy Christmas!

Via Living Christ blog

Mormon Tabernacle Choir, "One December, Bright and Clear": Nativity Play



Quote of the Day
Many a man who falls in love with a dimple make the mistake of
marrying the whole girl.
Evan Esar

Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day

Via Illinois Policy Institute

Image of the Day

Via the Independent Institute

My Blog Cited on Another Portal

I often visit another blog that carries certain news items, particularly political, that I rarely see covered elsewhere. (I have some differences with the editors; they tend to be more interventionist and less pro-immigration, a lot of news items on Muslim cultural assertiveness, etc.; I cover less politics than I used to). But as a matter of common courtesy, I'll probably list their blog (libertarianrepublican.net) over the next couple of days.

Don Boudreaux, "Questions About and For Those People Obsessed With Income Inequality": Thumbs UP!

This is so good that I wish that I had written it: something I regard as high praise for a writer. I have been privately stewing over the Politics of Envy as morally outrageous, and hearing Obama and Pope Francis engage recently in recycled class-envy rhetoric has aggravated. Both of them have praised vocations in government--a government whose first priority is self-preservation, what I've been calling in the blog "trickle-down government". Pope Francis should know better; the Gospels made it clear that government officials were not well-admired: Jesus was born in a stable, not at home because of a government census; Jesus mentioned that his enemies attacked him as one whom fraternized with tax-collectors (the ultimate rent-seekers); it was the government that executed Him on behalf of their religious cronies. (Lew Rockwell, a Catholic libertarian, has an excellent essay on the topic, pointing out Jesus' parables that praised industriousness among other things.)

Here are a couple of relevant paragraphs:

Income inequality is much in the news today.  Regular patrons of the Cafe know that I find concern over income inequality itself – which is to say, envy – to be corrosive of a civil society.  (I have no problem, of course, with concern over policies rigged to ‘distribute’ privileges and booty to those who do not deserve them; I object to such policies.  I object to such policies whether they enlarge or reduce differences in incomes.)  Few popular concerns strike me as being as childish, misguided, unfounded, and dangerous as concerns over differences in relative incomes earned in market-oriented economies.

Of course, I would emphatically oppose any such legislation to stop the inequality-mongers from peddling their antisocial endorsements of envy-as-public-policy.  I would fight to the death to prevent such legislation.  Any case made to forcibly silence such protests would be incredibly weak and immoral.  But if you are among those who believe in the use of force to ‘redistribute’ incomes in order to prevent social uprisings that (you also believe) are inevitable if the People come to envy the incomes of ‘the rich,” then on what principled grounds do you stand to rule out shutting the mouths and freezing the keyboards of those who are constantly screaming to the general public that they – the public – should be more envious of the incomes of ‘the rich’ and more angry about income inequality?  Your case for forcible ‘redistribution’ is also incredibly weak and immoral.

The "progressives"/social liberals' argument is a type of extortion: higher earners should agree to high state theft of their assets, or there will be a "revolution" and even worse sanctions. This is a case of being really careful of what you wish for: social liberals are essentially morally responsible for the consequences of their provocative behavior to suggest other's property is their own. Forget that nonsensical Biblical prohibition against stealing and coveting your neighbor's goods...

ObamaCare Critique: Abridged One Sentence Version

 Dr. Scamell will readily tell I can be long-winded--it can take me 20 minutes just to introduce myself (but have you seen my last name?) Familiar readers know that I can go for some length about the economic insanity of guaranteed issue and community rating, the economic clueless price-fixing of healthcare products/services, unresponsive, remote, unaccountable bureaucracies, etc., but Dr. Bellar can do it in just one sentence (HT Carpe Diem):

 

Facebook Corner

Via LFC

If you leave milk and cookies for Santa Claus, what do you leave out for Krugman Claus? $
 An Obama-head trillion dollar coin...
Broke window fallacy much
That's how he gets into your house...You see, if you use your chimney to vent a coal stove....  
Xmas presents? You didn't get that! Somebody else did!
He's IRS Grinch handing the presents to Santa Obama.
This idiot also thought an alien invasion would stimulate the economy.
He wrote "The Theory of Interstellar Trade" in 1978. Guess when the arcade game "Space Invaders" came out?

Tom Woods wished his wife Heather a Merry Christmas.

 

(Reason Magazine). Like it or not, the debate about NSA excesses is on.  
i thought that "reason magazine" would offer an intelligent perspective on world issues & events. i was so wrong. nobody but hateful contrarians here, with no constructive solutions to offer. pity..
Who is so intellectually stunted to believe failed government is the "solution"? Conservatives understand solutions are generated better, faster, more accurately in the private sector. Your statement assumes a vicious cycle of government failure. The real solution is to stop stealing money from the productive economy to throw it through $600 government toilet bowl seats.

 (The Cato Institute). It’s a very Merry Christmas for Washington insiders... http://j.mp/1fFeegf ‪#‎tcot‬ ‪#‎tlot‬ (via Dan Mitchell)
Merry anti- Christmas to all the government stooges who think they are better than everyone else and write laws to which they do not follow because being a liberal Marxist places them above the law.
'think they are better' um what? its the liberal states that are fighting for equality. not one republican far right state has come out for equality. i love how republicans love to twist words and pretend they are for small government when they push the drug war so hard , and 'traditional marriage'. oh lets not even get started on abortions, who Republicans continually try to make illegal, and call anyone who has one a murderer. But sure, liberals want a livable minimal wage, and a single payer health care system like the rest of the first world. You think its by accident that the USA spends more per person then any other country?
"Equality/inequality" is a term used by fascists to rationalize the use of force or to disrupt the social order.
Liberals see this and want to make govt better. Conservatives see this and want to make govt disappear.
Liberals steal from the real economy to make the inefficient, ineffective government bigger; conservatives know that any large-scale government is intrinsically a drag on the economy and seek to make the economy bigger.

 (Justin Amash). Merry Christmas! Christ is Born! Glorify Him!
Simple, brief, affirmative, unapologetic... Unlike some of the judgmental politically correct vigilante trolls whom found their way to this thread...

 Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Henry Payne and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Holiday Series

Bing Crosby, "White Christmas"



Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Handel's Messiah Hallelujah Chorus



Jose Feliciano, "Feliz Navidad"



Nativity Scene at Shaw AFB, SC

I wasn't aware of this story until I read a recent post by Dennis Prager, a Jew whom, like many other non-Christians, do not have a problem with this politically-correct ban on the mere recognition of the Christian nature of the holiday. In fact, he points out Jewish songwriters are responsible for many of the classics:

• “White Christmas” was written by Irving Berlin (birth name: Israel Isidore Baline).
• “Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer” — Johnny Marks.
• “Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!” — composed by Jule Styne, lyrics by Sammy Cahn.
• “Silver Bells” — by Jay Livingston (Jacob Harold Levison) and Ray Evans (Raymond Bernard Evans).
• “The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire)” — Mel Tormé and Robert Wells (Robert Levinson), both Jews.
• “Sleigh Ride” — lyrics by Mitchell Parish (Michael Hyman Pashelinsky).

I'm, in fact, very familiar with Shaw AFB: I spent the better part of 2 school years there; I played Little League baseball; my baby sister was born there. A group of airman erected a Nativity scene, and within 4 hours, it was closed down by orders from the Pentagon (while it can take weeks or months to get a government clearance, isn't it amazing how fast the bureaucracy work when it comes to something like suppressing religious speech)? Let's be clear: I'm for independence of church and state, but a Nativity scene has nothing to do with establishing  a state religion: there are many Christian denominations; I don't feel threatened by Jewish or Hindu temples or mosques, symbols, clothing, etc. This pushing-on-a-string prohibition of Christian symbols is politically-correct fascism in the form of presumptuous, condescending, intellectually vapid multicultural "inclusion" claptrap. (Ask me how I really feel...) In a country where a majority of citizens are Christian, limited expression of common religious symbols does not constitute an undue burden. I mean, Obama has around a 40% approval rating, and I don't worship The One; yet, I see no movement to ban images of Obama from federal buildings, websites, etc. But the mere display of a Baby Jesus no one is forced to view or salute gets expedited attention from the Pentagon? Outrageous!

There is a follow-up to this story:

South Carolina Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott and Rep. Mick Mulvaney said they had complained to officials at Shaw Air Force base in Sumter, S.C., about the scene’s removal.

“We are pleased the Nativity scene has been restored at Shaw Air Force Base. From the start, our offices have been in touch with Shaw officials expressing our concerns about this matter. We appreciate the Air Force for listening to our complaint, keeping the Nativity scene on base and moving it to the Chapel,” the Republicans said in a joint statement Thursday. 

The Nativity scene was moved to the front of the base’s chapel, a public affairs officer told the NBC affiliate near the base.

Miscellany:12/24/13 Christmas Eve

Quote of the Day
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

Gee, when I was in high school, the boys' locker room had a condom machine. I guess some guys thought it was cheaper to buy a condom than pay child support for 18 years. Go figure. Why not add the cost of a middleman to cover the cost of birth control purchased through insurance? What a deal--you throw in overpriced insurance to subsidize the costs of older/sicker people, and you may get "free" birth control. (That you don't need if you don't have sex.) Of course, the government screws you at no extra charge.

 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

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Holiday Series

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.

Miscellany: 12/23/13

Quote of the Day
I must create a system, or 
be enslaved by another man's.
William Blake

More on the Duck Call Man

I never intended to have a prolonged discussion of the Duck Dynasty kerfuffle, but last night I was on a libertarian GOP blog when I noticed a self-professed Jewish libertarian post link which suggested that A&E was right in suspending Robertson. The whole piece was rather strident and judgmental; he goes on a ludicrous rant identifying conservatives with social conservatives; it is true that social conservatives are part of the conservative coalition, but hardly synonymous: for example, there are atheist conservatives (SE Cupp in fact wrote a book about her experience), secular pro-lifers, pro-abortion choice conservatives (e.g., Barry Goldwater). I have repeatedly promoted the independence of church and state, oppose school prayer, and do not want the teaching of science compromised by political considerations (e.g., the teaching of evolution). I wasn't thrilled with Bush's expansion of domestic spending as part of his "compassionate conservatism".

I think the guy has an agenda because I saw a rant he wrote against what he considers improper Old Testament citations/translations that seem to condemn the practice of homosexuality. (This reminds me of a similarly disingenuous nitpicking argument of pro-abortion choice Christians and/or Jews, arguing that sanctions against someone responsible for the loss of a preborn child are less severe than for born children.) The guy does acknowledge that he is not an orthodox Jew; here is an example of a rabbi whom thinks that those who argue such are in a state of denial. (Familiar readers may recall my first conversation with a Jewish fellow high school student. I asked him about eating kosher; he rolled his eyes and contemptuously told me that he was a reformed Jew, not an orthodox Jew.)

But the writer went on to claim that Robertson had a morals clause in his contract, citing an LA Times' piece.  The piece only suggests that there was probably standard boilerplate. That assumes that expressing your opinion on your own time is a legitimate implementation of a morals  clause.  But given the fact Robertson expressed similar points of view in publicly-accessible media before he was ever hired makes it clear A&E's action was arbitrary. Given the fact the Robertson clan pushed back on a network attempt to end the episode-ending prayer, how likely is it that Robertson would have agreed to not talk about his religious views off the set? I'm sure that A&E probably was never entirely happy with Robertson's views on homosexuality, but when the gay activists went after A&E, they decided to throw Robertson under the bus. Morally reprehensible.

O'Sullivan does a good job in an NR piece (also see FB Corner below) summarizing points I have also been making. Here are relevant excerpts:

For what GLAAD has been operating is a classic blacklist operation. Its object is not to persuade those who disagree with it over the morality of same-sex relationships to change their minds. Nor is it principally intended to prevent such views being expressed publicly (though that is one of its purposes). Its main purpose is to drive those who hold such views out of their professions and to deprive them of their livelihoods unless they recant, promise not to offend in future, and remain within the boundaries of acceptable opinion laid down by the blacklist operators. And if that is done, it should make anyone think twice or three times before using his freedom of speech to express similar views.

As several people have pointed out (mainly those arguing that all this is no big deal), the First Amendment is not at issue here. That is because the government is not operating the blacklist. But freedom of speech is still threatened even if law and regulation are not the instruments of intimidation. The government was not operating the blacklist in post-war Hollywood either. Here is how the GLAAD spokesman characterized Robertson’s remarks “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. . . . Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT . . .  ”

You want offensive? This is truly offensive. It combines lies about what Robertson said, a ludicrous attempt to define “true” Christianity along lines prescribed by GLAAD, and appeals for Robertson’s livelihood to be cut off. It is a blacklist in operation, and it is an odious thing. It has worked before, though, and for a while it seemed to be working here.

Political Humor: The 12 Days of TSA Christmas




Sweetie Delaney Brown Gets Her Christmas Wish: Caroling

For contributions to help with Delaney's medical costs, see here

 Eight-year-old Delaney is dying of a rare form of leukemia. Let me quote:

The singers fulfilled one of 8-year-old Delaney Brown's wishes: a huge holiday sing-along outside her home in West Reading, Pennsylvania. "All she wants is carols? We can do that," caroller Meghan McGee said.. Her family confirmed earlier this week that doctors have given Delaney only days to live.

In one scene, you can see the beautiful sweetheart waving from her multi-story window below. After the clip is my song selection dedicated to Delaney.





Facebook Corner

(Tom Woods). Libertarianism 101: It is not a violation of your liberty if someone doesn't want to sell you something. It would be a violation of the seller's liberty to force him to transact with you.

Civilized people exchange with one another only when both favor the transaction. Only a thug brings in the state when a baker won't bake him a cake.

Class dismissed.

They were mostly doing it for publicity, also, and to embarrass the vendor (classic passive-aggressive behavior).

I find it odd no one has commented (that I've seen) on the judicial tyranny here: it constitutes a form of slavery.

(Separate comments to other discussants.)

 Too much discussion of "bigotry" in this thread. There could be many reasons I decide not to sell to a customer, including a disrespectful attitude. In one of these cake incidents, the gay "customers" decided to berate the baker as "homophobic". Total incivility and unacceptable. I probably would have sold them a cake until they acted like judgmental jerks.

As to [discussant's] comment, it's clear, by the very survival of blacks in the South, there were markets for blacks. Of course, a lot depends on nature and extent of a group; about 13% of Americans are black. I am left-handed; about 10-15% of the population is left-handed. Most items sold are for right-handed people. But there are specialty companies, especially in the Internet age, where you can find sufficient scale.

In another group, I pointed out there are bakers (e.g., in NY) that cater to gay couples, there are tons of suppliers of "gay marriage" toppers on eBay, and I don't see why you can't buy a standard wedding cake and decorate (or hire someone to decorate) it yourself.

Via Citizens Against Government Waste

The "Do-Nothing" Congress is certainly good at one thing: arguing. From the government shut down to the change of processional rules, the 113th Congress has spent a lot of time and tax payer money with few notable accomplishments made. 
Actually, given a regulation-happy, tax-and-spend Senate and White House, I welcome speed bumps along the Road to Serfdom.

(Illinois Policy Institute). Obamacare signup deadline extended to Christmas Eve
 NSA's making a list, IRS is checking it twice, gonna find out if you're naughty or nice. Because Santa Obama is coming to town...

 (National Review). John O’Sullivan condemns the offensive bullying of Phil Robertson by GLAAD and other groups as an odious assault on free speech. Read more: http://natl.re/J9GOvN

Should I be surprised by all the "progressive" and/or pseudo-libertarian discussants in this thread? People citing Salon, the Internet's version of toilet paper.

First of all, personally attacking POTUS in front of a foreign anti-American crowd for cheap pops is not the same thing as singing a war protest song or giving one's opinion on foreign policy. It was the incivility and knowingly alienating country fans, many of them whom supported POTUS and consider themselves patriots. Second, people forget that the Dixie Chicks sold out at least 51 of 59 appearances on the first day tickets went on sale after the incident. So cry me a river if fickle music fans tuned them out; almost every performer goes through peak periods. The more salient point is that Phil Robertson's relevant opinions were not unknown to A&E when he was hired; to argue their position was principled is absurd.

Second, I'm getting impatient with intellectually shallow people whom don't understand the First Amendment issue. The Bill of Rights is all about protecting negative liberties. That includes any majoritarian abuse of power, not just the government, e.g., lynch mobs. In this case, the fascists went beyond protesting Robertson; they were trying to attack his livelihood--because he said things they didn't agree with. If Americans have to worry about fascists on any ideological issue going after their livelihood for things they say off the job, what is "freedom of speech"? 

Finally, many people assume employers have all the power in a relationship. Not true; the Yankees wanted to tame notorious bad boy Babe Ruth's conduct off the field, and they negotiated some incentive/morals clauses, some of which the Babe rejected. A&E didn't like the episode-ending prayer feature, but the Robertsons rejected any change. Why would Robertson agree to be silent about his religious beliefs off the set after he had previously released relevant material on social media? What's clear is that A&E decided to throw Robertson under the bus in an attempt to placate the fascists. A&E has painted itself into a corner; the fascists will attack them if they back down, and I think they've lost the confidence of the cast of the #1 cable show.

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Bob Gorrell and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Holiday Series

Pro-Liberty Selection: Red Skelton, "The Littlest Christmas Tree". Not on my iPod, but a family favorite from childhood. It's hard for the next generation to remember Berlin was once divided, and the US and USSR had massive nuclear weapons aimed. The Iron Curtain separated east from west Europe and seemed permanent at the time I defended my dissertation. There's a strong pro-liberty message in this skit.



Gene Autry, "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer"