The superior man is distressed by the limitation of his ability;
he is not distressed by the fact that
men do not recognize the ability he has.
Confucius
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
 |
| Via Drudge Report |
One reason why yesterday's post was published later than usual had to do with a Windows 8 technical issue. A few weeks back I bought a new Windows notebook, after a failure of my previous notebook, which ran Windows 7. To provide context, newer Windows PC's come with a free upgrade to Windows 8.1; you obtain the upgrade through the Windows Store. I ran into some technical issues with a piece of software I've used for years that seems to be incompatible with 8.1 (despite vendor claims otherwise). The last recovery I did left me unable to access the Store, an issue which is widely shared with maybe a half dozen or so proposed solutions short of having having to do a dreaded reset, none of which worked in my case, requiring not only an hours-long process but reinstallation of all your application software (my music, emails, etc.), so I waited until the weekend. In my case, the problem seemed to be related to the Microsoft handling of device verification, which didn't seem to take. A classic usability issue which should never happen. I'm a DBA and routinely make backups; I empathize with less experienced people whom encounter these types of problems.
Marriage "Equality"
There seems to be a contagion of lawlessness on the issue of traditional marriage laws, which probably date back at least the refusal of the Governator and then AG Jerry Brown to defend Proposition 8 in federal courts, which Justice Kennedy used as a technicality (of legal standing) in essentially sustaining an earlier court decision against Proposition 8. There have been a rash of lawless refusals to deal with judicial activist judges ruling against traditional marriage propositions passed in over 30 states; I haven't analyzed each case, but in at least one case, the judge upheld the proposition for marriages performed in the state, but held that the state had to recognize "gay marriages" performed out of state. I do not see how a "gay marriage" state can impose its will on reciprocal marriage agreements. This effectively is a workaround to traditional marriage regulation: get a quickie wedding in an accommodating state and move back.
I write an opinion in the FB section below; in short, like Ron Paul and other like-minded libertarians, I believe in privatizing marriage. I absolutely loathe propaganda soundbites by Cato Institute and other so-called libertarian groups, whom go beyond negative liberty of protecting voluntary relationships against government or other interventions and want to grant special status and government protections to said nontraditional relationships. I know that some commentators are derisive of traditional marriage, pointing out past tolerance for things like spousal rape, etc. (Speaking from a Christian perspective, spousal abuse is inconsistent with religious ideals, despite soundbites of St. Paul out of context.) But as I've written before, I see marriage and family as tested, socially evolved constructs supporting societal preservation and stability , and I don't believe that government should be intervening in social constructs any more than economic ones. What about my advocacy of state regulation? Primarily state laws were a continuation of common law which supported/reflected existing social norms; I never viewed marriage as a political construct.
Entertainment Potpourri
- "A Ring By Spring". A new Hallmark cable movie intrigued me for a few reasons. A business consultant careerwoman (Caryn ) meets a fortune teller at a social function whom declares that the 30-year-old, if she doesn't get an engagement ring by spring, will never get married. Caryn, who reminds me of a new-age Mary Tyler Moore, becomes alarmed when the predictions for her friends come true and reconnects with old boyfriends to find out why the old relationships didn't work out and/or rekindle a past romance. Tom, an unattached brilliant but somewhat disorganized workaholic entrepreneur whom has hired Caryn's employer to design and implement management controls for his growing enterprise, is instantly smitten, but it's bad timing just as she's rekindled an old romance. I've got to like any flick which busts the myth of capitalists as robotic-like, romantically-challenged, which portrays Caryn's parents as still canoodling after all these years, and which prominently and nostalgically features a childhood favorite Cracker Jack (or a suggestive alternative), that delightful combination of caramel-flavored popcorn and peanuts, with a miniature toy surprise inside.
- American Idol: Some Improvement. Harry Connick in my eyes is finally living up to the hype he's been getting from other reviewers. I saw him last week roundly booed after giving polite, but tough reviews of performances. I also like some tweaks they've added, somewhat consistent with my recent critiques, such as integrating more social networking: they now feature some preliminary real-time focus group ranking of contestants. However, some self-serving praise of this year's crop as the best since season 1 seems over the top; I haven't found any of the performances compelling enough to distract me from working on a blog post. It reminds me of my capstone MBA business strategy class, before turning back project evaluations, our pandering professor claimed we were the best class he had ever taught. I remember our group got a decent but not the best first project grades; I remember fully believing we had easily given the best analysis, but he had graded one or 2 groups higher. The only reason seemed to be is the competition had included more graphs in their presentation. That was something we intentionally worked on in our remaining presentations and our evaluations did improve, but we did not compromise on the quality of our presentations.
- The Oscars: A Mixed Bag. The Oscars, even to someone whom rarely goes to the movies anymore, have become a little predictable. A picture and/or performance which focuses on oppression of some minority groups (say, black or gay) or other politically correct topic, seems the hands-down favorite, in this case a nineteenth-century case of a freedman whom was captured and sold back into slavery. I thought the host was somewhat amusing as Ellen tried to order pizza for an audience wearing their best clothes and sought to create a new Twitter record for an uploaded celebrity image. I haven't been a regular viewer of the Oscars over the last few years, and this year's show did not leave me asking for more.
(Illinois Policy Institute). Sky-high taxes are forcing some Chicago residents out of the city. Chicago had more residents in 1920 than it does today. Just between 2000 and 2010, Chicago lost 200,000 people.
Will the last person out of Chicago please turn off the lights.
Not to worry: when the power bill goes unpaid, they'll go out...
IPI why do you keep blaming the pension system? Again if the politicians paid their correct contributions we wouldn't be in this position. You keep banging the drum blaming pensions but lets be honest about why their is even a problem. Explain how the "temporary" state income tax that was to fix our backlog of bills and restore our pensions hasn't seemed to happen. We have just as much debt 5 years into the tax hike as we did when we started, tell the truth and stop your propaganda! Blame who is due, politicians!!! Again you think its an accident that the IMRF is very well funded? How come the other pensions in this state didnt get the Sam funding mechanism that the IMRF got? Oh ya its because its the politicians pension and they took care of THEMSELVES! !! And you continue to deflect the responsibility on the unions and our earned modest pension. Oh ya dont forget we contributed 9.4% of our money!!!!!!
Because most private sector companies realized decades ago with longer retirement lifespans they had huge unfunded liabilities with retirement commitments and migrated from defined benefit (pension) systems to defined contribution systems (401K/403B). Politicians have always found it easier to make promises they know they couldn't keep, especially if they depended on political support from crony unionists. You would expect the corrupt unions would be most vocal over unrealistic expectations of pension fund returns, which allowed the state to contribute suboptimal amounts. (Never mind the corrupt games of spiking pension payments at retirement.) Your past bought-and-paid-for corrupt politicians unconsionably shifted the burden of your pension benefits to future taxpayers, even though the problem was known years ago. Yes, you'll probably be guaranteed what you yourself paid into the system and whatever state/local "invested" on your behalf, but don't be surprised if that's lower than the monthly payments promised.
(Illinois Policy Institute). Pension costs have consumed more of Illinois’ cities revenues forcing higher taxes and cuts in services.
Inflation is one cause. The cost of public services go up in price, so dose the pension cost. Do you think a policeman who is going to retire with 38 years on the force this year with pension that pays 2004 prices will have enough money to live on ? He could but it would be a tight budget. Another reason is the politicians that short change the funding of the pension system for years. They have cost the tax payers more money by doing this. Now they are forced to play catch up on the payments to fund the pension system that they should of been fully funding all this time. That's why social security is such a mess. When there was a surplus of money in the social security fund the politicians took money out of the fund to spend elsewhere. Now social security is in trouble because of it.
Actually if you rely on the Fed's put on interest rates, inflation has been relatively small--in a weak economy, there's less competition for goods and service. We would argue, as bad as the pension shortfall is, it would be even worse under the average inflation rate over the past few decades. (Of course, one could criticize the official inflation numbers, and government intervention in the healthcare sector has exacerbated sector cost pressures--but that's not the pension benefit...) More importantly, pension funding is supposed to take inflation expectations into account. The real issues are failing to take into account longer retirement lifespans and unrealistic pension return expectations.
As for social security, that has always been a pay as you go Ponzi scheme. But it worked primarily when the next generation is bigger than the current generation. But that peaked with the Baby Boomers. And keep in mind that the social security system, unlike pension funds, can only "invest" in government debt, past government spending, spilled milk, not a real asset.
(Drudge Report). WHO IS YOUR CURRENT REPUBLICAN PICK FOR '16?
Rand Paul and Bobby Jindal. This ticket would say this is not your Grandfather's GOP and could run a credible anti-Washington outsider campaign. Jindal's executive experience, exposure to entitlement reform, and state-based solutions would nicely complement Paul's pro-liberty message.
(Catholic Libertarians). Oklahoma Republicans are promoting a bill that could make marriage a private institution in their state. The legislation, filed by Rep. Mike Turner, could end all government regulation of marriage and leave the matter to individuals and their churches. The ACLU has called this attempt the first of its kind in the US.
In an interview with Oklahoma’s News9, Turner made a reasonable, liberty-minded case for his proposal, expressing skepticism as to whether “marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all.” He said there is a “realistic opportunity” for the effort to succeed.
Yet Oklahoma progressives are outraged by the proposal, which they say is an underhanded trick to avoid legal recognition of same-sex marriage. News9, apparently incapable of imagining of how marriage could exist without government, called Turner’s suggestion a “ban” on marriage that would throw “marriage altogether out the window.” An ACLU spokesman has condemned the effort as not being on “the right side of history.”
As a Christian, Turner has a good intellectual basis for divorcing marriage from the law. Renowned [Catholic] apologist G.K. Chesterton said “It may be said that this institution of the home is the one anarchist institution. That is to say, it is older than law, and stands outside the State.” He believed that the two sexes “are glued together too tightly for us to get the blade of a legal penknife in between them.” Likewise, I believe - like my home state’s College Republicans – that “It’s too bad that such a beautiful thing has been reduced to a document.”
Some secular libertarians have also called for getting the government out of marriage. Comedian Doug Stanhope has said “gay marriage is one of those trick arguments. Marriage should not be a legal institution. That’s the argument you should be having.”
The point is that marriage is a social, not political construct, and the State intervening with social constructs is no more competent than intervening in economic matters. This is a positive step forward vs. the attempt to manipulate traditional institutions by socially experimental judicial fiat and special interest group propagandists.
So how would you marry someone if you don't have a religious affiliation? And wouldn't this create a field day for con artists?
This is sort of like asking how can you privatize anything? Just like there can be secular private schools, where there is a need, the private market will find a way. One could easily, for example, see how this could be an extension of services provided by marriage counselors, arbitrators, former family law jurists, etc., with some private industry standards.
(LFC). In which it is demonstrated why "predatory pricing" cannot EVER work. (Two words: supply and demand.)
Do you know how many smaller retail local stores have had to go out of business because of wal Mart? It's countless. I'm saying there is a grey area. There is no mathematical formula to it. If it forces some direct competitors out of business, its probably not the only reason why, but this is a real phenomenon...
Again, there is no virtue in forcing the consumer to a lower standard of living because the competitor is unable to compete in scale. That is a deadweight loss to the consumer, and it discourages capital investment. I'm not going to outline how how to compete against WalMart, but part of what competitors could do is market segmention, retail alliances to achieve scale, Internet store fronts (e.g., with Amazon), etc. You need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of WalMart's operations. For example, they may require a certain business scale for their suppliers. I'm a computer consultant. Many of the large-scale consulting firms charge high rates and/or require a certain scale of billing to make a bid worth while.
(Ron Paul). Edward Snowden reported his concerns to more than ten NSA officials and he said none of them took any action to address them. Read more here: http://bit.ly/1bUhC7I
Booz Allen claimed that Snowden was an employee less than 3 months, and a key media spokesman working with Snowden reported a timetable before the Snowden start date. If true, this creates serious credibility issues for Snowden. I do not believe Snowden made a good faith effort to address his concerns consistent with the contractual terms of his clearance.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Eric Allie via Illinois Policy Institute |
Elton John, "Believe". One of Sir Elton's finest singles; I loved it from the get-go and remember telling one of my brothers I thought it sounded like something the late John Lennon could have written.
