Analytics

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Miscellany: 7/03/14

Quote of the Day

Nothing shows a man's character more than what he laughs at.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Hypocrite of the Day

Via Drudge Report
Image of the Day

Via Libertarian Christians
"The first reading is from the Book of Envy by St. Thomas Piketty..."; "The Gospel according to The One, Barry Obama, The Audacity of Hope, Chapter 9..." Christian/Catholic libertarians reject the comparison, of course. Statism is far more irrational than belief in a deity; Statism demands unrealistic expectations of authoritarian politicians despite people's own awareness of the fallibility of human nature.

Via We the Individuals

Chart of the Day
Courtesy of Judicial Watch
We even have higher rates than the socialist regime in France!
End the Export-Import Bank!
Via Cato Institute
Declaration of Democrat Dependence on the Federal Teat
Via Cato Institute
New Nominees for Bad Judge of the Year

From ABC:
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that [New London, CN] did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test. Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the [police applicant] exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training. Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
This is clearly discriminatory, it is a government policy, but only in the sophistry of the post-Carolene era would we have any court bypassing a strict scrutiny standard and actually finding a rational basis for hiring less intelligent cops.

No, Sir Elton John: Jesus Would Not Back "Gay Marriage"

I recently published a one-off post rebutting an "educated progressive" Christian's rant against a libertarian media figure. Let me start by saying Elton John has the liberty to pursue happiness with any individual he chooses, and I wish him well. I have been a fan of his across decades and probably own at least a half dozen albums, including various hit compilations--despite his sexual orientation. But Elton John's recent comments reflect wishful thinking, and he's better served spending his time creating great music than political matters. I do understand that he's entitled to his point of view, but he's merely repeating the same nonsense I have heard from "Christians" whom subordinate their faith to their politics.

From the Independent:
The “Daniel” singer, who hopes to marry filmmaker David Furnish next year, said he thinks that the Christian figure would have supported the union of gay members of the clergy.
Speaking to Sky News on the same weekend as the London Pride parade, Sir Elton said: “If Jesus Christ was alive today, I cannot see him, as the Christian person that he was and the great person that he was, saying this could not happen.
“He was all about love and compassion and forgiveness and trying to bring people together.
“And that is what the Church should be about.”
Anyone who believes that Christ accommodated everybody is in a state of denial: Jesus took an even harder line on the question of marriage and divorce, He made impossible demands of prospective disciples and lost a number of existing disciples due to His hard words. He called Pharisees "hypocrites" and "vipers"; He overturned money changer tables in the Temple Courtyard; He once incited a crowd to the point they wanted to throw Him over a cliff. John the Baptist, His contemporary and acquaintance,  had protested the circumstances of King Herod's marriage and ultimately lost his life over it. Let's point out homosexuality was not unknown during Jesus' time; homosexuality was well-known, even celebrated in ancient Greek and Rome; the Old Testament was unambiguous about the unacceptability of the practice. The fact He did not speak of it cannot be read as supportive of the practice by any serious application of Ockham's razor. He constantly referenced the Old Testament as validating His mission, and His enemies were always trying to trick Him on Scriptural matters to provide evidence for the Jewish and Roman authorities to use against Him.

It is true that Jesus loved the sinner--but also hated the sin. In the stoning incident, He tells the adulterous woman that He, too, doesn't condemn her, i.e., reject her as a person, but He tells her to go and sin no more--she needs to stop her self-destructive ways. He's always calling people to repent--something that is largely ignored by "progressives". There's no reason to repent if men did not make bad choices that offend God. Pope Francis, who is naturally praised by Elton John for the dangerously ambiguous "who am I to judge" nonsense, was not signaling a shift in the Church's consistent moral teachings rejecting the promiscuous homosexual lifestyle and promoting traditional marriage and family. He was simply reinforcing what Jesus said in not condemning the adulterous woman. I strongly disapprove of anyone, especially a pope, engaging in politically correct rhetoric. I do not understand this pope and differ from him strongly--Church attendance has drastically melted away in the aftermath of Vatican II, and many Catholics in name only ignore the Church's moral teachings. We have a licentious culture and indulgent lifestyles, and the pope is playing games of irresponsible economically illiterate, devisive, morally corruptive Politics of Envy populist policies. There used to be a time Catholic clerics cautioned, for instance, on modest clothing for young women; today's Muslims are far more sensitive to this issue.

But Elton John should not speculate, looking through presentist-biased glasses, that Jesus would sacrifice moral principles to win elitist approval. Jesus would find the modern practice of abortion an abomination; He would be aghast at our sexually-obsessed culture and disposable divorces. What would He say about gay people? I don't speak on His behalf, but I believe He would encourage a chaste lifestyle.

My Inaugural Tweets

Familiar readers will recognize these original one-liners from yesterday's FB Corner and today's post. If you care to subscribe, as the embedded tweets suggest, @raguillem at Twitter.com. I haven't fully decided how to implement my usage of Twitter, although I will likely use it for original quotes, ad lib humor, or pithy comments.
Facebook Corner

(Cato Institute). See immigration demand-shift chart above.
Open borders and a welfare state cannot coexist.
Stop repeating Friedman's failed excuse for deferring win-win immigration.

(Mercatus Center at George Mason). See corporate tax rate chart above.
this mercator center seems more like a propaganda outfit. the effective corprate tax rate in the USA has gone down in the past fifty years. I would like to see someone study corporate WELFARE in the United States, because it is FAR MORE EXTENSIVE than people would suspect.
Economically illiterate "progressive trolls". This comes from the PROGRESSIVE Gray Lady last year:
President Barack Obama has chastised oil companies for receiving billions of dollars in tax breaks. However, the Times reports that ExxonMobil paid $146 billion in taxes; Chevron paid $85 billion; and ConocoPhillips paid $58 billion over the last five years.
In terms of their effective tax rates, the big three oil companies don’t get off easily either. Exxon had an effective tax rate of 37 percent, Chevron’s effective tax rate was 39 percent, and ConocoPhillips’s was a whopping 74 percent. The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent.
(IPI). BREAKING: Illinois Supreme Court: State can't cut subsidies for retirees' health care premiums.
Illinois owes more than $56 billion for retiree health insurance. Taxpayers’ share of retiree health insurance expected to grow nearly 5x current level. More here: http://illin.is/VHW3CB
Did the fascist judges want to explain where the money for the parasites is going to come from?

(IPI). We disagree with today's ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court regarding how much the state is required to pay toward retired state worker health-insurance benefits. Here’s why: http://illin.is/1rpTXE2
Listen you jerks, what you refer to as generous benefits was what was promised to us after years of bargaining, often in exchange for little or no pay raises. If you want it changed, change it now but don't punish those already retired and who has planned their retirement based on their current income. How selfish can you jerks be?
Listen, you parasite crony unionist troll. Spare us your corrupt dealmaking with Democrat political whores behind the back of taxpayers, with benefit packages far beyond the taxpayers you "served". You knew these spendthrifts you gullible fools put into office couldn't be trusted with your retirement. If your political whores didn't salt away enough for your retirement, tough; if you were sold a bill of goods by your incompetent leadership, it's on YOU--not future taxpayers to make up for Democrats spending beyond their means. There's an old Cherokee legend about a boy and a rattlesnake. The snake begs the boy to take it on a journey with him; the boy worries the snake will bite him, but the snake promises not to. Long story short, the boy brings the snake there and back, and as the boy releases him back home, the snake bites him. The boy objects, "You promised!" The snake says, "You knew what I was when you picked me up."

(IPI). Opponents of real pension reform often argue that government workers receive modest pensions. The Chicago Teacher’s Union, or CTU, is one such opponent. Under its FAQ page about teacher pensions, the union’s website states: “The average Chicago Teachers’ Pension Fund (CTPF) retiree earns $42,000 per year. Of the 87,000 retired teachers in Illinois, almost 1 in 5 (17,269) receive a pension that’s less than $20,000.” This language can mislead readers into thinking Chicago teacher pension benefits are lower than they actually are. The average pension for a recently retired career teacher in Chicago is $71,717.
Although I'm clearly sympathetic to IPI's perspective, I have to state a wonkish point: unless the pension distribution data are symmetrical, which I doubt, you should be reporting the median vs. mean/average distribution. And I think you should have been clearer about the Chicago unionists doing a bait-and-switch with lower outside-Chicago pensions being used to water down the the appearance of bloated Chicago area pensions. I think the point would be clearer with an appropriate cross-break.
This was part of the deal when those teachers accepted teaching jobs in a booming economy. Would it be fair if your employer promised you a job with 40K and only gave you 20K? You are claiming that a contract is not a contract when it is inconvenient for you. BTW, to EARN $71,000 per year in pension, you must work THIRTY EIGHT YEARS!!!!
First of all, job growth over the last 14 years has been nothing short of abysmal. If you thought you had better paying options in the real economy, you should have taken them. Let's face the facts of life: the public sector freeloads off the private sector. There is nothing that the public sector does, including education, that the private sector can't do both better and a heck of a lot cheaper. If the private sector is not doing well--and Illinois' problems have been ongoing for over a decade--you're a fool if you think your corrupt union agreements are going to be made up by future taxpayers.

More Marriage Proposals







Notice he had her rehearse the line...



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Jerry Holbert via Townhall
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

Dan Fogelberg, "Believe in Me"

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,