You can't choose the ways in which you'll be tested.
Robert J. Sawyer
Chart of the Day: The Reality of Today's Internet
 |
| Courtesy of Wired |
Education Choice: For the Benefit of Children, Not Educators
Economic Revolution Against the Ruling/Crony Class
A Rant on Statist Arguments That Disagreeing With Them Is a Form of Mental Illness
I have become increasingly intolerant of leftist trolls who spam pro-liberty threads and launch ad hominem attacks or boilerplate talking points. Depending on the nature of the rhetoric or whether others have returned fire, I may counter abruptly in kind (I don't always republish my comments). I especially dislike the ubiquitous PC insults of "racism", "homophobic", "misogynist", etc., as if confronting a vampire with a cross. There's an instant reflex to want to protest defensively, i.e., "some of my best friends are black", etc. Personally, I consider that it doesn't speak very well of someone who doesn't know you decides to play the race card in a discussion. (As for me, a Catholic, my 3 best friends are a Baptist, a Jew, and a Hindu; I lived in a college dorm with Latinos (including my best friend, a South Texas education major), have dated a Latina and a woman of color; my two key references when I worked for Oracle Consulting were DBA's of color. I knew at least a handful of mixed-race couples while I attended UH. A few of my nieces and nephews have dated or married Latinos or blacks. It was never an issue; I grew up in an integrated military community. I've had bosses or key clients who were female, black, Native American, Indian, etc.)
National Review's Tuttle (see below) lists a number of inflammatory quotes, but this recent one from the Gray Lady's Charles Blow grabbed my attention:
Make no mistake: This debate is not just about the president, this executive order or immigration. This is about the fear that makes the face flush when people stare into a future in which traditional power — their power — is eroded, and about their desperate, by-any-means determination to deny that future.
This is utter rubbish. I am radically pro-immigration who wants to restore liberalized immigration to before a near-century of restrictive policies; I firmly believe in the win-win economic nature of immigration. I absolutely oppose this order, not based on the policies described, but in the lawless nature of the order, an abuse of discretion. I believe there are two principal reasons for resistance to immigration reform; (1) the perception that unauthorized Latino aliens have not abided by the rule of law and (2) the economic concern of a zero-sum nature of employment, as the supply of labor grows, wages decline. That second point is not necessarily a conservative position; labor unions have objected to temporary work visas, pushed JFK/LBJ to eliminate the Bracero program. I won't go into detail here refuting these positions, which I've done in past posts; I'll simply point out that there may be a temporary modest hit at lower wages (roughly 5%) but note that lower prices attracts more demand for labor; for the most part, immigrant labor complements native workers, and immigrants are also local consumers and pay taxes. Now let me point out that I disagree with both arguments, but this crackpot notion of a vast white/right conspiracy trying to preserve a "white" power structure is clearly paranoid and delusional. Barry Obama needed the votes of white people to attain the Presidency. (Blacks comprise about 13% of the population.)
Facebook Corner
(Citizens Against Government Waste). A new GAO report shows that some unionized federal employees increased their "official time" for labor organizing activities by more than 25 percent. Employees at 10 agencies racked up 2.48 million hours working for their labor unions (some 100 percent of the time), costing taxpayers more than $157 million in 2012 alone. Furthermore, the report discovered that most agencies are not adequately tracking their employees’ official time to begin with.
Is it the taxpayers' responsibility to pay for collective-bargaining rights, or should Congress act to pass legislation that would reduce what types of activities qualify as official time? Share your thoughts below.
http://watchdog.org/184413/official-time-costs-taxpayers/
I see a federal workforce in much the same way the Founding Fathers were ambivalent about a standing army--there is a sore temptation to use an available military. I believe that most of what the federal government does is unnecessary, and a self-serving federal workforce is not in the public interest. Paying federal workers to engage in self-serving purposes at the expense of the taxpayer is an extrinsic conflict of interest and morally reprehensible.
(National Review). The Left has a long tradition of armchair psychoanalysis of conservatives and dissidents.
If conservatives are mentally defective, what do we say about "progressives" what do you make of those voting to maintain the policies which have failed for decades, failing schools, crime-ridden, unsafe neighborhoods, fractured family units, high rates of illegitimacy? Policies that encourage government dependency and discourage gainful employment at lower wages? That the two most celebrated post-2000 liberal candidates for President barely have 2 Senate terms put together, no legislative accomplishment, no prior public (or private) executive experience, no economic expertise, yet believe they are uniquely qualified to megalomaniac intervention in the economy and foreign affairs?
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Henry Payne via Townhall |
Glen Campbell, "Oh, Happy Day"
