A minimalist approach to essential, transparent, accountable, flat, adaptable, responsive, solution-based government, rooted in virtuous individual autonomy, traditional values and free markets, with a bias towards reduction of government functionality, cost and scope
Quote of the Day The Truth is realized in an instant; the Act is practiced step by step. Zen saying
Image of the Day
Civil Disobedience: Not Just For Leftists Anymore
Facebook Corner
(The Hill). "I think almost all land use issues and animal issues, endangered species issues, ought to be handled at the state level," Rand Paul said. "I think that the government shouldn't interfere with state decisions, so if a state decides to have medical marijuana or something like that, it should be respected as a state decision." Just a start on the principle of Subsidiarity....
(Cato Institute). "Marriage is pre-political...If the United States government were to disappear tomorrow....would you consider yourself no longer married? I don't think you would." I'm not married, but OF COURSE NOT. For Catholics like me, the "real" marriage is a sacrament. The institution of marriage existed before the start of English common law and American legal history. Now of course, the marriage construct will somewhat vary in context across faiths, non-believers, etc., but when an Authoritarian State transmutes the marriage construct, engaging in socially experimental policy with unintended consequences, it has lost credibility. It's just as if political or judicial whores tomorrow suddenly declared all residents over the age of 20 high school graduates; the only thing that would change perhaps would be the hiring criteria of managers.
Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him. Matt 26:67
(Catholic Libertarians). A society based on lies is destined to suffer a painful death. "Native American" and "black" are one thing. But is this a libertarian page? Why are we having a problem with people's choices? Okay, the "gay marriage" troll needs us to explain things REALLY SLOW. Government hasn't regulated the relationships of gays--until now. Just like the natural heterosexual institution of marriage has evolved for thousands of years, gay relationships have had their own history and traditions, without the need to co-opt heterosexual constructs of marriage and family. Christ Himself has spoken of the essential and permanent (Mark 10). He made clear what He thought of sex outside of traditional marriage "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?” When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her...."Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” In other words, hate the sin; love the sinner. The gay sinner has free will. He can call his relationships whatever delusional term he wants, including a perverted contortion of "marriage". It's another thing to force socially experiment policy on a voluntary community holding traditional values. Jesus made it clear it is NOT the state which gives marriage meaning; He has constantly distinguished between the earthy corrupt kingdom and the Kingdom of God. GOT IT?
(IPI). Expect the pension crisis to get worse. Chicago Public School retirees now outnumber active workers. That means more people are drawing from the pension fund than putting money into it. The parasites continue to feed on the sinkhole of Chicago--let's recall the same holds true for the police and firemen.
(Reason). The American Civil Liberties Union has formally reversed its support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The hypocritical ACLU fails to understand the basic concepts of voluntary exchange. When the politically correct/corrupt spokesman says "It’s time for Congress to amend the RFRA so that it cannot be used as a defense for discrimination.", it's presumptuous and begs the question. If I choose to service traditional weddings and leave money on the table; it's not "discrimination"--it's market selection, and if anything else, it provides an opportunity for competitors. Fascists have no moral authority to compel transactions; it is a form of slavery. What the ACLU is doing is promoting the prosecution of Christians who find taking such business to be a violation of religious principle--and make no mistake: this is all about suppressing religious points of view inconsistent with presentist bias. Err no, if you read the article and the original Washington Post article you'll find that the ACLU isn't saying that it will no longer support religious freedoms, its calling instead for an amendment to a law to prevent companies from using religious freedom impose the beliefs of employers on their employee's, but hey don't let that actual fact of the matter get in the way of a good flame war. To explain it briefly, if a native American wants to smoke a pipe, or a Sikh grow a beard, thats an individual decision and falls under individual freedom. If a company such as Hobby Lobby decides not to pay for birth control and gets a supreme court ruling to that effect, well thats not individual religious freedom, thats one individual or individuals enforcing belief on others, regardless of cost to the other. A whole thread of economic illiterates who don't understand salient concepts. First of all, birth control is a periodic expense, not an insurable risk. Second, employers cannot ban employees from doing what they want with their own take home pay including (gasp!) paying for their own birth control instead of socializing its cost. Either birth control is free or it's not. If it's free, it's not a matter of insurance. If it's not free, then HL should get a discount on healthcare costs that is passed on to its employees. Arguing HL by refusing to pay for abortifacients is "imposing" on its employees is a departure from reality. Besides, HL is very explicit about its founders' values; it's a competitive labor market. There are employers willing to pay for killing your next preborn child. As for the hypocritical ACLU, guilty as charged.
You can build a throne with bayonets, but you can't sit on it for long. Boris Yeltsin
Did a Military Hospital Kill My Dad?
[This essay is being co-published in my tribute blog.]
My folks were Massachusetts natives, but when it came time from my Dad to retire from the Air Force, they made a decision to retire in Texas. The San Antonio area has a cluster of military bases and medical facilities. (My Dad had some health issues related to his military service, notably a hearing disability for working years on the flight line as a jet mechanic.)
To some extent, bodies often break down as part of the aging process, although my Mom had attributed some of Dad's back problems due to the nature of his mechanical work. (My Dad himself never complained about his health issues with me; I knew he had knee issues the last few times I visited home because he had to stop and rest on our way from and to the parking space at a local base exchange.) I knew he had had some major back procedures several years back. In any event, I got an email from my Mom maybe 1 to 2 years back, complaining that Dad or she needed to have an operation, but as senior citizens, they were ineligible. (My Mom gets a lot of forwarded emails that involve urban legends; I've constantly sought to teach her how to use snopes.) I hadn't heard this bit of misinformation before and quickly Googled the topic, which confirmed that the rumor had no factual basis. (In light of what happened later, I sometimes wonder if I should have said anything...)
I hadn't been home in 5 years, since my maternal uncle's golden anniversary of his ordination. (He's now a retired priest in the Fall River diocese. He wanted a quiet, small, intimate celebration. Oddly enough, what I remember most about that weekend was that my MBA marketing service course professor, who later took a position at the University of Georgia, was on the run following the murder of his estranged wife and a man--and was later found having had committed suicide.) I had unsuccessfully sought several times since 2000 to return to Texas, in part to live closer to the folks. There were a variety of budgetary or scheduling reasons I hadn't visited them, including my 2013 birthday start date in a government contractor position in West Virginia (my birthday being during the holiday break).
I gradually become aware that Dad's back issues had recently returned, roughly around April-June 2013 (around the time I lived in WV); I had seen Dad on a number of occasions after his last back surgery (around 2006, although he had a related post-USAF workplace accident in 1983), and he never mentioned his back. He did have some issues (perhaps the knee problems); I remember that he tried to park once in a handicapped spot, but Mom and I told him that we would not not leave the car until he parked in a regular spot. I had never seen him doing that sort of thing in decades of riding with him, so I suspected that he was in some discomfort walking; he grumbled about having to find another spot. The only reason I'm mentioning that is on my next trip, I noticed my Dad's vehicle had handicap plates.
My folks, devout Catholics, seemed to be constantly on what I call the sacrament/graduation/special events tour. (The folks have 6 younger children, 21 grandchildren and at least 14 great-grandchildren (and I think one on the way).) I know that the folks had been to a granddaughter's college graduation in Kansas in December 2013, and one of their great-grandchildren was baptized in February. However I noticed that he wasn't in the pictures for my nephew's Master's in Accounting in early May. My Mom hadn't brought it up, but she confirmed that he was too ill to attend, and they would be skipping that month's other high school and college graduations for 2 other, out-of state grandsons. My baby brother lives in the same area, and I became aware of his helping my Mom deal with my Dad's emerging mobility problems. (It wasn't that my Dad had a weight problem; Mom is petite and had issues, say, helping get him in a car.) He had some spinal injections and had been given a go-ahead by doctors to attend a granddaughter's wedding in mid-July. I know at some stretches during this period he was using a wheelchair to get around, and my parents watched the events via a Skype connection.
I'm confused as to the insurance issue because my Mom at one point argued that she was asked as to whether Dad was covered under ObamaCare, but at some point during July my folks got in touch with the 2006 surgeon who had worked on his back, and a new procedure was scheduled around the beginning of August at a local military medical facility. Mom explained that without surgery, Dad faced spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair and/or in pain. The initial account was that the surgery (in a military facility) was a success, although my Mom implied that he was more listless and less motivated to do therapy, which frankly disturbed me. My baby sister was there to help the folks during this period.
Then came the evening of August 11, a date and a telephone call that I'll never forget. My Dad had been released to a rehabilitation facility less than 24 hours within easy distance from my parents' house. By all accounts, Dad had had a good first day of therapy. My Mom had stepped out to get a bite to eat, when all of a sudden the facility called her to return immediately. My Dad's blood pressure had crashed through the floor. They had called an ambulance, and it was all they could do to stabilize my Dad's blood pressure to get him to the medical center. I was watching some Monday evening entertainment program when I got a call from Mom. My Mom is a tough cookie, so this was totally out of character. She was saying, "We're losing him, your father, Ronald. Do you understand?" She was crying, and then became frantic as they apparently had her escorted from his bedside. "He's dying, Ronald; there's nothing more they can do." There is nothing you can do over the phone; you can't hold her and comfort her. I was grasping for understanding; he had been released within 24 hours, presumably with a thorough health check; how could Dad be fighting for his life? Luckily, Dad seemed to stabilize while we were still on the phone, but Mom was insistent: Dad was dying, and if I wanted to say goodbye, I had to be there as soon as possible. I couldn't find a seat flying out of Pittsburgh, my nearest major airport, for Tuesday. It would take two days of driving to get to San Antonio.
One of my middle sisters called me early afternoon Tuesday and reaffirmed that I needed to get there ASAP. I did find a flight going out at 5AM with 2 connections, touching into San Antonio around noontime. It seems that they lowered medication enough for Dad to regain consciousness for a limited period of time. He needed breathing tubes and so Mom had to communicate with "yes/no" type questions. His organs were beginning to shut down, starting with his kidneys. My siblings, except my baby sister (who said that she had a feeling and make her peace with Dad), were there with their spouses. After my arrival, they once again lowered his drugs. He knew we all were there; I saw his eyes follow me from one side of the bed to the other. He couldn't talk. My memories were a blur during the last 15 minutes or so. They took the breathing tubes out of him; I was confused: why were they doing that? Is he strong enough to survive without the tubes? I can still hear my RN sister telling my Dad to focus on his breathing. My Dad was trying to talk but his throat was too raw. His breathing began to slow; I didn't understand why they weren't reinserting the breathing tubes. My Mom was sobbing inconsolably. He passed all too soon. The doctors were highly professional, but I never got a good answer what the hell happened? It was septic shock, most likely a urinary tract infection. (There was no sign of infection at the site of the surgery.) These sorts of things "happen all the time" Shit happens. How did he get such an infection less than 24 hours in a rehab facility? It didn't make sense. Mom, and the rest of the family including myself, waived an autopsy.
Before proceeding, let me quote from Wikipedia (my edits) :
Patients undergoing major surgery are often catheterized and may remain so for some time. The patient may require irrigation of the bladder with sterile saline injected through the catheter to flush out clots or other matter that does not drain. In urinary catheterization a latex, polyurethane, or silicone tube known as a urinary catheter is inserted into a patient's bladder via the urethra....A clinician, often a nurse, usually performs the procedure. A Foley catheter (indwelling urinary catheter) is retained by means of a balloon at the tip that is inflated with sterile water. The balloons typically come in two different sizes: 5 cm3 and 30 cm3. They are commonly made in silicone rubber or natural rubber. Everyday care of catheter and drainage bag is important to reduce the risk of infection. Such precautions include: Cleansing the urethral area (area where catheter exits body) and the catheter itself. Disconnecting drainage bag from catheter only with clean hands Disconnecting drainage bag as seldom as possible. Keeping drainage bag connector as clean as possible and cleansing the drainage bag periodically. Use of a thin catheter where possible to reduce risk of harming the urethra during insertion. Drinking sufficient liquid to produce at least two liters of urine daily.
My Mom recently mentioned that my brother-in-law, married to my RN sister, had ranted at the surgery facility. His issue was not the surgeon and his staff but the quality of the nursing staff (ironic, since my Dad has one RN daughter and two RN granddaughters). Let me excerpt one of his relevant responses to my query:
I asked the question about a hospital acquired infection when I had heard Dad’s sepsis was caused by the infection at the site of the Foley Catheter. His surgical wound was clean and the only location of infection was the catheter. To me, it pointed to poor nursing care at the hospital he was at for the back surgery. I called XXXX and identified to their Risk management folk that Dad’s sepsis was due to improper care for his catheter at the hospital where he had his back surgery..XXXX’s risk management folk referred me back to the initial hospital. I spoke with their Risk Management representative and she started to blow me off until I told her a patient that just had surgery at their hospital and been discharged to rehab had been sent as an emergency to XXXX and subsequently passed away due to a hospital acquired infection at the site of his catheter causing sepsis. Oh yeah and by the way, this patient was at the rehab facility for less than 24 hours. She suddenly became very engaged and took my information and Dad’s information. I never heard back from them and I asked mom if she wanted me to pursue this and her answer was no as it wouldn’t bring dad back. I firmly believe it was poor nursing care at the original facility dad had his back surgery at. His catheter care was not done correctly as well as his change from post operative day 1 to a lethargic state prior to his discharge to the rehab center should have been keys as to something going on. This was all my driving thoughts and why I wanted to identify a problem at the initial facility so it wouldn’t happen to anyone else. The surgeon did a fine job. The wound looked great and showed no signs of infection. The only site of infection was the foley catheter site.
God bless my brother-in-law. I understand that hospitals get CYA syndrome; but there must be accountability and a due diligence standard for nursing. Our experience as a whole is a positive one for the military level of care, quality and professionalism; I'll always appreciate their efforts to give me a chance to say goodbye to Dad. It is important to remember not just to do the big things well, but the little things, too. In this case, we lost my Dad, done far too soon. I regret the lost opportunities to have conversations with my Dad. My Dad was not just another patient.
A Few Comments Over the Confederacy and the "Gay Marriage" Kerfuffle
I wasn't sure what started the Confederate (battle) flag kerfuffle (I had a suspicion, but I had no interest in researching the monster who had murdered 9 people in a church). Sure enough, the creep was photographed with a Confederate flag. How far does this nonsense go? I mean, if we found out that he wore Levi jeans or liked to eat at McDonald's, would the politically correct fascists launch boycotts against them next? I now understand the context for Gov. Haley's decision to bring down the Confederate flag. I'm intrigued by ironic alternatives, like lowering Confederate flags at half-mast until a verdict is reached in the trial of the monster.
I think in part I have a libertarian notion regarding free expression and the use of flags. As a reminder of historical fact, the Civil War was NOT over slavery; Lincoln himself admitted as much in his inaugural address. If you look at the major battles in the Civil War, I believe very few (if any) reached north beyond border states, e.g., Pennsylvania. The vast majority of battles took place in the South and borders. The figures I've seen is over 95% of Confederate soldiers were not slaveholders. Almost half the casualties (of 1.3M total) in US history occurred during the Civil War. This is not to say I mourn the loss of the immoral institution of slavery in the South. I think the collapse of slavery in the South was inevitable because, e.g., with improvements in agricultural technology and productivity, it was cheaper to pay a few free farmhands than pay the high costs of maintaining slave operations. Plus there was a desire by many European customers for cotton and other exports by non-slave operations. But, in any event, there is no doubt that the Southern soldier saw himself as protecting his home from tyrannical invaders from the North. To me, the conscription of soldiers is effectively a type of slavery.
Finally, several libertarian threads (Reason, FEE, Cato Institute, etc.) have driven themselves into an orgasmic frenzy over SCOTUS issuing a national fiat for rainbow-colored official "marriage" certification. Some of them are absurd click bait, e.g., why libertarians who argue against "gay marriage" are wrong. I know my position is completely consistent with libertarianism: I am not frustrating the free association of gays, their contractual rights, their ability to migrate to gay-friendly cities or states, etc. But straights also have the same rights. Let the states and municipalities compete for gay communities.
Facebook Corner
(IPI). See below cartoon. The debt isn't the fault of the teachers. It's the fault of the criminals in Springfield that have spent the money that should have been in the pension plans decades ago. The union whores as usual want to deflect attention to politicians. But in the few remaining companies which have pension systems, they don't allow union games of salary increases at the end of one's career or other spiking games (it's based off some median/average career earning) and expects half the investment return (meaning the employer has to kick in more funding). And the public actuaries had disregarded the implications of the huge Baby Boomer generation and longer retirements. Some public entities have seen their pension budget quadruple over the past 15 years--and that's just the tip. So economic illiterate union propagandists don't know what the hell they're talking about.
(Catholic Libertarians).Real equality and true freedom would be marriage that is not licensed by the government; relationships and verbiage that are not defined and regulated by bureaucrats; the freedom of speech, association, and religion without the need to first ask for permission by filling out an application for a certificate of approval from the secular state; clergymen that are not also legal officiants and thus under legal obligations; and churches that would stop binding themselves to the 501(c)(3) puppet strings of the IRS.
[There was a typical Christian "progressive" point that just because Jesus did not specifically teach against gays or rule out "gay marriage", He was pro-gay rights.] WRONG. Mark 10: "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 6" 7For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh.9Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." It is very clear what Judaic practices and thought on homosexuality were at the time of Christ's mission. If Jesus had been violating orthodoxy, it would have been known--just as Jesus notably condemned the practice of divorce above. If you have any exposure to classical (Roman/Greek) literature, you would have known homosexuality was accepted (this dawned on me when in undergraduate school, I was reading the translation of an ancient text, and the phrase "beautiful boy" kept popping up). It's not only that but abortion and infanticide were widely practiced in Rome, and one of the earliest Christian texts unambiguously condemned the practice. So when Paul, a Roman citizen, specifically condemned homosexuality, it was no mere accident: "Homosexual behavior was especially manifest in Rome and Greece at that time, but which was and is a historical constant among all peoples, in differing but deleterious forms, and with different degrees of moral degeneration being realized. For the follower of the Bible therefore, homosexuality is not new, nor unexpected, but neither is it justified, rather it is unequivocally condemned, while God is revealed as giving man grace to resist and overcome sin...The history of homosexuality as regards the position of Judaism and Christianity is testified to by extra-biblical accounts of ancient historians, commentators and leaders. As concerns Jewish beliefs, Gagnon notes in the study of homosexuality and biblical interpretation, that "every piece of evidence that we have about Jewish views of same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond is unremittingly hostile to such behavior."
(Time). "Perhaps it is time to be more careful what we ask government to do, and where we allow it to become part of our lives." Over 30 states confirmed the common law and over 200 years of American legal recognition of marriage as between a man and a woman, the foundation of natural family. But judicial fascist whores weren't satisfied, given alleged sweeping politically correct popularity of rainbow-colored certificates, to work through the established process. It was necessary to impose socially-experiment policy by judicial fiat over the principle of free association. Rand Paul is spot on.
Hating people is like burning down your own house to get rid of a rat. Harry Emerson Fosdick
Image of the Day
Via Catholic Libertarians
SCOTUSCare (Or Is It ScrotumCare?): How SCOTUS Bailed Out the Fascists on ObamaCare, the Latest Failed Government Healthcare Initiative
Bad Judges of the Year Nominees
Okay, so let's recall how the obscene, misnomered "Affordable Care Act" came into being. When Arlen Specter switched parties after the 2008 election, he provided the filibuster-proof 60th vote for the Dems; his intent was to run for reelection as a Dem. (It did not work for him as he was primaried by Sestak, who went on to lose the general election.) The problem for the Dems was that a number of senators from red or purple states were vulnerable in 2010, and passing the "public option" version favored by House "progressives" was a non-starter. (Could you as an insurer compete against a government which routinely runs up massive deficits and can print its way out of debt?) Basically the Senate migrated to an approach that Romney had devised with a key economic advisor (Gruber) when the Bush Administration threatened to cut off Medicaid funding for Massachusetts, thinking the state was subsidizing the ineligible uninsured. Romney basically converted state subsidies into premium supports for private sector providers. The Senate bill also expanded Medicaid and had notorious corrupt bargains (Gator-Aid, the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase).
The Dems needed to get states to vest into the exchanges, to mitigate the risk of a national exchange failure. For Medicaid, it was the threat of all or nothing: the Feds expected the states (within a few years) to foot half the cost of the expansion. For the exchanges, it was the opportunity for state residents to quality for ObamaCare subsidies. And everybody knows it.
Normally, when the House and Senate pass separate bills, they go into reconciliation to fashion a compromise. But when Republican Scott Brown defeated the Massachusetts attorney general, this changed the dynamics: the Dems weren't about to negotiate with the GOP, but Brown was the filibuster-sustaining vote #41. This led the Dems to try to shove the Senate bill down the House's throat. The only carrot left was to tell the House that they could use the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process to amend the bill more to her liking.
I don't think the Dems seriously believed that the states would opt out of Medicaid or the state insurance exchange--for one thing, they guaranteed a federal exchange. And I think they expected that if in the unlikely event, the scheme didn't work, they would quickly patch the system because no politician wanted to explain why his state's residents didn't get their own fair share of subsidies, although everyone paid into the subsidies. But there is a price when you enact legislation that lacked majority support months before it passed. Only about a third of the states put up exchanges, and a new House under GOP control has no intention of bailing out a program it wanted to kill.
The IRS KNEW that the participants in the federal exchange did not qualify for subsidies when it drafted its unauthorized expansion. Now in the Burwell case decided earlier this week, Chief Justice Roberts once again bailed out a bad bill. Arguing that government-sponsored healthcare was unaffordable without subsidies and that that the explicit reference to an exchange run by a state was merely inartful drafting of a bill is completely disingenous legal sophistry. There are no reason to add "run by the state" which is purely redundant. The bill was hoping all 50 states would establish exchanges making a federal exchange unnecessary. Now John Roberts should know better because he struck down the Medicaid extortion.
Even if SCOTUS thought the bill was poorly drafted, it's definitely not constitutional for the court to rewrite a bad bill. That's the function of the legislature. It's extremely morally hazardous policy; it merely encourages a legislature to write sloppy laws. As a professor, it wasn't my decision to worry about what happens if a student failed my class. Maybe I "ruined" his life. But it would be immoral for me to complete his test with what I thought he knew to be the right answers: it would be wrong for me to pass him, because it's no longer his work. Hence John Roberts wins a nomination.
Anthony Kennedy went 2-for-2 this week, including the notorious second round of "gay marriage". Let us recall that SCOTUS in the Civil War/Reconstruction era did hold that a Congressional law banning plural marriage in the territories was constitutional. Arguing that structurally different, nontraditional constructs of marriage, which have no precedent in common law or American law through 2000, are fundamentally co-equal, and states which maintain a traditional definition of marriage are "discriminatory"? Absurd! I mean, this guy paid lip service to the Tenth Amendment; when, exactly, did the residents 30-odd states that democratically validated a form of marriage lose their rights? None of the states were prohibiting or otherwise regulating gay relationships, were restricting gays from migrating in or out of state, restricting the contractual rights of gays. The idea that somehow "real marriage" involves the state conferring a rainbow-colored certificate is sheer Statist hubris. Kennedy wins a nomination.
Finally, last but not least: there is Judge Rosemary Pooler, who ruled a pro-life license plate design (saying "choose life" and showing kids' faces shining in the sun) was under New York DMV's discretion to ban under the "patently offensive" category promoting road rage. It later cited political divisive issue restrictions (although it allows union- or environmentalist-friendly plates: if you don't think those are divisive, you haven't paid attention to my blog). This judicial sophist argues just because the DMV engages in de facto political censorship, doesn't restrict pro-lifers from placing pro-life stickers on their vehicles. Because everyone knows that drivers are less susceptible to road rage over a vehicle covered with inflammatory bumper stickers than in small print on a license.
Economic Illiteracy Among the Popes Did Not Start With the Leftist Populist Francis
Rand Paul's Tax Plan
I've been particularly intrigued by the implications of this plan on entitlements, and I think Rand Paul should be more explicit sooner or later, given the fact that the Democrats (not to mention some of his GOP challengers) will be fear-mongering any significant changes to the third rail of American politics. (Yes, even Republicans. I have mentioned in a past post that a former boss ran in the GOP primary for a retiring Congressman's seat in the Chicago suburbs. His signature issue was protecting Social Security.) When he talks of scrapping the payroll tax for workers, he's notably not including the employer share--but this is somewhat disingenuous because benefits are part of the cost of labor. An employee doesn't see it because it's not explicitly deducted from his pay. WSJ has a more explicit summary here. It seems like he is saying the employee portion will be replaced by a dedicated stream of business tax revenues. I have an issue with a pension system where an employee has no skin in the game; I think it's morally hazardous. How is he going to replace the operational cost of government caused by siphoning off business taxes to social security? My guess is that he is going to argue by eliminating tax gimmicks or loopholes, although he seems to be determined to keep the mortgage interest and charitable deductions (the latter exceptions to which I'm opposed). I like that he gets the bad economics behind progressive tax schemes; I might want to see the income tax counterbalanced with a small flat consumption tax (e.g., on interstate sales). We'll go in depth as next year's election grows closer and other candidates' tax plans are fleshed out.
Facebook Corner
(Catholic Libertarians). I've been needing to get this off my chest. From Yours Truly. ~Mark I disagree with your assessment of Romney; I just thought he blew the obvious strategy of running against Bush and Obama. I am less judgmental about his governor experience, given his having to deal with an 85% Dem legislature, and let's recall RomneyCare was designed to fend off Statist attempts to do single-payer and was a reaction to the Bush Administration's threat to cut off Medicaid, claiming the money was being used to subsidized uninsured medical care. Really, it take chutzpah to list Romney's sins on abortion, when, in fact, Obama single-handedly blocked the born alive infants protection act in Illinois as a state senator. We are talking babies born in a hospital with incubators, left to die alone in medical equipment rooms, sometimes left directly in trash bins, other times near edges of tables where they fell to the floor hurting their unprotected heads. Obama is the guy who ran on having the judgment not to enter the Iraq war but doubled up on Afghanistan, more than doubling Bush's casualties; this is the same guy who has threatened to veto authorization bills for the Middle East on the grounds he didn't need authorization, the same on any vote to close Gitmo, one of his first 2008 promises. I'm not sure when I finally considered myself a libertarian-conservative, but it was some time between the birth of the Tea Party and frustration over the Afghanistan War. For a long time I was a skeptic over the Afghanistan and Iraq interventions, but I told myself maybe they had information I didn't have. Bush himself had run against nation-building in east Europe, and the reason his Dad didn't depose Hussen had to do with not opening up sectarian Pandora's Box. I was wrong. Although I did support Ron Paul for a short while in 2012, he was somewhat of a gadfly and a conspiracy theorist; he had few legislative accomplishments other than a one-time audit of the Fed. His son Rand has a somewhat more pragmatic tone, but has a tough time inheriting his Dad's neo-con enemies.
SM ruling as if today we have become an immoral nation. We have been legally killing preborn children in this country for over 4 decades with the government either supporting it or condoning it at every juncture. Nothing is or can be more immoral than killing innocent children. We should not be surprised anymore at anything our morally corrupt government does. The truth is that we, as a so-called Christian populace, have not properly responded and protested the immeasurable innocent blood shed for the past 40 plus years. Thus any outrage today rings a bit hollow.
His point is well-taken; I am incredulous at the moral outrage over gay marriage when compared to abortion. Talk about the splinter in one's eye versus the plank. It's not just the mothers who sacrifice their children at the feet of the goddess of ideological feminism, it's the fact that of those babies that survive their mother's choice, roughly 40% of them are born illegitimate.
(Rand Paul 2016). Rand Paul's Flat And Fair Tax: Even Better Than Reagan Plan He should not exempt morgage interest and charitable deductions; these are popular but unprincipled. Dividends are still double-taxed, and capital gains can reflect little more than inflation vs. real gains. I would like to see more of a balance between consumption vs. savings and investment. This flat tax would cripple me. I support it only if all other taxes are abolished, including the gasoline tax, sales tax, property taxes, etc. What about the $50K exemption didn't you notice? Plus he's taking away your payroll tax. Some of the taxes you mentioned, e.g., property and sales, are local, and the gas tax has mutiple government assessments. And the gas tax is not a general tax but a dedicated user tax to support roads and bridges.
America believes in education: the average professor earns more money in a year than a professional athlete earns in a whole week. Evan Esar
Image of the Day
Via Antony Price on FB
Via Patriot Post
Epic Rant of the Day: The Vicious Circle of Corrupt Statism
One of my pet peeves is when I venture onto free market websites, and routinely see diatribes against these mythical corporations who are a law onto themselves, plutocrats pulling strings of powerful politicians, milking taxpayer money and bailouts, and huge taxbreaks. Basically, they have no clue that the morally hazardous policies they create have unintended consequences.
America is suffering from rampant, run-away corporatism and crony capitalism. We are increasingly a plutocracy in which government serves the interests of elite financiers and CEOs at the expense of everyone else. You know this and you complain loudly about it. But the problem is your fault. You caused this state of affairs. Stop it.
We told you this would happen, but you wouldn’t listen. You complain, rightly, that regulatory agencies are controlled by the very corporations they are supposed to constrain. Well, yeah, we told you that would happen. When you create power—and you people love to create power—the unscrupulous seek to capture that power for their personal benefit. Time and time again, they succeed. We told you that would happen, and we gave you an accurate account of how it would happen.
You complain, perhaps rightly, that corporations are just too big. Well, yeah, we told you that would happen. When you create complicated tax codes, complicated regulatory regimes, and complicated licensing rules, these regulations naturally select for larger and larger corporations. We told you that would happen. Of course, these increasingly large corporations then capture these rules, codes, and regulations to disadvantage their competitors and exploit the rest of us. We told you that would happen. - Jason Brennan (HT FEE)
Oops, Remy Does It Again...
SCOTUS Imposes "Gay Marriage" On All 50 States 5-4: Thumbs DOWN!
If there was a surprise, it was that the vote was EXACTLY the same after last year; the only reason I was modestly surprised is that SCOTUS had failed to accept any cases from appeals of traditional state statutes being overtuned or sustained thereof at the appeals level. It was inconceivable that they would rule that some states could retain their traditional regulatory right and responsibility but not others based on which court of appeals heard their case. The fact that they agreed to hear the appeals by the few "marriage equality" advocates who lost made it obvious that SCOTUS intended to set a single standard. (For a more detailed rant, see here from Patriot Post.)
SCOTUS Reconsiders the Topic of "Gay Marriage". Thumbs DOWN! I'm somewhat encouraged by Justice Kennedy's concern about the unintended consequences to changing an institution which has evolved over thousands of years, but I'm skeptical that the same SCOTUS that has let stand reversals of several states' legitimate popularly-enacted traditional marriage laws will suddenly reverse the groupthink of all but a few lower courts.
And this is from my Jan. 17 post, where I clearly predicted the Court would make a 14th Amendment finding:
SCOTUS Agrees To Review Four Cases Upholding Traditional Marriage Cases: Thumbs DOWN! Okay, I'm not a lawyer, but this outcome is so obvious that you can phone it in. Look, before the recent Supreme Court ruling, over 30 states had constitutionally reaffirmed traditional marriage; today, at least a plurality of those states have had their laws vacated by federal court fiat, despite Kennedy's opinion recognizing traditional state regulation of marriage. More important, SCOTUS has refused appeals from those states essentially sustaining lower court reversals. This is troubling on several scores, one of them being I think it takes just 4 justices to pick up an appeal--which one might expect from Kennedy and/or the original 4 dissenting justices. I can only speculate--it could be Kennedy telegraphed a stronger ruling this time around. This means that the fact that SCOTUS is picking up the cases affirming traditional marriage law is not a good thing. Refusing to hear the cases would have affirmed state sovereignty (plus an incoherent status quo where some states were more equal than others in state sovereignty). Agreeing to hear the cases seems to signal an almost certain sweeping reversal.
I realize the hearing is weeks away, but for me, there are 2 major questions: (1) what argument will carry the day, and (2) will the 4 justices capitulate to give a sweeping "right to marry" decision so-called moral authority of a unanimous decision? Let me give a guarded guess the answer to the second question is no; I don't see, for example, how Justice Thomas would validate federal reversals of over 30 state referendums; it would all but nullify the tenth amendment. The first question is harder to answer, but I expect just like Kennedy ignored the California Proposition 8 vote, he'll accept the recent reversals as a fait accompli and then argue a fourteenth amendment argument, saying the minority holdout states are discriminating against gay couples from out of the majority of other states
Facebook Corner
(Cato Institute). On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage in more than a dozen states in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Today, that same court held in a 5-4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. This is the constitutional case for marriage equality This is disingenuous politically correct, intellectually dishonest garbage. There is no legitimate comparison to anti-miscegenation laws. A defining function of marriage is a socially-accepted norm for procreation. Race-based differences are not salient to the functionality of procreation. I will note that the Catholic Church agitated against these restrictions on marriage, but the Catholic Church has an unchangeable opposition to non-traditional marriage, e.g., "gay marriage" and polygamy.
(The Independent Institute). "If the government protects individual rights, then government should have nothing to say about marriage. Marriage is a contract between two people, and if the contract is entered into voluntarily, the law should recognize and enforce it. What those people call the contract is irrelevant. If they want to call it marriage, or domestic partnership, or anything else, that should be up to them. Marriage, as such, should be no business of the state." I think this may be the first libertarian thread I've seen (vs., say, Cato Institute, Reason, FEE, Libertarianism.org) which did not simply cheer on judicial whores imposing socially experimental policies on local communities/states. Marriage, divorce, birth and death needs to be recorded by the government. That's it, folks. No religious protections. You don't need to be religious to be born or die. Yes, same as women's medical decisions and doctors' rights to make professional medical decisions do not belong in a government ruling. This is illogical gibberish. The OP seems to think just because a plurality of marriages are faith-based, there is no alternative to government-sponsored marriage. There can be non-religious privatized, e.g., marriage counselors.
(Sen. Lee). Just as America has mostly avoided traditional conflicts between Protestants and Catholics, Christians and Jews, Sunni and Shia, atheists and believers — so too Americans’ commitment to tolerance, diversity, and dignity is perfectly capable of making room for the rights and dignity of those who disagree about the meaning of marriage. But good-faith compromise — of the sort that is Americans’ unique political genius — is possible only if the government gives us the space to find it. And those tempted by fundamentalism will be loathe to afford us this space, lest they let a manufactured crisis go to waste. So Americans who believe in religious liberty have have an important job now. We cannot hide this issue under a bushel and hope no one asks us about it. We will have this debate. The only question is whether we start a conversation or we let the fundamentalists pick a fight. The American people need and deserve to have this debate, so their representatives must engage it — with candor and compassion — in the most publicly accountable venues possible. That is exactly why Rep. Raúl R. Labrador and I have introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which would prevent the federal government from discriminating against anyone who believes that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It's sad but necessary to preserve the rights of those organizations and institutions, especially religious ones, which would no doubt be attacked by rogue administrations (e.g., over ObamaCare) over faith-based policies.
(A related comment from Senator Lee) Today five Justices took a vital question about the future of American society out of the public square, imposing the views of five unelected judges on a country that is still in the midst of making up its mind about marriage. That is unfortunate, but it is not the end of the discussion, as Americans of good faith who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman will continue to live as witnesses to that truth. I am nonetheless heartened by the majority’s reassurance that the religious liberty rights of all Americans, including those who advocate a traditional view of marriage, must be protected. As Justice Kennedy states in the decision, "the First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.” Our focus now must be on defending these crucial rights of conscience. That is exactly why Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) and I have introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which would prevent the federal government from discriminating against anyone who believes that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
(Justin Amash). Throughout history, different cultures have defined marriage according to their own customs and practices. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, and atheists do not share identical views on marriage. In fact, significant differences regarding marriage exist even within Christianity. What makes marriage traditional is not its adherence to a universal definition but rather that it is defined by personal faith, not by government. For thousands of years, marriage flourished without a universal definition and without government intervention. Then came licensing of marriage. In recent decades, we've seen state legislatures and ballot initiatives define marriage, putting government improperly at the helm of this sacred institution. Those who care about liberty should not be satisfied with the current situation. Government intervention in marriage presents new threats to religious freedom and provides no advantages, for gay or straight couples, over unlicensed (i.e., traditional) marriage. But we shouldn't blame the Supreme Court for where things stand. To the extent that Americans across the political spectrum view government marriage as authoritative and unlicensed marriage as quaint, our laws must treat marriage—and the corresponding legal benefits that attach—as they would any other government institution. So, while today's Supreme Court opinion rests upon the false premise that government licensure is necessary to validate the intimate relationships of consenting adults, I applaud the important principle enshrined in this opinion: that government may not violate the equal rights of individuals in any area in which it asserts authority. No, I disagree with Amash's analysis, i.e., the insidious notion that government confers "rights". The only rights are from God. This ruling was an unambiguous violation of the principle of federalism. Marriage for example is not a matter of interstate commerce; it should have been handled from the principle of Subsidiarity. However, I do think Amash is on better ground when he talks around the issue of privatizing the institution of marriage.
(IPI). The Chicago Sun-Times: Ald. Proco Joe Moreno (1st) is looking to slap a 20-30% tax on smokeless tobacco. If and when you tax, you need to spread the costs of government as low and uniformly as possible; picking on tobacco users may be politically correct or popular, but it's discriminatory, unfair and morally corrupt.
(IPI). This week, House Speaker Mike Madigan has been circulating the "good news" of business growth within the state to members of the Illinois House. However, when taken in totality, the data actually offered more bad news for Illinois, as the growth in Illinois business establishments was not matched by jobs and wage growth. Poor Illinois, having to suffer through a Republican governor that's going to tear the state apart and blame everybody else. Blame the Democrats blame the families that helped build the state to what it is. Instead of working together he's following Scotty walkers footsteps and Governor Brownback's footsteps . Fling bullshit to the wall to see what sticks. Instead of working together as a team for the betterment of the people of Illinois. Besides the Republican Way divide and conquer. Blame everybody else well at least every Democrat you can find. Yeah Illinois problems but everybody's pulling in different directions is not going to solve them Fascist OP trolls and their corrupt political whores think they have the moral authority to spend other people's money.
(Cato Institute). "Most of the country now supports gay marriage. Libertarians were there first...That’s no surprise, of course. Libertarians believe in individual rights for all people and equality before the law...Many Libertarians argue for the complete privatization of marriage...thus removing any need for state recognition of marriages. As long as marriage is licensed by government, however, same-sex couples are entitled to equal legal rights....Libertarians would like to get government out of most areas, but as long as government is involved, it must treat citizens equally." It's not just that the author is completely delusional about the numbers favoring "gay marriage", that he is hypocritical about fascist judges trumping local communities and states in long-standing traditional standards that reflect the role of marriage and procreation/family as a social norm for societal preservation--which is wholly inapplicable in the context of gay relationships, but he ignores the fact that the government has not really sought to regulate gay relationships (and the libertarian response should be it's not in the interest of gays to do so), gays have always had contractual rights on an individual-equivalent basis, it's totally weird for libertarians to argue that State-conferred "rights" bundles are the reason for "marriage equality", and as a social issue, I've seen statistics showing the gay percentage of the population ranging from 1.5-4%, gays as a whole are notoriously promiscuous and don't have long-term relationships. We are really talking about divisive politics that really affect a tiny number of people to the point of stastical insignificance who have never, in thousands of years, felt the need to co-opt the heterosexual marriage construct: this is all about their wanting to use the power of the State to force recognition and acceptance of their relationships in straight communities. Guess what? You lose. The fascists can't compel our right to free expression.
(IPI). Americans once stampeded into Illinois in search of opportunity. Now, the opposite happens. In a Gallup poll from 2014, people who planned to leave Illinois made clear their top reason why. They wanted a state with more work and business opportunities. The problem is the state spends, taxes, and regulates too damn much! Don't forget regulations; they are an indirect form of taxation; it's not politicians aren't doing anything; it's just when they do anything, they dig themselves deeper in the ditch. What you need in Springfield is a big spring cleaning.
It is never too late to be what you might have been. Farmer's Almanac
SCOTUS Reinvents ObamaCare in One of the Worst, Most Intellectually Dishonest Rulings in US History 6-3! Thumbs DOWN!
Choose Life: Pregnancy Announcement
Against Political Correctness and For the Sacrament of Marriage
An Honest Cross-Section of Southern Opinions on the Battle Flag of the Confederacy
It's weird: in the aftermath of the Charleston Massacre, we've seen a wave of political posturing over the public display of the Confederate flag, even selling license plates featuring it. There has been competition among retailers to drop carrying copies of the battle flag. If anyone should be objecting, it should be libertarians. focusing on the rights of those who find the flag represents their regional pride and heritage, reverence towards their sacrifices of their ancestors but fear the tyranny of the majority. I don't own a Confederate flag and I have no nostalgia for the shameful history of slavery in the South--but I did not like this fusion of Statism/political correctness thinking they have a right to overrule the rights of those who revere the flag.
I found myself getting trolled on a couple of libertarian sites by those who were piling on the politically correct bandwagon. There was one piece of work who suggested that I'm a skinhead racist who finds meaning in flying swastikas. (Little does the jerk know the swastika "is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Odinism.") For me, I believe that the South had a right to secede under the principle of free association and had a right under the Non-Aggression Principle to defend itself. Lincoln declared in his first inaugural address he had no intention of challenging the institution of slavery--but in fact, he invaded the South and was responsible for the most deadly war in American history. (Let me pause to note that there is some idiot for the Weekly Standard who wanted to hold Jefferson Davis responsible for the losses in a war that was forced on him...) For a good essay on this topic, see Tom Woods here.
Facebook Corner
(Rand Paul 2016). Rand's been saying this for a while. Let me see: some monster conducts a multiple homicidal act of terrorism in a chufch and everyone thinks the way to "heal" is to appease the gods of political correctness.
(a follow-up to yesterday's thread on the battle flag controversy) What we know as the "Confederate Flag" was never adopted by the CSA, and was only used for a short time as a Naval Jack. The CSA went through a couple of flags. Read it on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America You are actually making my point, although obscurely. There have been multiple posts of this essay over the past week, and I usually point out that we are discussing the battle flag; I may have shortened the reference in this thread because it's the only Confederate flag most people know from the endless kerfuffles. But it is known to everyone who has ever dealt with the issue, because we know that the only American flag that brought slaves to the US was the stars and stripes, but the first troll above hypocritically has an issue with the battle flag. That is to say, the St. Andrew's cross was never adopted as "the" national flag of the Confederate States.
It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book. Friedrich Nietzsche
The One Obama Initiative I Support: Liberalized Trade TPP Fast Track Authority Passed: Thumbs UP!
Trade has been on my mind over the past couple of weeks. I'm a radical free trader, and one of the things I really can't stand is cheap demagoguery when it comes to free trade, typically fear-mongering about jobs lost because of competition from new competition. And it caught me flat-footed, because Republicans had generally been pro-trade over the past generation or so. Then one pro-trade piece (there haven't been many) quoted Goldwater on free trade, when one discussant said something like "Why are you quoting Goldwater on free trade when he voted against JFK's expanded trade bill?" He was right... I still couldn't find an explanation for the vote in anything I could find on the trade bill. And then I ran into a post that Sen. Robert Taft, a politician I have repeatedly praised in the blog, was also against trade.
I've even been testy against two politicians I've normally respected: Rand Paul and Justin Amash. Rand Paul went over the top in a Twitter-thon against TPP, in particular, talking about fast-trade authority being a "power grab" by Obama (Oh, come on! This has been granted to most Presidents in recent memory.) Amash isn't happy one of his pals is going to stripped of a coveted assignment because he decided to push against the trade authorization bill.
Now, of course, one can legitimately argue this isn't a real "free trade" bill--and let's be clear: I have an issue about human rights, wage policies, environmental laws, etc. being part of trade bills, I don't like bailout funds for potentially displaced workers, etc. But the bottom line is American exporters will gain from lowered tariffs overseas, and Americans will gain from lower prices and more selection for foreign goods. I'm still pushing for unilateral free trade; even if this agreement is neomercantilism as usual, it's still a positive step forward and I want to move the ball down field.
Return of the Passenger Pigeon? COOL!
Facebook Corner
(Narional Taxpayer's Union). Trade Promotion Authority is on its way to the President's desk! Your efforts have been crucial to advancing more open trade - expanding economic opportunity & American leadership. Thank you! I'm just amazed that Obama is doing one thing that might actually be good for the economy. What's in the Bill, no one ever read it?? These are economically illiterate anti-traders. This was about giving the President a stronger hand negotiating; the Senate still has to approve any treaty that is negotiated. What it does do is prevent the anti-trade retards from kicking the legs out of a multi-nation agreement one cut at a time.
(Rand Paul 2016). The governor's spokeswoman has called the flags a distraction. Apparently, the political whores see more benefit to capitulating to the political correct police on the anti-Confederate bandwagon. There may be a backlash to questioning the motives of those who see the flag as a symbol of Southern heritage and regional pride. While they have the country talking about a flag... http://www.cnbc.com/id/102785680 Liberalized trade would be the one good economic policy Obama has made during his presidency.
(Citizens Against Government Waste). Spending taxpayer money to KEEP systems from 2003.. I can't go into specifics, but I've seen similar things as a government contractor (at all levels) in the past. I've also heard of similar things in the private sector. To give a simple example, I have a lot of experience with Oracle ERP product, e-Business Suite, from versions 10.7 through R12.2. I never worked on release 9 but I recall when I was working on an 11i upgrade project, I was told there was a major business that was still running on version 9, that they were happy with their current configuration, didn't see an upside to the risk and costs of the upgrade. Obviously there are expenses to maintaining a platform with a shrinking number of customers; Oracle has been willing to offer, in some cases, ongoing support for premium maintenance rates (alrhough usually they indicate a deadline on premium maintenance). I had started this one gig as a government subcontractor working in southern Maryland. A major defense contractor was supposed to take a custom application which was running on Developer 6i to Oracle 9i Application server. They had failed twice to install 9iAS. They had told the military clients they had upgraded the application to 9iAS. (In fact, I was able to prove this wasn't the case. There was an Oracle script that would flag any obsoleted code/function calls, and the script found a number of violations.) This point actually goes to the point; I noted that 10G AS was also in release, and the version of 9iAS was actually on the schedule for desupport. I was told that if I tried to install 10G AS on even a test system without military approval, I could be prosecuted. In any event, I had installed 9iAS, but the defense contractor claimed that I had screwed up the install because their application wouldn't run on it. Long story short, I discovered it was failing because they were trying to do a print with obsoleted custom print codes. Oracle wanted developers to use one of a limited number of standard document types, like pdf or rtf files. I worked with a contractor developer to do a prototype of a pdf file for the report (the developer had to copy and paste code he found via Google). Think the military project manager would be impressed? Think again... For her, not doing the MS Word document setups for custom reports was a flagrant violation of the upgrade instructions of no changes to operational procedures. Not a single word about the defense contractor lying about upgrading the application; that secretaries didn't need to adjust page margins for pdf outputs---"it's not a feature; it's a bug". When I protested we were talking about a product design decision that Oracle wasn't going to reverse just so military secretaries would have to play with page margins. She responded by calling me "incompetent" and saying, "Oracle will do whatever we want them to. We're the freaking military..." I was supposed to work on a follow-up project, which was another desupported nightmare that the major defense vendor didn't want to deal with. The military had licensed a product that Oracle later desupported in favor of migrating it to a product called Oracle Portal. The problem was that part of the supported upgrade path to Portal required a version of Application Server that Oracle had desupported. I tried to get a copy but Oracle Tech Support refused, saying they would not release a copy of desupported software. Well, how then am I supposed to upgrade this? "Not our problem. [The product and/or bridge application server] has been desupported for 2 years now, and we announced desupport years earlier. The military should have planned better." That premium Oracle Tech Support didn't exist on the CSI I had been given. I waged an escalation battle and finally got them to agree to give me a copy of the required App Server version, but it was like pulling teeth. I don't know what happened to that project because the PM decided she didn't want me on the account after the first project, and I had to find a new job. Now these projects were a very limited sample from the federal government, But I can easily believe the XP story. I do think things are beginning to turn around. For example, in two gigs in 2009-2010 (different federal agencies), from my perspective, there was a noticeable pickup on government audits of databases and operating systems, including checking for the latest security patches from Oracle. The Navy began a transition away from XP in 2013, but as of May it still had approximately 100,000 workstations running XP or the other software." Misleading headline. It takes years a millions more to upgrade such a large system and still maintain security. This thread is mostly spot on. Just to give a scenario (I'm not saying this is factual): the military licenses a software application, they build a lot of reports and custom functionality., the original software vendor goes out of business, and it would take significant dollars to migrate or even redevelop from scratch to new product/platform. For whatever technical reasons, the application is not compatible with newer Windows platforms, so they are willing to pay MS big support bucks.
(continued from yesterday's Reason FB thread on the Confederate flag kerfuffle) It's deeply libertarian to deal with social problems through voice and protest, and not state force. I add my voice to those who view it as a symbol of hate and deeply repugnant. I choose to judge and ostracize those who display it. It's my right of free speech and free association to do so. It how civilized, free people should deal with social ills. Those who want to fly it off of taxpayer property are free to ignore me. I'm free to say what I want about their choice to do so and hold them with contempt. That's freedom. It is true that you are entitled to engage in intellectually and morally bankrupt politically correct cultural fascism, instead of exercising civility to those sharing an opposing point of view. You can have your little temper tantrums, engage in protests, shunning, boycotts, etc.; of course, your opponents can turn the tables on your group of elitist bullies. I myself find the institution of slavery abominable, and have never owned a Confederate flag. But when you look at the war criminal most historians seem to regard our greatest President, a man responsible for killing the most Americans in our history, the crimes against humanity by Sherman and his like on civilians, etc., for anyone claiming to be a libertarian and not understand the non-aggression principle or the right of free association is a flaming hypocrite and deserves no respect. I understand why Southerners honor the Confederate battle flag, but I am repulsed by judgmental cultural fascists. Cultural Facism is not a thing. It's totally incoherent. Fascism by definition denotes the use of state force. I have coined it and it exists. I'm referring to the use of the State in conjuction with the special interest crony politically correct "police".
