RIP Hitchens

Massachusetts Occupy Movement: demographics & thoughts

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/12/05/occupys_support_divided_poll_says/?p1=News_links

In MA, according to a recent poll by the Boston Glob/Suffolk University, 41% approve of the Occupy Movement while 38% disapprove. A fairly even split. This is surprising considering the liberal bias of the state which is home to such congresspeople as Kerry, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, and perhaps soon enough Elizabeth Warren.


24% of renters disapproved of movement while 41% of homeowners disapproved. I believe this is probably a stronger correlation of young people supporting the movement, since young people often rent instead of own, then a insight into interests of property holders in upholding property rights.

There was a strong correlation between support of the Occupy Movement and approval of President Obama's handling of the economy. I find this disturbing if perhaps not surprising.

President Obama, as much as the liberals adored punching bag President Bush, has contributed to the those ailments of society so staunchly protested by the Occupy movement. Obama has benefited the corporations and the big companies, choosing winners and losers, at the expense of the common people, of the people who do not happen to work for the governments favorite companies or as an executive. Obama is the one who takes from the taxpayers to give to his political supporters, such as Solyndra (now bankrupt), GE (paid no taxes), Google (who now controls many government contracts and supports government intervention into the internet), and many others. I am not saying other Presidents have not done this as well, but my point is that Obama is a corporatist and a statist as opposed to the free-minded, we want change, transparency style President he is believed to be.

Perhaps the Occupy movement support him because he wants to tax the rich more and give to the poor. Perhaps they like him for Obamacare, which is seen as benefiting those to poor to afford care for themselves. Also they may support Obama because he supports unions and they are seen as a middle class stimulating entity. They will not be dissuaded from these convictions they hold.

I vote the Tea Party & Occupy Movement come together.

The Hypocrisy of Occupy Students Demanding Student Loan Forgiveness

Occupy Wall Street expresses their anger over the government bailing out big businesses which unwisely took on huge debt. They do not want the people to socialize the losses of those people who make imprudent financial decisions.

Some Occupy Wall Street members also want their student loans, paid for partially through subsidized government loans at lower rates than the market would otherwise offer, to be forgiven by the government. They want the taxpayer to socialize their loss which has benefited them and only them. There is a word for this, what is it? . . . Hypocrisy.

I understand that there is a difference between wall Street fat cats and their huge salaries and insolvent students with a college degree who are unemployed due to a flailing economy. However, a person with a college degree is better of than the person with a GED. The person with the college degree made the decision to go to college just as much if not more so than the decision by the big banks to invest in the housing market.

The people with a college degree are the ones primed for future success, they are the ones who have added value to bring to an organization, they are the ones with specialized skills. They are the future. These people should not be bailed out at the cost of all the other taxpayers, including the working fathers and mothers who did not finish high school and are working as a mechanic or electrician or factory worker, when the people being bailed out will likely in 10 years be a manager at Fidelity or a professor at an obscure liberal arts college.

No.

By the way. I am a person who got a useless politics degree at an expensive private college. I am a person currently paying an arm and leg to go to law school for a juris doctor which seems to currently plunging in value. My point, I am speaking against my self interest right now. That is because forgiving student loans is not right.

(back to studying for finals)

Evolution

Some Great Milton Friedman Quotes

"When the United States was formed in 1776, it took 19 people on the farm to produce enough food for 20 people. So most of the people had to spend their time and efforts on growing food. Today, it's down to 1% or 2% to produce that food. Now just consider the vast amount of supposed unemployment that was produced by that. But there wasn't really any unemployment produced. What happened was that people who had formerly been tied up working in agriculture were freed by technological developments and improvements to do something else. That enabled us to have a better standard of living and a more extensive range of products."

"Inflation is taxation without legislation."

"(T)he supporters of tariffs treat it as self-evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number -- for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again, or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs -- jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume."

"There is no such thing as a free lunch."

Government exerting power over political movements through the power of taxes

Governments have a proud history of suppressing dissident voices of the people they do not agree with and who do not benefit the status quo. The government loves to pick winners and losers, and in the process make themselves all the more powerful, as the gatekeeper to success, and the sole holder of the power of the diffuse and uncaring taxpayers purse.

The NAACP, largely comprised of attorneys, in the midst of fighting for their civil rights in the south, had state governments demand them provide a list of all bar members of the organization. A clear enough demand with a not too subtle threatening message. Stop or be disbarred (in steps the Minister Martin Luther King Jr., luckily the Church is still sufficiently separate from the state).

Here is just a tidbit of a modern example.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Tea-Party-Tally/2011/1129/Tea-party-activists-audited-by-city.-Would-that-happen-to-Occupy-protesters

Basically, the Tea Party movement paid $8,500 to use a public park for a few days in Richmond Virginia for their Tax Day rallies. Now, the Occupy Movement is using the same park at no cost. So, the Tea Party organization demanded a refund.

The response was not a refund, it was not an apology, it was not an explanation. It was not an assurance that the occupy Movement would have to pay as well or action would be taken. No, instead they received a letter back that they did not pay enough in taxes associated with using the park, such as on food sales.

The City responded to the ensuing criticism for their double standard stating "are completely unfounded," and that the issue came up during a routine review of many organizations. Bullshit.

Barney Frank is retiring, let us examine his illustrious service

Above video is from 2005:
There is an "excessive degree of concern right now about home-ownership and its role in the economy, obviously speculation is never a good thing, but those who argue that housing prices right now are at a point of a bubble, seem to me to be missing a very important point . . ." No, Barney, no they are not.

Above Video regards Barney's testimony in 2003:
barney opposes a regulatory board to oversee that Freddie and Fannie make prudent home loans. Barney argues that this is uneeded, that both organizations are financially sound, and that home ownership should continue to be pushed by the federal government. This despite clear warnings. eerie statement, "even if there is a problem, the federal government does not bail them out . . ." No barney, no we do bail them out.

Post housing bubble collapse statements:
Barney Frank after the collapse living up to his mistaken forecast. explaining how the government should not create GSE's which artificially prop up markets because the government is a poor banker. No, actually that is not true. he just outright lies.

___________________________________

Barney Frank is not evil. He is not the worst congressmember of this era. He sponsored bills and championed causes I agree with. He was brave enough to come out as gay despite holding public office, a role requiring peoples support even though many people can be close-minded. I respect the congressman for that, and some of what he did.

But he was part of the problem that led to the housing bubble bursting. He lied about his involvement afterwards. His arrogance and policy not only had destroyed many peoples investments, but he refuses to live up to his part played in so many people who are under water with bad mortgages. A classic example of a congressman attempting to good but only harming society by accident. It is simply rare such a clear example is made.

I believe Barney Frank was overly lauded for his service. I am at least glad to hear he is finally retiring.

Response to: You Might Be A Ron Paul Supporter If . . .(21 points)

Ron Paul has a fervent and zealous following of supporters. A lot of his supporters are young and internet savvy. This combination means the internet is proliferated with Ron Paul support. This is great, it uses a great underutilized political tool to spread his word and campaign for him, especially considering the fact that the media refuses to pay attention to him or recognize him a candidate. It is also an invaluable tool in grassroots campaigning, which will be vital in the primaries. Yet the downside is that sometimes you will have ignorant vitriol spewed out in heavy doses, a fair share of ignorant remarks, and other manners of support not wholly productive which result in people being turned off by the message.

There are a number of "Did you know" articles that highlight Ron Paul's controversial stances. The reasoning behind these articles is the assumption that Ron Paul supporters do not know what they actually support. 

Here is one such document and my (mostly) concise rebuttals. 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/14/u-might-be-a-ron-paul-supporter-if/

_________________________________________________________________ 

You Might Be A Ron Paul Supporter If . . .

1. You’ve never researched Ron Paul’s voting record.

I guess the point of this question, and the article overall is to argue that Paul supporters are actually unaware of the very conservative and classical liberal policies espoused by Paul. I would assume that the average Paul supporter is less educated then other republican candidates, but that is a guess, and if true I would argue it is because the average Ron Paul supporter is very young, especially for a Republican candidate. From my personal experience, which is in no way vast or exemplary of the nation, I have found Paul supporters to be very political and knowledgeable.

On a side note, Paul supporters are much more likely to be male, are young, tend not to be consistently voting Republicans or even consider their self Republicans, and tend to be ardent supporters similar to Obama supporters in the 2008 election (as can be seen from the cheering at debates and online presence and support).

Overall, I am not sure if they are less educated about Paul than other supporters of other candidates.

2. You think it’s OK for businesses to discriminate against people based on their race, since Ron Paul thinks the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.

I assume the argument here is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to protect groups discriminated against. Paul would have rejected the Act, therefore Paul supports discrimination. This is a fallacious argument, this is a misleading argument. Let us have fun with an analogous unsound argument... The deep water oil drilling ban destroys jobs and rends us further dependant on foreign oil, Obama supported the ban, therefore Obama is opposed to jobs and energy independence (both this argument just made and the argument against Paul are wrong, they are oversimplifications).  

Libertarians believe in the supremacy of the individual. They acknowledge that they do not have a monopoly on wisdom, libertarianism is in truth the philosophy of humility, and humility is difficult when there are idiots, bigots, and people you disagree with on matters where you have strong convictions. In the end though, the government, which acts through coercion and force, is not the appropriate means by which to effectuate what a majority believes to be moral character. When the majority of people were racists, they used the law to effectuate their moral beliefs (i.e. Jim Crow laws, or in the current state of affairs anti-homosexual laws). Furthermore, government control in private business hampered and prolonged the fight for equality significantly as opposed to conventional wisdom which holds that the glorious government thankfully restrained and ended racism which the private public could not do without it. Really? Do you honestly think the government is what saved this country from racism? People's outlook and morals changed with time. The change would have been expedited had the government not gotten in the way. Remember that the NAACP and many attorneys (think of the famous Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP) were at the forefront of the fight for equality. But, the government restricted their push for equality by forcing them to release their bar information and affiliations (which would obviously be used for retaliation and disbarment for such acts like the freedom rides). This government control required other groups to step up where the government had less control, such as religious groups (Rev, Martin Luther King Jr.) and student groups.

The very same push for the Civil Rights Act, the government involvement which we view as good now, is the same governmental overstep which hindered it in the past and very well may hinder it in the future. People should promote acceptance, people should be accepting, business owners should not refuse to employ a more qualified person simply because they are black, or because they are gay. However, it is not the majority's role to tell the business owner what to do, even if we believe it is wrong.

Lastly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has created a lot of unforeseen side effects which often result in employers making business decisions based on race to comply with the Act, an ironic result. Schools’ once implementing quota systems is one example. One time a CT Fire department threw out test scores for a promotion because white people passed it at a higher rate than black candidates. (see Ricci v. DeSteFano). There are many more cases.

3. You’re a supporter of the white supremacist organization StormFront.org, which has repeatedly endorsed and stated their support for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul does not share the agendas of all the people and organizations that support him. Ron Paul is no more a white supremacist because of StormFront’s support than Obama is a communist revolutionary/terrorist because of Bill Ayers support.

What is actually unique about Paul is that he does not formulate his policy and goals based on who his supporters are, as establishment politicians do, but lays out his policy and principles immune to corruption and pandering. You will not hear Paul stand before a union and espouse union rights then stand before the US Chamber of Commerce and argue for subsidizing their business or protecting it with tariffs. He is principled in his beliefs.

4. You don’t care that Ron Paul was the ONLY congressman who voted against granting subpoena power to the independent panel responsible for investigating the BP oil spill.

I did not know this but I agree with it. The government’s interference with and imposition into company’s affairs in an extra-judicial format makes the federal government more coercive and powerful. Private companies should pay for their wrongs through the legal system, they will be forced under subpoena and the powers of the state in that format to disclose pertinent documents.

When the legislative and executive branches exert coercive power over private companies it has a chilling and controlling effect. GE has long been in support of the government, and in return receives beneficial subsidies and is paying no income tax this year. When the government has the power of the carrot and the stick, the large powerful companies aligned with the federal message and agenda are given a carrot, and private companies opposed are hit with the stick. Sometimes the company very well may be deserving of such retribution, as is possible in the BP case, but the coercive use of such extra-judicial power is inappropriate. Allowing this will allow the government to pick and choose winners and losers, as was done in the bailout when Lehman failed and Morgan Stanley survived, as was done for GM and Chrysler.

Extracting government from business affairs, except through the judiciary, preserves business independence and is a hedge against corporatism.

5. You don’t like clean air and water, since Ron Paul wants to eliminate the EPA.

This is true and I do know this. Ron Paul does care about the environment. I personally care about the environment. Ron Paul opposes the EPA as the means to protect the environment and favors stronger private property rights in its place. Paul opposes subsidies to ethanol and oil and gas so that alternative energies may compete fairly.

I personally believe the issue of neighborhood effects, the diffuse and minuscule negative impact pollution has on people, is a significant problem that the property courts are ill-suited to address. Therefore, I do believe in some form of cap and trade or other system by which to have polluters pay for the effects their actions have on third parties who are affected. That is in conflict with what Paul espouses.

6. You don’t want to have a safety net in place, in case your house is destroyed by a tornado, hurricane, or some other natural disaster, since Ron Paul wants to eliminate FEMA.

FEMA should be eliminated and the flak Paul receives for this position is mostly misunderstood anger and frustration. We live with FEMA now so cannot imagine the world without it. First of all, FEMA is inefficient (more so since President Bush placed political favor appointee to head it instead of expert in disaster relief) and ill-suited to deal with the major threats it was created to address. It failed in New Orleans and will fail in the future. Secondly, it is paid for by all taxpayers but benefits very few; it benefits primarily areas subject to catastrophic earthquake (San Andrea fault along California) and areas prone to hurricanes. The many should not be forced to pay taxes to assist the few. Charity would work better and is more moral. Third, Paul does not want such risks to go without check, but calls for the states to address the issue itself, which will align costs with benefits, and will be more effective as one of the key benefits of emergency responses to disasters is the quickness of the response.

Replace FEMA with charity and state agencies.

7. You think all schools should be private, and that you should have to pay for your children to get an education, since Ron Paul wants to eliminate the Department of Education.

Ron Paul believes education should be localized, and not run by federal bureaucrats. He is for eliminating No Child Left Behind and other federal educational objectives which end to hinder education more than they assist. Education spending has been growing exponentially (exaggeration but you get the point) and test scores have remained constant, the status quo is not working.

Do note that Paul’s Plan to Restore America does call for eliminating the Department of Education, but he would retain higher education grants to poorer students looking to go to college.

Ron Paul does not believe people should have to pay to go to primary school, in that all schools would be private and people would pay up front to go or would be excluded. The federal government did not get involved in dictating education until 1980, it is a failed power grab by the federal government.

8. You think corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want, because Ron Paul wants to eliminate all regulations on corporations.

I believe that regulations do more harm than good. Regulations require companies to waste a lot of money on my future profession, the law. Regulations destroy growth. Also, regulations tend to insulate larger companies and conglomerates from competition from small companies and start-ups.

Paul believes in transitioning away from the regulation of corporations. I agree with Paul in stopping regulations on the automotive industry and I agree with eliminating the FDA. I believe the free market can regulate itself in this area.

This is a complicated issue and my views on regulation differ from Ron Paul, who holds strictly to the Constitution and the commerce clause prohibiting the federal government from any substantive regulation. Paul would have the states take care of regulation. I am a proponent for more regulation that Paul, but agree in principle that the status quo is characterized by gross over-regulation and politicization of the market to favor strong lobbies.

9. You are anti-choice, since Ron Paul believes that states should have the right to take away a woman’s choice over what she does with her body.

Ron Paul is an OB/GYN doctor who has delivered thousands of babies. He is a religious family man. He personally does not believe abortion is right. Luckily, libertarianism is a philosophy of humility, and he does not seek to impose upon others his views. Paul does not want a federal ban on abortions; he would leave it to the states to decide their policy on abortions. This is much preferred to the federal government providing a one-size-fits all approach.

10. You support segregation, since Ron Paul doesn’t think schools should be forced to allow attendance based on race or ethnic background.

Paul would not have voted for state laws requiring the segregation of schools based on the race of the student. He would also not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul is not a proponent of segregation. I am unclear as to the exact question here, but Paul would not have public institutions making decisions based on race.

11. You support guns on airplanes, since Ron Paul thinks that 9/11 could have been prevented, if citizens were allowed to carry guns on airplanes.

Ron Paul is for eliminating the TSA and privatizing airline security. Prior to 9/11, pilots could not have a gun on the plane and passengers were advised not to resist. Both of these mandated policies made flying unsafe. Paul is not for passengers carrying guns on a plane. Paul is for airlines determining their own security policies, instead of the TSA making all the rules. The TSA is run by a mob of security-industrial-complex grovelling jackanape bureaucrats. 

12. You oppose equality for LGBT people, since Ron Paul doesn’t think the federal government should guarantee equal protection under the law for our LGBT brothers and sisters.

Paul believes everyone should be treated with respect and dignity that they deserve as a human being. He does not believe that there should be a law penalizing discrimination against the LGBT community whereas other classes of people are not protected. He believes in no one being given special protection above and beyond that of others.

13. You don’t have a problem with people carrying guns near schools, since Ron Paul want to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

The Gun Free School Zone Act is a criminal law pre-empting state law (other than carry-license). Gun laws are the provenance of the states. The federal government should not be involved. Having a gun near a school has nothing to do with anything the federal government is in a better position to handle, such as interstate crimes like racketeering or drug conspiracy.

It is also another gross expansion of the commerce clause. The Supreme Court in the Lopez case ruled it unconstitutional, since it has nothing to do with interstate commerce. Congress then added to the law the language that it is illegal to hold a firearm “that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.” The Supreme Court has not heard the case again since its revision. This law has less to do with interstate commerce than many other laws because it is not even economic in nature. It is a local criminal law.

14. You oppose same-sex marriage, since Ron Paul was an original co-sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House of Representatives, in 2004.

Ron Paul believes that one state should not impose upon another state its definition of what a marriage is. That is why he supports the Marriage Protection Act, which strips federal courts of the ability to enforce one state’s definition of marriage upon another state. He opposes a federal amendment that all marriage be between a man and woman though, as that would similarly be an imposition on the varied and diverse states, each holding different values.

As Ron Paul states himself, “I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.” Ron Paul believes, and has said in many debates, that the state should not involve itself in defining a marriage, it is not the state’s business, but at the same time you cannot force others to accept your definition of marriage.

15. You don’t like having a good relationship with other countries around the world, since Ron Paul wants the United States to pull out of the United Nations.

Ron Paul wants the United States to pull out of NATO and the United Nations. He believes international organizations which inhibit our sovereignty are not in the best interest of the United States. It is debatable whether that is in the United States best interest or not, but it would not ruin relationships abroad.

The world was ecstatic when President Obama won the presidency; they were excited for an era of peace and an end to unilateral foreign policy. The United States under Ron Paul would stop interfering in other countries affairs, we would stop using our diplomats as coercive economic tools, we would no longer employ economic hitmen, we would not provide money to dictators who rule their country without public approval.

Ron Paul would promote free trade, non-entangling alliances, and fair discourse; he would not impose American ideals on the world, but be a partner in free discourse and discussion.

16. You think the middle-class should have a higher tax burden than the wealthy, since Ron Paul’s tax plan would disproportionately favor the rich.

Ron Paul believes everyone should have lower taxes. He does not believe in bailing out big business on the backs of the taxpayers, he does not believe in special handouts and tax loopholes only the rich can effectively benefit from, he is opposed to taxes paid by everyone benefitting the few.

Taxes would be lower for everyone if Ron Paul were President.

17. You want a President who would make more unilateral decisions and undo more progress in this country than George W. Bush could have ever hoped to accomplish.

Ron Paul would likely veto many bills and act unilaterally, No doubt. This is because he is not an establishment politician; he will not cater to the big business lobby or any other lobby. He would often be opposed by any politician in favor for more federal power or continuing to violate the Constitution. He would change Washington, and he would be opposed, so he would have to act unilaterally.

18. You think that poor students shouldn’t be allowed to go to college, since Ron Paul wants to eliminate federal student loans.

Ron Paul’s Economic plan calls for eliminating the Education Department but keeping the Pell Grants and other loan programs for poorer students. Ron Paul is opposed overall though to student loans insured by the government. Ron Paul’s argument is that the government insuring and providing loans has diluted the market, created a bubble, and has allowed universities to jack up their prices. He is right. College is more expensive than it otherwise would be.

However, I believe in an equality of opportunity for people despite what resources their parents had, the opportunity to make something of yourself and social mobility is a cornerstone of what makes this country great. Providing subsidized loans for poorer people is beneficial to that end.

19. You believe crazy conspiracy theories about globalization, and that the Zionists are trying to take over the world.

I am not sure where this comes from. Ron Paul is opposed to giving foreign aid to Israel when Israel is capable of competently defending itself. Paul believes in free global trade and commerce with the world.

20. You think the 10th Amendment is the most important part of the Bill of Rights, even though it’s last on the list.

The Tenth Amendment is virtually ignored by the Supreme Court and the lawmakers. Ron Paul admits it exists, admits it serves a purpose and was meant to limit the powers of the federal government to such powers specifically outlined in the Constitution, and no more. It is the last amendment of the Bill of Rights because it sums up the purpose and role of the Constitution; the federal government has these limited powers, is structured this way, and is specifically limited in such manners enumerated in Bill of Rights.

A more interesting conversation would be the current perversion of the Commerce Clause, which has been so assimilated and adopted by the courts and lawmakers as to now be virtually impossible to reverse.

21. You’re mad at Obama because you believed him when he said he would end the war immediately, and he didn’t because he didn’t have the support of congress, but you believe Ron Paul could get it done immediately.

This one threw me off at first. The President is the commander-in-chief. He must have the approval of Congress to engage in war, and is in control of operations and combat once it has begun, with congress of course retaining the power of the purse (funding). The President may act unilaterally to end a war, congressional approval is unnecessary.

President Obama could have ended the war, but he chose not to, instead sending more troops into Afghanistan while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize and declaring they are waging a war against “evil.”

– “I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.  For make no mistake:  Evil does exist in the world.”—

President Obama is a hawk, he has continued drone attacks in Pakistan; he has continued the pointless war in Afghanistan. He went to war with Libya, acting without congressional approval. President Obama cannot blame congress for his neo-conservative hawkish foreign policy which must make Cheney proud.

Ron Paul would immediately act unilaterally to end the war in Afghanistan, as President Obama could have done, but chose not to.

Above video is of Noam Chomsky, by no means a Republican, criticizing Obama as worse than President Bush when it comes to hawkish foreign policy.

Peter Schiff talks to Occupy Wall Street on behalf of 1%

Peter Schiff, famous for predicting the housing bubble and economic collapse, goes to the Occupy movement to have a fair and rational conversation and talk some sense.

12:20
Occupy Wall Street man: "What role did Wallstreet play in this crisis in your opinion?"

Schiff: "They played a big role, Wall Street drank the alcohol the federal Reserve poured . . ."

_______________
first half of video is Schiff talking to ignoramuses, this video is very frustrating to watch.

One person calls Schiff an idiot.
One person says he gives rich people a bad name.

Overall good video.

Ron Paul "What if" speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjuUWr9vaXo&feature=related

CBS slighted Ron Paul & others in debate

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/14/idUS250240893620111114

CBS sent out an email planning to not give Michele Bachmann as many questions as the other candidates in the foreign policy debate in South Carolina held Nov. 12th.

This was leaked because John Dickerson, CBS political director, accidentally emailed a Bachmann staffer the internal memo holding as much.

Wish they caught the memo of CBS deciding to only give Ron Paul 90 seconds of total speaking time during the hour long televised debate. This despite the fact that Ron Paul differs most drastically with the other candidates, who all were basically nodding their heads and agreeing with each other in support of war with Iran, torture, and more war.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/numbers-dont-lie-cbs-news-ignored-ron-paul-jon-huntsman-and-michele-bachmann-during-gop-debate/

Ron Paul got 258 words in the debate despite running relatively high in the polls.

The video below is a CNN clip mentioning Ron Paul and Bachmann being slighted in terms of time.

why not to argue with idiots/ignorant

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
anon/idk

My political compass

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

divide between reality and idealism

The pursuit of perfection often impedes improvement.

George Will

The Media and 'Bullying' by Thomas Sowell

The Media and 'Bullying' by Thomas Sowell:

reverse racism and what classes (race, gender, nationality) are in vogue.

Elizabeth Warren and liberalism, twisting the ‘social contract’ - The Washington Post

Elizabeth Warren and liberalism, twisting the ‘social contract’ - The Washington Post:

Elizabeth Warren states this:

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. . . . You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea — God bless, keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

George Will states this:

"She refutes propositions no one asserts."

"The collectivist agenda is antithetical to America’s premise, which is: Government — including such public goods as roads, schools and police — is instituted to facilitateindividual striving, a.k.a. the pursuit of happiness. The fact that collective choices facilitate this striving does not compel the conclusion that the collectivity (Warren’s “the rest of us”) is entitled to take as much as it pleases of the results of the striving."

Corporatism

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/13/perrys-ties-to-merck-29500/

example of corporate cronyism with Perry and Merck (Gardasil).

archiving for later

http://www.alternet.org/story/151370/5_wikileaks_revelations_exposing_the_rapidly_growing_corporatism_dominating_american_diplomacy_abroad/

5 examples of corporatism revealed by Wikileaks

http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/09/obamas-crony-capitalism

Solyndra example and a listing the negative consequences of crony capitalism

Incredible speech by man on October 4th, in NYC protests against Wall Street

"we dont need to invade a new country every year"

"bring production back to America"

"Wallstreet is rigged"

"They have the balls to ask us for a bailout!"

"There is no country left that promotes free markets"

"there is nowhere left to run"

"We need to end the Federal Reserve"

"[Politicians] are supposed to be our voice, not their voice" wallstreet v. people

"you need to give the rights back to the states"

"America is not supposed to be uniform in policy"

"elect Ron Paul"

What if the NFL Played by Teachers' Rules? - WSJ.com

Fran Tarkenton: What if the NFL Played by Teachers' Rules? - WSJ.com:

What if an NFL player was paid the same salary as his peers who have been in the league equally as long. What if it became near impossible to fire an NFL player from the team if he was there for three years...

gotta read this. compiling it here for now.

Why the $16 muffin is no joke - CNN.com

Why the $16 muffin is no joke - CNN.com:

government waste is no joke, and is perpetrated by all parties and more candidates than you would think.

Matt Welch, who wrote this CNN article, is editor-in-Chief for Reason magazine, a libertarian magazine.

"As long as we believe that government is good at creating jobs and stimulating the economy, we're going to be stuffed by much more than just $16 muffins."

Welch

Social Security -- Are you kidding me? - CNN.com

Social Security -- Are you kidding me? - CNN.com:

"It's all a game, and election after election, we keep getting played."

Granderson does not trust the government, and does not trust he will benefit from social security.

He is prudent and smart. Nice article.

U.S. Rep. Requests Special Counsel In Solyndra Loan : NPR

U.S. Rep. Requests Special Counsel In Solyndra Loan : NPR:

great post. corporatism again. subsidies and the government choosing winners and losers will always, in the long run, end this way. With failure and a 500m loss. A private bank wouldn't loan them 500m for a reason. Politicians are not better suited to determine the future of profitable clean energy.

What should the White House do? Panic! - CNN.com

What should the White House do? Panic! - CNN.com:

Carville in this article kindof has a point. President Obama seems to just be giving a never ending cycle of speeches and more of the same as the economy hemorrhages. I may not agree with Carville on policy or ideology, but I agree with him on a need for action to disrupt the lull of inaction and complacency.

His basic initiative for President Obama; Fire, indict, Fight. People should be fired, (Bernanke and Geithner come to mind). The economy is worse than it was 4 years ago when Bush left the Presidency and the President spent unprecedented money (along with Bush) to restart the economy. As the bailout and Tarp programs become more looked at, we realize mistakes were made, and corporatism reared its ugly head as friends were bailed out and the politically detached (Lehman) was left to suffer.

The Attorney General should take white collar crime seriously, just because you are rich and have connections in a company does not mean you should be safe from the law.

Obama should fight, although I'm pretty sure Ill disagree with whatever he would fight for.

5 interesting observations regarding Ron Paul in CNN/ORC poll

The poll, taken between Sept 9th and 11th, interviewed 1,038 Adult Americans.

The link to the poll findings is here, http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/09/11/rel15a.pdf

The results without Sarah Palin:
Perry:      32%
Romney:  21%
Paul:        13%
Bachmann: 7%
Gingrich:    7%

There are some interesting tendencies with Ron Paul supporters.

1. Tea Party does not support Paul


When Sarah Palin is included in race, Ron Paul has 12% support. Yet, of those people who consider themselves supporters of the Tea Party, only 8% believe Paul is the best candidate. There were no results for people opposed to the Tea Party. This is very surprising and also quite disheartening for Paul supporters. The Tea Party may not really be a Tea Party, but just a more conservative/religious wing of the Republican party. The Cato Institute did a study on the Tea Party, I may break that down in the future. Ron Paul was the tea party before the tea party existed, yet the tea party does not support him! This is like turning away from your founders, an ironic move for the framer-friendly tea party to do.

2. People really do not think Paul can win, even if they like him the most.

Only 4% believed Paul was the most likely to win, despite being favored by 13%. Both Palin & Cain were viewed as more likely to win, the fact that the first is a space-cadet and not in the race, and the latter is a pizza-man radio host does not bode well for the optimism Paul is instilling in people about his chances.

3. Bachmann is more likeable than Paul!

WTF. How is Bachmann more likeable than Paul. Bachmann was found to be the most likeable candidate by 11%, Paul by 7%. Perhaps this is a result of Paul being so different from the other candidates that he often must ardently fight for his beliefs where discussion amongst other candidates is more amiable (generally) with similar political leanings with immaterial nuanced differences (so they may seem unique and give you an impression of choice).

Also, 25% found Perry the most likeable, because what is not likeable about a man who does not struggle with the decision to execute prisoners.

4. Poorer people (less than 50k year) are more supportive of Paul


I do not know why this is the case, although I am pleased to hear it. Perhaps those people who are richer are those who have been benefited by the status quo, and therefore would not benefit by changing that to a more competitive model. If I worked as a doctor or as a lawyer (hopefully soon) or as an owner of a taxicab service and medallions I would be opposed to Paul and free markets, If I were a taxi driver, if I were a paralegal, I would support Paul. [Do you get why?]

5. Independents highly support Paul


19% of independents support Paul (as opposed to 13% of general populace according to poll). Republicans are the least supportive and conservatives are fairly supportive. Perry is the only candidate with more independent support, at 23%.

Poll finds USA the "coolest" nation in world, Belgium Last

Poll: World still thinks Americans are 'coolest' - US news - Life - msnbc.com:

America is the coolest, that is obvious, anyone can tell you that. poll of like 30k people and the clear winner was the good ole USofA.

Surprised Canada beat Belgium though.

I feel like Pres.Obama should tout this recent poll as evidence of the country turning around for the better, or perhaps as a consolation prize.

I can see the Presidential Debate for 2012 right now:

Republican Presidential hopeful: Obama has overseen an economy with spiraling debt and high unemployment.

Pres. Obama: Perhaps true, but under my reign we are COOOOOL!

GOP Debate at Reagan Library on 9.7.11, disjointed thoughts

I missed the debate, I thought it was Thursday. So shit happens, but from the recaps and articles I've read here are some random disjointed thoughts.

Bachmann:
All she does is regurgitate talking points. When Fox news hosted the debate (might have been the S. Carolina debate) they explicitly asked for candid answers and to avoid one-liners, Bachmann's first answer was an obvious one-liner. She is extremely religious and I do not trust her to separate church and state and I find her fiery personality a detriment and impediment to being an effective President. I'm glad her relevance is waning.

______________________

Here is a good quote from Jonathan Chait (NPR: How Rick Perry Won The Debate) on why Perry beat Romney in the debate despite media holding otherwise...

“Yet Perry, stylistically, ruled the roost. The media seems to consider Romney the winner. Pardon the condescension, but they're not thinking like Republican base voters. Romney approaches every question as if he is in an actual debate, trying to provide the most intellectually compelling answer available, within the bounds of political expediency. Perry treats questions as interruptions. What scientists do you trust on climate change? I don't want to risk the economy. Are you taking a radical position on social security? We can have reasons or we can have results. His total liberation from the constraints of reason give Perry a chance to represent the Republican id in a way Romney simply cannot match.”


I agree with the statement above, reading the transcript, it appears that Romney acknowledged there are many factors that go into job growth other than who is governor. The only reason Romney used logic over an appeal to emotion of course is because it was politically beneficial to help undermine TX's job growth and Perry's platform.

_________________

Ron Paul Quote:

WILLIAMS:  Well, 30 seconds more for devil’s advocate here, because

would you then put it on the drug companies to say, “No, we’re bringing

this to market, trust us, it’s a fantastic drug”?  All the pilots in the

sky, to add to their responsibilities, their own air traffic control, in

an organic way?

PAUL:  What I said is, theoretically, you could — it could be

privatized, but who ends up doing the regulations on the drugs?  They do

as much harm as good.  They don’t take good care of us.  Who gets — who

gets to write the regulations?  The bureaucrats write the regulations,

but who writes the laws?  The lobbyists have control, so lobbyists from

the drug industry has control of writing the regulations, so you turn it

over to the bureaucracy.

But you would have private institutions that could become credible.

And, I mean, do we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy

a safe car?  I say the consumers of America are smart enough to decide

what kind of car they can buy and whether it’s safe or not, and they

don’t need the federal government hounding them and putting so much

regulations on that our car industry has gone overseas.

WILLIAMS:  Congressman, thank you.

If we moved away from the FDA regulating the release of drugs, drugs which save people’s lives but are not approved would save millions more lives, the FDA does more harm than good. People are not dumb, they will not buy a non-FDA approved drug, or an untested drug, for a normal sickness or non-severe no-alternatives disease, they will choose a safer proven drug. But the FDA has an incentive to be overly safe, that is their job, they fail if a drug is released and is harmful, they succeed if they hold a drug in testing for 8 years to make sure it’s safe.

________________________________

Paul scares me though in that as a President he would have to compromise, and I am not sure if he could, his principles would be put to the test. It is heartening to hear him say "we live in a society where we have been adapted [to accept regulation of the marketplace], and you can't just drop it all at once, but you can transition away from it." Boo-ya.

Obama is NOT a socialist

Socialism vs Corporatism by Ron Paul:

I agree with this article. The concept of corporatism is not widely recognized, nor commonly abhorred with the same fervor as such terms as"socialist." Yet, corporatism is a serious threat to the US economy and way of life as it is very pronounced yet there is no public drive or political pressure to lessen it. Corporatism is the root of lobbying, big government, and inefficiency.

More to follow (really wanted to archive short article).

Boeing note

Ms. Liebman, 61, former NLRB Chairwoman who recently stepped down (after the Boeing case and before what would have been a bitter reinstatement fight in Congress), had comments regarding her Boeing ruling. Remember that she ruled it was in retaliation against a union for striking to have a company exec state that they were going to move excess production to a new plant instead of the unionized plant to prevent work stoppages. No union workers were fired (actually union workers were hired), 7 out of every 10 planes are still built by unionized workers, but she still ruled it was retaliatory to make that sound business decision, and move capital. This comes after Boeing had hired 1k people in South Carolina and already built the 750m plant. She issued an injunction from beginning constructing planes at the new plant and putting those new employees to work.

Her comment on her unprecedented decision:

“The perception of this agency as doing radical things is mystifying to me...”

What is mystifying to me is not recognizing the impact of her decision, and the precedent which would follow. Will companies have to BS a reason to add new non-union jobs anytime they have a union strike. 

A union has the right to strike without retaliation, by law, and accepting that earnestly, a company cannot fire workers because they strike. But it does not mean a company MUST continually benefit the union, it does not mean they need to get a raise, it does not mean all new production must go to them, it does not mean they not only have a right to not be discriminated against, but also a right to benefit from all company prosperity. 


This decision is not mystifying; she is either being insincere, or is so detached from reality we should be overly gratified she stepped down.


[quote source: Greenhouse article, NYT, 8.29.11]

photographer sued for refusing to photograph gay wedding

If a photographer is very religious, and has his own personal convictions and beliefs regarding homosexuality, then are we going to punish him for refusing to photograph a wedding of a gay couple  (http://www.scottfillmer.com/2008/07/06/christian-photographer-refused-gay-wedding/). A person may act in a way we disagree with, if that happens, it is the role of the community, for activists, for the people to protest it, they can boycott, they can pass out flyers, they can blog it. It is not the role of government. see post below for similar subject.

Is Rand Paul Racist?

SO... I went to a progressive happy hour event at Sidebar near Suffolk University Law School last night. I am not a progressive. Furthermore, I guess others know I am not a progressive although I did not realize that information was so widespread. I honestly thought I was very sneaky-like. Perhaps it is due to the American Flag and Liberty quotes on the back of my laptop computer? who knows? Nonetheless, the proposition was made that night that Rand Paul is racist. So, is he?

First, in case you do not know who Rand Paul is, he is the new Senator of Kentucky, along with Mitch O'Connell (Senate Minority Leader). Paul is the son of Ron Paul, the long-time TX representative and current presidential nominee hopeful for the Republican party. Rand Paul is a libertarian. He is part of the Tea Party. He is a staunch supporter of freedom and unlike many other Republican Senators. He is principled, much like his father, as he has shown in but a short period of time at his position.

The incident which I believe has led progressives and others to label Paul a racist is when he got into a large argument with Ms. Maddow (btw, Maddow is one of my favorite shows to watch for news, I disagree with her but love to watch the show). Rand Paul argued that if he were a senator in 1964, he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited certain private businesses from discriminating based on race, sexual orientation, or gender. Paul would have opposed that.

I assume the argument here is that the Civil Rights Act was passed to protect groups discriminated against. Paul would have rejected the Act, therefore Paul supports discrimination. This is a fallacious argument, this is a misleading argument, and it was employed by Maddow as a trap. Let use have fun with an analogous unsound argument... The deep water oil drilling ban destroys jobs and makes us rely on foreign oil, Obama supported the ban, therefore Obama is opposed to jobs and energy independence (both this argment just made and the argument against Paul are wrong, they are oversimplifications).  This is similar to when a Democrat goes onto the O'Reilly Factor or stands before the menacing she-wolf known as Megyn Kelly and is asked why they support raising taxes and how that is going to create jobs? Paul, to defend his point, would have needed to explain his position, because it is not a mainstream-recognized argument, and being on MSNBC opposite to Maddow was not the correct venue to properly defend and explain the point.

Libertarians believe in the supremacy of the individual. They acknowledge that they do not have a monopoly on wisdom (borrowed that from Prof. Greenbaum), libertarianism is in truth the philosophy of humility, and humility is difficult when there are idiots, bigots, and people you disagree with on matters where you have strong convictions. In the end though, the government, which acts through coercion and force, is not the appropriate means by which to effectuate what a majority believes to be moral character. When the majority of people were racists, they used the law to effectuate their moral beliefs (i.e. Jim Crow laws). Furthermore, government control in private business hampered and prolonged the fight for equality signficantly as opposed to conventional wisdom which holds that the glorious government thankfully restrained and ended racism which the private public could not do without it. Really?? Do you honestly think the government is what saved this country from racism? People's outlook and morals changed with time. The change would have been expedited had the government not gotten in the way. Remember that the NAACP and many attorneys (think of the famous Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP) were at the forefront of the fight for equality. But, the government restricted their push for equality by forcing them to release their bar information and affiliations (which would obviously be used for retaliation and disbarment for such acts like the freedom rides). This government control required other groups to step up where the government had less control, such as religious groups (Rev, Martin Luther King Jr.) and student groups. My point here is that government slowed progress.

The very same push for the Civil Rights Act, the government involvement which we view as good now, is the same governmental overstep which hindered it in the past and very well may hinder it in the future. People should promote acceptance, people should be accepting, business owners should not refuse to employ a more qualified person simply because they are black, or because they are gay. However, it is not the majority's role to tell the business owner what to do, even if we believe it is wrong. Humility is a difficult step, but a necessary one. Right now we may agree with the purpose of the law, but we didn't yesterday, and we very well may not tomorrow.

I stand behind Rand Paul. Both of us are not racists. We believe in freedom and the individual, even when it is difficult, even when we agree with the purpose of the law.

Labeling Paul a racist is akin to labeling the Tea Party as extremists (or according to Biden as terrorists) or calling dems unpatriotic and calling Obama a socialist. They are oversimplified attacks meant to denounce a persons arguments on an appeal to peoples misconceptions. We should have a discussion on policy, and we very well may disagree on principle, but let us not demean ourselves to name-calling.