Obama does something right

I was walking one day with a guy I work with. He has a bachelor's degree in economics and is one of our brightest techs. We were talking about network security issues and I brought up the fact that many believe it was China who caused the blackouts in the Northeast and in S. FLA ... whenever they happened. I think the Northeast one occurred first, then I think it was summer of '07 that Florida lost power.

He laughed it off as a conspiracy theory and gave me a weird look. 'Why would they do that; they're our number one trading partner', he asked. I laughed and agreed because I don't like to be controversial at work. And besides, I am sure this is going to become common knowledge as time goes on.

So today Obama appoints a cyber-security czar. Good thinking, dude. Bush should have done it himself, but then again, Bush is retarded. It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't want to antagonize the Chinese by admitting to the problem by way of actually addressing said problem.

Anyhow, if you're interested in why you lost power, Jimmy (FL) or Theresa (NY), then read the article and reminisce.

Why Obama is making this so much worse

Tina took me to task on my last Obama rant. She wanted some concrete examples of how Obama was ruining the country. I couldn't answer. There were literally so many things in my head that I couldn't spit out just one. But I just stumbled on this article that at least illustrates the idiocy of his economic "policy". And as a nice addition, the article also goes into a UCLA study that demonstrates how FD Roosevelt's policies made the Depression last so much longer.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article10721.html

Such a totally gay debate

I subjected myself to an editorial written by Scott Maxwell. He goes on about what an outrage it is that gov. Crist opposes the abolition of traditional marriage and adoption.

Here was my commentary that I posted to Orlando Slantinel:

Same-sex couples have every right to be together and express themselves however they choose. If we are to boil down the arguments for same-sex marriage and same-sex parental adoption what we are left with is the notion that any group (of any number) of people who choose to mimic actual marriage and actual adoptive parenthood should be allowed to do so because they want to. There is no hypocrisy in being gay and opposing laws that degrade the value of the unique and necessary institution of marriage between a man and a woman. There is nothing duplicitous in being a loving and caring gay couple and still opposing the legislation that is tantamount to allowing any group of consenting adults to adopt and raise children simply because they want to and so that such ability validates them personally.
To all who support gay marriage and adoption I implore you to look more seriously at this issue. Try to open your mind and understand "the other side" of this debate. We have tolerated your intolerance for quite a while. It's time you step up to the plate, lose your emotionalism, and think about the long term and unintended consequences of what you're proposing.

Pretty good, huh? Yeah, well, whatever. I thought it was good. Sigh ... I don't know, guys. The left just doesn't understand the right and I find that sad. If they did, they wouldn't have such completely off-base assumptions about why we think the way we think. Oh well. It's all cyclical. People will figure this stuff out eventually and even when they do they will surely forget other lessons of the past. Such is life, I suppose.

With luck, the frog is starting to realize he's being boiled alive

You have probably heard of the old "boiling the frog" analogy as it relates to politics. For those who have not, please look it up.

Do any of you suppose Bush's and Obama's Obortion of an administrative run will result in a stronger understanding of Libertarian principles? Will their quick & painful destruction of this country bring people around to realize the inherent risks and inevitable tyranny that results in a federal government that is not bound by anything? And I include Bush in this for a good reason. In fact, I should include Clinton while I'm at it. It started with the abuse of executive order power. I'm pretty sure executive order was never supposed to be used for the wholesale circumscription of all legislative due process. Yet with Clinton that is what it became. The left had no problem with this expansion of power until Bush came to power. Suddenly, the right thinks its cool - Bush expands it, as well as other executive and federal powers, and the left is howling over the very precedent their idiot president set. Now we find ourselves with a man who sees no problem too small to draw the attention of the federal government. Like his drool-in-a-cup predecessor, he's "bailing out" every which industry. These bail-outs are not bail-outs, btw. These are hostile take overs. Once Obama gives out TARP money (think monopoly money, only with less value) to company X, Obama OWNS company X. Almost literally. Look at Chrysler. He handed the company over to one of his biggest campaign donors, the UAW. The freaking UAW!! The UAW is who RUINED GM and Chrysler to begin with!!! Not entirely, for sure, but largely. Well, now they own it.

Anyhow ... we're doomed. Sorry guys, but its true. The dollar is about to go into a free fall. China now plays its war games against the US. China has also hacked our fragile power grid and brought it down at least once, probably twice (NYC and S. FLA). China is moving off of the dollar and moving ahead with their own currency, along with Brazil. The communists are leveraging our fear of Islamic terrorism by using the distraction to gradually neuter the US. And that's not so much an issue with me, so long as we were to remain a well-defended country, but I have seen no move on the part of most pols to move toward that stance. Nope - we're becoming more and more like the USSR of the 1980's: a third world country with a first world military trying to hang on to its empire.

So back on topic: Obama is indeed destroying the nation with the MASSIVE debt that even he says we can't sustain. Which is laughable. We've already reached a level that we can't sustain, this just brings it all to a head that much sooner. And maybe that's a good thing. Obama is moving in the wrong direction so fast and furious, that even the blind will be able to see the failure of liberalism. Or at least, that is my hope. But history already tells us that this hope is unfounded. FD Roosevelt ran this country into the ground. Consider: his predecessor was a country-club republican who was happy to over-extend the executive's powers as well as give in to many of the Left's social demands. He rapidly expanded government and the country continued to flounder for over a decade before finally coming out of it after WWII. We are still dealing with his awful legacy 70 years later in the form of social security and medicare.

What did we learn from Roosevelt? Government schools tell us that what he did was a great thing. My sister, going back to school to become a teacher, has her proffessors telling their classes that what Obama is doing is what FDR did. So they are telling the truth in that regard. But then they say that it worked. The hell it did. The economy never fully recovered. And the weird thing is these people, these "teachers" know this, yet they choose to believe their own lies.

So I've answered my own question: you can boil six frogs in front of a seventh and then ask the seventh if he'd like to jump in. "Hell no" the frog says. Assure the frog that the last six didn't die from the boiling water but from coronary artery disease that just happened to cause a heart attack right before they touched the water, and that seventh frog will jump in. Because that frog believes in hope and change. I don't. I believe history repeats itself. And that is no cause for hope.

Will's "Tincture of Lawlessness" column piece

George Will has such a nice way of putting things: I really wish more columnists were as eloquent as he. If you've ever been over to townhall.com/columnists, you'd see a long row of faces. Kind of like Mortal Kombat. But most of them or dull or "obvious" and others are just plain stupid or boilerplate.

Anyhow, Will brings up the Obama's administration willingness to run roughshod over contracts is probably, when you get right down to it, not particularly legal. I imagine a guy like Will recognizes the fact one of the primary reasons Obama can get away with these sorts of kingly-mandates is because his predecessor also ran roughshod over the constitution, thereby setting up this precedence. Furthermore, one has to assume Will understands that the administrations approach to the economy is what's driving the recession at this point. Who wants to spend money now? Business-wise that is? No one and you have ask why. Many of them have the money but are so afraid of what the economy is going to do, that they choose not to spend it on growth-related activities because they don't know when business will suddenly fall off. Or rather, when the bottom will finally hit. That uncertainty comes from the administration. It's origin is there, in my opinion, because no one knows what else they are going to do. What other banks are going fail? What will the administration do for them? And once they "do" something for the banks, suddenly the US Govt. owns the bank for all intents and purposes. They decide salary, bonuses, and in the case of the non-banking entity Chrysler - their FREAKING ADVERTISING budget!!!

It's late and I need to go to bed and so I'll get to the meat of the issue. The left wants more control. They want to own the means of production and they're using the recession and peoples' fears to their advantage. Don't think so? OK, go back a year ago: the oil industry. They wanted to federalize it because the market was so clearly "broken." We had high gas prices: so their solution is to ... federalize it? Isn't that a bit extreme? We don't hear about that now because the crisis is gone and so their cassis belli against capitalism is gone. But don't worry - when the price goes back up, we'll hear them clamor again to own the means of production. It's incremental Marxism.

Man, if someone would like to show me where I'm wrong on this, I'd love to hear it.

They could have done this ...

... a long time ago: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul_savings

The only reason they're doing it now is they know the mood of the country is very different than it was seventeen years ago. Healthcare and college education are two areas of the private sector with runaway costs that, in my opinion, are so expensive largely because because people are willing to spend a ton on both. But the problem there is that it draws the attention of the ultimately big spender: the US Govt. and populists in general who see a golden opportunity to score political points in making these things cheaper.

You know, govt. is the cause of both of those being so expensive. Healthcare is kind of obvious. Did you know that exterior to the US, drug companies short-sell drugs to the canadians and euros and make up the difference with high US prices? Through other countries socialization, it makes it harder for us to not socialize. Same thing with food prices and farm subsidies. Anyhow, back to my point: medicare, medicaid, free ER treatment for the poor and illegals <--- first two are govt. inventions and the last is a by-fiat govt. mandate. Not to mention why we even have health "insurance" to begin with: wage freezes during WWII.

College education is a little less obvious, but lowered public High School graduation standards makes those diplomas far less valuable, thereby forcing people to get at least a 2 year degree to prove the level of competence that was demonstrate a couple decades ago with a high school diploma that meant something. And of course that all trickles up the chain: a bachelors then is a masters now, etc, etc. I know the calculus of degree and diploma values then-and-now aren't really that overlapping and neat. But I think the overall arch is clear: lowered public school expectations have placed a premium on secondary education to prove you're not just a public school skate.

I could go on about public schools, juvenile labor laws, illegal immigration, and how they all tie together to foster juvenile delinquency. I'll post more about that some other time.

Hello World

No one wants to hear my boring-ass political rants. So I'm blogging to myself over here. Why bother if it's just to myself? Narcissism for one. Vanity for two. Self-absorption for three. OK, they're all part of the same thing. But aside from all that, I want a place to rant and if anyone cares about what I am saying, they can read it.

More importantly I can keep my "I don't believe in blogging" blog light and friendly without the occasional political punctuation.

So welcome to my blog, me.