Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Expanding Thought Crimes Since '09

Government: If You Think The Problems We Create Are Bad, Just Wait Until You See Our SolutionsIt has been 6 days since The One was elected and already politics is an utter, and rather unsurprising mess. Three, interrelated things, jump out at me to begin with though.

The first is the highly racist inauguration prayer by Rev. Joseph Lowery, in which it was claimed that my views just are not "right" merely because I am white. Of course, our esteemed proponent for tolerance, virtue, change and hope (i.e. the President) responded to this, at least what I viewed as a, direct attack against my race with merely a smile.

This from the man who no longer wishes to divide us!

Still hopeful?

But, as in most things government, it just gets BETTER!

The second thing that has been brought to light is that one Robert Reich, the 22nd Secretary of Labor and an Obama adviser, has gone before Congress stating that "professionals and white, male construction workers" are not the focus of the upcoming "stimulus" package which Obama is putting together.

Additionally, he states that those companies that do use funds from the stimulus package must hire those people either unwilling or unable to effectively work, therefore they are considered long-term unemployed, minorities or women.

Forget the concept of hiring the best person for a job, no, it's more important that someone of the "right" skin tone has the position; and as evidenced by the Reverend Lowery's prayer we all know that "white" isn't right.

It seems to never fail, the more the government gives, the happier people are to take. Why Liberals believe this is good for people, the government or the economy is beyond me. Our nation was founded on the back of those willing to work, and to work hard; that drive, that sense of doing has gone--and government funded stimulus packages are not going to recover it. It has to come from outside the public realm. It has to come from the private, as people generate new ways to devise and move income. It cannot come from the government stealing my money to give to others; additionally, I should not be forced to subsidize others for the same reasons.

Finally, while viewing the new, and "improved" WhiteHouse.gov (I still so want to go to WhiteHouse.com), I find this lovely tidbit of tantalizing stupidity:
President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.
What this means is that your INTENT in doing, pretty much anything, will garner you much, much worse punishments than what you actually do or did.

This criminalizing of intent scares me to no ends. We've already established that the government doesn't want any type of speech out there that could make one scared of government precepts (read this rant).

Thoughtcrimes, facecrimes, hatecrimes. These are all just tools used by our Government in an effort to force us to do its will, as opposed to the government doing the will of the people as it is supposed to.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Here is the quote of the day:
racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric
I have to admit something, this statement left me flabbergasted. I mean utterly, and totally unable to come up with a reasonable, coherent thought for at least three minutes. This comes from a recent OP/ED piece in the New York Times by Paul Krugman, a Nobel-prize winning economist.

Yes, you read that right, a Nobel winner is up there associating small government with racism.

Why? Because he hates the GOP, and by extension Conservatives; and everybody knows that the GOP is all sorts of evvvilll, and those pesky conservatives, what with their self-reliance and people should work for what they get attitudes are always trying to hold the Black Man Down!

I teach my boys that regardless of how many times he tells a lie, or a falsehood, or just claims that his name is Rex Racer that it just doesn't change the truth of things.

Let us be clear for a moment, the failures of the Bush Administration, the failures of the GOP, and racism have absolutely nothing to do with the concepts of Small Government.


Well, actually, let me rephrase that, the failure of the Bush Administration and the GOP have everything to do with Small Government--because they both the Bush Administration and the GOP ran screaming from the concept.

No Child Left Behind, The Patriot Act, and a host of other things which expanded the powers and abilities of the government are all to be laid at the doorstep of the Bush Administration and the GOP. Those are not the acts of a group of individuals who believe in small government.

Now, Krugman's article is an attack on Bush and the GOP (surprise!), as such, he goes about pointing out everything that has gone wrong in the past 20 years, and figuring out a way to lay blame on the Conservatives. For example, there's this quote:
after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
And he makes horrible pronouncements on how "contempt for expertise" was a contempt for government in general. Still not sure on how the two connect, but that's irrelevant; especially in light of this: Obama's intel picks short on direct experience.

Now, does Obama have a contempt for expertise or a contempt for government? While I can't say for the former (as he lacks expertise as well) the latter he definitely loves as all of his erstwhile plans include provisions for more, and more government.

And this is where Krugman's major concept in his article falters. Everything he states, hinges on this whole concept that small government is BAD! Also, he tries to build the case in such a way that it makes it seem like the concept of small government is a Reagon construct.

As he is talking about this contempt of experience, he binds it to contempt of government and Reagan by utilizing this quote:
“Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.”
The message that Krugman is trying to state here is clear:
  • Big Goverment = Good & Experience; Small Government = Bad & Inexperienced
  • Big Government = No Racism; Small Government = Racism
  • Democrats/Liberals = Big Government; GOP/Conservatives = Small Government
  • Big Government Looks out for you; Small Goverment, you look out for yourself
While that last line is true, sadly, he spins the entire concept so that while reading the article, the first is also logically true. Which no matter how you cut it, I see as a logical fallacy, if not outright lie.

I touched earlier on his tying of the GOP and the Small Government concepts, and I touched on his fallacy of Big Government = Experienced people, as his own wonderboy Obama did the exact same thing in regards to picking people without experience.

Now, for the last binding arguement in his article, and that relates that Small Government is a new thing, created by Reagon as a part of Reagonomics.

And to counter-act that, I have a single name, just off the top of my head: Thomas Paine. That name, even without resorting to Google or Wikipedia to find the other philosphits, and economists who believed in Small Government, kills that whole small government as a Reagon construct thing.

What is sad, is that Krugman, as a Nobel-winning economist, should, and does, KNOW this.

But, let's talk about Paine. This is the man that said:
That government is best which governs least.
Now, let's be clear here, Paine espoused a number of beliefs which I cannot agree with. He was a Diest, and argued against Christianity, yet he was also the main proponent of the American Revolution, and it was his pamphlet Common Sense, which in effect led to the Revolution.

Small Government is a concept that was embedded into our very national identities by our Founding Fathers.

And it is one which Liberals have consistently and happily thrown away at every chance they have gotten.

And yes, I consider Bush and Company Liberals because they do NOT act like Conservatives: fiscally, socially or philosophically.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, January 5, 2009

Surprise! The Government Wants to Destroy More Businesses

Last year (late 2007-early 2008) there were a number of product recalls on toys made in China due to the presence of lead. Now, I'm not going to go into the health issues regarding items with lead and pthalates because let's face it, those are well documented.

No, what has me flipping out is the government's response which is of course via a consumer protection act.

What this thing does, is demand that every item (clothes, toys, etc) that is marketed to children 12 years old and younger must be tested for lead and pthalates. Additionally, this is such a widely inclusive law that it applies to thrift stores, donations to thrift stores, new sales, consignment shops and even yard sales.

So consider just what is going to happen here, because truthfully, this things are already happening:
  • Thrift Stores will no longer sell children's items, or at least won't for many months--a long enough time that they can, and will, go bankrupt
  • eBay, and other auction sites, will stop accepting auctions on children's items as the cost of verifying the legality of an item's sale status would be prohibitive
  • Individuals could be fined and/or arrested for holding a yard sale
  • Hand-made, and other small, mostly family-owned, children article manufacturers will go out of business
  • Charitable organizations will be forced to only accept new toys, as the law covers donations and giveaways
And that's just the things that pop into my head right away. Of those, I'm impacted greatly by at least two, as my church is the Salvation Army and they utilize a thrift store and do a lot of donation work, and there are a number of family friends of my parents who are in the business of creating hand-made objects, some of them aimed at children.

And all this because Clinton-era rules which relaxed trade restrictions with Communist China. Because, one thing we learned is that all the lead-tainted items came from China.

So, how do I think this law needs to be fixed? It's actually simple, and needs to involve these following parts:
  • Remove testing requirements on items that cannot actually be tainted with lead
  • Make it be based on manufacturing date after 2/10 rather than a sales date of 2/10
  • Make items wholly made in America exempt from the testing requirements
  • Make the testing rules more stringent on items coming from known sources of contaminants. I.e. stricter testing for Chinese manufactured items as opposed to say Mexican manufactured items, until the Mexican ones start showing up with lead in their more random tests
Of course this implies that the Congress would be interested in not running a number of small businesses out of business, or that they see value in thrift stores and consignment shops. Of course, we all know that Congress, especially a Democratically controlled Congress, has no true concern over small business or anyone that is not on welfare.

But hey, I'd love to be proved wrong.

Labels: , , , ,