Iranian Navy? No Cause For Concern. Nyah.

Iran announced this week that they are going to send their new 'navy' to North American waters.

"Iran plans to send ships to the Atlantic to create a strong presence near the U.S. coastline, it has been reported.
The announcement came from top Iranian naval officer, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayari, according to media sources.
'The Navy of the Iranian Army will have a powerful presence near the United States borders,' its state-run Islamic Republic News Agency said yesterday."

Sensible people are saying that there's "No Need To Fear An Iranian Atlantic Fleet" . Their ships are old, little better than rust buckets, in need of spare parts, never even been outside the Persian Gulf, have no way of refueling... what a joke.

A very sober, very sensible conclusion I'm sure. I'm sure it was also considered very sensible to dismiss fears of Al Queda getting an air force too, I mean, even if they could fly a plane this far... how could they possibly fly back home again? And their pilots... puh-leeze! As the one loon told his instructor, landing the planes wasn't a concern!

What a bunch of Yo-Yo's!

Hmmm... sensible or not... how did that attitude work out for us?

I've no idea what it'd take to put a missile on one of these Iranian rust buckets, or what it would take to shoot a missile up into our atmosphere to explode an EMP, or if that is even possible outside of the theories... of those who are paid to think of such theories.

But.

I'm pretty sure that this sort of comment:

"The threat has always and still remains the Persian Gulf itself. "

, was just the sort of thought that was considered very respectable on the morning of 9/11/01. I had kind of hoped it had gone out of fashion by that afternoon. How about you?

Here's my suggestion to the sensible people out there. First find the dots. Once you've found a few, connect them, but don't connect them in a pattern that pleases your sensibilities, connect them in a pattern that would be pleasing to theirs.

And as for our own old dots, and our own favorite patterns for connecting them?

Please throw them away.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Warren: The indecent exposure of a ravenous D.O.B.

Former White House financial reform adviser, and failed nominee, Elizabeth Warren, now running for Senator in Massachusetts, has exposed herself in public, and (shock), it wasn't a pretty sight.

As she made a stab at discrediting charges of engaging in class warfare, she denied it by attempting to fan the flames of class warfare, and inadvertently exposed her naked idiocy in public,

"No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody."

Uhm. How can I put this best. Oh, here we go,

DUH!

Do you know how their fortunes were MADE lizzie?! By EMPLOYING people, hiring people - and for the governmentally impaired, that means rewarding them for their Work with the MONEY they earned, which they did not have, and would not have had, without first being hired to work in the factory which they could not have created themselves - in order to help Produce the product that factory made!

Ho-ho! Adam Sharp of SharpElbows provides the video... and an extra little tie in at the end:

You ignorant leftist D.O.B! (Hey, if her buddies in the unions can call me and my buddies an S.O.B., I'm ok returning the favor. Just be glad I started it with a 'D', and not a 'B').

But lizzie Warren wasn't done yet (no word yet on whether she'll be arrested for such indecent exposure of her dark and private soul),

"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."

Hey! Lizzie! Where do you suppose 'the rest of us' got the money to help pay for those roads? Hmmm? It was earned, made, produced, and otherwise became the property of 'the rest of us' because of either our labor in 'their' factories, or 'our' farms, businesses, etc.

Because of the Free Market, people were able to offer their services in trade with others, creating wealth in the process, and from the profit each of 'the rest of us' earned from those transactions, 'we' were able to, in some way, turn around and pay a (once) small percentage of our excess profits towards taxes so that 'the roads' could be built. And you know what else? Those 'rich people' also paid taxes, one hell of a lot more $$$ than 'the rest' of us did, and do you know why they were able to build factories and hire people for a wage and become rich?

Because we had a legal system that protected Private Property, and so wise risks of time, effort and wealth could be directed towards producing a product that might possibly be of interest to enough of 'the rest' of us to voluntarily purchase, and if so, the initiator of that cycle could then become 'Rich', and the people working for them, could then earn livings which they otherwise would not have. And if it turned out not to be such a wise risk? The 'rich' had a damned good chance of becoming 'the poor'.

Anyone ever explain this to you lizzie?

And guess what else Lizzie... those 'roads' didn't magically appear by socialist-govt decree, they were contracted for and built by contractors in the Free Market, who hired skilled, and not so skilled, labor to produce the roads which you, and 'the rest' of us drive on, and so the virtuous cycle continues on, and on and on.

Or at least it does until some damn bureaucratic _.O.B. gets the slobbering idiot idea in their brain pans that they can just print money and 'roads' will appear (BTW, do you know what comes of the idiot notion that money can just be 'printed' and distributed? Experts become surprised at the crash the 'rest of us' saw coming from decades away).

Lizzie continued,

"You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate."

I won't go into the obvious repetition of the above for how those schools are built and paid for, but I will say that the world today, and your own blatant ignorance, is a direct reflection of the pitiful job which you and your like minded ninnies, have wrought upon the field of 'education'.

“Now look, 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.”

Ladies and Gents, do you see the arrogant attitude with which she dismisses the time, effort, blood, sweat and tears that goes into building either a factory or a paycheck? Do you see the predatory ease with which she assumes she can use power to take whatever she wants, from whoever she wants to?

Look at that face folks, that is the face of a truly, ravenously, greedy, D.O.B.

I'm going to put another post up soon, an economics lesson which is simple enough that even a leftist economist, and possibly even a leftist politician (no promises on the last part there, but I'll try) can understand.

Good lord, the horrible price we pay for ignorance.
*************

Post-chill pill Update:
As the froth fades from my lips, I should probably say something more than the above... and a bit more calmly.

The statement from her “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody."... is such a thoughtless, condescending and – no other word worthy for it (other that ‘duh’) idiotic one, it is as appalling, and it was infuriating.

Where did that Chill Pill go... it was here a moment ago....

I got some feedback (and flames fanned) from a friends facebook page as well, who actually captioned her words as "Well, said, well said.", and a friend of his said of this post, after chiding me on my rantguage, that,

"Regardless, you don't address the thesis, that there is a social contract that exists prior to and in conjunction with our system of Market Economy. That the conditions that allow you to do exercise your rights are built upon that foundation."

Well. To say that her comment had a 'thesis' is I think stretching it a bit, but while I'll agree that her subject was the social contract, the only meaning of one that can be taken from her description, is that of master to a slave - and in her scenario, the person who actually makes the workers job possible, is the one that is being put into the position of a slave to 'the rest of us', by her version of, what amounts to, a 'socialist contract'.

Saying the words ‘social contract’ doesn’t give you a free pass to ignore everything that a contract entails, such as coming to an agreement with the parties involved - in her view it is just assumed that the factory owner OWES those employed by him, more than their jobs. According to her statement, the factory owner does nothing but take from the 'working people' of America... how he does that by first offering them a job, for a wage which the worker agrees to before ever coming to work, she doesn’t get around to saying in her 'thesis'. How the worker and 'the rest of us' ever get our own money, from which we somehow (as she would have it) entirely pay for ‘the roads’ and so forth out of our pockets alone, she doesn’t say, ignores, and tries to bluff her way on past as if the thought is unthinkable.

That she says, and even worse, doesn’t say, all of this, while running for the office of a United States Senator... is sickening to me.

She, and other such non-thinking leftists, while mouthing the words of Liberty, proceed to make demands, which if ever fully implemented, would mean the complete loss of liberty and individual rights throughout the land.

In short, they petulantly whine for effects, while trying to ignore, and even denigrate, the causes of them. I will try and keep my cool better, but I will not stand aside and allow such vitriol (and that is what such language truly is) go by unchecked.

If anyone has an interest in pursuing the matter beyond this point, I'll direct you to a couple of my previous posts, Liberty - It all hangs together, or we all hang separately for the highlights, or
Liberal Fascism: The Spiral of Knowledge for a broader overview. If you're up to really digging in to matters, here are a few from my Justice (Posts series in progress...) posts:

* There oughta be a Law
* Teaching Justice at Harvard - NOT!
* Point of order
* What IS Justice? eh.. what is the question again?
* What is Justice: Two mis-States of Nature
* Forgotten Beauty and lost Justice
* Cruising for Justice
* The Contextually Tortured Thoughts of Man Caused Disasters
* Unknown Conspiracies – You don’t think, therefore, they are
* Louis L'Amour: Laconic Law - From Cicero to Blackstone to You
* Back To The Basics: Where Is Justice To Be Found?
* The Liberal Mind of a Conservative - what may not be known - Must be known
* What does Athens have to do with Justice?
* Athens and America: The Bog Of The Gaps
* What Would the Founders Do? Common Sense says WHO CARES!
* Common Sense Anti-Americanism
* Arbitrary Disasters - The Health of Justice in the Age of Obamao
* Common Sense Conspiracies - a Race To The ... Where?
* ♫ ♪ ♬ You say you want a Constitution ... wellll ya know, we all want to change the world ♬ ♪ ♫

If anyone who disagrees with me, and is capable of rubbing a couple thoughts together briskly enough to produce a spark - I always enjoy a good argument.

Pick a spot and dive in, comments are always open and welcome.

**********

Heh... one final comment. A fellow at my friend's site says

"Again, her point was simple- that individual accomplishment does not occur in a vacuum."

No, it wasn't a simple point, it was a fairly complex one, and it insinuated that businesses contribute nothing and intentionally leach off the benefits 'the rest of us' provide for it.

"She did not say that individual accomplishment is not of value, nor did she say..."

It isn't necessary to say that individual accomplishment is not a value, if you do say that 'too much' individual accomplishment should not be allowed... you've said the same, and created the power to determine how much is too much.

How much has anyone read of what she has said, when she wasn't saying it to an audience she wants to woo? Words don't simply have meanings, they come from the ideas a person holds. and those ideas will guide her actions - and the results of those actions - more accurately than the words we choose for others to hear. If you read the report of the panel which she chaired, the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP), the measures she calls for would have the effect of essentially nationalizing - though under different terms (as with G.M.) - of banks and other financial institutions.

I'll try and find a line to the actual the report itself, but a quick scan looks like this one hits the highlights, such as,

"The report essentially argues for nationalization on the grounds that, under government reorganization, bad assets can be removed, failed managers can be ousted or replaced and business segments can be spun off from the institutions. "Depositors and some bondholders are protected, and institutions can emerge from government control with the same corporate identity but healthier balance sheets," the report argues, parroting a position that has been staked out by many prominent economic pundits.

Clearly, this is Elizabeth Warren's particular crusade against the banks, since a majority of panel members dissented from the direction the report took and two refused to sign off on it at all. Her letters to Secretary Geithner and Chairman Bernanke stop just short of attacking them for trying to restart the market for asset-backed securities. These markets have been an important part of the financial intermediation system for decades, funding student loans, consumer credit and small businesses. But Professor Warren has had a long-standing antipathy to consumer credit markets."

My friend's friend continues,

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

Yes, well, and sometimes a smokescreen is just a smokescreen for something else. Before striking the 'reasonable' pose, it's a good idea to look into matters a bit more to see whether or not being 'reasonable' is actually a reasonable thing to do.

Sometimes the things we think we see lurking in the shadows tell us more about ourselves than the world we live in.”

And of course the obvious reply is that sometimes what we want to pretend to not see lurking in the shadows, can tell us even more about ourselves and the reality we’ll soon find ourselves in.

You may want to believe what I’ve said is a stretch, that Warren doesn’t intend to practice what her fundamental ideas clearly mean. I have too many friends & family on the left to think that they have bad intentions, but frankly, their intentions don’t concern me too much, and I’m not interested in interpreting peoples actions to match my conclusions – I’m more interested in the ideas they’ve demonstrated that they accept – those ideas are what precede their actions and my conclusions about them; I’m more interested in philosophy than psychology.

I’m quite sure those who pushed for prohibition didn’t intend to establish organized crime or cause the death of thousands through gang warfare. Same with those wanting a war on drugs. I’m sure that those who want to impose a minimum wage, don’t intend to put people out of work. I’m sure Ben Bernanke feels he learned the lessons of the Great Depression and really intends to help the economy, not wreck it.

Doesn’t really matter. Despite their best of intentions, the place they lead to is still the same old hot, dry place.

Intentions don’t count for much, when their ideas are put into practice and given the force of law, certain things are bound to follow from them. President Obama says he never wanted to run G.M., nevertheless....
If nothing else, the last twenty years has given me a lot of empathy for Cassandra.

But as Lance says, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. While we can.

Aerotropolis: Something to kill for everyone

Missouri's Aerotropolis is a bill that is worth killing from a number of different perspectives, it has something for everyone - hate cronyism? Kill this bill. Hate Govt control of industry? Kill this bill. Hate your elected representatives going behind our backs? Kill this bill. Hate your elected representatives going outside of the bounds of the constitution which defines their powers? Then KILL THIS BILL!

The Crony view to a kill
The most obvious reason for killing this bill, has little or nothing to do with what its supporters are trying so hard to cast our opposition to it as. Their three main pot shots at conservatives, are that:

1. They fear the Chineeze!
2. They are hypocrites because they usually love tax credits, but are opposing tax credits them here (because of the Chineeze!),
3. Aerotropolis just wants to help promote St. Louis (or Missouri, if you're not from St. Louis), and all this foolish opposition is just hurting our image elsewhere.

The attempt here is to cast of Aerotropolis as being opposed to Free Trade - which is ridiculous - Conservatives, by nature, are pro-Free Trade. You can wad these issues up in a tissue and toss 'em away, because these aren't the issues conservatives oppose, Free Trade isn't the problem, it's only a cover for smuggling in a load of other issues, and such a maneuver shouldn't be allowed to... fly.

Briefly:

1. Opposing trade with China, because it's from China, is ridiculous; it isn't the problem and shouldn't be a concern.
2. The idea that Aerotropolis is intended as a bill for selling St. Louis is (as you'll see shortly) ludicrous, but if it did, there'd be nothing wrong with promoting St. Louis as a shipping hub, and no one would oppose such a bill on those grounds.
3. Tax credits aren't the problem with Aerotropolis, while it's true many of us realize that tax credits work as advertised, in the ranking of govt boo-boo's, they come in pretty near the bottom of the list of wrongs to be righted.

Get this straight: Aerotropolis is not proposing general tax credits to encourage businesses to set up shop in the airport area in order to improve the efficiency and attractiveness of St. Louis as a trade hub.
Instead, it is proposing tax credits for building warehouses... which we’ve got no shortage of!

As Darin pointed out,

"There are 18 million square feet of available warehouse space near Lambert-St. Louis airport; therefore, there is no reason for $300 million in tax credits for warehouses."

We've already got gobs of warehouses and we do not need tax credits to build more! But even then, these tax credits are not just for warehouses in general, but for new warehouses, built in a particular way, in a particular place, and built by a very particular sort of developer, so particular as to nearly engrave one particular developer's name into the legislation - a developer who is also a big political campaign donor to the key politicians involved!

Hello!

On top of that, like President Obama's recent debacle with Solyndra, it has boondoggle written all over it, as Saku Aura, Missouri associate professor of economics, and Jeff Milyo is Middlebush Professor of Social Science at MU, recently put it,

"The Missouri legislature is contemplating handing out as much as $360 million in subsidies to create a monument to graft in St Louis. The China Hub project, or “Aerotropolis,” is being sold as a slam-dunk profitable investment of public money; economic consultants claim the project will generate many more millions of dollars in benefits to Missouri than its cost to the state. But the theoretical models upon which such predictions are based are well-known to wildly exaggerate the benefits of such projects...."

Opposition to Aerotropolis is not about Free Trade, it is about crony capitalism, it is not about promoting the interests of either St. Louis or Missouri, or about fear of the Chinese, it is about steering tax payer funds to politically well connected businessmen, and giving politicians even further power and control over our lives and commerce. At the very least, that portion of this bill which targets tax credits to benefit influential and powerful friends of politicians, needs to be stopped and dropped as not only wasteful, but purely and deeply corrupt.

And that was the extent of the issue as I saw it last week, and I was confident, then, that if that warehouse specific language were dropped from the bill, it would drop off my radar entirely.

Or so I thought, until Patch Adams and I began looking a bit further into the matter.

Picking Industries to promote - at your expense
When you begin to search through the Aerotropolis bill, you start seeing a lot of language centered around promoting multiple options for promoting 'renewable energy'... but not just solar panels, this goes much farther down the road to boondogle than just solar panels.

Worse than simply picking an industry to promote, this bill's language makes it very, very easy for a commission or some other 'governing authority' (yeah, what?), to use eminent domain to condemn and take over anyone's property if it shows even so much as a potential for being useful for some form of green energy purpose, language such as this:

11 term "blighted area" shall also include any area which produces or generates or
12 has the potential to produce or generate electrical energy from a renewable
13 energy resource,

, is sprinkled throughout the bill. And 'Potential' potentially covers a lot of ground, such as yours, because if your property seems as if it might potentially be useful for a "Renewable energy resource" such as:

(a) Wind;
(b) Solar thermal sources or photovoltaic cells and panels;
(c) Dedicated crops grown for energy production;
(d) Cellulosic agricultural residues;
(e) Plant residues; SCS SB 8 60
(f) Methane from landfills, agricultural operations, or waste water treatment;
(g) Thermal depoly merization or pyrolysis for converting was te material to energy;
(h) Clean and untreated wood such as pallets;
(i) Hydroelectric power, which shall include electrical energy produced or generated by hydroelectric power generating equipment, as such term is defined in section 137.010;
(j) Fuel cells using hydrogen produced by one or more of the renewable resources provided in paragraphs (a) to (i) of this subdivision; or
(k) Any other sources of energy, not including nuclear energy, that are certified as renewable by rule by the department of natural resources;"

, it can be taken away - and those are a lot of potential options for declaring your property to be a Green Blight. Line after line, section after section, you find this sort of language throughout, and it should bring a couple questions to mind, such as:

• What do these Green Energy measures have to do with Free Trade and attracting shipping?
• How easily could someone, a powerful developer say, acquire land he wants, but which you don't want to sell, by way of these measures?
• How difficult would it be for Federal agencies to involve themselves in the most basic rungs of local politics, through these measures?

As we looked into this bill a bit further than the obvious layers of political corruption, it began to appear that simple cronyism is only a secondary issue here – while we have all been looking at the suspicious hand of Aerotropolis which holds crony capitalism behind its back, the other hand, held right out front, in plain sight, is being used to advance a green agenda armed with the ability to rob you blind.

But even that is not the full problem.

Local Interests of Little Interest
Remember the line about this bill being a vehicle for promoting St. Louis to the world? Well... maybe, but if so, it does so by taking a back seat to Detroit, Memphis, Atlanta, and others, each of which have an Aerotropolis bill proposed or being implemented, along with so many other cities now or pending... there's even a bill pending at the federal level for Aerotropolis.

Aerotropolis, far from being the nifty new idea of local politicians and their cronies to cash in on a weak economy, is an old idea that's been pushed for years by a globalist who is enthused about ringing the world with a new form of linked cities, which he calls an 'Aerotropolis',

"As more and more aviation-oriented businesses are being drawn to airport cities and along transportation corridors radiating from them, a new urban form is emerging—the Aerotropolis—stretching up to 20 miles (30 kilometers) outward from some airports. Analogous in shape to the traditional metropolis made up of a central city and its rings of commuter-heavy suburbs, the Aerotropolis consists of an airport city and outlying corridors and clusters of aviation-linked businesses and associated residential development. A number of these clusters such as Amsterdam Zuidas, Las Colinas, Texas, and South Korea's Songdo International Business District have become globally significant airport edge-cities representing planned postmodern urban mega-development in the age of the Aerotropolis."

Aerotropolis is the brain child of John D. Kasarda, a techno-utopian, who sees it not only as a means for eliminating borders, but especially fit for green energy pursuits, the 'Smart Grid', and as being a perfect tool for the expertise of Federal agencies to be plugged directly into the lowest rung of local politics... while at the same time branching out Globally - ‘bottom up – top down’....

So far from being a bill meant as selling St. Louis to the world, or promoting it as a unique regional shipping hub, this bill is national (at least) in scope, spreading a new type of city, or city within a city, with each Aerotropolis forming new associations of local, regional, state & federal government officials, together with airport management, local businesses and other leaders having "economic development" agendas, into a 'governing authority'... all of which means that 'We The People' will be even further removed from representation and control of our lives, in the most local of matters.

In Aerotropolis: The Way We'll Live Next by John D Kasarda, and Greg Lindsay reviews it as,

“...According to Kasarda, the future city will have "an airport at the center and concentric rings of uses radiating outward". The aerotropolis is designed for the wired, always-on "Instant Age" of smart phones and smart cities, where the only law is the survival of the swiftest. Kasarda argues that this is the next stage in globalisation, a radical rethink of how we live in a world rendered flat by new technology. Just as cities such as Southampton or Singapore grew up around their seaports, so the airport will become the heart of tomorrow's city.

Dubai is the model. It is "the aerotropolis writ large, a city of hubs designed to lure the world's wealth to its door". And as in so many other areas, China has been quick to seize the initiative. It will build 100 new airports by 2020, when it aims to have 82% of its population living within 90 minutes' drive of one. This investment will enable the iPods and other high-value goods manufactured there to travel via Hong Kong to America within 48 hours. In contrast, the west views airports as "nuisances or toxic threats". Kasarda warns: "If we don't change our minds, the game will be over. In some ways, we've already surrendered."...”

And so we are presented with yet another crisis that we've got to pass a bill for, before we can find out what's in it. Even its hungry use of the term "renewable energy" stems from interests far beyond the borders of Missouri, as Patch pointed out,

"Coincidentally, the term "Renewable Energy Zone" was crafted in a bill titled "The New Apollo Energy Act of 2007". The Bill was created by Rep Jay Inslee, the Co-Founder of the Apollo Alliance, the same Apollo Alliance who wrote the first Stimulus and who's "New Apollo Program" is being used by the Obama Administration to Transform the U.S. into a "Green Collar" economy."

So far from being a Missouri, or even a St. Louis boosting bill, this is part of a national agenda, pushed by the mother of all national agenda makers, the Apollo Alliance, and is also perfectly suited for opening local concerns to Federal involvement in the the most basic rungs of local politics

Finding all this, I wondered what else we’ve been missing, especially after Patch & I began to hear technical objections about the text we'd quoted from the Bill, that it wasn't underlined or in bold face, so it was technically not part of the Bill itself, but already existing law and therefore we shouldn't concern ourselves about it.

Excuse me? Patch and I were being blown off, because the original Green Blight language wasn't in the Aerotropolis bill itself, so, the thinking goes, since this Green Blight language was pre-existing, Aerotropolis couldn't possibly be associated with it, or be worthy of concern.

There are at least two problems with that line of thinking.

First, at the very least, while it's true that language perhaps didn't originate in the Aerotropolis bill, it was being purposefully inserted into it, over and over, for the purposes of condemning land that might be seen as 'potentially' useful for renewable energy purposes, anywhere in the vicinity of the new 'airport city' - that's seriously a non-issue?

Second, it assumes that since the language originated in a separate bill, the purposes of these bills must be separate. The first question that should prompt is: Just how separate are these bills? Do they have any common interests? Are they separated by large spans of time? Did they have any of the same players involved in writing them?

So with that in mind, I went looking for where the Green Blight language originated, surely from the reactions we received, you'd assume at the very least that it'd be from long standing legislation, right?

Nope.

The Green Blight language comes from this bill, House Bill No. 737 (more informatively linked here) where the green blighting text is added (which is a story in itself),

"...The term "blighted area" shall also include any area which produces or generates or has the potential to produce or generate electrical energy from a renewable energy resource, and which, by reason of obsolescence, decadence, blight, dilapidation, deteriorating or inadequate site improvements, substandard conditions, the predominance or defective or inadequate street layout, unsanitary or unsafe conditions, improper subdivision or obsolete platting, or the existence of conditions which endanger the life or property by fire or other means, or any combination of such factors, is underutilized, unutilized, or diminishes the economic usefulness of the land, improvements, or lock and dam site within such area for the production, generation, conversion, and conveyance of electrical energy from a renewable energy resource;..."

It was sponsored by Representative Craig Redmon and Representative Michael Corcoran, and the summary states,

"Changes the laws regarding renewable energy in enhanced enterprise zones and the taxation of hydroelectric power generating equipment"

The green blighting language isn't long standing legislation at all, or even unrelated, it was added earlier this year in the same legislative session, and was intended to be passed along with the Aerotropolis Bill. And for that matter, why on earth was this Green Blight language not an issue itself when first proposed? and why do so many not want to make the obvious tie between them?

WTF? Whatever happened to connecting the dots... an issue is off the table if it extends beyond the piece of paper you’re staring at? Look at the people involved in this, it involves the same players, the same Speaker of the House. The same cronies. Separate purposes? My ass. Is no one capable of connecting dots anymore? How about even seeing them?

But wait! There's More Constitutional Issues
With some more searching and prodding, a friend discovered that not only did this language originate in a bill from the same session, but that it involved some very unconstitutional monkey business in concocting the bill's final language.

Without getting too much into the inside baseball of the issue, this original bill, HB 737, had been sponsored by Rep. Redmon, as a bill to classify hydroelectric power generating equipment as tangible personal property for purposes of tax assessment; it unanimously passed the Committee on Local Government, was "perfected" and sent to the Senate in essentially that form, and was unanimously passed by the Senate.

But something funny happened on the way to the forum, funny enough to make my friends "blood boil!". As he put it:

"On May 10 the House considered the Senate Committee Substitute, and Rep. Redmon - the original sponsor - spoke against it, asking the House to request a conference on the bill. Speaker Tilley assigned Redmon, Funderburk, Houghton, Holsman and Quinn to the conference committee for this bill. Mayer appointed Lager, Munzlinger, Pearce, Callahan, and Curls as the Senate's conference committee on May 11. On May 13, Rep. Redmon dropped his opposition and asked the House to pass the Senate Committee Version of the bill - which it did without one vote cast in opposition. The bill was signed by both Tilley and Mayer on May 26 and signed by the Governor on July 7.

The Senate Subcommittee Version is where the offending language first appeared, and I mean the Senate subcommittee version COMPLETELY changed the function of the bill, adding an enormous swath of material related to "enhanced enterprise zones" - and, seemingly as an afterthought, classifying hydroelectric power generating equipment as REAL property, not tangible personal property.

Article III, section 21, of the Missouri Constitution states that "no bill shall be so amended in its passage through either house as to change its original purpose." I have not yet looked into how this provision has been applied by Missouri courts, but it seems obvious that the original purpose of HB 737 was DRAMATICALLY altered by the amendments made in the Senate."

So the force behind Aerotropolis, Speaker Tilley, pushed this bill through, even though the language and purpose of it had been dramatically changed from its original intent, violating the Missouri State Constitution in the process... why? Why take the risks? All for a disinterested civil minded effort to promote Free Trade for the people of Missouri?

Here Are The Dots
To sum up,

• Aerotropolis is not a self contained bill, it relies upon at least one other bill, HB 737
• Aerotropolis is the 'tip of the sword' whose purpose extends far beyond the borders of Missouri.
• The political payoffs and graft which are visible, are just means to an end that is far larger than either of these two bills.
• Aerotropolis is not a local bill promoting St. Louis or Missouri, it’s the brain child of a Globalist, designed to work with similar programs such as the U.N.’s 'Agenda 21'
• Aerotropolis' is a useful tool to bind up your neighborhood with various Smart Grid efforts, the Apollo Alliance, and new government authorities over you local neighborhood level politics - which you and I will be powerless to question or confront.

This goes far beyond 'Taxation without representation', this moves on to inhabitation without representation.
Aerotropolis is a bill that deserves to be put to death for many different reasons, including, but not limited to,

• cronyism,
• corruption,
• misrepresentation of intent,
• advancing a national and international agenda at the expense of our local dollars and political representation;
• using govt resources to promote another Green Energy scheme (Show me Solyndra!),
• enables Missourian's property to be declared a Green Blight and taken through eminent domain for 'having the potential' of being useful to its Governmental Authority
• makes use of language improperly inserted into another bill in an unconstitutional manner, in order to further the purposes that are furthered by Aerotropolis.

You can see the dots folks, connect them and Kill. This. Bill!

Happy 224th Birthday to the U.S. Constitution... eh... what's the point of it again?

For the Constitution's 224th Birthday, I'm going to repost an old post that seems well suited for today; what with our President reminding us again how much he wished the Constitution wasn't there to keep him from using his power as he'd like,

“"As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own," Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "There are times where -- until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again -- I'd like to work my way around Congress.”

, this post from a year and a half ago seems especially appropriate.
...........................................................................................................................................................
I was talking to someone the other day about the problems in the country today, and as I mentioned the Constitution, I noticed a familiar tick that passed across his face at the word… you might have seen it before too… a quick flick downwards of the eyes, a fleeting grin-twitch across the lips… almost as if I’d slipped in a “ya’ll aint” to a grammarian.

When I asked what the matter was, there was the ‘Oh… you’re not really going to ask me about this are you?’ look, as if I was forcing them to embarrass me… and with a sort of “Yes, the world really is round” patronizing look, he said ,

“Well… it’s just… the whole ‘Constitution’ thing… I mean… we don’t wear wigs and leg hose anymore either, why should we be bound by something written centuries ago by people who know nothing of us?”

Ah. Well… in that case… do you mean we should just ignore the Constitution?

“Well… we can’t ignore it, it’s just that it means today what we need it to, not what they meant it to mean back then... kinda like the Queen of England... quaint but not especially relevant... we shouldn't let ourselves be bound by what guys in wigs said two centuries ago.”

"We shouldn't be bound by it" that's an interesting way of putting it... it certainly goes well with the world upside down nature of the news these days. Does that same sort of bigotry of The Now apply to other things too? Math for instance?"

"Oh... come on..."

"Ok... how about resisting tyranny? Is that old fashioned too?"

"Well... no... but...."

"Was 'Freedom of speech a bad idea too... or is it that it was useful then, but is just outdated today?"

All I got with that was a sigh. Of course, being a flogger, I didn't let that slow me down, and while I couldn't remember the full quote, I tried the gist of this one from Jefferson,,"

""It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388 "

Got the blank stare for that. "Just not too big on Jefferson, eh?"

Only got an impatient 'Nope'. Just disagree with him and the other wig wearer's?

"Yep."

"So you've read them and disagree with them?" I think he was about to answer 'Yep', but worried that I'd quiz him further (and I would've), but he just said "It's just not as relevant to our world today." I answered that this 'oh so modern' notion of his, is well over a hundred years old now, as many years old as the Constitution was when Woodrow Wilson first mouthed his 'new idea' against it, but that didn't help either, he knocked it down with another eye-roll - apparently some centuries old stuff is 'modern'... and some is 'outmoded'... depending on what the speaker want's it to mean, I suppose - I mean, it's not like words mean anything, right?

Well... I couldn't do much against magic incantations like those modern educated eye-rolls and mutterings, spells which have the power to banish the accumulated wisdom of ages with a simple set of shamanic motions and mutterings. So after a moment I thought maybe I'd try out the meaning of Jefferson's quote on him...rather than just the words,

"Well in that case, it might as well be irrelevant, but if so, then what is the use of the Constitution?

If you're left leaning like yourself, I can see that you probably might be mostly happy with how things are proregressing at the moment... but if you know even only a smattering of political history, even just recent history, you know that following a President Carter, there was a President Reagan, right?; and from the other side of the aisle, the conservatives should know that following such a conservative even as that, there will likely be a President Clinton soon afterwards, or maybe just a mixed message like President Bush (I or II), who might lead into someone like an Obamao.

What that should bring to mind, is that while you may very well be happy with the current bunch in the White house, you may not like the next one, or maybe the one following that, right?

(A sigh and a nod)

So to prevent a future ‘bad’ administration from doing more to you than you’d like, and vice versa for the other sides point of view, don't you think that there should be limits on those in power to limit whatever it is that they want to do?

"Well... sure"

Well... handily enough, we do have just such a set of restrictions on the limits of power. Not only do we have such a set, but it is what our representatives and our judges - and even a President such as Obamao - all solemnly swear, pledge and affirm to uphold and preserve it - and in the case of our military personnel, it is what they pledge their very lives to defending against all enemies, foreign and domestic – it is what they are sworn to die for, if need be.

Given that... got any friends or relatives in the military? 'Yep' Given that they, and others, like my son, have their lives sworn to uphold it, doesn't that seem like something they - and we - should take at least a little bit seriously?

Uncomfortable silence.

At the very least that should give someone pause who might otherwise be tempted to snicker at the mere mention of our constitution, shouldn't it? Nothing else in this land receives such official recognition and is held in such importance and given such legal protection,
...not the President,
...not the Judges,
...not the Flag,
...nor anything else, only this short piece of paper – why?

This Constitution which our government, from its inception in 1787, to now in 2010, finds within this scrap of paper written by old dead white guys, not only every source of every one of its powers to act, but also lays out the key Rights of our fellow citizens that are to be protected, and far more importantly, there are to be found within it those restraints upon what the government can do to We The People and to the country.

If you don’t trust politicians, or you don’t trust the other side’s politicians, then you should want to know, protect and promote this short outmoded piece of paper, because if you don’t, if you allow your politicians, while they are in power, to act beyond what is constitutional – and the ONLY thing which prevents them is the public’s awareness of their going too far (and believe me, it isn’t the Judges or Congress, it is YOU - if the Law ceases to live in We The People, it will cease to live - and cease to protect you) – then you can be assured that there will be even less restraint upon the other guys when They come to power, and they will be even more able to do whatever they want to do because they Too will feel that what they want to do will be the Right thing to do! And your feeble yelps of ‘not fair’ or even funnier (by that time) ‘that’s not constitutional!’ will fall on deaf ears.

And in that time you will find yourself at the mercy of the political power of the other side of the aisle... so ask yourself now, how will you feel then, and what you wouldn’t then give if you could just go back in time to our time, to today, and say – (or in other words vote) - Stop!

If you don’t do that today, then when some seemingly distant tomorrow becomes today – and in the blink of an eye it will - the opportunity may very well be gone.

The Constitution – use it – or lose it!

And that was of course the end of the argument. He couldn't answer... but with another magic incantation of eye-rolls, and muttered '... just can't talk to you people...like luddites', his spell was cast, absolving him from all need to think any further on this uncomfortable topic, and from the need of making his thoughts conform to reality... with the magic spell weaved... his contradictions were safe and secure, locked up within his super smart and cool leftist brain.

It is baffling... the contradictions the leftist requires that they live by. And while it's good to see that it's not just baffling to me, it isn't only Obama that's always contradicting himself, you simply cannot be a leftist, without blatantly contradicting yourself. Leftist thought requires arbitrary, contradictory positions - it fundamentally means opposition to reality.

It. Is. Unavoidable.

And your only defense against it, is a piece of paper completed by a bunch of guys in Philadelphia, 224 years ago today.

Happy Birthday to the U.S. Constitution... take a deep breath America, it's a lot of candles... be sure to make a good wish!

9/11 - Remember To Choose

Ten years ago today, a group of Muslim extremists, many of whom were college educated, affluent, and who were, and are, far from being alone in their beliefs that the existence of America is a threat to their world, decided to wreak the kind of destruction which only the smallest of minds can conceive of, upon the fabric of America. They hijacked four civilian passenger jets, filled with business people,

vacationers, men, women and children, and as a result of detailed planning, in concert with others of similar qualifications and beliefs from around the world, they turned those four jetliners into tools of destruction, destroying the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon.

The fourth jetliner was prevented from killing others outside of its own skin by the heroic efforts of those passengers within it. They realized what those monstrous heaps of animated human flesh intended to waste their craft and lives for, and they chose instead to meet death on their own terms, rather than that of their hijackers.

Those heroes on Flight #93 chose for life over death, good over evil.

Those Muslim extremists succeeded in destroying the lives of nearly 3,000 people that day, and many more since, by using our own lives and achievements against us, and they were enabled to only because we refused to identify the nature of their chosen evil, time, and time again, before September 11, 2001.

The nature of Islamic terrorism is not a matter of ignorance, poverty or wealth; the root cause is a zeal for a particular interpretation of the Muslim religion, a view which sadly is not a lonely one, which compels them to turn their minds towards destroying and killing us because their own beliefs are too feeble to admit the existence of ideas and beliefs which disagree with theirs.

Ayman Zawahiri is a medical doctor. Bin Laden was an engineer. Atta studied architecture. The shoe bomber, Major Nidal, the bus station back shooter, these men are not united by poverty or ignorance, they are driven only by their religious beliefs, and by the belief that they should end the lives of those who disagree with them.

I need understand nothing more than that; the fact that they are acting upon the ideas which they fervently believe in. Ideas which are utterly opposed to the possibility of men and women using their own best judgment in order to live their lives as they see fit. In these particular Muslim's eyes, they would rather see a man shot in the back, or his own daughter killed, or a man's head sawed and torn from his shoulders, or thousands of people incinerated, than to think of them making choices which they disapprove of.

In this world, here and now, such a desire and the willingness to carry it out, is pure Evil.

Today we remember those whose lives were taken from them ten years ago today, by the choices of men made small and despicable and evil by their chosen ideas, which forbid their fellow men the ability to use their own minds and make their own choices.

What we must remember today, is that when faced with either an active

choice, or with identifying a remembrance, we must be willing to choose what is Good, and to denounce what is Evil.

Being unwilling to recognize the truth, or to name evil for what it is, is to befriend and encourage that evil.

Today, that is worth remembering.

Update: With a Hat Tip to Joan of Argh's excellent "The Gods Of The Copybook Headlines", I too do affirm and swear that Wretchard speaks for me:

The story of September 11 must for all time become the story of how a certain date became unspeakable to al-Qaeda and its followers; a tale of how this day of all others, became the blackest day in the history of Islam. It should forever be a date that can never be mentioned without arousing a deep sense of shame throughout the Middle East so that in generations hence, people should still come up to strangers unbidden and say, “I’m sorry for September 11. “ Until then it is unfinished business.

We have no right to forgive. We have no right to forget. We have no right to move on until this final condition is met. That in the holy of holies of our civilization’s enemies, in the innermost recesses of their sanctum sanctorum they should say with heartfelt ardor: never again. Never again. Never, ever again."

Rah! Rah! Ssss... Boommm... Bahhh! - Obama's Sound, and the Unions Fury

Fine sounding words and ominous sounding actions.
A couple take away points from President Obama's campaign speech tonight, both on the lightweight side, and an ominously heavy side. First the lightweight stuff.

From the opening of his speech, with its relentlessly peppy opening gambit of "Look at the wonders I have for you!", this speech was heavy on swell sounding words, but extremely light on acknowledging the costs which those words and wonders would bring. And in case you missed it, or didn't realize what it was you were hearing, this,

"The American Jobs Act will repair and modernize at least 35,000 schools. It will put people to work right now fixing roofs and windows; installing science labs and high-speed Internet in classrooms all across this country. It will rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hit hardest by foreclosures. It will jumpstart thousands of transportation projects across the country. "

, is nothing but spending, and big spending at that. But the icing on the cake in our face, was this,

"Every child deserves a great school — and we can give it to them, if we act now."

With all the energy and practiced enthusiasm which this was delivered with, I found myself wondering, is the pitchman Billy Mays still alive? I could almost hear "But wait! There's more!"

This speech was no serious, considered, substantive plan to get government out of the way to enable America to get back to work, this was an infomercial to kick off his 2012 campaign - and worse than that, it was only the first part of one. We were told part way through, that we tuned in tonight in order to find out that we've got to endure a second speech in a couple weeks to learn what the plan is for how he's going to pay for all of this... which by the way, would be The Plan, which we were promised we'd hear tonight, and which was the point of calling a joint session of congress to witness.

No gots. Big surprise.

And then, not surprisingly, we discovered that the plan, which we still do not have, is one that is very much in keeping with yesterday's post on Robert B. Reich's article about Obama's 'Zero Economy',



This message of peace is from a Union site.

When words and actions don't agree...
read their actions.

 " It will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled"

The viewpoint of this speech, and the person and team behind it, is not one that views an economy which is something that is made up of people making careful decisions, based upon perceived favorable, or hostile circumstances and laws, but one more consistent with seeing an economy as a closed system of rats in a maze, which uses shocks and cheese, in order to push them through, to ring the bell, and please their masters.

And it showed an obliviousness of our current situation, and how we got there, that is truly disturbing. Disturbing because of 'optimistic' sounding lines like this,

'And to help responsible homeowners, we're going to work with federal housing agencies, to help more poeple to refinance their mortgages, at rates that are no near 4%, that's a step "

, which were delivered with no awareness of how much they reflect the ideas which got us into the current situation we are trying so desperately to get out of today. Noting that the Republicans were still sitting down on what he expected to be an applause line for everyone, he says,

"I know you guys must be for this, because that's a step that can put more than $2,000 in family's pocket"

No, they are not for this - or at least they'd better not be. Does this President not have a clue what the major trigger was for the current mess we are in? Housing bubble? Helloo?!

If the people he is targeting here were good credit risks, they wouldn't need help from federal housing agencies to get low interest loans - I hear ads for several lenders touting just that every morning while driving into work. If they are credit risks, why in God's name, would you try, in this economy, triggered by federal agencies serving up home loans to people who didn't warrant good loans, why would you attempt yet another program for federal agencies to serve up more easy home loans to people who don't warrant a loan?

The one line in the entire speech which actually did catch my attention in a positive way, was this one,

"We're also planning to cut away the red tape that prevents too many rapidly-growing startup companies from raising capital and going public. "

, but unfortunately it was also the one line in the entire speech which began with 'We're also planning', rather than 'we are!' or 'we will!', and so, pardon my cynicism, but I put about as much faith in that materializing as I would a faith healer... who asks to be paid first.

But his most telling line, to my mind, was this - in what was said, and the much more meaningful portion that was not said, but was very much implied by it:

"What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?"

The easy reply to this is that this nation would be a far more closely knit one, a far wealthier one, one that would be significantly more free, and one with a much sounder rule of law, without those two Article 1, Section 8 shredding programs. Why do you ask?

Why did he ask? In hopes of successfully distracting from and ignoring several issues.

• One, that few things are more divisive to society than govt charity; I do not see Social Security or Medicare as kindnesses, but as one of the first measures to begin breaking apart the bonds and responsibilities which had bound us together for so long.
• Two, to point out how annoying, and obstructionist it is having to follow the rule of law is, and how the Constitution should be ignored, so that the President can more easily deliver goodies to his fans.
• Three, he wants very much for the Constitution to be sidelined and ignored, in order to be able to 'do good' for the American people.

Speaking of goodies,

"The people who hired us to work for them, they don't have the luxury of waiting 14 months"

They also don't have the luxury of taking vacations every other week, unlike some POTUS's we know.

And now to the dark and heavy side.
The dark side of the evening grows out of my habit of paying more attention to what this President does, than to what he says he'd like to do. President Obama had a nice rousing line in his speech about the wonderfulness of three words:

"I want to see more products sold around the world stamped with three proud words: "Made in America.""

, which would be nice to hear, if it wasn't for the fact that sitting in the audience as a guest of Rep. Marsha Blackburn, was the CEO of Gibson guitar, whose company has been singled out by this President's Justice Dept. for harassment , has had plants closed down, and numerous materials confiscated with no explanation or charges being brought against them, other than suggestions that it shut down or send its manufacturing jobs to Madagascar.

That's a big Strike One!

Then there was the fact that sitting with the First Lady, was Jeffrey Immelt, the head of the 'JOBS!' committee, who's company, with his enthusiastic blessing, has sent several of its manufacturing divisions... to China!

That's a big Strike Two!

And if that wasn't bad enough, also sitting with the First Lady, was the President of the AFL-CIO union, Richard Trumpka.

That's a big Strike Three!, he's outta there, no credibility, no way, no how.

Why? You really need more? Ok.

On Labor Day the Teamster's President Jimmy Hoffa said,

“...The war on workers, and you see it everywhere, it [sic] is the Tea Party . . .President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of a bitches out . . .”

On Labor Day, VP Biden told a union crowd:

"You are the only ones who can stop the barbarians at the gate! That’s why they want you so bad.”

and worse, Biden said this:

“You are the only non-governmental power that has the power and capacity to stop this onslaught.”

And today, early this morning, hundreds - HUNDREDS - of members of the AFL-CIO stormed a port in Longview Washington, vandalized the grounds, and held people hostage, over a labor dispute...

"Hundreds of Longshoremen stormed the Port of Longview early Thursday, overpowered and held security guards, damaged railroad cars, and dumped grain that is the center of a labor dispute, said Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha.
Six guards were held hostage for a couple of hours after 500 or more Longshoremen broke down gates about 4:30 a.m. and smashed windows in the guard shack, he said."

... and that union's president, Richard Trumpka, was a guest of honor in President Obama's box tonight, to listen to the President's speech with the First Lady.

Anyone see any signs for concern here? Does anyone think that hundreds of members of a union are mobilized to storm a port, vandalize property, hold people hostage, and be released without charges - without the leadership of that union knowing about it? Ahead of time? Do you think the President of that union, knowing that he'll be sitting as a guest of the President of the United States of America, would risk blindsiding and embarrassing the President, without letting him know that... some sort of incident was going to occur?

Not friggin' likely. Anyone see any signs for concern here now?

"... nobody has been arrested. Most of the protesters returned to their union hall after cutting brake lines and spilling grain from car at the EGT terminal, Duscha said."

How about now? No? Really?

"We're not surprised," Duscha said. "A lot of the protesters were telling us this in only the start."

Now? If not now, when?! If not you, who?! Who are you waiting for? YOU are the person you have been waiting for... if you will do nothing, no one will.

As I said to a friend the other day, just think about the implications of that Vice President Obama's statement, and this mornings actions:

1. That govt power is united with the interests of the labor movement and is also available to be used to 'stop this onslaught',
2. That union people comprise a power that should be used as a force, backed by the U.S. Govt, to be mobilized against those who disagree with them.
3. They apparently are beginning to do just that.

But we don't need to imagine the implications of this scenario any longer, it's beginning to happen right now. Just look at the news. If you can find it. Google it. You won't find much.

Interesting, no? Sound and fury, signifying... more than I'd like to imagine.

Robert B. Reich and the problem of The Zero Economy: It's the stupidity, stupid!

Keeping right in line with our recent theme of leftists using words for decorations and visual impact, rather than for any actual meaning they might have, Robert B. Reich-shuh (H/T Rush) has written an article entitled “The Zero Economy”, and brought to our perusement amusement by our goad friend Lance. It's jam packed with loony leftie lingo, and is going to require a few posts to dig through, but it'll be worth it - certainly more worthwhile than the article it self is.

While I’ve got to say that I kind of like the title, obviously fitting for the present administration, the problem is that all the words below it are simply ridiculous. Reich, you should keep in mind, is looking at the economy from his perspective of being one of those experts who are continually surprised by ‘unexpected’ economic numbers, week after week after week, you know:

“Experts were surprised at unexpectedly low jobs numbers”, “Experts were surprised by slower than expected economic growth”, “Experts were surprised this week by a sharp decline in the dollar”, “Experts were surprised this week by another Wall Street Crash”, etc

What for many of the rest of us is worth no more notice than a nod and muttered ‘duh’, for Reich & Co. they are matters of startling puzzlement, and so it isn’t too surprising that Reich’s diagnoses of the problem is one that only a proregressive leftist could give: Things aren’t bad because of proregressive policies, things are bad because proregressive policies haven’t been forced upon enough of us, enough.

He starts off surprisingly well enough, summarizing the dire nature of the situation in ways that the Obamanauts must find highly uncomfortable; noting that jobs growth in this economy is,

“In reality, worse than zero. We need 125,000 a month merely to keep up with population growth. So the hole continues to deepen.

Since this Depression began at the end of 2007, America’s potential labor force – working-age people who want jobs – has grown by over 7 million. But since then the number of Americans with jobs has shrunk by more than 300,000.”

But then, without skipping a beat, without even a twitch of self-reflection, he hopes for more of the same,

“...If this doesn’t prompt President Obama to unveil a bold jobs plan next Thursday, I don’t know what will.”

It’s good to see him acknowledge the reality that the economy is failing, but with that last sentence he exposes himself as being in denial of the fact that his preferred economic ideas, leftist through and through, which have dominated the economy for the last century, might have anything to do with the problem.

Fundamental to these leftist jobs killing ideas, is their denial that a businessmens concerns about market uncertainties (such as: "what do I really know about this situation? What can and should I do about it? Could I be punished for it?") could affect the decisions he makes concerning production, and that the real issue facing us, is that there is not enough consuming (of what?) going on. He says that:

“The problem is on the demand side. Consumers (whose spending is 70 percent of the economy) can’t boost the economy on their own. They’re still too burdened by debt, especially on homes that are worth less than their mortgages. Their jobs are disappearing, their pay is dropping, their medical bills are soaring.

And businesses won’t hire without more sales.

So we’re in a vicious cycle.

Republicans continue to claim businesses aren’t hiring because they’re uncertain about regulatory costs. Or they can’t find the skilled workers they need.

Baloney.... "

This line alone is just bizarre, “Consumers (whose spending is 70 percent of the economy) can’t boost the economy on their own....”. Seriously, think about that. It is the very root of leftist, Keynesian, economic philosophy, that consuming is what makes an economy work, and that spending is the magic elixir which enables the economic engine to run.

Spending what?

The answer they give to that question is what is forever threatening to unravel the mind boggling stupidity of leftist economic thought. Their answer is:

Money.

Now, at first glance that may not seem so bizarre, I mean... how else are you going to make a purchase, bring a goat to the counter? But actually, bringing a goat to the counter would be a far more rational thing to do than what the leftist means when he mouths the word ‘money’. If you’ve been paying attention to the theme of the last few posts, that’s the key. That the word you hear a leftist say, isn’t likely to mean what you thought they meant when they said it – the meaning is much more likely to be found in the meaning they meant to ignore.

The Keynesian does not think of money as having or conveying value, or even of representing value, but as a mechanism, so vast and complex, as to be able to successfully fool people into believing in an effect that has never actually been caused. Ben Bernanke's cure-all, quantitative easing (which means printing, or digitizing money) is thought to be a good idea, not because anything of value is created through the ‘printing’, but because churning out billions of new ‘dollars’ into the economy will juggle enough bad checks in high enough quantities, passing through enough hands quickly enough, so that the economy will suddenly appear to ‘function’.

And they don’t see a problem with this. Primarily, because, as leftists, they are far more concerned with appearances  than with reality itself, and there’s a reason for that - leftist philosophy tells them that appearances are all we can ever really know, that nothing can really be known to be true, and that people wouldn’t respond to it if they did, because they don’t believe people really make choices, let alone reasoned ones. The leftist believes that our actions are determined by our reactions to how things appear to be, not to something as unknowable as the truth and our concern for it and for what is right and wrong.

When Reich, Krugman and the rest speak of ‘stimulus’, they aren't looking at it as a way to provide a solution to what is wrong with the economy - that sort of thought never enters their mind - they only intend to nudge the mechanism into action once again. They literally mean it as a means of stimulating economic activity, as in 'Stimulus & Response', just as Pavlov’s dogs salivation was determined by the ringing of a bell. They are practicing economic determinism upon us, which is a reflection of their rejection of the concept of free will - they believe that human actions are caused by reactions to their environment, rather than from their own inner desire to pursue happiness, and therefore experts need to be set in charge of arranging the form and content of the peoples environment so as to make it a happy place for one and all.

This is ‘true’ of leftist thought in economics, it is true of leftist thought in education, it is true of leftist thought in politics, because leftist thought, in its fundamentals, is opposed to liberty - without free will, there is no liberty. It is founded upon the idea that you are incapable of making a choice, it believes that reason is not a tool for discovering what is true, but for tricking or forcing people to comply with you, and it believes that expert legislators should practice that and more, in order to ‘force them to be free’, as Rousseau put it.

It is anti- life, it is anti- liberty, it is anti-happiness and it is in full control of all the seats of ‘Experts’ in this nation. Is that a lot to put upon 'the dismal science' of economics? Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources, which have alternative uses - the meaning of 'Use' in that sentence varies hugely, depending on whether you think that people are and should be free to make their own choices about what to use and how much of it, or that they must be nudged into action by those who know better what we should be allowed to use because it's best for us to use.

But reality always has the last laugh, and if you're paying attention you can hear it chuckling as we bumble along - one of those chuckles can be heard whenever a market bubble pops - that’s a sign that the reality of those original bad checks, in one form or another, are beginning to be discovered, and Keynes, Marx, and all the rest are being refuted yet again.

Read Descartes, read Rousseau, read Hume, read Kant, read Hegel... because Marx certainly did, and so did Keynes. And because too many of us haven’t, or worse - we stand today completely unarmed before their descendants.

Unfortunately, rather than looking into the truth of the matter, economists like Robert B. Reich react to them with calls for more of the same.

And so I say again, the problem with leftist thought is the stupidity, stupid!

Don’t chuckle, they’re deadly serious. And if you think I’m overstating the case... hang on with me for a few posts and see what you think then.

Jimmy Hoffa! Finally a leftist who understands the true meaning of his ideas!

Finally a leftist has come along who understands the true meaning of his ideas, and doesn't try to hide it behind politically correct wobbly words! Let's hear it for Teamster President, Jimmy Hoffa! Finally! A leftist who understands the true meaning of his ideas!

While warming up the crowd for President Obama, Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa demonstrated that he knows EXACTLY what ‘Spread the wealth around’ and the elimination of property rights means, and that is that the elimination of Rights requires the exercise of force to get your way:

"We've got to keep an eye on the battle that we face -- a war on workers. And you see it everywhere. It is the Tea Party," he said. "And there's only one way to beat and win that war -- the one thing about working people is, we like a good fight."

Interesting that the only thing the Tea Party advocates is the preservation of Individual Rights through the rule of law, as defined in the Constitution of the United States of America. Extremists.
How is that a threat? How is that in anyway seen as 'waging war' on workers? The people of the Tea Party are themselves made up on workers - where is the sense here? See the official St. Louis Tea Party response here.

Well, pardon me, I realize that if you've followed the last several posts on this site, we've already established the fact that most leftists use words as decoration and for visual impact - not because they mean something.

So... on that score, that of using words in a way that makes sense, well, Hoffa flunks out just as badly as all the rest of his fellow proregressive leftists do. But on the count of coming out and saying plainly and clearly, what his ideas must mean in practice, comes out and states the only alternative available to those who discard care for the meaning of words, on that score, I've just got to give him a big thumbs up!

“...The war on workers, and you see it everywhere, it [sic] is the Tea Party . . .President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of a bitches [sic] out . . .”

And President Obama is standing right there with him. Isn't that comforting?

So America, you've got a choice before you. Do you want to line up as an army and march on, and 'take out' your fellow Americans who are asking for the rule of law?

Or do you instead want to see that the Constitution is respected and that the rule of law rules the land - and not an army of thugs who want things there way, no matter the cost?

Choose wisely my friends.

UPDATE:
I didn't get to hear Biden's remarks from his rally until this morning, and if anything, I think they are far worse than what Obama and Hoffa had to say.

The Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden (now granted, it is Joe 'gaffamatic' Biden, but what he said fit seamlessly with what the others said), told his crowd

“this is a different kind of fight. This is a fight for the heart and soul of the labor movement. This is a fight for the existence of organized labor. You are the only ones who can stop the barbarians at the gate! That’s why they want you so bad.”

And worse,this:

“You are the only non-governmental power that has the power and capacity to stop this onslaught.”

Just think about the implications of that statement. One, that govt power is united with the interests of the labor movement and is also available to be used to 'stop this onslaught', and two, that union people comprise a power that should be used as a force, backed by the U.S. Govt, to be mobilized against those who disagree with them.

That those whose ideas don't agree with those of the labor movenemt, constitute an onslaught against the interests of the Govt.

Just friggin' Wow.

And neither Obama, Biden nor Hoffa are trying to walk their statements back in the least. Bad stuff is coming down the pike folks. If this stuff isn't called out, bad stuff can't help but follow.

Bringing a knife to a gunfight: A leftie takes a shot at defending Van Jones' 'Contract for America'

I'd made a couple restrained (for me) comments on Van Jones 'Contract for America' site, before I began my last five posts upon it (here, here, here, here and here). Finally, after a long wait, I got a reply from a supporter of the contract, and as luck would have it, he illustrated the theme of my posts: That this thing is just an assemblage of words meant to appeal to excited emotions, without any consideration for what those words actually mean, or for what they must then mean, when put in practice.

The commenter, one 'revjmike' (no site links for his name), passed this off as his opinion:

"So you are opposed to "redistribution of wealth," which means to you that the wealthy can have as much as they can steal, whip, beat, coerce, and in any other way get from the working person. So the problem isn't redistribution. The problem is the inequality of opportunity afforded in our nation's "free market" capitalism that steals from the poor to give to the rich. Yes. I, too, believe redistribution of wealth is a problem. It's just that you define it incorrectly. And, yes, I'm picking a fight, you idiot."

Amazing, isn't it? For the proregressive leftist, opposing redistribution of wealth 'means' supporting stealing, whipping, beating and otherwise intimidating working people. It's tempting to say 'case closed'... but I am a flogger at heart and couldn't let such low hanging fruit go unpicked.

I'll let this post concern itself with my reply - which in my defense is just a stream-of-conscious reply, and the followups by both of us (and I'll sweeten the pot with an oldie but goodie - a video of Milton Friedman responding on nearly the same topic to Phil Donahue from several decades ago):

revjmike said "It's just that you define it incorrectly. And, yes, I'm picking a fight, you idiot."

;-) No, picking a fight is something you do face to face, tossing insults behind the safety of anonymity and distance is something petulant cowards do on webpages. Hence the whole of your comment. Interesting that you should spell the word 'define' though, how about we have a look see at how well you've thought about what those words you’ve spelled actually mean, shall we?

""redistribution of wealth," which means to you that the wealthy can have... "

'Can have', which means that someone is to be in the position of allowing them to have. You perhaps? Unlikely. Someone you trust... someone you trust to violate the rights of people you don't like. Hmmm... you wish to trust someone who has little or no regard for anyone's rights, and you are going to trust them with power... power gained by them through winning over the favor of 'the people', and that 'favor' is based upon whatever the current darling of public opinion is.

Tell me revjmike, have you ever noticed, in all your vast and attentive experience, how the mood of public opinion seems to change? Where do you suppose the person you trusted with power over the wealthy... and unquestioned power over anonymous folk like you... just how far do you suppose you'll be able to trust them to stand up for your 'rights', when the winds shift, hmmm? Once you've done away with the idea that Rights apply to everyone, rich & poor, the nice & the mean, the thoughtful and the idiot alike, once you've exempted some, 'the rich', from the protection of Rights, you no longer have Rights, all you are left with are privileges which the powerful have deigned to allow you to have - for now.

Do you really think trusting the powerful with absolute power over you, is a wise idea?

But I suppose that's trusting you to think a thought or two down the line... not something you show much promise at doing, I’m afraid.

"...as much as they can steal, whip, beat, coerce..."

Unless folks who unthinkingly 'pick fights', such as yourself, manage to do away with Rights completely, the Law still rules, and as such it has rules against theft, assault and swindle, and the only way 'the wealthy' can be above the law is if the concept of rights is weakened so that power and influence can set aside the law for those with power.

Are you able to see how that might become more of a problem, the more foolish ideas such as you favor here, should become the rule, rather than the shameful subterfuge?

Probably not.

", and in any other way get from the working person."

'Get from the working person', get... lets see... if a person has an unquestioned right to their property - possessions, earnings, etc - how could anyone, poor or wealthy, 'get' something from them without committing theft and risking jail?

On the other hand, if you succeed in weakening the right of your working man, and everyone else, to their property - their possessions, earnings, etc - then what possible security can they expect for their property, or their rights, from what remains of 'the law'... a law which would then (and much so now) that will be administered by people with the power to dismiss the rights of the wealthy, and the inconsequential, alike.

Hmmm? As Pooh might say: "Think, think, think..."

"So the problem isn't redistribution. "

Correct. The problem is the diminishment of rights, and the theft made possible because of it.

"The problem is the inequality of opportunity afforded in our nation's "free market" capitalism that steals from the poor to give to the rich."

Well, unfortunately, due to folks like you, if describing our economic situation of the last seven or eight decades, I have to put quotes around 'free market' too, but only because folks like you have diminished the right we have to our rights. Through laws and regulations, the govt, and those favored by it (consult Hank Paulson & Timothy Geithner for a list of those they've favored with gobs of your earnings (assuming you work) and mine), have undermined the law's ability to secure our property for us, and even our right to make our own choices about what to do with what we are left with, and with our own lives (your Life is something you have property in as well... though thanks to folks like you, your right to your own life is no longer unquestioned) as well. Today we no longer have a free market, we have the mixture of state and market, the 'mixed economy', which is what Marx advocated as a way of doing away with the free market altogether - and individual rights along with it.
The first step he advocated towards that, btw, was to cease calling the Free Market by its proper name (the Free Market), and to begin referring to as as 'Capitalism', because it is a lot easier to demonize something that refers to 'money', than it is to denigrate a system that requires people being free to make their own choices over their lives and property.

And what was it that Marx advocated most of all? What did he say, in Chp. 2 of his 'Manifesto', was what his entire methodology could be boiled down to?

Marx: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "

(closing out)

"Yes. I, too, believe redistribution of wealth is a problem. It's just that you define it incorrectly."

No, it's just that you never bothered to define it at all.

"And, yes, I'm picking a fight..."

Next time you try, you might want to think a bit about what you'll have to fight with - bringing poorly 'thought' out cliché’s and name calling, to a debate which requires thinking through ideas... is like the proverbial 'bringing a knife to a gun fight' - but then I guess that that is the 'Chicago Way', isn't it.

I won't bother with the name calling, I think you've identified yourself clearly enough to those who care to think the matter through, and to others such as yourself boasting of opinions you've not thought through ... who cares?
------------------

I expected some type of reply that would rebut what I'd said, something that clarified what revjmike had hastily quipped. No such luck. This was what revjmike wrote, as a follow up to his 'picking a fight':

What you say only makes sense because you want it to make sense.
I don't trust politicians any more than I trust most people; but not taxing wealthy people is a completely insane thing. They break the backs of the poor then complain that they don't think they work hard enough while drinking champagne at $300 plus per bottle and doing nothing of value much of the time except continue to be rich.
Show me where I am wrong because nothing you said refutes this.

I don't think I could have asked for a worse confirmation of my concerns that this contract, and its supporters, were using words without a care for their meaning or implications. I replied:

"What you say only makes sense because you want it to make sense."

I eagerly await your next insightful argument... something along the lines of "I'm rubber, you're glue..." no doubt.

"I don't trust politicians any more than I trust most people; "

Which illustrates what I said about your not paying attention to the meaning of what you say. You say you don't trust politicians more than anyone else, and yet you trust them to create, or further rig, a system of taxation which CAN give loopholes to those they favor - and if you propose either tax breaks or tax penalties for one group over another, our present tax code is what you'll get, which will be administered by guess who: Politicians.

"...but not taxing wealthy people is a completely insane thing."

Who said anything about not taxing the wealthy? There can be NO right for anyone to not support that which makes the defense of rights possible - the government - and taxation is the only practical method of funding the government. Outside of taxing for particular services (ports, highways, etc), taxes, to be fair, have to be evenly applied to all, rich and poor alike, and I've never said or implied anything differently.

Who is saying that some should be taxed less than others? That'd be you (redistribution of wealth). If you pay attention to the meaning of your words, what that means is that some people have more right, and some people have less right, to their property than others do, and worse, it means that some people even have a right to another person’s property - which amounts to saying that NO one has a Right to their property any longer, which effectively does away with Rights altogether; and there's only one group of people who can benefit from that: Politicians.

If you haven't been paying attention to the last hundred years, the only way to administer such a soak the rich plan is through the progressive income tax, which means putting politicians in charge of deciding who will have to pay, and how much, and it means decisions have to be made about what is income, and what isn't, and what that means are reams and reams of definitions, caveats and loopholes - a veritable glory hole of power for who? Politicians.

Just what is it you think politicians are going to do with that power? They're going to turn it into personal influence and wealth (aka: political power)... who are they going to get that from... the poor? or from those who can afford them and give them favors in return?

And you say you don't trust politicians more than anyone else. You have a funny way of showing it.

An income tax is bad enough, but if it were at least a single rate, you'd go a long way towards reducing political chicanery and favoritism. But a progressive tax, which is the only way to soak the rich and spread their wealth around, can only mean in practice that no one has a Right to their property, you reduce everyone to only having the privilege of keeping what politicians allow them to have, and in the end the rich are ALWAYS going to win out on who winds up with the most privileges.

Personally I think the only way to ensure that everyone pays an equal share, is by a sales tax... you want the rich to pay more taxes? With a flat sales tax, the more they buy, the more they'd pay. But that's another argument.
------------------------

I pretty much figured that that would be that, but revjmike came back with another blurb:

revjmike replied:

But a sales tax makes the poor pay a higher percentage of taxes than the wealthy.
And I agree about politicians using taxation to buy votes but also don't believe there is a better system. Equal taxation simply makes the poor and lower middle classes poorer.

This one is really fascinating.

"...don't believe there is a better system."

Wow. Based upon what? What comparisons have you made that you think that a tax system which is comprised of tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations, a system which NO ONE is free from being in violation of, a system which consumes billions of dollars every year in attempting to either comply with it, or in trying to finesse it, that is the system which you don't think there is a better one than?

Just wow.

Even Russia has abandoned the progressive income tax for a flat tax, and have experienced great success with it. Have you looked at any of that before deciding to believe there isn't a better system out there?

"But a sales tax makes the poor pay a higher percentage of taxes than the wealthy."

And when the poor pay for a pound of butter or a gallon of milk, it represents a vastly higher percentage of their wealth than it does for the wealthy, what's your point? That when those with less money spend or invest in anything, it represents a larger percentage of their wealth than it does for those who have more wealth than they do?

Congratulations on the insight, but as startling as it may have been for you, I don't think any Nobel prizes will be winging their way in your direction any time soon.

Or do you mean that the poor don't pay income taxes at all now, and having to pay any taxes would be unfair? Such a statement also assumes that the poor pay little or nothing in taxes today, which seems to undermine your earlier assertion that it is the who rich pay no taxes at all, doesn't it? Well, if the poor aren't paying taxes now - they should be. If the rich aren't paying taxes now - they should be. How is it fair that anyone should be exempt from supporting their govt?

The only perspective from which it matters whether one group pays a higher percentage of their wealth for taxes, or anything else, than does those with more wealth, is one of spite and envy... which really shouldn't be displayed in public. And forget the percentages, the actual totals of money which are paid by the rich, now, today, make any that the 'lower classes' pay, to be miniscule in comparison. The actual totals that would be paid towards supporting the govt by the poor, and by the wealthy, if it was supported through a sales tax, would be of such enormous disparities, that even putting them into percentages would make such complaints stand out as being as silly as they actually are.

For instance, if you make $20,000 a year, and spend $18,000 of that, with... say (ballparking off a couple proposals that are out there)... 20% of that going towards Federal sales taxes, that'd be $3,600, and the $2,000 you managed to save would be just that - saved. Not taxed at all. Your savings would be able to accumulate year after year, earning interest, without the penalty of taxation either as it grows, or on withdrawing it or investing it elsewhere. Can you imagine what that would mean to 'the poor' over a lifetime?

On the other hand, if you were wealthy, and you spent... say... $2,000,000 a year on the sorts of things that keep you amused... lots of $300 bottles of wine and so forth; at 20% Federal sales tax on all you spend, that would mean $400,000 to the govt coffers.

Whether you're talking real numbers, or percentages, that's certainly a difference I could live with - and not that it's a legitimate concern, but if you're petty enough to want those who benefit from America to have to pay more for that 'priviledge' than others, it seems to me that that's the way to do it. No?

"Equal taxation simply makes the poor and lower middle classes poorer."

Do you make an effort to attach meaning to the words you say and the positions you hold? Do you bother trying to see even the first level of implications of the words and positions you advance?

So equal taxation simply makes the poor poorer, eh? What do you think happens to the poor when additional taxes and regulations are put upon businesses? Who do you think will be hit hardest when incandescent light bulbs are removed from the market and the poor have to buy the expensive new green energy monstrosities instead?

How devastated do you think the rich are by the 12% taxes that are imposed on each gallon of gasoline today, as opposed to the poor? Do you think those don't make the poor poorer?

But again, buying milk and butter makes the poor poorer also, but they are necessities, and eating is presumably worth the expense - why should anyone be exempt from the necessary expenses of life?

Is there some reason why the poor should have no responsibility towards supporting the govt which upholds and defends their rights? Who relies upon, depends upon and benefits from that fundamental function of govt more than the poor? The wealthy and powerful could get along just fine without rights, they've got the wherewithal to buy favors and force as needed - in fact that's a sizable motivation behind so many of the 'upper classes' supported the regulatory state in the first place, so that they can more easily prey upon the less powerful.

Ask your local small banker, who it is that they think benefited most from Paulson, Geithner, Bush & Obama's 'Too big to fail' policies, it sure as heck wasn't them! Too big to fail means that everyone else is too small to be allowed to survive.

The easily discernible truth - if you bother looking for it - is that few despise and fear the Free Market more than those who desire to remain wealthy and retain their positions without having to work for them. Take a closer look into who actually instigated many if not most of all of the regulations currently on the books, and the regulatory agencies burdening the land, starting with the first big one, the Interstate Commerce Commission. If you bother to look beyond the easy feelings, you'll find that they were mostly brought about by the entrenched and established rich, the ones who are eager to 'work with' the govt, like G.E. does today, who didn't want to have to compete with new businesses. It was regulatory policies such as those promoted by this 'contract' which enabled them to do it - and the people they hurt were, are, the poor, lower & middle classes who are the ones who have to pay so much more for their products and services (which folks like you call 'fair prices') than what they would have had to pay, if the rich and powerful had to compete on a truly level playing field.

Regulations don't hurt the rich and powerful - they hurt those who are trying to become rich and powerful, and those who are deprived of the benefits of that competition.

The fact is that policies like this 'Contract for America' favor, hurt the poor, not the rich. The rich will simply pack up their factories and ship them overseas (you might want to google up Gibson Guitar company, the Dept of Justice and Madagascar - you'll find that the DOJ just advised them to shut down their American factories and ship the mfg overseas - how's that for 'Justice'?), if the regulations and taxes get to be too much - the poor and lower classes don't have that option, they've got to suffer under the results of your unthinking - but oh so easily satisfying feeling - policies.

And lets not forget, the additional percentages which the poor, lower and middle classes have to pay to ease the positions of the rich and powerful saved from the rigors of competing by leftists regulation of the market, represent sizable percentages more of their wealth, than the differences do to the rich.

Where's your concern for that?

If you want an issue to be concerned about, the question you should be asking, is whether or not the measures you favor leave people free to live their own lives, or will they empower experts in the government to live their own lives for them?

This contract comes down solidly for the later, and there are a lot of us out here who are fed up with it. If you care so much about the poor... why aren't you fed up with it too?