Neal Boortz had some very interesting information about the costs of illegal immigration on his website yesterday, so because I'm pressed for time today I'm going to share it here too. It's also informative and all around good stuff (scary stuff) to know.
1) $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2) $1.9 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3) $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/200/fiscalexec.html
4) $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
5) $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6) $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7) 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8) $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers.http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html (Link not active ... was not able to verify this information)
9) $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10) The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11) During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report. http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12) The National Policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period. http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13) In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14) 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States. http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals
Total cost is a whopping... $338 BILLION A YEAR!!!
Incredible. Or should I say incredibile? Either way, something's very wrong with this picture.
The title of today's post is a quote by Frank Chodorov.
P.S. In case this piqued your interest, Boortz's website has very interesting news every day- stuff that you don't see on CNN.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation.
This is the best story I've read in a while:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2237297620080222?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
To summarize, the Vice Chairman of GM told reporters last month that he thinks global warming is a "total crock of shit." He got a lot of flak from bloggers, and probably from environmentalist moonbats also. But he stands by his statement. I love it for two reasons: first, because he came out and said something that needs to be said a lot more often; and second, because he didn't back down when people got upset, as so many people seem to do. I say, good for him.
And while I'm at it, let me agree with him: all this global warming nonsense is a crock of shit. It continually amazes me that people are not only believe it, but are willing to accept all sorts of government restrictions and regulations because they believe it. In California, lawmakers are trying to make global warming be taught in schools and addressed in textbooks. Environmentalists are telling us we shouldn't drink bottled water anymore, and some are actually pushing for a ban. In San Francisco, lawmakers want to make it illegal to use your fireplace. Companies are falling all over themselves to "go green," whatever that even means. Car companies are being told that all cars are going to have to get 30 miles to the gallon in ~10 years. Environmentalist groups advocate carbon quotas (once you've used yours up, you wouldn't even be able to take an airplane flight). Oh, and now some Alaskan village is suing dozens of companies for relocation costs, because they have to move due to melting ice- because of global warming. And the list goes on.
Meanwhile, there are studies and studies done which prove that 1) global warming is not really happening and 2) any climate change that is occurring isn't caused by man. Did you know that the Earth has only warmed by 1 degree in the last 100 years? How about that temperature fluctuations are normal and have been happening since before man even existed? Or how about that polar ice caps aren't really melting: there's the same amount of ice as ever, it's just in different places.
If you don't know this, I'm not surprised. CNN doesn't report it, and most people are too lazy to do their own research. There's not enough time or space to discuss all the studies that have been done to disprove the global warming nonsense, but they are out there and easily found with a simple google search. In fact, more scientists believe that global warming doesn't exist than believe that it does. There's so much evidence out there to the contrary, it's unbelievable that people still think it's real. Of course, due to the laziness and ignorance of the masses, the mainstream media can ignore all the evidence and report what they want people to think.
If you want to know the real reason why this global warming hoax has been forced down our collective throats, just look at all the government restrictions and regulations that have been passed under the guise of preventing global warming. Once you recognize that the government (with the help of the mainstream media) is just trying to get you scared enough to give up your freedoms, you'll be most of the way there.
As has been my theme for the past couple of days: ignorance is a curable disease. Just pick up a book.
The title of today's post is a quote by John Shuttleworth, environmentalist (and nutjob?).
P.S. Did you know that 15 years ago the media was reporting that the Earth was cooling? Good book: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2237297620080222?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
To summarize, the Vice Chairman of GM told reporters last month that he thinks global warming is a "total crock of shit." He got a lot of flak from bloggers, and probably from environmentalist moonbats also. But he stands by his statement. I love it for two reasons: first, because he came out and said something that needs to be said a lot more often; and second, because he didn't back down when people got upset, as so many people seem to do. I say, good for him.
And while I'm at it, let me agree with him: all this global warming nonsense is a crock of shit. It continually amazes me that people are not only believe it, but are willing to accept all sorts of government restrictions and regulations because they believe it. In California, lawmakers are trying to make global warming be taught in schools and addressed in textbooks. Environmentalists are telling us we shouldn't drink bottled water anymore, and some are actually pushing for a ban. In San Francisco, lawmakers want to make it illegal to use your fireplace. Companies are falling all over themselves to "go green," whatever that even means. Car companies are being told that all cars are going to have to get 30 miles to the gallon in ~10 years. Environmentalist groups advocate carbon quotas (once you've used yours up, you wouldn't even be able to take an airplane flight). Oh, and now some Alaskan village is suing dozens of companies for relocation costs, because they have to move due to melting ice- because of global warming. And the list goes on.
Meanwhile, there are studies and studies done which prove that 1) global warming is not really happening and 2) any climate change that is occurring isn't caused by man. Did you know that the Earth has only warmed by 1 degree in the last 100 years? How about that temperature fluctuations are normal and have been happening since before man even existed? Or how about that polar ice caps aren't really melting: there's the same amount of ice as ever, it's just in different places.
If you don't know this, I'm not surprised. CNN doesn't report it, and most people are too lazy to do their own research. There's not enough time or space to discuss all the studies that have been done to disprove the global warming nonsense, but they are out there and easily found with a simple google search. In fact, more scientists believe that global warming doesn't exist than believe that it does. There's so much evidence out there to the contrary, it's unbelievable that people still think it's real. Of course, due to the laziness and ignorance of the masses, the mainstream media can ignore all the evidence and report what they want people to think.
If you want to know the real reason why this global warming hoax has been forced down our collective throats, just look at all the government restrictions and regulations that have been passed under the guise of preventing global warming. Once you recognize that the government (with the help of the mainstream media) is just trying to get you scared enough to give up your freedoms, you'll be most of the way there.
As has been my theme for the past couple of days: ignorance is a curable disease. Just pick up a book.
The title of today's post is a quote by John Shuttleworth, environmentalist (and nutjob?).
P.S. Did you know that 15 years ago the media was reporting that the Earth was cooling? Good book: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.
I saw on CNN this morning (I was at the gym, and couldn't change the channel to a better news station) that Clinton and Obama are making free trade a major issue in Ohio. Apparently Ohio has lost manufacturing jobs since President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, and the Democrats are both eager to show that they don't support free trade.
There are two issues here, as I see it. The first is econonmic: the government can't protect every industry or everyone's job. They can protect some industries, and so protect some jobs, but this will be at the expense of other industries. Take steel as an example. The government protects the steel industry (through trade restrictions), and steel workers' jobs are safe. But the steel industry needed protection in the first place because the U.S. just can't make steel as cheaply as some other countries can. As a result, the American auto industry has to pay more for steel (because they can only buy U.S. steel, not cheaper foreign steel) and has to lay people off to offset some of the added cost. At the same time the cost of American cars goes up to offset some of the rest of the added cost, while countries that are free to buy cheaper steel can sell their cars more cheaply. The American auto companies then lay off more jobs, because people are buying cheaper foreign cars.
The steel industy is just an example; the same effects are seen any time the government protects an industry. Politicans know this, and economists know this- but most Americans don't. The problem is that is takes years for the effects to be felt, and by that time most people won't connect the dots. This is wonderful for politicians, who can look like the champions of the working class for protecting an industry- and escape all the blame once the effects are felt.
The second issue is possibly even more distressing than the lack of basic economic knowledge evinced in this election season: the growing desire of most Americans for the government to take care of them. The Ohio example: they want the government to guarantee them jobs (and not just any jobs- the ones they want). If an industry is struggling and has to lay people off, they look to the government to end free trade and bring jobs back to that industry. (Apparently finding a job in a different industry or learning a more marketable skill is out of the question.) Compare the reactions to the Democrats, who want to "bring jobs back" (cheers), and to Mitt Romney, who said in Michigan that people need to face the fact that some jobs may not be coming back ("backlash"). People don't want to be self sufficient anymore, so they certainly don't want to be told that the government can't protect their jobs: they just want the government to take care of them. Nevermind that it is impossible for the government to protect everyone- most people don't know that and don't care to find out.
I'm really hoping that the people who are willing to educate themselves and who don't need the government to take care of them don't let ignorance win this election.
The title of today's post is a quote by Thomas Jefferson.
There are two issues here, as I see it. The first is econonmic: the government can't protect every industry or everyone's job. They can protect some industries, and so protect some jobs, but this will be at the expense of other industries. Take steel as an example. The government protects the steel industry (through trade restrictions), and steel workers' jobs are safe. But the steel industry needed protection in the first place because the U.S. just can't make steel as cheaply as some other countries can. As a result, the American auto industry has to pay more for steel (because they can only buy U.S. steel, not cheaper foreign steel) and has to lay people off to offset some of the added cost. At the same time the cost of American cars goes up to offset some of the rest of the added cost, while countries that are free to buy cheaper steel can sell their cars more cheaply. The American auto companies then lay off more jobs, because people are buying cheaper foreign cars.
The steel industy is just an example; the same effects are seen any time the government protects an industry. Politicans know this, and economists know this- but most Americans don't. The problem is that is takes years for the effects to be felt, and by that time most people won't connect the dots. This is wonderful for politicians, who can look like the champions of the working class for protecting an industry- and escape all the blame once the effects are felt.
The second issue is possibly even more distressing than the lack of basic economic knowledge evinced in this election season: the growing desire of most Americans for the government to take care of them. The Ohio example: they want the government to guarantee them jobs (and not just any jobs- the ones they want). If an industry is struggling and has to lay people off, they look to the government to end free trade and bring jobs back to that industry. (Apparently finding a job in a different industry or learning a more marketable skill is out of the question.) Compare the reactions to the Democrats, who want to "bring jobs back" (cheers), and to Mitt Romney, who said in Michigan that people need to face the fact that some jobs may not be coming back ("backlash"). People don't want to be self sufficient anymore, so they certainly don't want to be told that the government can't protect their jobs: they just want the government to take care of them. Nevermind that it is impossible for the government to protect everyone- most people don't know that and don't care to find out.
I'm really hoping that the people who are willing to educate themselves and who don't need the government to take care of them don't let ignorance win this election.
The title of today's post is a quote by Thomas Jefferson.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
"Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.
Continuing where I left off yesterday: the second thing that has been bothering me is the talk of Exxon Mobile's profits. It made $40 billion in profits last year, and Hillary Clinton and the media have been talking about how that money needs to be taken away. Apparently it's not "fair" for a company to keep the profits it earned.
Of course these people fail to mention the most important part: Mobile is not keeping its $40 billion profits. The $40 billion is gross profits, and doesn't take into account the crude oil it needs to buy (the price of which is rising), the employees and maintenance costs it needs to pay, and so on. Profits are not the same as profit margins. Its profit margin hasn't increased, by the way: even though its profits have been up the past couple years, its profit margin has stayed steady at 10%.
Also lacking in the media (and Clinton) analysis is the amount of taxes Mobile paid. It has paid an average of $27 billion in taxes every year the past three years, a number that none of us can even fathom. It comes out to about 41% of its taxable income. And this is still before it pays its employees, its maintenance costs, etc. So the next time you're watching TV and you hear something about record profits- listen carefully to see whether profit margins are ever addressed. I think you'll find they aren't.
Politicians and the media are going to keep making these ridiculous claims as long as they know the average person can't be bothered to get a grasp on simple economics. So if you're one of the people they rely on to remain ignorant, pick up The Undercover Economist (I've mentioned it before) or something similar. And if you know someone who believes ignorance is bliss, give them a copy and show them its not. How long are we going to let ourselves be manipulated like this?
The title of today's post is a quote by Joseph Sobran.
Of course these people fail to mention the most important part: Mobile is not keeping its $40 billion profits. The $40 billion is gross profits, and doesn't take into account the crude oil it needs to buy (the price of which is rising), the employees and maintenance costs it needs to pay, and so on. Profits are not the same as profit margins. Its profit margin hasn't increased, by the way: even though its profits have been up the past couple years, its profit margin has stayed steady at 10%.
Also lacking in the media (and Clinton) analysis is the amount of taxes Mobile paid. It has paid an average of $27 billion in taxes every year the past three years, a number that none of us can even fathom. It comes out to about 41% of its taxable income. And this is still before it pays its employees, its maintenance costs, etc. So the next time you're watching TV and you hear something about record profits- listen carefully to see whether profit margins are ever addressed. I think you'll find they aren't.
Politicians and the media are going to keep making these ridiculous claims as long as they know the average person can't be bothered to get a grasp on simple economics. So if you're one of the people they rely on to remain ignorant, pick up The Undercover Economist (I've mentioned it before) or something similar. And if you know someone who believes ignorance is bliss, give them a copy and show them its not. How long are we going to let ourselves be manipulated like this?
The title of today's post is a quote by Joseph Sobran.
If we're looking for the sources of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity [and] ignorance.
Two things have been bothering me this weekend, and they both involve the willingness of most people to believe what the media tells them instead of doing their own research.
The first is the lies that are spread about the Fair Tax. I advised a friend of mine to do some research on it, and he came back to me with an article by someone who was either completely misinformed, or lying. According to the author, the Fair Tax spells doom: the supporters of the Fair Tax are falsely calculating the rate by calculating it as an inclusive tax, rich people wouldn't pay "their fair share," the government would have to raise the rate because it would also have to pay the tax on its purchases.
Goodness. Where to start? The author never addresses the impacted tax that adds an extra 22% or so to every item we buy anyway.... and how that would disappear if the Fair Tax were instituted. Nor does he mention that all income taxes are calculated inclusively: if you're in the 15% bracket, you pay $15 out of every $100; calcuated as an exclusive tax it's 18%. Most Americans pay 33 cents on every dollar in taxes; if that were calculated at an exclusive rate it would be a 48% tax. (Hmm... I wonder why we never hear that 48% exclusive rate quoted?)
As for the author's "fair share" argument: rich people buy a lot more things, so they would be taxed more. You don't see poor people buying million dollar yachts or homes. (But for the fans of income redistribution this would be bad news: they would no longer be able to encourage class warfare by arguing that taxes should be raised on the rich, for example.) Finally: the costs of everything the government buys now includes the imbedded taxes, as mentioned above. Under the Fair Tax this would be gone, replaced by a 23% consumption tax. There would be no substantial difference in prices.
So: if you want to learn more about the Fair Tax, don't believe ridiculous articles like the one my friend found, and don't even rely on me. Go to the Fair Tax website, or better yet buy the new book, Fair Tax: The Truth. I would say take it from the library, but if you buy it you can give it to a friend when you're done. If the media isn't going to be honest about the merits of the Fair Tax, it's going to have to be a grassroots effort. We all need to do our part to help combat stupidity and ignorance.
Since this ran longer than I expected, more on the second thing that annoyed me this weekend, tomorrow.
The title of today's post is a quote by P.J. O'Rourke.
The first is the lies that are spread about the Fair Tax. I advised a friend of mine to do some research on it, and he came back to me with an article by someone who was either completely misinformed, or lying. According to the author, the Fair Tax spells doom: the supporters of the Fair Tax are falsely calculating the rate by calculating it as an inclusive tax, rich people wouldn't pay "their fair share," the government would have to raise the rate because it would also have to pay the tax on its purchases.
Goodness. Where to start? The author never addresses the impacted tax that adds an extra 22% or so to every item we buy anyway.... and how that would disappear if the Fair Tax were instituted. Nor does he mention that all income taxes are calculated inclusively: if you're in the 15% bracket, you pay $15 out of every $100; calcuated as an exclusive tax it's 18%. Most Americans pay 33 cents on every dollar in taxes; if that were calculated at an exclusive rate it would be a 48% tax. (Hmm... I wonder why we never hear that 48% exclusive rate quoted?)
As for the author's "fair share" argument: rich people buy a lot more things, so they would be taxed more. You don't see poor people buying million dollar yachts or homes. (But for the fans of income redistribution this would be bad news: they would no longer be able to encourage class warfare by arguing that taxes should be raised on the rich, for example.) Finally: the costs of everything the government buys now includes the imbedded taxes, as mentioned above. Under the Fair Tax this would be gone, replaced by a 23% consumption tax. There would be no substantial difference in prices.
So: if you want to learn more about the Fair Tax, don't believe ridiculous articles like the one my friend found, and don't even rely on me. Go to the Fair Tax website, or better yet buy the new book, Fair Tax: The Truth. I would say take it from the library, but if you buy it you can give it to a friend when you're done. If the media isn't going to be honest about the merits of the Fair Tax, it's going to have to be a grassroots effort. We all need to do our part to help combat stupidity and ignorance.
Since this ran longer than I expected, more on the second thing that annoyed me this weekend, tomorrow.
The title of today's post is a quote by P.J. O'Rourke.
Friday, February 22, 2008
If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.
Michael Bloomberg, the multi-billionaire mayor of New York City, has a history of imposing his values on everyone he can reach. Recently, he banned trans fats in all NYC restaurants; he did this because he is a healthy eater, and he thinks everyone else should be as well. He expanded the ban on smoking to include even small restaurants and bars, as well as office buildings, because he doesn't like smoking. He claims to believe in global warming, and wants more government regulation, of course, to prevent it (If the New York Times doesn't publish the studies that show what little global warming there is isn't caused by man, do they exist?). The list goes on, and on; it's all a part of his "quality of life" plan for NYC and everywhere else. Nevermind the people he has to step on (and put out of business) and the majority opinions he has to disregard to get where he's going- he knows what's best for us, dammit.
The worst of his pet projects, however, stems from his hatred of the Second Amendment. He just can't stand to see law-abiding citizens owning guns. To that end, he's sued numerous gun dealers up and down the Eastern seaboard (most of these suits are baseless, but it's easy to continue a lawsuit till one of you is bankrupt if you're a billionaire and he's not), tried to get Congress to force the ATF to give police departments access to gun data, and formed a coalition of mayors against guns (at least four of whom have since dropped out, citing discomfort with the group's tactics), among other things.
He claims that his actions are to fight crime, but he has no response to the many studies and data that show that gun control laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals- all they do is keep law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. Nor does he have a rational answer for why Great Britain, for example, has experienced sky-rocketing crime statistics, or why the number of illegal guns on the street has tripled (at least) since their handgun ban. Unsurprisingly, he can not tell us why similar problems would not arise in America if he got his way. Apparently he can't be bothered with such minutiae.
But the big picture really isn't about this busybody, annoying as he is. He may be the posterchild for the big government nanny- "I know what's best for you, don't argue with me"- but at least his sphere of influence is fairly small. I can move away (which I plan to) and you never have to move here (and you shouldn't). But if a Democrat gets elected this year, they're going to bring policies like this to the whole country. Have you noticed how Obama and Clinton talk about "change" all the time? The main criticism each has of the other is the other won't "change" things enough. Question: what sort of change are they talking about? They never say. I have some ideas, and you probably do as well, but isn't it odd that their supporters just seem excited by the prospect (or maybe just the word, who knows) and aren't at all curious what it means? There really needs to be some test you have to take before you can vote.
The title of today's post is a quote by Jacob Hornberger.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.
Here's an interesting article on the subprime mortgage situation:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-23168675.htm
The author examines the causes of the crisis, and comes to the conclusion that too much government regulation is one of them. Many factors contributed to crisis, of course, but I'm inclined to agree that too much government probably had something to do with it too. Of course, I think too much government is behind most problems.
I suspect that now the government is going to make things even worse trying to come up with a "solution." There's been a lot of talk about preventing the banks from foreclosing on the homes of subprime borrowers (something that's already happened to some extent, although it's not permanent - yet), buying out the loans, or taking other regulatory action to "fix" things. One thing you can be sure of, if the government gets involved in the "solutions" business, it's going to cost taxpayers.
Speaking of taxpayers, have you noticed that news sources almost never refer to government money as taxpayer money? They refer to this-or-that governmental agency's "budget" or simply say the dollar amount- but you don't see "1 billion taxpayer dollars used to shoot down a satellite" (for example) very often. Hmm.
Finally: mainstream news annoys me. Today the major story is that John McCain maybe possibly had an improper relationship with a female lobbyist... eight years ago. This story, which is worthy of several front pages and much discussion on television news, apparently, is based on accounts from anonymous sources. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has definitively accepted numerous illegal campaign donations, and I don't remember any of those headlining the New York Times. Not to mention all the other questionable activities she and her husband have definitively been a part of, which probably haven't even made it onto the Times' back page this election season. I try not to think about how many people are getting all of their information from these sources, and doing no research (or thinking) for themselves.
The title of today's post is a quote by Thomas B. Reed.
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-23168675.htm
The author examines the causes of the crisis, and comes to the conclusion that too much government regulation is one of them. Many factors contributed to crisis, of course, but I'm inclined to agree that too much government probably had something to do with it too. Of course, I think too much government is behind most problems.
I suspect that now the government is going to make things even worse trying to come up with a "solution." There's been a lot of talk about preventing the banks from foreclosing on the homes of subprime borrowers (something that's already happened to some extent, although it's not permanent - yet), buying out the loans, or taking other regulatory action to "fix" things. One thing you can be sure of, if the government gets involved in the "solutions" business, it's going to cost taxpayers.
Speaking of taxpayers, have you noticed that news sources almost never refer to government money as taxpayer money? They refer to this-or-that governmental agency's "budget" or simply say the dollar amount- but you don't see "1 billion taxpayer dollars used to shoot down a satellite" (for example) very often. Hmm.
Finally: mainstream news annoys me. Today the major story is that John McCain maybe possibly had an improper relationship with a female lobbyist... eight years ago. This story, which is worthy of several front pages and much discussion on television news, apparently, is based on accounts from anonymous sources. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has definitively accepted numerous illegal campaign donations, and I don't remember any of those headlining the New York Times. Not to mention all the other questionable activities she and her husband have definitively been a part of, which probably haven't even made it onto the Times' back page this election season. I try not to think about how many people are getting all of their information from these sources, and doing no research (or thinking) for themselves.
The title of today's post is a quote by Thomas B. Reed.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away because the passion for equality made vain the hope for freedom.
The Democrats are falling all over themselves to be seen as the candidate who will do more for the "less fortunate." The nonsense that they spew gives me a headache. But what's even worse is hearing people talk about how fantastic their ideas are: how Democrats will cure all the ills and evils of society. Living in New York City, I hear this a lot... Sometimes I think economics books just aren't sold here.
A fun website: http://hilldabeast.com/. Not that educational, but I just don't like Hillary Clinton. On second thought, maybe it could be educational... for someone who doesn't know Clinton is a socialist and is inspired to do some research, perhaps? Probably not. But still good fun.
The title of today's post is a quote by Lord Action.
A fun website: http://hilldabeast.com/. Not that educational, but I just don't like Hillary Clinton. On second thought, maybe it could be educational... for someone who doesn't know Clinton is a socialist and is inspired to do some research, perhaps? Probably not. But still good fun.
The title of today's post is a quote by Lord Action.
Monday, February 4, 2008
They're the same face! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
Many people have been following the Senate's investigations into steroids in baseball and "Spygate" in the NFL. Most people that I've talked to are upset about the intrusion into professional sports, and don't think the government has any business meddling in them. I agree. But what really concerns me is while people are disturbed by these "investigations," most are unconcerned by all the other government intrusions. They are affected much more by the others, but pay no attention to them; but when the government involves itself in professional sports, look out.
All this would be ok if it inspired people to probe deeper. Perhaps to ask a series of questions along the lines of: What else might the government be involved in that it doesn't need to be? Does any of it affect me? If so, what can I do to stop it? I highly doubt this will be the result, though. Individual freedoms are being lost or encroached upon every day, but no one asks whether the current MLB and NFL investigations are a symptom of something deeper. Instead, most people will continue to go on complaining about the pro sports investigations for a while, and will never think about it more deeply than wondering what Roger Clemens will say when he testifies.
The title of this post is from Zoolander.
All this would be ok if it inspired people to probe deeper. Perhaps to ask a series of questions along the lines of: What else might the government be involved in that it doesn't need to be? Does any of it affect me? If so, what can I do to stop it? I highly doubt this will be the result, though. Individual freedoms are being lost or encroached upon every day, but no one asks whether the current MLB and NFL investigations are a symptom of something deeper. Instead, most people will continue to go on complaining about the pro sports investigations for a while, and will never think about it more deeply than wondering what Roger Clemens will say when he testifies.
The title of this post is from Zoolander.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)