You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August 2010.
My answer to the title of this post is: No.
I don’t know if this video is telling the truth, but it sounds right. If you know it to be false, let me know.
Pending the validity of the main points of the video, many of the arguments in favor of a mosque at the Manhattan site take on a different meaning.
Let’s make the assumption that this group of Islamists is truly peaceful and wanting nothing more than a place to worship. That is a big stretch since they already have a Mosques in Manhattan and have had for many years.
My vote would be against siting a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero. In fact, if I were part of the group making the decision to site the mosque, I would have voted agains it for a number of reasons. First, siting a mosque there is the immoderate thing to do. It is an ‘in-your-face’ move, at the very least to those who lost friends or loved ones on September 11, 2001. Second, I would have counseled the group to wait a generation before considering a site so close to the ‘twin-towers’. If nothing else, it will remind non muslims of the event and the part a religion played in the event. Neither of those reminders is good for the image of muslims. Neither encourages tolerance or peace. Third, from a practical point of view, they will not get cooperation in getting the work done, will have problems with security and vandalism, and will find it very expensive, if not impossible to get insurance on the building. Fourth and probably the heart of my objection to the site is that such a move does not show Muslims or their Religion to be peaceful. It would be like a guy walking down the street trying to pick a fight by flipping off every passerby and then saying he was doing it to make peace.
In short, I think it is a dumb move to place a mosque there and if I were muslim, I would communicate that to my leaders. If I were a New Yorker, I would demand that my government deny permits to build the Mosque.
If you want to see the best reasons why we should not allow an intolerant religion to build a “house of worship” near Ground Zero, see this video from PJTV’s Bill Whittle - well worth the time. (Hat tip to my blogger friend Steven over at Skalduggery.com for leading me to the video).
Last month, I read an extremely powerful article that I highly recommend.
The piece is called America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution published in the American Spectator and written by Angelo M. Codevilla. He is a Professor Emeritus of International Relations at Boston University. His insights are very astute and his overall analysis of the mess we are currently in struck me as being brilliant. I think Mr. Codevilla has done a nice job of making his piece something other than a reds versus blues issue. It can be a very discouraging piece. It is also an encouraging one in that it may help us see the problem, not just the sideshow in Washington as reported by the media in New York.
If you read nothing else ‘political’ this year, you would do well to take the time to read this. Whether you agree or disagree, I am confident this will make you think, hopefully in ways you haven’t before. I would love to see comments about this piece.
For those of you who like Jon Stewart’s satire, you might also like the work of Andrew Klavan, or maybe not. Here’s a sample:
If what follows is all true, it is both disheartening and enough to make you want to scream at someone (preferably a ‘civil servant’ whose job was a payback for a favor or a vote or to ensure a future vote). The recent incident where an obscure USDA employee (Shirley Sherrod) was caught on tape discussing how she had discriminated against a white farmer in her official position was first exposed by Andrew Breitbart on his blog. The tables were then turned and to read the popular media, Shirley Sherrod turned out to be the victim. Read this piece and then see if you think she really was the victim. Here is a report of the email I received from a friend that first tipped me off to this latest information about Ms. Sherrod.
If you haven’t given up and moved to New Zealand yet, look a bit further into the doings of Shirley Sherrod and her husband, Charles, and see what you think is the truth about the Sherrod story. Early in their ‘career’ as black advocates, Shirley and Charles Sherrod were organizers and managers of a farm cooperative in Southwest Georgia, New Communities, Inc. (NCI). See this article. If what it implies is true, these people are despicable and yet they are collecting money from our government based on the pain and suffering that they experienced. I am a bit skeptical that we haven’t heard more people call out the Sherrod’s if this is all true.
I know I am asking a lot that you read all these links, but I think you will be glad that you did. Then ask yourself how much of this you have read or heard reported by our larger media outlets. Either it is not reported because it is false or there is an agenda that wants this all to go away.
In January of 2009, Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States. He had won an election on a campaign of Hope and Change. The first poll of his popularity by Rasmussen gave him an approval rating of +28 (44% strongly approving of him versus only 16% strongly disapproving of him). The next day, after all the glowing press reports from the inauguration, he hit a high water mark at +30% approval.
Mr. Obama promised to fix our “broken” health care system. He promised to fix the broken economy that he had “inherited” from Mr. Bush. He promised to close Guantanamo Bay and end the war in Iraq. He vowed to end the revolving door of lobbyists joining the government and planned to give five days for any bill to see the light of day before signing any legislation. He said he would work aggressively with Congress to all but eliminate “earmarks” in legislation – he would roll back the amount to under $8 Billion, the level of 1994. He vowed that no family earning under $250,000 a year would see any tax increases and that seniors earning under $50,000 a year would pay no income taxes.
His failure to keep any of the above listed promises has not helped his popularity or his approval rating as measured by Rasmussen. Yesterday, it stood at -22. That is a 50 point reversal.
He has directed the Attorney General to sue the State of Arizona for trying to enforce Federal law. That was not a popular move. Most polls show that between 60 and 80% of Americans believe that if the Federal Government will not protect our borders, it makes sense for the States to step in and do the job.
The voters in Missouri voted over 71% against Mr. Obama’s vision of mandatory health care insurance.
Now that Mr. Obama has failed to live up to his promises, the promises that won him an election, he no longer has the consent of the governed. In effect, except for a lapdog Congress, he would be a true lame duck. That could change this November. But it doesn’t seem to bother him. He has already nationalized half the nation’s auto industry, the entire higher education industry and the health care industry. Can you blame the guy for not caring what his subjects think about him when he has accomplished all that for himself and his friends?
Arthur Laffer had a piece in the Wall Street Journal last week that should be required reading for all politicians. I recommend that you read it. Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
As a bit of a tease, it starts with a quote from John F. Kennedy in 1963:
Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.
Politics is about power and power is about the number of voters you can persuade to agree with you. Politicians like to make you envious of those who have more than you. Then it is easy to convince you that we can screw them and benefit ourselves. The only problem is that when you screw the rich, you screw yourself worse. Politicians today are trying to convince us that the rich should pay more of our tax burden and the best way to make that happen (and to get back at those nasty rich people) is to let the “Bush Tax Cuts” expire.
If we plan to compete in the future with countries like China and India, we need to equalize the cost of labor. If labor in the United States costs $150 per day and it costs $5 a day in China, how do we make up the 30 times multiple? The only way is to make our labor more productive than theirs. To do that we need to increase the skills of the workers, give them better tools, organize them better, or automate and replace 29 laborers with one machine.
Where does the money come from to invest in this education, training, new equipment, etc.? It comes from investors, not from government handouts. When investors have money and a stable set of rules to live by, they invest. When they are heavily taxed or when the rules are changing rapidly, they hold onto their money and wait for a better opportunity.
Today we are in a period where the rules are changing rapidly. What will be the cost of health care for my employees? What will be my tax rate on profits? How much will new regulation cost me to put in a new paint spray booth? Is it worth risking my hard earned savings to invest in my small business or is it better to just put the money in T-Bills and wait for more stable times to invest?
Today, most investors are sitting on the sidelines, holding cash or T-Bills, rather than investing in businesses. If the tax rates are allowed to go up in 2011, I think this trend will accelerate. Where will the money come from to rebuild our infrastructure, to train people for new technology, to add newer and better tools to make workers productivity rise?
My view is that if tax rates are allowed to rise and if governments do not stop changing the rules (health care legislation alone will ad dozens of new agencies and mandates that will drive up costs for employers), I don’t see many people investing in anything but the safest places, like T-Bills. All that does is draw more capital out of private business, out of the economy.
Do you want to see the economy turn around? Our government need to do much like Doctors are required by the Hippocratic Oath to, “First, Do no Harm.” Do not let taxes rise. Next, control government spending so that it does not cost the Government 2-3% above what banks pay to borrow money. Banks now pay their depositors between .5 and 1.0% to borrow their money. The Feds pay almost 3%. To make a profit, all the banks have to do is borrow from you at under 1% and then earn 3% from secure T-Bills. Why would they want to lend the money to a business (and take a risk)?
Though it is fashionable to blame Republicans for tax cuts (I would argue that it is idiotic to blame anyone for cutting taxes), the fact is that when less is paid in taxes, there is more for the private sector to invest and many Democrats understand that, too. I hope that Mr. Obama and the current crowd in Washington see the light and don’t allow taxes to rise and drive the economy to new depths.
Back on June 10, 2009, I posted a question about the bias of the press. This is a followup.
On August 4, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Williams (San Francisco) ruled that California’s Proposition 8 was not legal. The proposition, passed by over 52% of voters in November of 2008, had reinstated a ban on same sex marriage. This judgment was seen by the Gay community as a huge victory. This is a hot topic and all the press seemed to headline the issue. Judge Walker is gay so it would appear his ability to remain neutral in this case would, at least, be questioned in the press. The New York Times, the L.A. Times, The Washington Post, and the San Francisco Examiner all either neglected completely or relegated the information about his sexual orientation to the tail end of the story.
Imagine if the ruling had gone the other way and the judge had been a very conservative man, married to his wife for over 30 years. Don’t you think the lead line would have read something like this?: ”Married, conservative judge Vaughn Walker today ruled against gays…” or ”Judge Vaughn Walker, a married, Christian, Tea Party Member, today ruled against Gay Rights by upholding Proposition 8.” In my view this is a very clear example of mainstream media bias.
On Tuesday of this week, the voters of the state of Missouri voted over 70% in favor of a measure that would invalidate a key provision of Obamacare – the manditory health coverage requirement. To get over 70% of any State’s voters to agree on something is a big deal. Those who opposed the massive Health Care Bill think this is a big deal. Evidently, the Washington Post doesn’t. In the first two days after the vote, I could find in the Washington Post only 4 articles specifically about the vote. By way of contrast, I found 16 articles about the Gay Marriage Proposition 8 being overturned. The weight of the numbers indicates that the Washington Post thinks Gay Marriage is four times as important as health care. I have a hard time believing that our Congress (as wacky as it is) would pass a law that would eventually spend over a Trillion Dollars on Gay Marriage rather than spend it on taking over our coountry’s Health Care.
This may be just anecdotal evidence of press bias. Compared to how conservatives are almost always labeled in the press (“tea-party activist John Doe” or “Right wing conservative Jane Doe”), I see a deliberate effort on the part of the majority of the press to bury anything that is not in favor of the new Liberal Congress and Administration and highlight only the most extreme views on the right.
Do you agree?
When Congress passed and the President signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, virtually no single person knew or understood what was in it or what would result from its passage. Nancy Pelosi famously said, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” I’m not sure it was so much the ‘fog of controversy’ as it was the fog induced by trying to understand thousands of pages of legalese and references to other legislation. To be fair to Ms. Pelosi, she was probably right to say that nobody would know what was in the law until it was enacted and operating.
An article today in the Wall Street Journal points out that a single issue, Medical Loss Ratios, could have a monstrous affect on the direction of health care in the U.S. and yet how it affects us is entirely up to new bureaucrats in new agencies created by the new law and which don’t yet exist. It appears that government bureaucrats will decide which providers are allowed to provide which services at what prices. That is to say, ‘we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
This brings me to my questions.
1. Why would anyone want to turn over to bureaucrats the control of such a basic individual responsibility as caring for one’s own health? Should I also turn over to my government the control of my basic responsibility to find food and shelter for my family?
2. Do I really want disinterested bureaucrats to decide how I should spend my health care dollars? If I have the money to get plastic surgery to change the shape of my nose should I have to ask Big Brother for permission? Conversely, if I don’t have the money for the plastic surgery, but can convince a bureaucrat that I need the surgery to boost my self esteem and help me find a job, should tax money pay for my new nose?
3. Can the Government actually run health care more effectively than free markets? Since State and Federal governments have been toying with the health care market for years, have we actually seen what markets will do to correct themselves?
4. Is the action of our Congress to take control of health care seen as a good solution or is it seen as a move towards a true Nanny State where our government knows best and must protect us from ourselves?
5. Is this just a case of Congress doing the right thing and not explaining it well to the people, or has Congress underestimated the people? Will there be a huge backlash at the polls this November?
I think the vote in Missouri on Tuesday goes a long way to answering these questions. It appears that, at least in Missouri, the people think that the Congress has overstepped its bounds. Will we see more of this in the November election? I think we will. Any time you can get over 70% of the people to agree on a ballot measure, the politicians are going to have to study both the measure and the vote. I think many will conclude that this was not a vote against government health care, just against a mandatory coverage provision. I think they will be wrong. I still think that Congress in general underestimates the general public rejection of a government health care scheme. This will be one of the most interesting discussions leading up to the November Election.
Traditionally, our Congress takes a recess for the month of August. Scheduled this year to run from August 9 through September 12, the Recess is one of many planned “breaks” from work on Capitol Hill. They are off over the start of the new year and did not get back to session until late on January 19. They then took February 15 to 21 in honor of President’s Day, March 29 through April 11 (they won’t say so but it was for Easter), May 31 through June 6 for Memorial Day and then July 5 through July 11 for Independence Day.
Shortly after Congress returns from the August Recess, it plans to adjourn for the session on about October 8th (that is the day the House is shooting for with the Senate as yet undecided). This gives Members and Senators almost a month where they can officially campaign for office, again. Add it all up (not counting Federal Government Holidays that do not fall when Congress is in recess) and there are over 170 days of recess. That means Members and Senators are at their normal jobs for less than 200 days a year
Pending your point of view, all these breaks are a waste of taxpayer money. When you consider that Members and Senators earn a minimum of $174,000 per year plus some juicy (and costly) benefits, taking one day off (to campaign to keep your job), costs taxpayers at least $475 (that is assuming the Congressperson works 365 days a year), but more likely $750 (assuming 250 work days and a small amount for benefits). So with 535 Senators and Members, that is somewhere between $254,125 and $401,250 per day that Congress is not in session. Or you could say that incumbents are paid that much to campaign for reelection.
My view is that when Congress is out of session, it saves taxpayers money. Yes, we are paying them while they are not working, but that means they are not spending as much. My guess is that Congress spends a wee bit more than $401,000 per day when in session.
Just received the following video from a friend and couldn’t pass up adding it to this post:
Latest comments: