Grasshopper and Ant

Just as the "Rocky" and "Star Wars" movies had their sequels, so should the old classic fables. Here is the sequel to a well-known fable.

Once upon a time, a grasshopper and an ant lived in a field. All summer long, the grasshopper romped and played, while the ant worked hard under the boiling sun to store up food for the winter.

When winter came, the grasshopper was hungry. One cold and rainy day, he went to ask the ant for some food.

"What are you, crazy?" the ant said. "I've been breaking my back all summer long while you ran around hopping and laughing at me for missing all the fun in life."

"Did I do that?" the grasshopper asked meekly.

"Yes! You said I was one of those old-fashioned clods who had missed the whole point of the modern self-realization philosophy."

"Gee, I'm sorry about that," the grasshopper said. "I didn't realize you were so sensitive. But surely you are not going to hold that against me at a time like this."

"Well, I don't hold a grudge---but I do have a long memory."

Just then another ant came along.

"Hi, Lefty," the first ant said.

"Hi, George."

"Lefty, do you know what this grasshopper wants me to do? He wants me to give him some of the food I worked for all summer, under the blazing sun."

"I would have thought you would already have volunteered to share with him, without being asked," Lefty said.

"What!!"

"When we have disparate shares in the bounty of nature, the least we can do is try to correct the inequity."

"Nature's bounty, my foot," George said. "I had to tote this stuff uphill and cross a stream on a log---all the while looking out for ant-eaters. Why couldn't this lazy bum gather his own food and store it?"

"Now, now, George," Lefty soothed. "Nobody uses the word 'bum' anymore. We say 'the homeless'."

"I say 'bum'. Anyone who is too lazy to put a roof over his head, who prefers to stand out in this cold rain to doing a little work---"

The grasshopper broke in: "I didn't know it was going to rain like this. The weather forecast said 'fair and warmer'."

"Fair and warmer?" George sniffed. "That's what the forecasters told Noah!"

Lefty looked pained. "I'm surprised at your callousness, George---your selfishness, your greed."

"Have you gone crazy, Lefty?"

"No. On the contrary, I have become educated."

"Sometimes that's worse, these days."

"Last summer, I followed a trail of cookie crumbs left by some students. It led to a classroom at Ivy University."

"You've been to college? No wonder you come back here with all these big words and dumb ideas."

"I disdain to answer that," Lefty said. "Anyway, it was Professor Murky's course on Social Justice. He explained how the world's benefits are unequally distributed."

"The world's benefits?" George repeated. "The world didn't carry this food uphill. The world didn't cross the water on a log. The world isn't going to be eaten by any ant-eater."

"That's the narrow way of looking at it," Lefty said.

"If you're so generous, why don't you feed this grasshopper?"

"I will," Lefty replied. Then, turning to the grasshopper, he said: "Follow me. I will take you to the government's shelter, where there will be food and a dry place to sleep."

George gasped. "You're working for the government now?"

"I'm in public service," Lefty said loftily. "I want to 'make a difference' in this world."

"You really have been to college," George said. "But if you're such a friend of the grasshopper, why don't you teach him how to work during the summer and save something for the winter?"

"We have no right to change his lifestyle and try to make him like us. That would be cultural imperialism."

George was too stunned to answer.

Lefty not only won the argument, he continued to expand his program of shelters for grasshoppers. As word spread, grasshoppers came from miles around. Eventually, some of the younger ants decided to adopt the grasshopper lifestyle.

As the older generation of ants passed from the scene, more and more ants joined the grasshoppers, romping and playing in the fields. Finally, all the ants and all the grasshoppers spent all their time enjoying the carefree lifestyle and lived happily ever after---all summer long. Then the winter came.

Source: The Thomas Sowell Reader (2011) by Thomas Sowell.

Einstein’s God

When asked if he was religious Einstein answered: “Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am in, in fact, religious.”

As a child, Einstein had gone through an ecstatic religious phase, then rebelled against it. For the next three decades, he tended not to pronounce much on the topic. But around the time he turned 50, he began to articulate more clearly---in various essays, interviews, and letters---his deepening appreciation of his Jewish heritage and, somewhat separately, his belief in God, albeit a rather impersonal, deistic concept of God.

More quotes from Albert Einstein about his religion:

The highest satisfaction of a scientific person is to come to the realization that God Himself could not have arranged these connections any other way than that which does exist, any more than it would have been in His power to make four a prime number.

As I child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.

No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.

I am not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.

I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe---a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious  feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.

Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believe in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos,” he explained.

In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of the debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. He said the fanatical atheists  are creatures who “in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’---cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

He wrote to a Brooklyn minister: “The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.”

Source: Einstein. His Life and Universe (2007) by Walter Isaacson.

The 13 Tax Increases in 2013

13 Tax Increases That Started January 1, 2013

Tax increases the fiscal cliff deal allowed:

1. Payroll tax: increase in the Social Security portion of the payroll tax from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent for workers. This hits all Americans earning a paycheck—not just the “wealthy.” For example, The Wall Street Journal calculated that the “typical U.S. family earning $50,000 a year” will lose “an annual income boost of $1,000.”

2. Top marginal tax rate: increase from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).

3. Phase out of personal exemptions for adjusted gross income (AGI) over $300,000 ($250,000 for single filers).

4. Phase down of itemized deductions for AGI over $300,000 ($250,000 for single filers).

5. Tax rates on investment: increase in the rate on  dividends and capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).

6. Death tax: increase in the rate (on estates larger than $5 million) from 35 percent to 40 percent.

7. Taxes on business investment: expiration of full expensing—the immediate deduction of capital purchases by businesses.

Obamacare tax increases that took effect:

8. Another investment tax increase: 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for taxpayers with taxable income exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for singles).

9. Another payroll tax hike: 0.9 percent increase in the Hospital Insurance portion of the payroll tax for incomes over $250,000 ($200,000 for single filers).

10. Medical device tax: 2.3 percent excise tax paid by medical device manufacturers and importers on all their sales.

11. Reducing the income tax deduction for individuals’ medical expenses.

12. Elimination of the corporate income tax deduction for expenses related to the Medicare Part D subsidy.

13. Limitation of the corporate income tax deduction for compensation that health insurance companies pay to their executives.

Each of these 13 tax increases will slow the economy, meaning that businesses will create fewer jobs. Fewer jobs will make it even more difficult to land a job than it already is for the more than 12 million Americans looking for work.

Source: What Are the 13 Tax Increases in 2013?

Obama’s NLRB Pushes “Snap Elections” for Union Gain

From blog.heritage.org (June 21, 2011):

Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been aggressively reinterpreting the law to foist unions on workers—whether they want them or not. The Board famously filed charges against Boeing for creating jobs at a nonunion plant in South Carolina. Today the Board announced its most aggressive move yet: snap elections.

Currently the NLRB takes between five and six weeks to conduct unionizing elections. Under the procedures the Board just proposed that time would fall to between 10 and 21 days.

Employers usually have no idea that unions have begun an organizing drive until the union files for an election. By that point the union has spent months selling workers on the value of unionizing. It is during the election campaign that employers get to respond.

Snap elections short-circuit employers’ ability to make their case. If the election takes place in a matter of days workers will base their decision (largely) on information received from the union. This does not benefit workers. [read more]

The blog goes on to say that some organizers use a sales tactic called “SPIN.” SPIN is an acronym for Situation, Problem, Implication, and Need payoff. Using this emotional method of persuasion the organizers try to get members. I emphasize the word “emotional” because using an emotional persuasive approach is easier than using a logical or rational approach. Anymore that’s what the Left has left in its arsenal—appealing to base emotions.

First, Big Labor wanted card check where the union leaders could see how an employee voted. Now this. If unions are supposed to be a good deal for the working guy then why all the tricks? Does Big Labor think that left up to a persons own judgment he or she won’t join a union? Then again the public never got a chance to read the ObamaCare bill before it was rushed through.

God’s Warning About Power

The early Israelites wanted a king like other nations so they can be judged. Before that they had judges but the judges were corrupt.

Samuel didn’t like the idea but prayed to God for help anyway. This is what God told Samuel:

Samuel 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

8:12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. [my emphasis]

8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. [my emphasis]

8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. [my emphasis]

Let me make some observations about the passage above.

First the Israelites were being influenced by peer pressure. All other nations had kings so why can’t we? I mean if its good for them won’t having a king be good for us? People are people.

Secondly, God understood human nature very well. He knew about power corrupting. Look at the phrases I emphasized. Don’t they sound like socialism or at least fascism? God said the king will take not ask for volunteers to serve him. Not ask for food contributions but take whatever he needs. After all if he is the king then God will bless any actions he does even if God doesn’t bless them. All is needed is for the king to believe his actions are blessed. Because he is anointed.

Revising Classical Economics

There are five revisions that need to be made in the body of classical economics to transform it from a source of support for the exploitation theory into a source of complete and total opposition to the exploitation theory.

The conditions of the “early and rude state of society” assumed by Adam Smith, all income is actually profit, not wages.

The second necessary revision is the recognition of the positive productive functions of businessmen and capitalists and of the fact that they are the fundamental producers of products, inasmuch as they provide the guiding and directing intelligence in production at the highest level—and of the further fact that the variation of profits and interest with the size of the capital invested in no way contradicts these incomes being attributable to the labor of businessmen and capitalists.

The third necessary revision is consistent recognition of the role of private ownership of land in raising the productivity of labor in agriculture and mining. This leads to the conclusion that private ownership of land underlies the growth of the division of labor, by making labor available for industry and commerce.

Source: Capitalism by George Reisman.

Founders vs. Progressives

1. What is freedom? The Founders argued that adult human beings possess the
   right to be free from being ruled by others by the very fact of being born human.
   Additionally, the Founders argued that nature gives no human being a right to rule
   over, or to enslave, another human being. The Progressives argued that freedom is a
   product of human making, and not a natural right. The Progressives taught that there
   are two levels of freedom—negative freedom (freedom from subjection to the will of
   others), and positive freedom (or effective freedom, which requires both the forming
   of the individual in the ethical ideal as defined by government experts and also
   providing that individual with access to all the resources he needs to that end.)
2. What is the purpose of government? The Founders argued that government
   exists to protect man’s natural rights. If it fails to do this, it is unjust. The Progressives, having rejected natural rights, believe that government exists to create rights and to ensure that human beings are made equal. 
3. What constitutes good domestic policy? The Founders conceived of domestic
   policy as those things required for the protection of natural rights in the context of
   relations among fellow citizens. This list includes the criminal law, the civil law, the
   protection of the family, and the promotion of minimal citizen morality through
   government support of education and religion. Most of this fell within the power of
   the state and local governments. The Progressives countered that domestic policy
   should focus on equality and income redistribution, along with proper formation in
   the morality preached by Progressivism, because natural rights are nonexistent and
   true freedom requires “creating” people’s characters and giving them the necessary
   resources. They tasked federal and state government bureaucracies, rather than local governments, with achieving this end.  
4. What constitutes good foreign policy? The Founders believed that foreign
   policy serves the same purpose as domestic policy: the protection of the citizens’
   natural rights. A strong national defense and the protection of borders are necessary to achieve this end; imperialism is not. The Progressives, on the other hand, saw foreign policy as a tool for spreading democracy and for improving the lives of “inferior” races through imperialism.  
5. How important is the consent of the governed? Consent of the governed,
   as the Declaration states, is the only just means by which government derives its
   power and authority. It can never be discarded or ignored without becoming unjust
   and tyrannical. The Progressives rejected this argument. Without rejecting consent
   altogether, Progressives wanted to separate the institutions of government as far from the people as possible. They favored removing political power from local communities and centering it in state and federal bureaucracies staffed by “experts.”
6. Should government be limited or unlimited? The Founders believed in a
   government limited by its primary mission of protecting the natural rights of the
   people. Government was supposed to be powerful in regard to providing a strong
   national defense and to protecting individual rights by effective law enforcement and
   free markets. Beyond that, government was expected to leave people alone and set
   up self-governing private associations (families, churches, businesses, and clubs) to
   take care of the daily affairs of life. The Progressives completely abandoned limited
   government. The private sphere was no longer to be treated as private. An unrestricted government, they claimed, could effectively solve all social and economic problems, both for private institutions and individuals.

Source: Study Guide to “Overview: Founders vs. Progressives” Hillsdale College lecture by Thomas G. West.

Mr. West also talks in his lecture about post-60’s Progressivism where there was a split between the old Left and new Left. The new Progressives believed in multiculturalism, sexual expressionism, and environmentalism. The early progressives rejected these “isms.”

Mr. West also says that universities today are churches of the Left and the professors are its priests.

Edmund Burke on Power and Other Topics

Those who have been once intoxicated with power, and have derived any kind of emolument from it, even though but for one year, never can willingly abandon it. They may be distressed in the midst of all their power; but they will never look to anything but power for their relief.

Yea, that pretty much sums it up back then in 1791 when he wrote that quote and now. Human nature hardly ever changes if at all especially when it comes to power.
Edmund Burke was the person who said “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Which is still true. Evil will never give up.
Other interesting quotes of his are:

Manners are of more importance than laws.... Manners are what vex or soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in.
Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist.*
When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people.
People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.
Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Whilst shame keeps its watch, virtue is not wholly extinguished in the heart; nor will moderation be utterly exiled from the minds of tyrants.
Society is indeed a contract.... It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.
To drive men from independence to live on alms, is itself great cruelty.^
And having looked to government for bread, on the very first scarcity they will turn and bite the hand that fed them. To avoid that evil, government will redouble the causes of it; and then it will become inveterate and incurable.^
Kings will be tyrants from policy, when subjects are rebels from principle.
The science of constructing a commonwealth, or renovating it, or reforming it, is, like every other experimental science, not to be taught a priori. Nor is it a short experience that can instruct us in that practical science, because the real effects of moral causes are not always immediate. (A criticism of socialism?)
The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered.
The great must submit to the dominion of prudence and of virtue, or none will long submit to the dominion of the great.

*This is what the Founding Fathers also thought. The difference between liberty and freedom: Freedom + morality = liberty.
^Gee, I wonder what he talking about here. Hmmm……

Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates

Strictly speaking, the pirates' objective was economic more than political. The Barbary ships, in the service of dictatorial strongmen, had the job of holding to ransom foreign vessels plying the Mediterranean. The techniques were those of terror: the pirates perpetrated massacres and took the passengers of some ships hostage so that others would submit and pay tribute in order to travel in peace.

As the nineteenth century began, the young United States had already been the victim of hundreds of attacks against its merchant ships, and it decided to respond, in what would be its first large- scale foreign intervention. It was at this time that Washington assembled a naval force and that the United States, spurred by Thomas Jefferson, committed all available means to ridding itself of this scourge. After several unsuccessful attempts, the U.S. Navy helped free the Mediterranean of a peril that had tormented mariners for centuries.

At the time of its Mediterranean intervention, the United States was an insignificant nation absent from a geopolitical chessboard dominated by Europe: it is no coincidence that during the same period Napoleon Bonaparte sold off territory amounting to one- third of the present lower forty-eight American states to help finance his European campaigns. For its part, the American government decided to fully commit itself to a costly military campaign, whereas the Europeans had preferred to negotiate [my emphasis] with the Barbary dictators, incident by incident. But Jefferson had already understood what his successors would take more than a century to grasp: that America's interests were not confined to its national territory.

Source: The History of Terrorism: From Antiquity to al Qaeda (2007)  by Gérard Chaliand and Arnaud Blin (editors)

--------------------------------------------------------

Negotiating with or appeasing evil (yes, I am calling these pirates evil) encourages more evil. It doesn’t ever make it go away. That’s what the Europeans back then and even before WWII never understood. Winston Churchill’s predecessor negotiated with Hitler. Hitler just laughed at the guy. Heck Hitler even broke his pact with the Soviet Union. I guess those appeasers can’t recognize evil for what it is. This is still a problem today.

I wonder what got the Muslim Barbary Pirates back then ticked off at America and the West back then. We didn’t occupy any of their lands back then. We were just minding our own business. And President George W. Bush wasn’t president back then.

One last thought. The editors makes an interest point about Jefferson. He wasn’t an isolationist. A good hypothetical question to presidential candidates: If you were Jefferson giving his situation what actions would you have take? I can take a good guess what Bush would have done.

The Concept of The “Pure-and-Perfect-Competition”

One definition of the “pure-and-perfect-competition (PPC)”:

Uniform products offered by all the sellers in the same industry, perfect knowledge, quantitative insignificance of each seller, no fear of retaliation by competitors in response to one’s actions, constant changes in price, and perfect ease of investment and disinvestment.

The “pure-and-perfect-competition” doctrine denounces capitalism because, as shown, businessmen refuse to suffer unnecessary losses.

Source: Capitalism by George Reisman

 

The PPC is just another example of a Utopia-like system. But mankind is imperfect therefore any social system will be imperfect. And since capitalism as well as socialism, communism, etc. is a social system it too will be imperfect. It is simple logic. But there are those who believe that man can evolve to be perfect by gov’t help. That gov’t can make a PPC system—hence socialism or even communism is formed as Karl Marx wanted.

In my college macroeconomics class I learned that equilibrium exists when supply equals demand. But this is just theoretical. It probably hardly ever happens. Supply and demand more than likely spirals chaotically around the equilibrium point. No gov’t I believe can ever prevent this behavior from happening. No matter how smart the economist they appoint. The free-market system is just too complex.

Socialism 101 Part 8

It follows directly from socialism’s fundamental moral and political premise, which is that the individual does not exist as an end in himself, but as a means to the ends of “Society.”

Private slave owners were motivated to treat their slaves with at least the same consideration they gave to their livestock, and to see to it that their overseers acted with the same consideration. But under socialism, the slaves are “public property”—the property of the state. Those who have charge of the slaves, therefore, have no personal economic interest in their lives or well-being. Since they are not owners of the slaves, they will not derive any personal material benefit if the slaves are alive to work in the future, nor suffer any personal material loss if the slaves are not alive to work in the future.

Government ownership does not give the alleged citizen-owner the psychological security that the possession of capital gives to a capitalist. Because, unlike the capitalist, he cannot sell his share in a government enterprise. Nor—except in the most unusual cases—does he receive dividends on his share.

The citizen’s share in government enterprises does him no good whatever. The fact that the enterprise is government owned merely means that it is operated without benefit of profit-and-loss incentives and the freedoms of individual initiative and competition. The result is almost always gross inefficiency, high costs, poor service, and low quality of products. (That’s exactly what Obamacare will be.)

Source: Capitalism by George Reisman

Capitalism and Prices

Prices have a twofold function in the planning of capitalism. First, they enable the individual planner of capitalism to perform economic calculations. That is, they enable him to compute the money cost and/or money revenue of various modes of conduct. They tell businessmen to produce the products and use the methods of production that are anticipated to be the most profitable. They tell consumers to consume in the ways that, other things being equal, occasion the lowest cost. And they tell wage earners to work at the jobs that, other things being equal, pay the highest wages.

The second, corollary function of prices is that they coordinate the plans of each individual under capitalism with the plans of all other individuals. That is, prices serve to make each individual adjust his own plans to the relevant plans of all other individuals in the economic system.

Source: Capitalism: A Treaty on Economics (1998) by George Reisman.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 26

• It is better to have an irrational free-market than an irrational government.
• If the term “illegal alien” is a racist term then what about white Canadians crossing the border illegal from the north? The term can be applied to them as well.  Right? Just wondering out loud.
• The Left only hates the wealthy if they have not donated to a leftist Democrat candidate for political office.
• It’s not wise for Americans to invest in any country that is hostile to the US, unstable, or that has a low economic (possibly political) freedom rating.
• Humor: Sometimes spirits will attach themselves to objects. Like diamond earrings, gold watches, rare paintings, 100 dollar bills. You know objects like that.
• President Obama once said: “The individual at some point, must be able to say, ‘I have enough money.’” Well, I believe gov’t at some point, must be able to say, ‘I have enough power.’ The wealthy aren’t a threat to my freedom. But a powerful gov’t can be. It makes the laws.
• If gov’t “helped” the private sector by building roads and bridges then who made the tools and materials to build the roads and bridges? Not gov’t that’s for sure. 
• The Left believes that voter photo-id laws discriminate against the poor. To see Obama speak you must have a valid photo id. So, what does that say about Obama?
• Children’s book idea: Jordan the Accordion. An unhappy accordion searches for a polka band to play in. I see the book going number one in children’s books.
• Obama wants to see Romney’s tax records. Did he want to see Secretary of Treasurer Timothy Geithner’s tax records? Or even care about them? Probably not.

The Thoughts of David Hume

Commerce and liberty; liberty and refinement; refinement and the progress of the human spirit were all interrelated.

“It is impossible for the arts and sciences to arise, at first, among any people unless that people enjoy the blessing of a free government.”

Liberty was a fine thing, but it required a counterbalancing principle—something to remind us that human beings are creatures of their passions and that, left entirely to themselves, they become their passions’ slaves.

“In all governments,” Hume wrote, “there is a perpetual intestine struggle, open or secret, between Authority and Liberty, and neither of them can ever absolutely prevail in the contest.”

Authority that is absolute and uncontrolled ends by destroying society itself;

Source: How the Scots invented the Modern World: the true story of how western Europe's poorest nation created our world & everything in it (2001) by Arthur Herman.

Declaration of Independence from ObamaCare

When America declared its independence from King George III 1/3 was for independence, 1/3 was against, and 1/3 didn’t care either way. I wonder if that three-way split describes peoples opinions about ObamaCare.

Bill O’Reilly said the republicans need to come up with an alternative to ObamaCare and not just criticize it. How about this crazy idea: Why not buy your health insurance like every other insurance? It solves the portability issue, and drops down costs by increasing competition (someone will sooner or later create a website where you can comparison shop for health insurance like you do when buy car insurance). You can even have tax breaks and keep health saving accounts (HSAs) if you want. ObamaCare puts limits on those HSAs. Oh, yea if you wish to pay for your own health insurance out of your own pocket that’s fine. After all health insurance is a service. The Left calls it a right—thus socialized medicine is created like Frankenstein’s monster. ObamaCare calls paying-out-of-pocket a “free rider.” I call that your right. It’s your money after all.

Right now your job pays for your health insurance. But why should they? It is really their responsibility? That’s a cost to them. Why not make them pay for car insurance and life insurance too? All ObamaCare does is take it out of the hands of businesses and put it in the hands of the gov’t—total power play. I say put it directly in the hands of the private citizens. Let them decide how much health insurance they want. But then again the Left will say gov’t can decide better than the private citizen.

Is The Left Narcissistic?

According to the Organized Wisdom website these are the traits of narcissism:

1. You sometimes feel like you're the most important person in the room.  Definitely. The Left always feel they are the most important in any place or time. They feel they are the smartest and rational and everyone else is subhuman.
2. You often fantasize about the inevitable success, power, beauty, and romance that will enter your life. Not sure about beauty and romance, but success and power probably. Fantasizes about power definitely.  The Left always think they should be in power and will do just about anything to get and stay in power. All politicians are like this to a certain extent. Nature of the game I suppose. But the Left is more obsessive about power.
3. You believe that you're special, and that only a certain type of person can relate to you. The Left think they are more enlightened (especially the Elite) than everyone else and therefore can only socialize with other elitist radicals.
4. You are happiest when all eyes are on you and you're receiving praise. The Left don’t like anyone criticizing their policies, but love it when you agree with their policies.
5. You feel like you deserve better treatment than others, and that you should always get your way.  Yea, they do. Because they think they are always right and they’re policies are always right. And because they say they care, you better go along with what they tell you to do. After all sheep doesn’t question the shepherd.
6. You have gotten others to help you get what you want.  Through manipulation, coercion, and deception. That’s how the Left does it.
7. You  sometimes hurt people's feelings because you're not sensitive enough to other people's problems. This is because the Left doesn’t see people as individuals but as part of a class or group. Individual feelings and thoughts don’t matter.

The Digital Citizen's Bill of Rights

From the Gardian.co.uk (June 13):

Republican Darrell Issa, who led the charge against Sopa, is back with the first draft of a bill of rights for digital citizens House oversight committee chairman and firebrand Obama administration critic Darrell Issa is touting his first draft of a Digital Bill of Rights for internet denizens, and he's asking for the public's input.

Here is the Bill of Rights first draft:

1. Freedom – digital citizens have a right to a free, uncensored internet

2. Openness – digital citizens have a right to an open, unobstructed internet

3. Equality – all digital citizens are created equal on the internet

4. Participation – digital citizens have a right to peaceably participate where and how they choose on the internet

5. Creativity – digital citizens have a right to create, grow and collaborate on the internet, and be held accountable for what they create

6. Sharing – digital citizens have a right to freely share their ideas, lawful discoveries and opinions on the internet

7. Accessibility – digital citizens have a right to access the internet equally, regardless of who they are or where they are

8. Association – digital citizens have a right to freely associate on the internet

9. Privacy – digital citizens have a right to privacy on the internet

10. Property – digital citizens have a right to benefit from what they create, and be secure in their intellectual property on the internet [read more]

Pretty good. Not sure what 3. and 7. means. “Created equal on the internet”? Is that like “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”? Which of course is in the Declaration of Independence.

“Access the internet equally,..”? Again, kind of unclear what that means. I’m sorry but whenever I hear the words “equally” or “equality” unless it is in the Declaration of Independence I get nervous. Socialists and radicals like to talk about equality as in equal sharing. Issa might mean equal rights under the Constitution or as in all men are created equal since he is a conservative. But you never know.

So, You Want To Be A Vegetarian?

Here some things to think about:

GRASS PEA. Like most legumes, it is an excellent source of protein, but it has one serious drawback: it contains a neurotoxin called beta-N-oxalyl-diamino propionic acid, or beta-ODAP. The first symptom of beta-ODAP poisoning, or lathyrism, is a weakening of the legs. Eventually, the toxin kills nerve cells and victims become paralyzed from the waist down. Without treatment, they will die. If they are soaked for a long time in water or fermented in breads or pancakes, they pose little risk. Grass peas are one of the few food crops that can survive a serious drought.

CORN. Traditional recipes called for adding slaked lime or calcium hydroxide, a naturally occurring mineral, to corn. Without it, the niacin in corn cannot be absorbed. This is not a problem unless corn is eaten by itself and makes up most of a person’s diet. When that happens—as it did with early settlers who did not understand the risks—the result is a severe niacin deficiency called pellagra.

RHUBARB. The leaves of this Asian plant contain high levels of oxalic acid, which can cause weakness, difficulty breathing, gastrointestinal problems, and even coma and death in rare circumstances.

ELDERBERRY. Most parts of the plant, including the uncooked fruit, may contain varying levels of cyanide.

CASHEW. Cashews are part of the same botanical family as poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac. The cashew tree produces the same irritating oil, urushiol. The nut itself is perfectly safe to consume, but if it comes into contact with any part of the shell during harvest, it will give the person who eats it a nasty rash.

RED KIDNEY BEAN. Perfectly safe and healthy, except if eaten raw or undercooked. The harmful compound in kidney beans is called phytohaemagglutinin, and it can bring on severe nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. People usually recover quickly, but it takes only four or five raw beans to bring on these extreme symptoms.

POTATO. This member of the dreaded nightshade family contains a poison called solanine, which can bring on burning and gastrointestinal symptoms and even coma and death in rare cases. Cooking a potato will kill most of the solanine in it, but if a potato has been exposed to the light long enough for its skin to turn green, that may be a sign of increased levels of solanine.

Source: Wicked Plants (2009) by Amy Stewart.

So, be careful out there and watch what you eat! (In all fairness, I like peas, corn, cashews, red kidney beans and potatoes.)

What Wisconsin Means

From the Washington Post opinion by Charles Krauthammer:

The real threat behind all  [Gov. Walker’s reforms], however, was that the new law ended automatic government collection of union dues. That was the unexpressed and politically inexpressible issue. That was the reason the unions finally decided to gamble on a high-risk recall.

Without the thumb of the state tilting the scale by coerced collection, union membership became truly voluntary. Result? Newly freed members rushed for the exits. In less than one year, AFSCME, the second-largest public-sector union in Wisconsin, has lost more than 50 percent of its membership.

It was predictable. In Indiana, where Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) instituted by executive order a similar reform seven years ago, government-worker unions have since lost 91 percent of their dues-paying membership. In Wisconsin, Democratic and union bosses (a redundancy) understood what was at stake if Walker prevailed: not benefits, not “rights,” but the very existence of the unions. [read more]

Isn’t that interesting. It’s all about power with the Left.

Hat tip: The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation newsletter.

Obama’s Third-Party History

From National Review Online (June 7):

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office. [read more]

The New Party was a political organization founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor and Joel Rogers, with the objective of electing leftist or socialist individuals to public office in several states; the goal was to move the Democratic Party further to the left, with the ultimate objective of creating a major third party whose platform is Marxism.

Obama being a member of a radical third party is not too surprising. In his autobiography he said he hung around with radicals and Marxists. Let’s not forget that he told a private citizen when he was campaigning for POTUS that spreading the wealth around was a good idea.

Who also belonged to this far-Left party?

• Gloria Steinem
• Cornel West, current advisor to Obama's campaign