What was it Albert Einstein said about insanity? It's doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
It seems to me that's what American voters do at election time. They vote the same people or others of the same ilk into office. Note how many years politicians in DC have been there. Dingell is wrapping up his 59th year and Levin his 36th. Conyers has been there more than 50 years. And down the line...... In Michigan, by a two-to-one margin, people say they favor term-limits. Apparently they don't realize they hold "term-limits" in their hands; they can vote against incumbents. But they don't. And, although state-wide offices have been term-limited by law for some time now, voters don't seem to understand how that works. State office-holders are term-limited, but then run for a different office--and voters oblige by voting for them in their new candidacies. So, we want term-limits, ostensibly to keep the same people from running government. But we turn around and send the same people back, only in different positions. Huh??????
Einstein's definition nailed it.
I continue to get a kick out of US Senate candidate Gary Peters' ads. In one, he claims to be quite frugal, at least around his household. He doesn't believe "in spending money we don't have." Ha Ha Ha! Name one Democrat or even an Establishment Republican who doesn't "spend money we don't have" in Washington or Lansing. Oh, it's not their money. I guess that's different.
I was also surprised, but not surprised by the Det News endorsement of Gary Peters. First, Peters stands for just about everything the News editorial board opposes. How can the newspaper urge people to vote for the guy? It's as if the rotten Terry Lynn Land campaign has swayed them. Yep, she's shown a very incompetent campaign. I agree she's not at all a good candidate, although I think she is/was a reluctant one. (And isn't there at least something noble about "taking one for the team," when no other top Republicans would run for the office?) But do campaigns and performance in office translate congruently? I really don't think so. Look at all the great campaigners who turned out rotten in office. (OK, you don't have to look too far. Start with the President.)
Of course, the Free Press endorsed Rick Snyder for governor. It was a surprise, if quite lukewarm. I get a big kick out of the Democrat ad complaining about Snyder signing the bill that taxed previously un-taxed pensions. Oh the teachers are griping and grousing about having to pay taxes on their retirement incomes. But I don't remember them griping and grousing any time the Democrats raised taxes while the teachers were working. Besides, if they are really Democrats, they should love paying taxes. Taxes build bigger government with greater spending and that's the solution to every problem: throw money at it. Ah, the hypocrisy of it all.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Friday, October 10, 2014
"Useful Idiots"
The term "useful idiots" is generally attributed to Vladimir Lenin, the commie leader of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. (Oh, there he goes with that history stuff again!) He used it to describe those in the West, living in the comforts provided by their distinctly un-Bolshevik countries, who blindly apologized and defended Marxism/communism. Lenin knew how "useful" these "idiots" could be in helping to undermine the West, its capitalism and democratic governments. And he also knew that they were "idiots."
There have been many over the years. I forget the NY Times columnist, somebody Duranty (?), who reassured concerned Americans of the goodness of Joseph Stalin, that rumors of his cruelty and barbarity were just that, rumors. This was in the midst of the Harvest of Sorrows, a period in which Stalin forcibly starved. murdered, millions of Ukrainians who opposed his policy of collectivization. When, a couple of decades later, historian Robert Conquest wrote of the several million who Stalin killed, he was criticized as "right wing." Stalin may have been a little harsh, but certainly Conquest was way off base. Well, it turned out Conquest was wrong, quite wrong, but in the wrong way. When Soviet files were opened up after the fall of the commies in the USSR, it turned out Stalin had starved millions more than even Conquest thought. Yeah, Stalin was just a little harsh.
I'm trying to remember which Major League team owner, oh, maybe 20 or 30 years ago, asserted he'd never sign a player who came from Cuba. He didn't want to embarrass Fidel Castro, another all-round nice guy.
I was thinking of this term the other day, in another similar context. President Obama, with all the serious goings-on right now, has been attending a number of fund-raising dinners. Oh, these dinners aren't for you and me, oh no. They have been $30,000 and $40,000 a plate dinners. (I thought, if Karen and I attended one of these, we'd have no money, zero, for the rest of the year. That includes both of our incomes!) Now, who can afford these? (And if they can, more power to them; I don't begrudge anyone the amount of money one has or how one spends it. It's the hypocrisy that I find grating.) Those who can afford them are the ones Obama is out to destroy. His are the policies that hurt the wealthiest. (I know about the bailouts, the corporate-subsidies, the crony capitalism......) So why would they give Obama--or any Democrats--all that money? Maybe it's to assuage some sense of guilt, however misplaced or erroneous? Maybe it's to make them feel more comfortable, that is, that they are doing something to help? ("Help" what, I don't know.) Maybe it's a sense of noblesse oblige? Regardless of their reasons, Obama and the Dems must be laughing all the way to the bank, so to speak. I doubt, since Obama and his administration/advisers have shown no knowledge of history, they know of Lenin's term, "useful idiots." But even without the term, they must be thinking along those lines.
There have been many over the years. I forget the NY Times columnist, somebody Duranty (?), who reassured concerned Americans of the goodness of Joseph Stalin, that rumors of his cruelty and barbarity were just that, rumors. This was in the midst of the Harvest of Sorrows, a period in which Stalin forcibly starved. murdered, millions of Ukrainians who opposed his policy of collectivization. When, a couple of decades later, historian Robert Conquest wrote of the several million who Stalin killed, he was criticized as "right wing." Stalin may have been a little harsh, but certainly Conquest was way off base. Well, it turned out Conquest was wrong, quite wrong, but in the wrong way. When Soviet files were opened up after the fall of the commies in the USSR, it turned out Stalin had starved millions more than even Conquest thought. Yeah, Stalin was just a little harsh.
I'm trying to remember which Major League team owner, oh, maybe 20 or 30 years ago, asserted he'd never sign a player who came from Cuba. He didn't want to embarrass Fidel Castro, another all-round nice guy.
I was thinking of this term the other day, in another similar context. President Obama, with all the serious goings-on right now, has been attending a number of fund-raising dinners. Oh, these dinners aren't for you and me, oh no. They have been $30,000 and $40,000 a plate dinners. (I thought, if Karen and I attended one of these, we'd have no money, zero, for the rest of the year. That includes both of our incomes!) Now, who can afford these? (And if they can, more power to them; I don't begrudge anyone the amount of money one has or how one spends it. It's the hypocrisy that I find grating.) Those who can afford them are the ones Obama is out to destroy. His are the policies that hurt the wealthiest. (I know about the bailouts, the corporate-subsidies, the crony capitalism......) So why would they give Obama--or any Democrats--all that money? Maybe it's to assuage some sense of guilt, however misplaced or erroneous? Maybe it's to make them feel more comfortable, that is, that they are doing something to help? ("Help" what, I don't know.) Maybe it's a sense of noblesse oblige? Regardless of their reasons, Obama and the Dems must be laughing all the way to the bank, so to speak. I doubt, since Obama and his administration/advisers have shown no knowledge of history, they know of Lenin's term, "useful idiots." But even without the term, they must be thinking along those lines.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Lunar Eclipse/Sunrise
The penumbra is clearly visible now, with the lunar/full moon eclipse. The peak is schedule in about an hour and a half, so I am monitoring it. And, a double treat, right about then we are on the cusp of being able to see the full eclipse and the sunrise at the same time. Astronomers have said that's a pretty rare occurrence.
Recently, with deaths and illnesses of so-called "celebrities," I realized once again that we throw around terms like "legend," "classic," "icon," "idol," etc. far too frequently. Not everyone merits such a description and to use it so freely diminishes it when it is really deserved. I won't mention any names, but if you've been following the news in the past month or so, you'll know of whom I write.
And, speaking of honors, I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize committee is having second thoughts on awarding its prize to President Obama. Nah, I don't think so. He didn't deserve it in the first place, so now ordering the air strikes on ISIS/ISIL won't affect their thinking. Still, considering the previous paragraph, does this affect the legacy of Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, and others who really did deserve the Nobel?
Speaking of ISIS/ISIL and the bombings, are these attacks doing any good? Apparently the Islamofascists are on the verge of taking a Kurdish city near the Syrian border. They've had to attack across the open desert, with no anti-aircraft capabilities. How can that be? If they are out there in the open, why aren't our planes bombing them to "extinction?" It seems, with our capabilities and the millions of dollars of bombs being dropped (somewhere?), ISIS/ISIL could be decimated out in the open, unless......
I see, flying under the radar, that more people are losing health insurance due to ObamaCare. Of course, some would dismiss that as not true. (Have we become so cynical, so unable to face what we don't like to hear, that we label such information as "lies?") I read, maybe on the MSNBC Web site?, that there are several million fewer people with health insurance today than two years ago. Hmmm. Maybe there are fewer Americans? I do know that, personally, my premiums have gone up more than $1,000 a year, almost $1,500 ($140 a month). A recent op-ed revealed an interesting phenomenon occurring with doctors. Many are now opting out of accepting patients covered by any government plan, including Medicare/Medicaid. Some even refuse to accept private insurance patients. They are going to patient-pay or even a sort of retainer system, where, instead of paying premiums to an insurance company, patients pay a monthly/annual amount to a doctor and then can see the doctor when needed, if needed. Doctors who are now employing this say they have more time to devote to patients, with less red-tape, government regulations to handle. No doubt, some folks are very happy with ObamaCare. Those are the people touted by the federal government, at least the backers of ObamaCare, and the LameStream media. My guess, and I'm only making a reasoned guess, is that there are far more people not happy with it. I see Wal-Mart is cutting health coverage for its part-time employees. There have been recently articles in the local newspapers and the WSJ citing small businesses who are also dropping health plans for their employees. Now, one might call these employers "greedy." But are they any greedier than those who embraced Hillary Clinton's "You shouldn't have to have a job you don't like just to be able to take care of your family. You shouldn't be forced to abandon your dreams." (OK, I'm paraphrasing.) Nope, The responsibility of caring for one's family should take a backseat to what I want--me! me! me! Nope, that's not selfish or "greedy."
I saw another article the other day that caused me to laugh right out loud. Bill Clinton either gave a speech or wrote an article on "principles and values." I'm still chuckling.
The minimum/living wage folks are still at it. Although some are settling as a matter of reality at the $10.50 an hour rate, many are still insisting on $15 an hour. It's, of course, a political issue, plain and simple. The evidence is clear. Raising the minimum wage that much will cost jobs, many jobs, esp those of the workers who are supposed to be helped by the increase. Again, as I have noted before, a minority of, say, fast-food workers are actually raising a family on their pay. More than 50% of them are 24 or younger, and more than half of them are still in their teens. What families are they raising? And, if they are, that leads to other questions. (Well, I suppose we're not supposed to ask them, are we?) How many are senior citizens supplementing Social Security or pensions, not really raising families? And, of course, who's going to pay for the increase? My guess is not many Big Macs or Whoppers are going to be sold at $10 a pop. (In fact, to lure more traffic, both McD's and Whopper's) are lowering prices on items such as chicken nuggets. What will higher prices do to "traffic?") And, I submit, $15 an hour? For what? Again I say, my wife runs an elementary school. (Anyone familiar with public education knows that the secretaries run the elementary schools.) She barely makes the demanded minimum wage per hour. I mentioned this to someone a while back and met with, "Well, that's ridiculous. She should be paid more." I, of course, agreed, but asked, "Are you willing to pay more taxes so she can?" The silence told me all I needed to know. Similarly, I've asked some proponents of the higher minimum wage if they, when going to fast-food restaurants, leave tips of 15-20% for the workers. Of course they don't.
OK, out to check on the current stage of the eclipse.
Recently, with deaths and illnesses of so-called "celebrities," I realized once again that we throw around terms like "legend," "classic," "icon," "idol," etc. far too frequently. Not everyone merits such a description and to use it so freely diminishes it when it is really deserved. I won't mention any names, but if you've been following the news in the past month or so, you'll know of whom I write.
And, speaking of honors, I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize committee is having second thoughts on awarding its prize to President Obama. Nah, I don't think so. He didn't deserve it in the first place, so now ordering the air strikes on ISIS/ISIL won't affect their thinking. Still, considering the previous paragraph, does this affect the legacy of Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, and others who really did deserve the Nobel?
Speaking of ISIS/ISIL and the bombings, are these attacks doing any good? Apparently the Islamofascists are on the verge of taking a Kurdish city near the Syrian border. They've had to attack across the open desert, with no anti-aircraft capabilities. How can that be? If they are out there in the open, why aren't our planes bombing them to "extinction?" It seems, with our capabilities and the millions of dollars of bombs being dropped (somewhere?), ISIS/ISIL could be decimated out in the open, unless......
I see, flying under the radar, that more people are losing health insurance due to ObamaCare. Of course, some would dismiss that as not true. (Have we become so cynical, so unable to face what we don't like to hear, that we label such information as "lies?") I read, maybe on the MSNBC Web site?, that there are several million fewer people with health insurance today than two years ago. Hmmm. Maybe there are fewer Americans? I do know that, personally, my premiums have gone up more than $1,000 a year, almost $1,500 ($140 a month). A recent op-ed revealed an interesting phenomenon occurring with doctors. Many are now opting out of accepting patients covered by any government plan, including Medicare/Medicaid. Some even refuse to accept private insurance patients. They are going to patient-pay or even a sort of retainer system, where, instead of paying premiums to an insurance company, patients pay a monthly/annual amount to a doctor and then can see the doctor when needed, if needed. Doctors who are now employing this say they have more time to devote to patients, with less red-tape, government regulations to handle. No doubt, some folks are very happy with ObamaCare. Those are the people touted by the federal government, at least the backers of ObamaCare, and the LameStream media. My guess, and I'm only making a reasoned guess, is that there are far more people not happy with it. I see Wal-Mart is cutting health coverage for its part-time employees. There have been recently articles in the local newspapers and the WSJ citing small businesses who are also dropping health plans for their employees. Now, one might call these employers "greedy." But are they any greedier than those who embraced Hillary Clinton's "You shouldn't have to have a job you don't like just to be able to take care of your family. You shouldn't be forced to abandon your dreams." (OK, I'm paraphrasing.) Nope, The responsibility of caring for one's family should take a backseat to what I want--me! me! me! Nope, that's not selfish or "greedy."
I saw another article the other day that caused me to laugh right out loud. Bill Clinton either gave a speech or wrote an article on "principles and values." I'm still chuckling.
The minimum/living wage folks are still at it. Although some are settling as a matter of reality at the $10.50 an hour rate, many are still insisting on $15 an hour. It's, of course, a political issue, plain and simple. The evidence is clear. Raising the minimum wage that much will cost jobs, many jobs, esp those of the workers who are supposed to be helped by the increase. Again, as I have noted before, a minority of, say, fast-food workers are actually raising a family on their pay. More than 50% of them are 24 or younger, and more than half of them are still in their teens. What families are they raising? And, if they are, that leads to other questions. (Well, I suppose we're not supposed to ask them, are we?) How many are senior citizens supplementing Social Security or pensions, not really raising families? And, of course, who's going to pay for the increase? My guess is not many Big Macs or Whoppers are going to be sold at $10 a pop. (In fact, to lure more traffic, both McD's and Whopper's) are lowering prices on items such as chicken nuggets. What will higher prices do to "traffic?") And, I submit, $15 an hour? For what? Again I say, my wife runs an elementary school. (Anyone familiar with public education knows that the secretaries run the elementary schools.) She barely makes the demanded minimum wage per hour. I mentioned this to someone a while back and met with, "Well, that's ridiculous. She should be paid more." I, of course, agreed, but asked, "Are you willing to pay more taxes so she can?" The silence told me all I needed to know. Similarly, I've asked some proponents of the higher minimum wage if they, when going to fast-food restaurants, leave tips of 15-20% for the workers. Of course they don't.
OK, out to check on the current stage of the eclipse.
Friday, October 3, 2014
Doo Gooders
The Doo Gooders (and I do mean doo) never learn, do they? They are fixated on their correctness, that they know better than the rest of us.
More evidence is that this is hooey. I've written before about how schools are now required to serve so-called "healthy" foods to students, thanks to the arrogant self-righteousness of Michelle Obama, members of Congress who passed the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act a few years ago, and the Depts of Education and HHS. Anecdotal evidence, not to mention logic, suggests that kids are either not buying the choices or, if part of free lunches, are merely throwing the food in the trash.
Some of the defenders have actually said that, when the kids get hungry enough, they'll eat the new healthier food. Great, just great. Now we lead our kids to starvation so they will comply with more government dictates.
An article in this AM's newspaper details how poorly the healthy food program is going, after four or more years. A number of school districts have documented that kids "are just throwing away" the foods they don't like. And one district has noted that its famous cookies are no longer "legal" to sell, not even as fundraisers. Its high school is losing tens of thousands of dollars of activities monies due to the lower sales. Another district laments the waste of food, although I would also add the waste of taxpayer money that pays for the free breakfasts and lunches. Whole grain bagels have been "a disaster," said one, adding that whole grain mac and cheese is also "a hard sell." No kidding.
One of the state bureaucrats (See my blog of earlier this week!) said, "We need to give it [forcing kids to eat foods they don't want] some time." Hmmm...... I guess four or five years isn't enough "time."
How about this? Michelle Obama and all the other doo-gooders can give their kids what they want for breakfast and for lunch. Let me give my kids what I know they'll eat--not throw away and waste. Is that so hard? It is for the arrogant elitists who know more than you and I know.
And we all know how easy it is to bribe the schools, especially when all they have to give up is their principles.
More evidence is that this is hooey. I've written before about how schools are now required to serve so-called "healthy" foods to students, thanks to the arrogant self-righteousness of Michelle Obama, members of Congress who passed the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act a few years ago, and the Depts of Education and HHS. Anecdotal evidence, not to mention logic, suggests that kids are either not buying the choices or, if part of free lunches, are merely throwing the food in the trash.
Some of the defenders have actually said that, when the kids get hungry enough, they'll eat the new healthier food. Great, just great. Now we lead our kids to starvation so they will comply with more government dictates.
An article in this AM's newspaper details how poorly the healthy food program is going, after four or more years. A number of school districts have documented that kids "are just throwing away" the foods they don't like. And one district has noted that its famous cookies are no longer "legal" to sell, not even as fundraisers. Its high school is losing tens of thousands of dollars of activities monies due to the lower sales. Another district laments the waste of food, although I would also add the waste of taxpayer money that pays for the free breakfasts and lunches. Whole grain bagels have been "a disaster," said one, adding that whole grain mac and cheese is also "a hard sell." No kidding.
One of the state bureaucrats (See my blog of earlier this week!) said, "We need to give it [forcing kids to eat foods they don't want] some time." Hmmm...... I guess four or five years isn't enough "time."
How about this? Michelle Obama and all the other doo-gooders can give their kids what they want for breakfast and for lunch. Let me give my kids what I know they'll eat--not throw away and waste. Is that so hard? It is for the arrogant elitists who know more than you and I know.
And we all know how easy it is to bribe the schools, especially when all they have to give up is their principles.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Administrative Law?
I read an interesting article on the growth of administrative law, that is, rules and regulations handed down by unelected bureaucrats. The increase in the number of us rules and regulations is striking and why we tolerate them is beyond me (other than we're too busy with the NFL, American Idol, or how poorly the Michigan football team is doing). This is especially so since such rules and regulations, remember handed down by people we don't elect, usually have the effect of law. That is, you can be punished if you don't follow them--fines, jail, etc.
I think administrative law might well be unconstitutional. After all the Constitution itself reads. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States......" It doesn't say "Some legislative powers" or "Most legislative powers." I'm aware of Nondelegation Theory and that is not absolute. But the Supremes have ruled that Congress may delegate some of its legislative authority if such delegation is accompanied by "intelligible" guidelines.
"Intelligible?" Hmmm...... Let's look at the current US Tax Code. It is composed of almost 75,000 pages--not 7,500, but 75,000! How "intelligible" can that be? (I am aware of the challenges to this number, mostly made by, you guessed it, bureaucrats. The actual federal tax law is more than 2,600 pages. Toss in, though, more than 10,000 pages of IRS rulings, guidelines, regulations, and other junk. We also have thousands of pages of US Tax Court rulings. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up.") For a long time the Wall Street Journal conducted a phone survey of IRS offices, calling the IRS offices for each state, or at least around the country. For the exact same question, dozens of IRS answers were given--by the IRS itself! And, remember too, if you don't follow the rules and regulations, you can be punished--fines, jail, garnishment, etc.--just as if you had broken the actual law.
Let's also consider that such administrative laws can be arbitrary, to punish or weaken political opponents, to push ideological or even trendy agendas, etc. They often plan undue onuses on the economy, especially costs to small businesses, driving them out of business, and to consumers.
They, too, frankly are intrusions on our personal liberties. Bureaucrats, who think they are smarter than we are, tell us how we must live our lives. Go ahead, try to buy the fertilizers, television sets, toilets, light bulbs, health insurance, shower heads, and more that you might want. (Those new energy-efficient light bulbs don't do much for my vision; I find it very hard to read by them and can't do it for very long.) The President's wife wants to tell us what we can give our kids for school lunches, what schools must serve, although kids throw out much of that healthy food. The mayor(s) of NYC want to tell us what size sodas we can purchase. Those things are none of their business, none of it! How dare they try to intrude on my choices, my individual freedom!
One last note, when was the last time you voted for a bureaucrat?
I think administrative law might well be unconstitutional. After all the Constitution itself reads. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States......" It doesn't say "Some legislative powers" or "Most legislative powers." I'm aware of Nondelegation Theory and that is not absolute. But the Supremes have ruled that Congress may delegate some of its legislative authority if such delegation is accompanied by "intelligible" guidelines.
"Intelligible?" Hmmm...... Let's look at the current US Tax Code. It is composed of almost 75,000 pages--not 7,500, but 75,000! How "intelligible" can that be? (I am aware of the challenges to this number, mostly made by, you guessed it, bureaucrats. The actual federal tax law is more than 2,600 pages. Toss in, though, more than 10,000 pages of IRS rulings, guidelines, regulations, and other junk. We also have thousands of pages of US Tax Court rulings. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up.") For a long time the Wall Street Journal conducted a phone survey of IRS offices, calling the IRS offices for each state, or at least around the country. For the exact same question, dozens of IRS answers were given--by the IRS itself! And, remember too, if you don't follow the rules and regulations, you can be punished--fines, jail, garnishment, etc.--just as if you had broken the actual law.
Let's also consider that such administrative laws can be arbitrary, to punish or weaken political opponents, to push ideological or even trendy agendas, etc. They often plan undue onuses on the economy, especially costs to small businesses, driving them out of business, and to consumers.
They, too, frankly are intrusions on our personal liberties. Bureaucrats, who think they are smarter than we are, tell us how we must live our lives. Go ahead, try to buy the fertilizers, television sets, toilets, light bulbs, health insurance, shower heads, and more that you might want. (Those new energy-efficient light bulbs don't do much for my vision; I find it very hard to read by them and can't do it for very long.) The President's wife wants to tell us what we can give our kids for school lunches, what schools must serve, although kids throw out much of that healthy food. The mayor(s) of NYC want to tell us what size sodas we can purchase. Those things are none of their business, none of it! How dare they try to intrude on my choices, my individual freedom!
One last note, when was the last time you voted for a bureaucrat?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
