These came to my inbox and this seemed the best way to redirect them to my FB friends and the few who follow these erratic posts:
The Nuts and Bolts of the Sequestration ‘Meat Axe’ by Bill Straub
Special Ops Poised to Take $1 Billion Hit from Sequestration, CR by Bridget Johnson
Allen West's new Next Generation video on sequestration.
questration Will Hurt National Security
Let Sequestration Happen by Tom Blumer
Let’s Go Sequestering! by Rick Moran
Sequestration Will Hurt National Security
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Dare to be healthy
We recognize that Social Security has devolved from a system of pay-in and then reap a return to one where current payers support payees while the securities that supposedly support the trust are mortgaged to the point of uselessness. In essence SSI has become a pyramid scheme and our national demographics are shifting to invert that pyramid.
Rather than learn from this serious issue, ACA was built as a pyramid scheme, i.e. it's dependent on a base of payers who would place few or no demands on the system. The issue Will discusses here is a "loophole" that will allow members of the proposed base to escape the role of payer while payee demands will grow and, perhaps, spike upwards dramatically (flu pandemic, anyone?). Some have argued (even cheered) the idea that this flaw is a deliberate choice to break private insurers and force us to a single-provider system.
In any case, as George Will points out, we're robbing Peter to pay Paul after arming Peter with a riot gun.
Rather than learn from this serious issue, ACA was built as a pyramid scheme, i.e. it's dependent on a base of payers who would place few or no demands on the system. The issue Will discusses here is a "loophole" that will allow members of the proposed base to escape the role of payer while payee demands will grow and, perhaps, spike upwards dramatically (flu pandemic, anyone?). Some have argued (even cheered) the idea that this flaw is a deliberate choice to break private insurers and force us to a single-provider system.
In any case, as George Will points out, we're robbing Peter to pay Paul after arming Peter with a riot gun.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Why I use big words -- or do I?
I think I was just accused of sesquipedalianism for using the word "misogyny" instead of "hatred of women". Being given to metacognition (thinking about thinking), I thought about my use of words. Having made my living writing educational and promotional videos -- as well as stage-plays -- I'm very comfortable writing in a way that will reach a broad audience. I'm also pretty certain that I'm plain-spoken in terms of being frank, even blunt. For my own musings, though, I think that I use words appropriate for college-level reading -- a level which, having earned a Ph.d., I'm two stages past.
Let's pause here for an important reminder about academic degrees:
Now, my own pondering and reckoning has led me to conclude that the words I value using tend to be economical, serviceable, and elegant rather than high-falutin' for their own sake. Misogyny is the economical term for hatred of women. Not so much, perhaps, in its basic form but for its ability to convert readily. "Misogyny" and "hatred of women" are pretty much a straight trade in terms of communication. However, "misogynist" and "hatred of womaner" or "misogynistic" and "hatred of womany" are not. So, if one is going to deal with such a subject, you should (I think) be consistent in using the term that will serve you most often.
Of course, I could just be justifying my own hyper-reflexive loquaciousness, it's hard to say.
Let's pause here for an important reminder about academic degrees:
Two farmers were visiting by the pot-belly stove in the local feed store.
"Zeke," says the first. "What do you think them degrees are the kids are getting down at the Ag School?"
"Well, Clem, I've been pondering about that and I reckon I've got it about reckoned out. Now the first one the get is a B.S. -- and you know what that stands for..."
"Oh, yeah." answers Clem with a chuckle. Zeke continued on.
"Well, now the next one is an M.S. and I think that must mean 'More of the Same'."
"That makes sense." Clem said. "But what about that there P-H-D?"
"Well, that's got to be 'Piled Higher and Deeper'."
Now, my own pondering and reckoning has led me to conclude that the words I value using tend to be economical, serviceable, and elegant rather than high-falutin' for their own sake. Misogyny is the economical term for hatred of women. Not so much, perhaps, in its basic form but for its ability to convert readily. "Misogyny" and "hatred of women" are pretty much a straight trade in terms of communication. However, "misogynist" and "hatred of womaner" or "misogynistic" and "hatred of womany" are not. So, if one is going to deal with such a subject, you should (I think) be consistent in using the term that will serve you most often.
Of course, I could just be justifying my own hyper-reflexive loquaciousness, it's hard to say.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Friday was not the day for it...
But here are some comments of the day, mostly on things that seemed out of place to me yesterday.
Scott Ott on other news of that day:
More from Pajamas Media:
Rick Moran on The Coming Regulatory Black Hole.
Bill Whittle on the Fiscal Cliff and the leading lemmings...
And all the Trifectioners on Jim DeMint Leaving the Senate:
Rick Berman at Daily Caller on Michigan and Right-to-Work:
Scott Ott on other news of that day:
More from Pajamas Media:
Rick Moran on The Coming Regulatory Black Hole.
Bill Whittle on the Fiscal Cliff and the leading lemmings...
And all the Trifectioners on Jim DeMint Leaving the Senate:
Rick Berman at Daily Caller on Michigan and Right-to-Work:
Interestingly, one fact that seems to have been missed by the union sympathizers is that unions including the UAW have tens of thousands of members in right-to-work states. The only difference is that in those jurisdictions, the local unions needs to show value, earn their members’ trust, and be free of apparent corruption (on average, two union staff gets indicted every week).
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Repost: KIll the Human Rights Commission
Their present might be our future, in which case this fight and whether rights or political correctness will prevail is of vital interest, for:
When the social engineer or “human-rights” commissar suppresses human rights, he doesn’t do so because he’s an ogre, but because he’s a do-gooder. Human rights aren’t invariably pretty. Some may protect and encourage nasty ideas and exclusionary practices. Some may stand in the way of attractive schemes that would improve the lot of mankind, in my opinion no less than in the opinion of the human-rights commissar. All the same, they are human rights. As such, they trump even the most attractive human ambitions with which they come into conflict. But as this would interfere with the state’s social engineers; they brought HRCs into being to insulate the state from the consequences of freedom with a liberal (in both senses of the word) reign of terror.
Repost: The Kingdom of Fairness
Notable quote: Now the president wants another $50 billion in new borrowing. But why would borrowing another $50 billion jump-start the sluggish economy when 100 times that figure in deficit spending so far has not?
Thursday, July 26, 2012
A Tale of Two Speeches
Well, one speech with two takes on same: President Obama's now famous/infamous "You didn't build that" speech in Roanoke. You can read the full text of the speech in a few places, here's two, Politifact http://bit.ly/QLzIi1 and the Washington Times http://bit.ly/NpTVHF -- these two were chosen for their diverse conclusions from the same text.
The Times agrees that the speech denigrates entrepreneurs while Politifact assures us that such claims ignore the context of the full speech. So, what's the accurate view?
Consider this portion that precedes the bight heavily used by the loyal opposition: "I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there." Clearly the message here is that success didn't come by dint of effort or exercise of talent by the successful.
Next comes the portion Politifact states is critical to context re "you didn't build that" (and damns the Romney campaign for allegedly ignoring same): "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."
The president's campaign says "that" means the aforementioned infrastructure while the Romney campaign says it's the businesses themselves. The trouble for the president is he's wrong either way, it's just a matter of degree. Why? Because barring favoritism we a) all have the benefit of that infrastructure and 2) all support it according to our station in life. So, the honestly successful person must have applied his or her efforts and talents to utilize what the infrastructure provided in a way that others didn't. Similarly, they pay back more to maintain that infrastructure for the benefit of all.
Sure we all know people who have had very bad breaks and face tough lives accordingly but money doesn't insulate you from Time and Chance. One can quite readily end up hocking the silver spoon that was in one's mouth when born. Most end up at "C" or better in life based on our choices and efforts. We risk serving in the military to get benefits...or we don't. We choose this education/career path or another. Sometimes we crap out, regroup, and try something else. It's great to have a country where we can do that but what we do and how far we go is up to us.
The real context of the president's speech is that it came from a man who just got done stirring up hatred against the successful as not paying their fair share, of falsely claiming that a rate change in taxing this group would help the economy when a year's worth of such revenue wouldn't cover federal spending for a fortnight.
That message (along with having his surrogates falsely depict Mr. Romney as a felonious, tax-dodging outsourcer) wasn't working well. The president was playing to his base and losing the center. The Roanoke speech might have been an attempt at diffusing some of the backlash from those ploys. Certainly the later phrases of the speech (somehow ignored by the president's defenders at Politifact) points to such an attempt: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative [and here the president contradicts himself], but also because we do things together...So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together...We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama had already given his opposition further fuel to foster the perception that he is, at heart, anti-free enterprise, that at heart he believes success means getting unfair, disproportionate benefit from the stuff "we" built. (Of course it's common to see our sins in others, but that's another story.)
Is hammering on the damning sound bight unfair in the context of what the president wanted to say? Sure. Would the tactic have succeeded, would the clip _be_ damning if it didn't capture the greater context of the man? No.
The Times agrees that the speech denigrates entrepreneurs while Politifact assures us that such claims ignore the context of the full speech. So, what's the accurate view?
Consider this portion that precedes the bight heavily used by the loyal opposition: "I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there." Clearly the message here is that success didn't come by dint of effort or exercise of talent by the successful.
Next comes the portion Politifact states is critical to context re "you didn't build that" (and damns the Romney campaign for allegedly ignoring same): "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."
The president's campaign says "that" means the aforementioned infrastructure while the Romney campaign says it's the businesses themselves. The trouble for the president is he's wrong either way, it's just a matter of degree. Why? Because barring favoritism we a) all have the benefit of that infrastructure and 2) all support it according to our station in life. So, the honestly successful person must have applied his or her efforts and talents to utilize what the infrastructure provided in a way that others didn't. Similarly, they pay back more to maintain that infrastructure for the benefit of all.
Sure we all know people who have had very bad breaks and face tough lives accordingly but money doesn't insulate you from Time and Chance. One can quite readily end up hocking the silver spoon that was in one's mouth when born. Most end up at "C" or better in life based on our choices and efforts. We risk serving in the military to get benefits...or we don't. We choose this education/career path or another. Sometimes we crap out, regroup, and try something else. It's great to have a country where we can do that but what we do and how far we go is up to us.
The real context of the president's speech is that it came from a man who just got done stirring up hatred against the successful as not paying their fair share, of falsely claiming that a rate change in taxing this group would help the economy when a year's worth of such revenue wouldn't cover federal spending for a fortnight.
That message (along with having his surrogates falsely depict Mr. Romney as a felonious, tax-dodging outsourcer) wasn't working well. The president was playing to his base and losing the center. The Roanoke speech might have been an attempt at diffusing some of the backlash from those ploys. Certainly the later phrases of the speech (somehow ignored by the president's defenders at Politifact) points to such an attempt: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative [and here the president contradicts himself], but also because we do things together...So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together...We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama had already given his opposition further fuel to foster the perception that he is, at heart, anti-free enterprise, that at heart he believes success means getting unfair, disproportionate benefit from the stuff "we" built. (Of course it's common to see our sins in others, but that's another story.)
Is hammering on the damning sound bight unfair in the context of what the president wanted to say? Sure. Would the tactic have succeeded, would the clip _be_ damning if it didn't capture the greater context of the man? No.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)