6/26/2004
What Is It with the Political Class?
Now, on to a topic that chronically pisses me off: illegal immigration. This is an area where I have massive disagreement with the Libertarian Party, which advocates open borders, whereas I advocate a five mile deep minefield on the border and kicking every last one of the illegal immigrants in the country out. Several stories have appeared recently in this area, all of which have annoyed me to no end.
We start in the People's Republic of San Francisco, refuge from reality and well known braking moonbat haven, where the locals protested raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. From the SF Chronicle:
About 100 people gathered in front of federal immigration offices Wednesday in San Francisco to protest recent raids in the Mission District.
...
They invoked San Francisco's refuge ordinance -- which prohibits use of city funds and resources in enforcing federal immigration laws -- in calling for an end to the sweeps.
"This is not supposed to happen in San Francisco," said Maria Poblet of the St. Peter's Housing Committee, a tenant advocacy group in the Mission District. "We want to call attention to these raids. We want the city to say it's not OK."
I hate to break it to you Maria, but your silly little city law makes no difference to Los Federales. They will conduct their investigations, and arrest those who break our immigration laws, whether or not your city wishes to declare itself a haven for lawbreakers. San Francisco is not special just because it wants to be that way.
Next, on to the Governator of the reality impaired state of Kalifornia, who has suggested "allowing undocumented aliens to obtain driver's permits with a special emblem denoting their immigration status."
Once again we see the use of the term "undocumented aliens" by our halfwit media to gloss over the fact that what these people are doing is illegal. Got that Reuters? They're breaking the fucking law just by being in our country.
Back to Gov. Ah-nuld. Don't you remember a big to-do, a recall election just a few short months ago? And wasn't one of the big issues prompting the recall of Gray Davis a law that would have given driver's licenses to illegal aliens? A law that the state legislature rushed to un-pass right after the recall? So, Gov, what the fuck has prompted you to propose it again? Have you gone completely soft in the head? Or have you decided to be just like all the politicians in Sacramento and D.C. and fall all over yourself in your rush to suck the dicks of Hispanic voters? Never mind the fact that illegal aliens aren't allowed to vote.
Another question: is the DMV prohibited from reporting illegal immigrants to the Feds? Because I can't think of any other reason why you would know someone is an illegal alien and not report this incident of lawbreaking, other than they've been ordered, in a fit of PC vote-pandering, not to.
You want to be popular, Arnold? I mean, with the people who actually vote in the PRK? Go over the Legislature's head, and propose an initiative that requires any state or local government employee who becomes aware that a person is in this country illegally to report that person to the appropriate (Federal) authorities. And if any city, like SF or LA, tries to prohibit their employees from doing so, revoke their charter for failing to comply with state law. Don't think it'll fly? Prop 209 passed with something like 59% of the vote, my man. You do the math.
A finally, on to my home state of Washington. Or, at least, on to Washington's governor, Gary Locke, who is in Mexico, where, having decided to retire from his current position, he is apparently running for President of Mexico.
GUADALAJARA, Mexico (AP) — Washington state Gov. Gary Locke, a longtime supporter of Mexican migrants, said Thursday he opposes U.S. President George W. Bush's proposed temporary guest-worker program, and is more in favor of an amnesty.
The Bush proposal, which would allow illegal migrants who have jobs waiting for them to live and work temporarily in the United States, "is very unpopular among Mexican-Americans in the United States," Locke said.
...
"I am grateful to the Mexicans for their contributions, their work in Washington and I am opposed to discrimination against them," Locke said, noting that his state is spending $40 million to build permanent and temporary housing for migrant farmworkers as well as offering free health care to pregnant and undocumented women.
Hey, Gov. Locke, I'd like free health care, too, and I'm "documented" and an actual citizen. It'd be great if you built me a house, too. Why are you so in favor of spending state taxpayer money to help people who break the fucking laws of our country?
If you're so in favor of pardoning lawbreakers (because that's what amnesty is, a blanket pardon for people who have broken our immigration laws), why don't you just start giving blanket pardons to some of the criminals in our state's prisons? That'd at least save the state some money.
Permalink
|
Was FDR a Socialist?
Over at The Volokh Conspircay, Professor Cass Sunstein of of the U. of Chicago Law School has been a guest blogger for the past few days, commenting mostly on FDR and the underlying philosophy for the New Deal. Now, I've had a healthy libertarian dislike for FDR for a good while now, because from my view the New Deal marks the beginning of the rise of the Nanny State which is insidiously eroding our freedoms. Then I read a post from Prof. Sunstein listing FDR's so-called "Second Bill of Rights" and I truly began to wonder if FDR was really a socialist. Prof. Sunstein asserts that he wasn't, that he hated socialists, but read through this list with me and you'll wonder.
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;"
This is, in fancier language, the standard Lefty "Good jobs at good wages" pap. First of all, nobody has a right to a job, much less a "useful and remunerative" one. Why? Because such a right implies the obligation of employers to hire everyone who wants a job. Guess what, no business owner has the obligation to hire anyone. And if private businesses won't hire some people, for whatever reason, does this then create an obligation of the government to hire them? And exactly where is the money to do that going to come from? Your wallet and mine, that's where. Which means higher taxes. Which means businesses will hire less people, which means more people will have a "right" to those jobs the government is "obligated" to provide. Which means the government will need more money. You see where this is going-pretty soon the government is the entire economy and you're living in the Soviet Union.
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
See above-just like nobody has a right to a job, nobody has a right to be paid any certain amount, because that implies an obligation on the part of the employer to pay them said amount, regardless of how much value said employee produces for the employer. And that just simply doesn't work-if you pay someone regardless of how much they produce, they stop producing as soon as they figure out they can surf the web all day and still get paid.
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
Just what the hell makes farmers so special? Why doesn't every small businessman have a right to make a profit? For that matter, why don't Microsoft, Exxon, GM, and other big corporations have the same right? (Oh yeah, I forgot-they're evil exploiters of the working class.) Nobody, in any profession, has any right to make a profit, again, because this implies an obligation on the part of others-in this case to pay the farmers a price which guarantess him a profit. And such obligations simply do not exist in a market economy.
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
Who gets to define "unfair competition?" Just because an Indian computer programmer is willing to work for, say, $20,000 a year, does this mean he's competing unfairly with an American programmer who won't work for less than $60,000 a year? Are the Kuwaitis competing unfairly with American oil producers, simply because it costs less to pump oil in Kuwait than it does in most places here?
The right of every family to a decent home;
Yet another "right" that implies an obligation of society to provide a good to people. (Nevermind the ever shifting definition of a "decent" home-I'll bet growing up that Abe Lincoln thought the log cabin his family lived in was pretty decent.) And note that this is probably the area that the New Deal and it's successor, the Great Society, have failed the most visibly and spectacularly-government housing being about the furthest thing from a "decent home" I can imagine.
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
I'm beginning to sense a trend here. A right that implies a cost on the rest of us. This implies that either doctors have a specific obligation, by virtue of thier profession, to provide medical care a no or low cost, or that the rest of us have an obligation to cough up some cash to pay the doctors for the treatment of other people who can't pay on their own.
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
This is becoming tedious. Why do people who are working have an obligation to provide income for people who aren't? The way for individuals to provide security from the travails of life is to save their own money. If you really want insurance, find a company that will sell it to you.
FDR used this "rght" to justify Social Security, which is high on my list of Most Hated Government Programs. SS is billed as a savings program, like all those taxes I'm sending to DC are going into a special account just for me so I can get the money out when I'm 65. In reality SS is a giant government run pyramid scheme, taking money from today's workers to pay today's retirees, and depending on an ever expanding pool of workers to keep the pyramid from collapsing. I want my money back, and just let me invest in myself, OK?
The right to a good education.
This is the only one that is tough to argue, because the vast majority of people believe that to ensure equality of opportunity, every child should be provided with an education. But does this necessarily imply an obligation of all members of society to fund said education? Is it just to force (through taxes) people with no children, or whose children have completed school, to pay for the education of the children of others?
Then there's the problem that "public education" in many cases is to "good education" what "public housing" is to a "good home."
As can be seen from my comments, the problem with FDR's list of "rights" is that they imply costs on other people. But if I'm not willing to pay for someone else's "right," am I violating that "right?" No, I'm not, because that right doesn't exist.
Look at the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights-freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, the right to keep and bear arms. Do any of these imply any obligation on anyone but the individual? No. Even the right to privacy, which is implied bu not enumerated, doesn't imply any obligations on others.
I'm not so sure if FDR was a socialist, but his list of "rights" do possess a serious undercurrent of socialism. And make no mistake-the New Deal and Great Society government programs that sprang from this assertion of non-exisitant rights ARE edifices of socialism, hidden in plain sight by the assetion that they ensure "rights."
Permalink
|
Big Blogs Added
I've added a new section, below the blogroll, for Big Blogs. Volokh, Sullivan, Luskin, and the Belmont Club are the current residents.
Permalink
|
6/25/2004
Hatriotism and Michael Moore
It appears that the VRWC has cells among our immigrant population. The following comes from a Turkish-American Muslim. Hat tip to the Junkyard Blog.
Michael Moore has released the cinematic equivalent of a French kiss to all who hate America. He is the leading exponent of hatriotism.
"HATE-RIOTISM" describes the new breeze blowing through the American media. It is now "cool" and "relevant" to mock everything for which our soldiers are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Criticizing democracy and America has long been in vogue in continental Europe from those who look with disdain at American "naivete," while still lamenting the Islamic onslaught.
Now imported to our shores, hatriotism is the simplest way to get the growing contingent of professional protestors who populate television audiences to cheer: Mock America. Mock our involvement in Iraq. Mock President Bush ... and get rousing applause.
The only problem is ... America has freed my kinsmen.
....
In fact, I wonder ... where were all the "hatriots" when our soldiers freed all the women of Afghanistan from the Taliban? Where were the feminists when our soldiers liberated the Afghan women to be educated for the first time in years?
...
There is one final irony. There is a film producer who has worked for years, chasing down Michael Moore in an effort to interview him. The young man, named Michael Wilson, is making a documentary titled "Michael Moore Hates America." So far, Moore has dodged him at every turn. Anyone who knows cinema recognizes that this is the exact tactic Moore took in his film "Roger and Me," as he chased an automobile executive for an interview.
Do you see the paradox? Because Michael Moore is now in the mainstream of hatriotism, and now the young conservatives are the radicals, Moore has become his own worst nightmare. Michael Moore has become that which he mocked. He has become an aloof elite.
Count me among the radicals.
Permalink
|
Cost the Donks Money!
It seems that whatever software they use to program those Blogspot ad things at the top of my page isn't too bright. Just because I mention Fuckface Kerry a couple times, it assumes that ads for his campaign, and the DNC, etc, would be good things to put up there. Apparently doesn't notice that the word in front of Kerry is Fuckface.
So, here's what I'm asking you to do: if that blogspt ad shows anything for the Donks, or Kerry, or MoveOn.org, or anything of that nature, appear at the top of my page, once your done reading my erudite rantings, go ahead and click on their ads. Because it costs them money. Not much, but it does ad up. And every penny they waste here is a penny less they have to spew lies and fear to the sheeple of America.
Permalink
|
I Bit Late in the Day to Post This, But I Don't Care
Today is a happy day. My beloved Giants (that's San Francisco baseball Giants) last night completed a four game sweep of the loathsome boys in blue, the LA Dodgers.
By doing so, the Giants assume their rightful place at the top of the NL West.
You know what makes it extra special? They did it with no home runs from Barry Bonds, and without their staff ace, Jason Schmidt, pitching.
And for you stat geeks, Bonds is closing on yet another record: he's just 17 walks behind Ricky Henderson for the all-time career walks record of 2,190. Which, at Bonds' current pace, he should reach in about 8 games.
Permalink
|
The Best Anti-Terror Force: Us
From the Washington Post:
From a military perspective, our only effective weapon against the terrorists on Sept. 11 was a connected, smart-thinking citizenry. Educating and equipping critical-thinking, network-savvy citizens will be key to winning this war of infiltration and surprise.
Now folks, say this again with me:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now go out and buy yourself a Homeland Defense Rifle.
Permalink
|
6/24/2004
72 Virgins Dating Service
Another satisfied customer. GRAPHIC CONTENT
Permalink
|
Know Thine Enemy
From the July 2004 Harper's Magazine (www.harpers.org)pg 22
The Time of Killing-an interview with Omar Bakri Muhammad, a suspected member of Al-Qaeda and head of Al Muhajiroun, a radical Islamic group based in London.
"We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and nonbelievers. And the life of a non-believer has no value. There's no sanctity in it."
"Terror is the language of the twenty-first century. If I want something, I terrorize you to achieve it. To support George Bush is a kind of terrorism. To support Al Qaeda is the same. Everybody is involved. Every Muslim is a terrorist, every non-Muslim is a terrorist. This is the "time of killing." It is predicted in the divine text. Muhammad said: "I am the prophet of mercy," but he also said:" I am the prophet of massacre." The word "terrorism" is not new among Muslims. Muhammad said: "I am the prophet who laughs when he's killing the enemy." It is not only a question of killing. Its laughing while we are killing.
Now, we do agree about one thing: "It's time for Bin Laden himself and his companions to die."
Preferably by a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator UAV, getting the whole thing on VHS. Of course, Omar, who hates the West so much he doesn't want to leave, wants Osama Been Hidin' to commit suicide, just to be "consistent."
WAHABISM DELENDA EST
Permalink
|
Bragging About My Wife
My wife floored me last night. HL Jr was finally asleep, we were watching TV, and an Army recruitng ad comes on. The one where you see a bunch of assumed Taliban/Fedayeen types, with a crosshairs tracking them around, then changes view to show a sniper team in ghillie suits, with the barrel of a .50 cal rifle clearly visible. My wife, who's in the National Guard, said, "Wow, that makes me want to go active [duty]."
"It makes me want to buy a .50 cal rifle," I replied.
"Well, if Kerry wins, you can spend some of the savings and get one."
My jaw just about hit the floor. How in the world did I get so lucky as to end up with this girl? She's beautiful, a wonderful mother to our 4 month old son-and she wants two more, smart, for some reason willing to put up with my 14 hour day, six day workweek in a state that she hates, and oh yeah, more than gun friendly. Bumper sticker on her truck says "Keep Your Laws Off My Guns." On our first date, we went to the (in)famous Bull's Eye Shooter Supply & Range in Tacoma. For her birthday I got her the Kimber Ultra Carry that she picked out; now she wants a .22 pistol. Oh yeah, she makes great cheesecake, too.
She knew I had a Kerry Wins buyng list. Not sure if she knew how big it is. She does now.
"If Kerry wins, you can spend some of the savings and get one."
I love you babe.
Permalink
|
6/23/2004
My Kerry Victory Shopping List
Given that Senator Fuckface is one of the top supporters of anti-human rights, I mean, gun control legislation in the Senate, I have been thinking my way around a SHTF list of what guns to buy in case the nation has a collective loss of sanity on November 2 and actually elects this fuckwit. Without further ado:
1) KTR-03S from Krebs Custom Actually, I'm planning to buy one even if Bush wins, I'll just do it quicker.
2) A His & Hers set of WASR-10s or SAR-1s-because they don't cost much, there AKs, which drives the Antis nuts, and because my most excellent wife should get to have some fun too.
3) An AR-15 lower receiver. If the AWB dies, I'd get one with an M-4 type stock. If not, I'd go for the standard A2 stock. And if I had to get the whole gun, I'd go for the 10mm carbine from Olympic Arms
4) An FAL receiver, probably an Imbel. So I can build one when I want to.
5) A couple of M1 Garands and an M1903A3 from the CMP. I can't imagine Fuckface letting the government continue to sell proles powerful semi-auto rifles, can you?
6) Enough magazines for a basic load for each weapon
That's the list so far. If the AWB dies, I might add a Hi-Power with standard cap mags, but that's all I've got so far. But suggestions are always welcome.
Permalink
|
About that Clinton book...
Dick Morris, in the NY Post calls it an "orgy of self-indulgent navel pondering."
Just shought I'd share that.
UPDATE: there's now something like 60 reviews posted at Amazon. I found this one worth a chuckle:
Craptastic!
Excellent bathroom reader material. Over 900 easy-to-tear-out pages!
Permalink
|
Laughing at the Moonbats
INDC has a hilarious look at a recent protest in our nation's capital.
Permalink
|
6/22/2004
Another FEC complaint..
against another leftist group.
Seems that America Coming Together for Socialism (ACT) has been spotted using super-evil 'soft money' to pay for mailers soliciting more donations, which, apparently, is a no-no. Evil 'soft money' is only supposed to be used for voter fraud get-out-the-vote drives.
Here's the kicker: "The FEC is unlikely to act before the November election; it often takes years for the commission to resolve complaints."
Now, I'm no fan of campaign finance regulation (get the politics out of making money, and you'll get the money out of making policy, I say), but if you're going to regulate campaign finance and you're going to have an FEC, what the fuck is the point if it takes a few years for them to reach a decision and impose punishment (if any?) The election's already happened by that point, you morons. Things like this, which can have a serious effect on an imminent election, should be investigated, any any proper penalties handed out post haste. Like say, make a decision and issue your fines the day after the Donk convention. I'd say fines on the order of double the amount of funds illegally used would be appropriate.
Not that fines of any amount would realy matter. George Sore-Ass would just give them more money. These fuckheads were the ones insisting on these rules, and now they're the ones doing an end-run around them.
Permalink
|
Will the Real John Kerry Please Stand Up, Please Stand Up?
Useful Fools has a link-studded post on what the Big Media isn't telling you about John Kerry.
Big Media wants Bush to lose, big time. Their bias, especially in the face of evidence like this, shows up most clearly in what they chose NOT to report on. Try to think-aside from comments on his personality, or lack thereof, when was the last time you heard anyone not on Fox News or talk radio say anything negative about Kerry?
And it's interesting how his poll numbers get better when he stays out of sight.
Permalink
|
Fighting the Leftist Orthodoxy
From Protest Warrior via RadioBS (the guy's on a roll today), the story of Bryan Henderson, a high school student who finally got fed up with the socialist excrement being spewed by his teachers and took action, in excellent Protest Warrior style. He's currently working to enlist the ACLU to take his fight for free expression to the school board, even though he has graduated.
Mr. Henderson will be eligible to run for Congress in 7 years.
Permalink
|
Scary John Kerry
RadioBS has posted a link to a site with some great Flash movies on John Forbes Kerry.
Scary John Kerry
Permalink
|
The Michael Moore Files
Michael Hitchens, writing in the generally left leaning Slate, rips Moore's latest effort:
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
...
I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible.
The New York Times also reports that Moore "has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation."
To which Hitchenss editor, Jack Schafer, has replied, "Moore isn't likely to find a more severe appraisal of his film and his work than this Slate piece by Christopher Hitchens. Read it, Mr. Moore. We invite your suit."
Permalink
|
6/21/2004
I Think the Chattering Classes Are Scared
I visited one of my local Barnes & Noble stores yesterday, and among the feature display tables was one for "Current Events." At a quick glance, the titles featured were written by authors on the socialist lefty end of spectrum. There were a goodly number of the "GWB is Evil" genre, and at least two titles denouncing conservative media, especially talk radio. Now, I'll admit that I'm not old enough to remember such things about the Bush 41 presidency, and definitely not Reagan, but it seems to me that the Left has become louder and louder as W's term has gone on and the election has gotten closer. Which leads to the question: why?
The obvious answer is they're not in power at the moment, in any of the three branches of the federal government (although exactly how much out of power is disputed, especially with regard to the courts) and they don't much like it. But Republicans were pretty much shut out from 1933 until 1953, and I don't remember reading anything about any sort of upwelling of comparable right-wing vitriol during that period.
Actually, the fate of the GOP from 1933 to 1953 holds a clue, I think, to why the Left is becoming so vocally nasty: they fear (and not, IMHO, without good reason) that a loss in 2004 will push them into a similar period out of power, and that REALLY scares them. Because since 1933 the Left has held at least one, if not all three, of the three branches, and they've come to regard that power as rightfully theirs.
Now, I don't necessarily think that's true, but if W does win, the Dems will basically have one chance to avoid that fate: that's right, Hillary in 2008. Actually, I think a Kerry victory would be more of a problem for them, because I don't see him being very effective as President, but I don't think the Dems would want anyone to challenge him if he were the incumbent, leaving Hillary's window closed until 2012, and she's not aging all that gracefully, plus she'll be up for her Senate seat again (although I'm not sure on NY state electoral law here; she might be able to run for both seats at once, a la Lieberman in 2000.)
For that reason, I think the Hildebeast is secretly pulling for Kerry to lose. Because it's all about the Clintons. If that were to come to pass, the GOP's best chance, at least as I see it right now, would be to unseat her in the 2006 Senate campaign. If she lost there, any potential Hillary '08 campaign would be effectively dead. And I think that the reason Guiliani isn't running against Upchuck Schumer is that the NY GOP is holding him in reserve just for this occasion. He's got the strength in NYC, and the big name to atract money to have a serious chance to bump her off. Now I realize that Guiliani's positions are a heck of a lot more liberal/left/statist than I'd prefer, but in the name of getting a Clinton out of elected office, I'll send him $$ if he runs.
Permalink
|
Idaho Dems Prostrate Themselves to Their Party's Highest Principle
No, it's not Soak Tax The Achievers Rich. It's not Universal Medical System Destruction Health Care. It's not even George W. Bush Is The Spawn of Satan. Give up? It's Baby Murder Abortion On Demand. (I just figured out the strikeout coding, if you couldn't guess.)
The Dems, in their quest for the 'big tent,' give their candidates wiggle room on just about every other issue except abortion. Democrat Senate candidates in Louisiana and Oklahoma are pro-Second Amendment. Joe Leiberman is pro-Iraq war and pro-Israel. Clinton cut welfare. JFK cut taxes. But nobody, not even in super conservative/libertarian Idaho, can be pro-life.
Actually, what really surprised me about the article: I didn't think there were any Dems in Idaho when Senator and Mrs Kerry weren't visiting their private ski lodge.
Permalink
|
Minimum Wage.....Hyahhh!
John Kerry is pressing the Class Warfare button again, proposing to increase the federal minimum wage to $7 an hour. Kerry "contended would benefit working women more than any other group." Never mind that it will hammer minorities, teenagers looking for part-time and/or summer jobs, and low/no skill workers in general. And make labor here in the U.S. more expensive, causing more companies to move more jobs to lower cost locations overseas. Wasn't Kerry just harping on Bush on the "outsourcing" thing?
But nevermind the second and third order effects of rasining the minimum wage, let's look at what some actual economists have to say.
We'll start with Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, who asserts that minimum wage laws hurt those they are most intended to help-minorities, teenagers and female heads of families.
Or how about Dr. Walter Williams of James Madison U (hat tip to Ravenwood for this one):
One effect of minimum wages is that of discrimination against the employment of less-preferred workers. A worker might be less-preferred in the eyes of a particular employer in a number of ways. He might be low-skilled, less intelligent, or a different nationality or race. Put yourself in the place of an employer, and ask: If the law requires me to pay, say, $9 an hour, no matter whom I hire, does it pay me to hire someone who has skills enabling him to produce only $5 worth of value per hour? Most people would view hiring such a worker as a losing economic proposition.
Are low-skilled workers made better or worse off as a result of the $9 minimum wage? It's almost a no-brainer to conclude that being hired at $5 an hour puts more food on the table than not being hired at $9. What's more, minimum wages reduce training opportunities. Most of us gain skills through on-the-job-training. Minimum wage laws deny that opportunity.
Or how about this quote from the New York Times back in 1987 under the title, "The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00", courtesy of Larry Elder:
An increase in the minimum wage ... would increase employers' incentive to evade the law, expanding the underground economy. More important, it would increase unemployment: Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the least skilled workers, and fewer will be hired.
Is John Kerry pandering, ignorant, or both? I reported, I'll let you decide.
Permalink
|
More Stuff You Need to Read That's Not Written by Me
This is the America that the leftist elites just cannot comprehend:
While I was there, the Chaplain of the 39th told me this story: One of the old troopers who came was a 52 year-old Sgt. who had already done his 20+ years and had retired. But his son was in the 39th, and when the father found out they were coming over here, he re-enlisted. On their first week in country, Camp Cooke was attacked by rockets and the first rocket that landed killed the father. I was born in 1958 and came of age when the Vietnam War and the anti-war movement were both in full swing. It has taken me years to put this into words, but I believe that as bad as that war was, the legacy of the anti-war movement was worse. The anti-war movement gave rise to the moral superiority of non-involvement and non-commitment.
Oh, and I heartily welcom Terpsboy to the blogroll.
Permalink
|
The Folly of Social Democracy
Professor Bainbridge quotes the following from the WSJ Online (link to WSJ requires paid subscription, which I don't have)about a study done in Sweden:
It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average....
Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.
But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden -- the very model of a modern welfare state -- were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low income.
In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.
Americans, even the poor ones, have more total income, more disposable income, more housing space, and more stuff. Sounds like we're doing something right and the Euroweenies aren't. Take that you Europhile twits.
Permalink
|
|
|
