Monday, July 30, 2007

Just a little bit of sharing

So, I have recently realized I have a thing for bike messengers, generally. I tend to get a little tinge of excitement when I see them in the office. Maybe it's because they are almost defiantly casual in formal business environments. Maybe it's because by virtue of their vocation they tend to be lean, fit and tan. Whatever the reason, I like 'em.

(not everything has to be so serious around here)

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Why I'm Not Buying Free Health Care, Part 1.5

Thanks to North Dallas Thirty for finding this WSJ opinion piece. An Exerpt:

Democrats who run the Wisconsin Senate have dropped the Washington pretense of incremental health-care reform and moved directly to passing a plan to insure every resident under the age of 65 in the state. And, wow, is "free" health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker.

With $510 per month can't you get damn good private health insurance?

My hope: Wisconsin passes the plan; Washngton remains a stalemate after November 2008 (Republican Pres + Democratic Congress, or vice versa); the Wisonson plan fails miserably; Washington take notice; and the big pipedream: Instead of taking over the health care industry we see some antitrust actions in the insurance industry, and if the government MUST subsidize health care, it does so at the consumer level through vouchers or Health Savings Accounts (which incidentally are BANNED under the Wisconsin Plan).

Further discussion forthcoming--but not for a week.

Saturday, July 28, 2007

It's official, young people don't think.

The prefrontal cortex is the area of the brain that is responsible for judgment and skills of comparing and understanding eventual outcomes. It does not, however, fully develop until about the age 25 (a little earlier for females). Perhaps this fact explains the following excerpts from the report Republicans Collapse Among Young Americans [PDF] (courtesy Sully):
The problems with the Republican brand among young people run deeper than Bush. Young people are often cynical about politics, but believe in government. By a 68 – 28 percent margin, voters would rather have a bigger government providing more services over a smaller government providing fewer services. Even Republican young people prefer a larger, more generous government (57 – 40 percent for bigger government with more services). [[GAG!]]

Okay, so young people are idealistic (read: naive) about the benevolence of government and have a preference for the nanny state. I suppose it's because our parents take care of us, and as we grow up we think the government should too.


HOWEVER,

The leading volunteered issue for the President and the Congress is not the war (19 percent), but the economy and economic issues (39 percent in total). A majority (58 percent) of young people say they are “one paycheck away from having to borrow money from their parents or credit cards.” Two thirds are working for an hourly wage and 60 percent worry a great deal or some about their debt load. Most do not earn a four-year university degree (just a quarter in this survey are currently in a four-year college or have graduated from one). Young people of color, women (especially unmarried women) and the less educated in particular report a real
financial struggle.

So, let me get this straight: we will give all our votes to the party that we think will expand our government and provide with more services, all the while complaining about how little we earn. In the short term that seems to make sense: we're poor, so we need more government services because we can't afford private equivalents. But where do those services come from? TAXES. Of course not our taxes; we're poor so we pay fewer of them to start, and no one will raise our taxes. Instead let's tax our rich, evil employers so they can decide to cut labor and wages (not below that minimum, though!) and either pay us less or not at all. As an added bonus we can curb incentive for investment, thus hindering the creation of new opportunities and productive capital. Yeah, that makes sense. My blood pressure goes up just thinking about it.


Sidebar: I am TIRED of the class warfare slogan "tax cuts for the rich!" First, tax cuts for the rich do not automatically mean tax increases on the poor (in the current climate, they do however mean deficit spending that leads to inflation, which affects the poor more than the rich--but that's a result of spending not tax collection). Second, rich people sign the salary checks at every job I've had, and frankly I'd like them to have more money so they can use it to pay me to do things. Third, how is it fair or moral to impose a bigger burden (via a progressive tax system) on the more productive members of society who use comparatively less of the social programs that the tax revenues pay for? Please explain this to me (and I will reject out-of-hand any argument that is premised on the canard that the rich are only rich because they "stole" from everyone else)!

Friday, July 27, 2007

Republican YouTube Debate

Allow me to jump on the bandwagon. Whether it revolutionized debate or was merely a fad ratings gimmick is not the issue. Whether the questions were softball, ridiculous, or thought provoking is not the issue either. The issue is that Republicans cannot afford to reaffirm the "old white men who are afraid of change" stereotype, and skipping or being noncommittal over participating in a new debate format will do just that.

If two or more of the top four Republican contenders don't show up it's bad news for Republicans. If only one of the top four doesn't show up, it's bad for the absentee. Just agree and get it over with, you technophobes.

Update:

A Republican YouTube plea for Republican YouTube participation. (Plus, I think he's rather cute)

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

The Conscience of a Conservative

I have changed the Pink Elephant's Book Club Selection today, and though usually I do so without much fanfare, I have found a book that I recommend to everyone. I recommend it to liberals, so they can better understand what I mean. I ESPECIALLY recommend it to conervatives so they can remember what it means to be a conservative.


Barry Goldwater is one of my great political heroes. I might even rank him above Ronnie--I haven't decided. He wrote The Conscience of a Conservative almost 50 years ago, and while the political context may have changed, I find much of what he says very relevant to today.


Goldwater bemoans a Republican Party that in practice is almost indistinguishable from the Party it opposes. The Gentleman from Arizona warns that the cavalier disregard of the Constitution replaces the rule of laws with the rule of men. He fears the expanse of government because the natural course of government is to oppress the governed.


An excerpt:

State power, considered in the abstract need not restrict freedom, but absolute state power always does. The legitimate functions of government are actually conducive to freedom. Maintaining internal order, keeping foreign foes at bay, administering justice, removing the obstacles to the free interchange of goods--the exercise of these powers makes it possible for men to follow their chosen pursuits with the maximum of freedom. But note that the instrument by which these desirable ends are achived can be the instrument for achieving undesirable ends--that government can, instead of extending freedom, restrict freedom. And note, secondly, that this "can" quickly becomes "will" the moment the holders of government power are left to their own devices. This is because of the corrupting influence of power, the natural tendency of men who possess some power to take unto themselves more power. The tednency leads eventually to the acqusition of all power--whether in the hands of one or many makes little difference to the freedom of those left on the outside.

Such then is history's lesson . . . : release the holders of state power from any restraints other than those they wish to impose upon themselves and you swinging down the well-travelled road to [government] absolutism. (Emphasis supplied)

Allow me to help establish some cred for Barry among my gay readership. In a 1994 op-ed entitled "The Politics of Gay Bashing" or "Protecting Gays from Job Discrimination" or some variant depending upon the newspaper in which it appeared, Sen. Goldwater wrote:


Gays and lesbians are a part of every American family. They should not be shortchanged in their efforts to better their lives and serve their communities. It's time America realized that there is no gay exemption in the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. Job discrimination against gays - or anybody else - is contrary to each of these founding principles.

Some will try to paint this as a liberal or religious issue. I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live as they please, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. No one has ever shown me how being gay or lesbian harms anyone else.

And in case you don't just love him yet, when Jerry Falwell charged that "every good Christian should be concerned" by the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, Barry Goldwater responded:
"every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

Read his book.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Minimum wage

Boy, I am posting up a storm (this will have to be the last one for today, though--WORK WORK WORK!)

Today the minimum wage increase from 5.15 to 7.25 an hour goes into effect. Workers in low skill jobs rejoice! That is until their employer realizes they are not productive enough to justify 7.25 per hour and lays them off. Or when in a year or so, the higher costs of production increases the costs of goods making the increase in wage meaningless to their standard of living.

Do people honestly believe that minmum wage increases help the poor at all? Do these "advocates" think that employers are just going to eat these increased labor costs? Isn't a low wage better than no wage? The people who time and time again come up with this stuff must have been humanities majors!

Chet Suburbanteenager working this summer at Abercrombie so he can get an iPhone will be pleased. But, is he the one we are doing this for?

Delightful frivolity


The only thing missing is a D&G ad; I think Smithers and Mr. Burns could have done that one nicely.
(Courtesy: Sully)