Conservative – Zombies Uncensored

Rand Paul Rookie Mistake? Give Me More Rookies!

CNN AC 360 round table discussion on May 18th 2010 primary results

“Too many rookie mistakes”

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf

Errol Louis +2:30: He (Rand Paul) made a statement the other day about wanting to repeal the American’s with Disabilities Act. Which is literally carved in stoned in every jurisdiction in the country. He’s got to answer some questions, I mean, I got calls from all over the country, senior citizens, disabled people, saying, ‘What is this guy talking about?’ and if you get too many rookie mistakes like that, and he’s a first time candidate, you can really start to upset the apple cart.

This part of the political discussion of the primary results stood out in my mind because it said a lot about the state of politics and conventional political wisdom. Questioning scared cows that are ‘carved in stone’ is considered by many to be a rookie political mistake.

Rand Paul’s father Ron Paul, is also known for pointing out problems with sacred cows in politics–most notably, Ron Paul has been championing the problems with the ‘carved in stone’ Federal Reserve for decades. Rand Paul questioning a sacred cow was no mistake and should not be perceived as one.

Politicians only saying what people want to hear, things won’t rock the boat, can be blamed for a large number of the problems in Washington DC. There is no hope for change as long as people see things done by the government as being carved in stone, not to be changed or even questioned.

I’ll take rookie ‘mistakes’ over professional political mistakes like lying about your past, sex scandals, or adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. If that was a rookie mistake, it makes a good argument to bring in more rookies.

Rand Paul vs. Science Fiction Villain

Rand Paul vs. Trey Grayson and The Washington Machine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3eyVbXFE-M&playnext_from=TL&videos=NxGcrouQBrU

This campaign ad for Rand Paul portrays Washington D.C. as a science fiction monster. Kudos to the ad agency for coming up with this idea.

Comparing the government to villains of the past is bound to be labeled as outrageous, whereas comparisons to villains in the future are still accurate and less sensational.

The analogy between the Federal government and science fiction villains works on several levels. The ad stirs up the same fears of technology run amok with a government that’s run amok such as:

Cylons in Battlestar Galactica: A human invention which grows in power and then enslaves or destroys its creators.
The Terminator: It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear.
Colossus in The Forbin Project: “In time, you will come to regard me not only with respect and awe, but with love.”
Borg from Star Trek: “Resistance is futile” and “You will be assimilated.”
Delos in WestWorld: Where nothing can go wrong.
Master Control Program in Tron: “I’m bored with corporations. With the information I can access, I can run things 900 to 1200 times better than any human.”

Which Science Fiction computer do you think best represents Washington DC?

Rand Paul vs. Science Fiction Villain

Rand Paul vs. Trey Grayson and The Washington Machine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3eyVbXFE-M&playnext_from=TL&videos=NxGcrouQBrU

This campaign ad for Rand Paul portrays Washington D.C. as a science fiction monster. Kudos to the ad agency for coming up with this idea.

Comparing the government to villains of the past is bound to be labeled as outrageous, whereas comparisons to villains in the future are still accurate and less sensational.

The analogy between the Federal government and science fiction villains works on several levels. The ad stirs up the same fears of technology run amok with a government that’s run amok such as:

Cylons in Battlestar Galactica: A human invention which grows in power and then enslaves or destroys its creators.
The Terminator: It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear.
Colossus in The Forbin Project: “In time, you will come to regard me not only with respect and awe, but with love.”
Borg from Star Trek: “Resistance is futile” and “You will be assimilated.”
Delos in WestWorld: Where nothing can go wrong.
Master Control Program in Tron: “I’m bored with corporations. With the information I can access, I can run things 900 to 1200 times better than any human.”

Which Science Fiction computer do you think best represents Washington DC?

Maybe Life is Obscene, But Profit is Not

Stossel Show – Lies, Myths and Stupidity! (Part 2/6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmc7MFcymXU

In this segment of the show, Michael Medved and John Stossell discuss the phrase “obscene profits.”

Michael Medved: “One of the things that I hate is this term ‘obscene profits.’ There are no obscene profits.”

The debate over the which transactions in our lives one can morally profit from has been going on for some time and is not likely to be settled any time soon. Just look at the history of morality in moneylending–it will still be debated thousands of years from now.

The term “obscene profits” is usually applied to oil and health insurance companies, or basically any business that supplies things necessary for survival. “Obscene” in these cases means they made a lot of money in an area some believe it immoral to seek profit.

Profit is one of those words that people have multiple definitions for and as a result, debates and discussions often become convoluted because people end up arguing about the morality of profit, without first clarifying what profit means to them.

Generally profit is viewed as experiencing a gain from a transaction. I know of no voluntary transaction between people that won’t result in at least some type of gain or profit for both sides. Even acts considered selfless result in a profit of well being, so simply profiting from an action isn’t inherently immoral.

I slightly disagree with Medved when he said there are no obscene profits. Theft is an obscene profit, when only one side gains from a violent transaction. Medved’s use of the word profit was meant in terms of a free and fair exchange for goods or services. There is no such thing as an obscene profit when it comes to non-coercive transactions between free people.

Non-coercive is the key word here. People that use that term “obscene profits” often believe profiting from selling goods or services necessary to survival is a form of coercion. Since life forces you to eat, you must buy food from those who sell food if you do not produce your own. The people offering their goods and services are then equated with being uncaring.

Business doesn’t determine the rules of life; nature does. Call life obscene if you want, but don’t blame the people that make life a lot more bearable.

Republican Does Not Equal Conservative

Southern Avenger Jack Hunter: Conservatism in Exile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uwotApGcrE

Simple explanation of why Republican does not equal conservative. Jack Hunter makes clear and concise points about the how the Republican establishment is not only similar to the Democratic party in terms of trending towards socialism, but in some ways worse.

If the goal is to reduce the size and scope of the government, voting Republican simply isn’t going to work.

Republican Does Not Equal Conservative

Southern Avenger Jack Hunter: Conservatism in Exile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uwotApGcrE

If the goal is to reduce the size and scope of the government, voting Republican simply isn’t going to work.

Peter Schiff: Congress, Wall Street, Goldman, AIG, SEC

Peter Schiff April 21st 2010 on the Financial Regulation Bill

Peter Schiff quickly sums up the tangled web between congress and Wall Street.

Congress is trying to tell us, that one of the reasons that we need this financial regulation is to make sure that taxpayers are never again forced to bailout these too big to fail firms.

Well, who was it that forced us to bail them out in the first place? The same guys that say we need this bill, it was congress, congress bailed them out, and they did it despite the fact that they had no legal authority to do so, in fact bailing them out was unconstitutional.

We don’t need new laws, we just need to force congress to obey the laws that already exist. What congress is saying is that we need rules to prevent us from doing again, what we never should have done in the first place.

Schiff also explains the Goldman Sachs, AIG, SEC relationship.

These securities that Goldman Sachs is being accused of fraudulently marketing, these are the very securities that brought down AIG. AIG went bankrupt because they insured securities like this.

In fact they insured some of the very securities that the SEC in now charging Goldman Sachs with fraudulently creating and marketing. And as a matter of fact, when AIG went bankrupt, twenty billion dollars of the money passed through AIG hands right to Goldman Sachs hands.

So they can collect the money that they made wagering against their own securities, that the SEC is now accusing them of fraudulently creating. I mean come on, the right hand is bailing them out and left hand is slapping them on the wrist.

This whole thing is a complete fiasco. If congress had simply allowed AIG to fail, Goldman probably would’ve been bankrupt. That would have been a much bigger punishment if they’d been involved in fraud than simply making them pay a small fine…

I keep hearing the free market regulating itself is a fantasy. In this climate, it really is a fantasy because congress bails out companies that should have failed. Maybe someday we’ll live in the fantasy world where unwise and fraudulent companies just go out of business.

Peter Schiff: Congress, Wall Street, Goldman, AIG, SEC

Peter Schiff April 21st 2010 on the Financial Regulation Bill

Peter Schiff quickly sums up the tangled web between congress and Wall Street.

Congress is trying to tell us, that one of the reasons that we need this financial regulation is to make sure that taxpayers are never again forced to bailout these too big to fail firms.

Well, who was it that forced us to bail them out in the first place? The same guys that say we need this bill, it was congress, congress bailed them out, and they did it despite the fact that they had no legal authority to do so, in fact bailing them out was unconstitutional.

We don’t need new laws, we just need to force congress to obey the laws that already exist. What congress is saying is that we need rules to prevent us from doing again, what we never should have done in the first place.

Schiff also explains the Goldman Sachs, AIG, SEC relationship.

These securities that Goldman Sachs is being accused of fraudulently marketing, these are the very securities that brought down AIG. AIG went bankrupt because they insured securities like this.

In fact they insured some of the very securities that the SEC in now charging Goldman Sachs with fraudulently creating and marketing. And as a matter of fact, when AIG went bankrupt, twenty billion dollars of the money passed through AIG hands right to Goldman Sachs hands.

So they can collect the money that they made wagering against their own securities, that the SEC is now accusing them of fraudulently creating. I mean come on, the right hand is bailing them out and left hand is slapping them on the wrist.

This whole thing is a complete fiasco. If congress had simply allowed AIG to fail, Goldman probably would’ve been bankrupt. That would have been a much bigger punishment if they’d been involved in fraud than simply making them pay a small fine…

Volunteer Service: The Art of Taxing without Taxing

Involuntary Servitude (docv-downinthemouth.blogspot.com)

New Jersey Assembly Bill , A.B. 4175, introduced on 23 November 2009 will require physicians, dentists, and nurses to complete 30 hours of volunteer service in their respective fields as a condition for biennial registration.

New Jersey’s state/local tax burden rate is the highest in nation by the Tax Foundation. Rather than run the risk of raising taxes, or registration fees, they simply use a different type of taxation with a much friendly tone.

The wording in the bill for the new tax on physicians, dentists, and nurses is “volunteer medical services.” Volunteer medical services has a much nicer ring to it than increased registration fees, unpaid overtime, or involuntary servitude.

DSCN3819 It’s just nice and thoughtful of medical practitioners to volunteer their time to help the needy. LPN Training states that nurses in New Jersey make $23.83, multiply that by 30 hours and its $714.90 worth of “volunteer” medical services and thoughtfulness.

With voters angry over the current tax levels, government representatives are becoming adroit in the art of taxing without taxing. Just as mandatory purchases are a new venue for taxing, expect to see more of the community service types of taxation, as a new lane in the Superhighway to Serfdom opens.

Legislators may realize they are playing with fire in taxing hours instead of dollars. Its safer to tax dollars than hours of lives, because many people have a disconnect between money and the hours spent earning money.

Politicians risk alienating willing victims of taxation, the “it’s only money” people–the people that see money only as pieces of paper. This group tends to view freedom as having as much leisure time as possible. Holding onto money is seen as being selfish; but free time to live your life as you choose is their definition of freedom.

Once the “it’s only money” people start having their leisure time taxed, they might start to see the connection between hours of their lives and money. Once governments start mandating how time is spent instead of taxing, the illusion that taxing income is not an intrusion on freedom starts to fade.

It’s Only Money – Groucho Marx and Frank Sinatra

Nominee for Worst Government PR Campaign: EPA

EPA Contest Seeks Videos Promoting Government Regulations (CNSNews.com)

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is encouraging the public to create video advertisements that explain why federal regulations are “important to everyone.”

The contest, which ends May 17, will award $2,500 to the makers of the video that best explains why federal regulations are good and how ordinary citizens can become more involved in making regulations. The videos must be posted on YouTube and can be no more than 60-90 seconds in length.

In the current contest, each video must include the slogan “Let your voice be heard,” and it must direct viewers to the government’s regulatory website www.Regulations.gov. The winning video will then be used by the entire federal government to promote the regulatory process and enhance the public’s participation in it.

The regulations.gov site not only highlights the video contest, but has lots of other useful information. You’ll find a searchable database of all documents on their site. It’s possible to find out how many regulations there are about any subject.

I’ve always thought there was a plethora of federal regulations, but I had no way to quantify these regulations, until now. Here are some random keyword searches from the regulations site, and the resulting number of rule matches.

Windows (1303)
Dirt (145)
Hair (132)
Schools (2437)

But wait, there’s more! The site claims on its front page, “On average, federal agencies and departments issue nearly 8,000 regulations per year.'” The site also has newly posted regulations, and the numbers in there don’t match up with the front page.

For today–April 19th, 2010, 74 regulations were posted, and in the last year there were 23,867 regulations posted. Can you now see why the federal government needs your help? With roughly twenty-four thousand regulations in the last year, they need all the help they can get to thoroughly promote them!

The site also allows you to comment on rules, but only rules that are open to comments. In the 145 rules on dirt, only two are open for comment. I’d post a comment, but I’m fairly sure a comment thanking them for exposing just how bloated and overbearing such regulations are would not be appreciated.

Soon there will be other contests concerning government regulations, but they won’t be coming from the EPA. This video promotion is an easy setup for limited government people to hold contests of their own. How about a find things the government does not regulate contest? I tried searching for something not regulated, but even flatulence was mentioned in a proposed rule.

How about an award for worst government PR campaign? The EPA should at least be a nominee for that award.