How else do you define this:
Osama's death pics
What are they trying to do? Establish a conspiracy theory? Done. Don't know what is going on with this-but it is certainly stupid. Why? What is the need for all of this nonsense? C'mon.
Damn those Eastasians!
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
I have a Buick to sell you.
I've been stunned by the reported events surrounding the supposed re-demise of Osama bin Laden. What the H$#%?
Are we even supposed to take this seriously? We are asked to believe, and to praise, our glorious leader when it is reported that he took care to ensure that proof of "Geronimo"'s death was obtained. Yet then the body is literally deep-sixed?
I would not buy an '01 Buick from a salesman that said "trust me" and offered no other proof. I do sales. It's my gig. I never expect people to just "trust me". In fact, I assume and expect the opposite, since my clientele has yet to consist of doofuses I'm happy to say.
I'll let you in on something, salespeople have an incentive to be honest, it brings more customers and builds a reputation. Long term salespeople did not get that way by lying, they just didn't. Short term....that's another mass o' fish.
Politicians, though, do have an incentive to lie. They build coalitions, and where voting is allowed only ever need a majority of those who actually vote. Most don't. And of those that do, there are always many who find a handsome individual interest in collective destruction. So all that is needed for a politician to prosper is plausibility, and goodies. The plausibility is becoming optional.
I was hopeful in a way when Obama was put forth. I hated the Bushian erosion of already waterlogged liberty, and the mindless nationalism that accompanied it. I naively hoped for at least a slight return to the rule of law.
How foolish was I.
It does not really matter your politics. The government in D.C. is claiming that they buried Osama bin Laden at sea because of religious respect. They are saying "trust me" with a toothy smile.
Do you want to buy that Buick?
Are we even supposed to take this seriously? We are asked to believe, and to praise, our glorious leader when it is reported that he took care to ensure that proof of "Geronimo"'s death was obtained. Yet then the body is literally deep-sixed?
I would not buy an '01 Buick from a salesman that said "trust me" and offered no other proof. I do sales. It's my gig. I never expect people to just "trust me". In fact, I assume and expect the opposite, since my clientele has yet to consist of doofuses I'm happy to say.
I'll let you in on something, salespeople have an incentive to be honest, it brings more customers and builds a reputation. Long term salespeople did not get that way by lying, they just didn't. Short term....that's another mass o' fish.
Politicians, though, do have an incentive to lie. They build coalitions, and where voting is allowed only ever need a majority of those who actually vote. Most don't. And of those that do, there are always many who find a handsome individual interest in collective destruction. So all that is needed for a politician to prosper is plausibility, and goodies. The plausibility is becoming optional.
I was hopeful in a way when Obama was put forth. I hated the Bushian erosion of already waterlogged liberty, and the mindless nationalism that accompanied it. I naively hoped for at least a slight return to the rule of law.
How foolish was I.
It does not really matter your politics. The government in D.C. is claiming that they buried Osama bin Laden at sea because of religious respect. They are saying "trust me" with a toothy smile.
Do you want to buy that Buick?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
When will we learn?
I picked up a free copy of the North Coast Business Journal earlier today and was treated to "excerpts" of Fremont Mayor Terry Overmyer's "State of the City" address. Yes, there is such an event. Now, I don't have anything in particular against Mr. Mayor, never met the man, and have only lived in town here for a couple of years. Yet, he was mayor when I was in High School as well....that gives me reason to be suspicious. It's been a while you see.
I mean reason other than the whole "politicians are sleazebags" notion that the "profession" so richly deserves, of course.
From what I read, this appears to have been the Mayor slapping the backs of those in attendance-city workers, cops, and firefighters, and telling himself what a great job he has done. Not a big surprise. Even though the pointiest parts of government are found locally, it is just not as sexy to get fired up over mundane things like ludicrous tax rates, or just what the H-E double hockey sticks is that "EPA Mandate fee" on the water bill(hint, it's not a mandate...).
The six or eight brave souls that gather on the bridge every now and then to protest war, will never ever effect the nasty national foreign policy-but if they put that effort at home, they might really make a difference. But I digress.
What did open my eyes was the ideology inherent in this passage,
"To the great citizens of
Fremont, I respectfully ask you to
pledge time and energy to your
community. Volunteer for the City.
Volunteer for your school, place of
worship, or for a non-profit
organization. Check in on a neighbor
who is aging or sick. Invite a neighbor
without a job over for a home-cooked
meal."
This is statism. It is not enough that we are taxed to pay for all of those public servants that he back-slapped, but we owe even more? Nonsense.
If one wishes to volunteer, fine, do so. But the idea that some public official has any business "respectfully asking" anyone to do any such thing is just wrong. It is patronizing and a bit insulting. Rather like putting "for sale by owner" signs on the old school. Bad form. We are not children to be directed toward a better life through a better "community". Particularly coming from the Mayor of a City that has so many serious, frankly dire, problems. How about taking a break from congratulating yourself and focusing on why there are so many without jobs-or decent places to live-Mr. Mayor, and stop telling the rest of us how to live?
I mean reason other than the whole "politicians are sleazebags" notion that the "profession" so richly deserves, of course.
From what I read, this appears to have been the Mayor slapping the backs of those in attendance-city workers, cops, and firefighters, and telling himself what a great job he has done. Not a big surprise. Even though the pointiest parts of government are found locally, it is just not as sexy to get fired up over mundane things like ludicrous tax rates, or just what the H-E double hockey sticks is that "EPA Mandate fee" on the water bill(hint, it's not a mandate...).
The six or eight brave souls that gather on the bridge every now and then to protest war, will never ever effect the nasty national foreign policy-but if they put that effort at home, they might really make a difference. But I digress.
What did open my eyes was the ideology inherent in this passage,
"To the great citizens of
Fremont, I respectfully ask you to
pledge time and energy to your
community. Volunteer for the City.
Volunteer for your school, place of
worship, or for a non-profit
organization. Check in on a neighbor
who is aging or sick. Invite a neighbor
without a job over for a home-cooked
meal."
This is statism. It is not enough that we are taxed to pay for all of those public servants that he back-slapped, but we owe even more? Nonsense.
If one wishes to volunteer, fine, do so. But the idea that some public official has any business "respectfully asking" anyone to do any such thing is just wrong. It is patronizing and a bit insulting. Rather like putting "for sale by owner" signs on the old school. Bad form. We are not children to be directed toward a better life through a better "community". Particularly coming from the Mayor of a City that has so many serious, frankly dire, problems. How about taking a break from congratulating yourself and focusing on why there are so many without jobs-or decent places to live-Mr. Mayor, and stop telling the rest of us how to live?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Debt!
George Washington once said "To ensure both prosperity and SECURITY, look to public debt" (emphasis added)
What does debt have to do with security? Well, think about it for a moment-when people, or governments, buy government debt they are investing in the government, and are looking at the government as a cash cow. Treasury bonds offer interest-money that comes from taxes-on the debt bought by individuals and governments. OK, well then, what does that have to do with security? Obviously governments who have invested in other governments don't have an interest in the government they invested in failing-meaning that China is at least a little less likely to nuke Denver on a whim. But that's not all.
The most dangerous segment of any society to a government is the wealthy-they are the one's that can afford to finance insurrections, set up counter governments, or otherwise challenge the legitimacy of the government. Well, what do you do about it? Wealthy people like to remain wealthy, and potentially expand their wealth-and the government is in a unique position to offer the wealthy an extraordinarily secure investment(since it is secured by the taxes extracted from the peons at the point of guns paid for with the investment of the wealthy),that will not only permit the government to spend surreptitiously, but gives the people who might have the means( and egos) to challenge governmental authority a reason to behave beyond mystical patriotism. Bonds, especially municipal bonds, have tax benefits for investors, to make the deal even sweeter.
Before you think this is one of those things to be relegated to history, remember Osama bin Laden is a billionaire who choose not to behave(though I bet he held US debt up until 9/11) And think of the trouble people like Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet could cause if they decided to oppose the US government-they won't, however, because the government gives them a portion of your paycheck in the form of interest. Talk about transferring wealth!
Here's Jefferson on the subject- "The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."
And Alan Greenspan before he sold out to the State "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. ... This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."
They called this feudalism, and the state of most people serfdom, back in the "dark" ages-at least they were honest.
I thought this was worth a mention-I can tell you from personal experience that if you can get a liberal or even a conservative to understand that their taxes go in large part to the wealthy holders of public debt, you have a convert to liberty. It's one of those things-once you see it, you are never the same-securing private investment through force is the best proof of the evil inherent in the State that I know.
Mike
What does debt have to do with security? Well, think about it for a moment-when people, or governments, buy government debt they are investing in the government, and are looking at the government as a cash cow. Treasury bonds offer interest-money that comes from taxes-on the debt bought by individuals and governments. OK, well then, what does that have to do with security? Obviously governments who have invested in other governments don't have an interest in the government they invested in failing-meaning that China is at least a little less likely to nuke Denver on a whim. But that's not all.
The most dangerous segment of any society to a government is the wealthy-they are the one's that can afford to finance insurrections, set up counter governments, or otherwise challenge the legitimacy of the government. Well, what do you do about it? Wealthy people like to remain wealthy, and potentially expand their wealth-and the government is in a unique position to offer the wealthy an extraordinarily secure investment(since it is secured by the taxes extracted from the peons at the point of guns paid for with the investment of the wealthy),that will not only permit the government to spend surreptitiously, but gives the people who might have the means( and egos) to challenge governmental authority a reason to behave beyond mystical patriotism. Bonds, especially municipal bonds, have tax benefits for investors, to make the deal even sweeter.
Before you think this is one of those things to be relegated to history, remember Osama bin Laden is a billionaire who choose not to behave(though I bet he held US debt up until 9/11) And think of the trouble people like Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet could cause if they decided to oppose the US government-they won't, however, because the government gives them a portion of your paycheck in the form of interest. Talk about transferring wealth!
Here's Jefferson on the subject- "The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."
And Alan Greenspan before he sold out to the State "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. ... This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."
They called this feudalism, and the state of most people serfdom, back in the "dark" ages-at least they were honest.
I thought this was worth a mention-I can tell you from personal experience that if you can get a liberal or even a conservative to understand that their taxes go in large part to the wealthy holders of public debt, you have a convert to liberty. It's one of those things-once you see it, you are never the same-securing private investment through force is the best proof of the evil inherent in the State that I know.
Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)