Archive for politics

Be afraid, very afraid. A false god demands worship

Timothy Carney describes how The Left wages total war; and then plays victim.

On one side is the CEO of the world’s largest company, the president of the United States and a growing chunk of the Fortune 500. On the other side is a solo wedding photographer in New Mexico, a 70-year-old grandma florist in Washington and a few bakers.

One side wants the state to conscript the religious businesswomen and men into participating in ceremonies that violate their beliefs. The other side wants to make it possible for religious people to live their own lives according to their consciences.

Yet somehow, the Left and most of the mainstream press paint the current skirmishes over religious liberty as conservative offensives.When Indiana decided to follow the Clinton administration and 19 states in passing a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Left let loose a cacophonous chorus of cries about a dangerous flood of homophobia spreading out from the Hoosier state.

The misrepresentation would be laughable if not for the awesome power wielded by the anti-religious freedom side.

How is it that the State Propaganda Machine is able to make such a lie stick? Why is it that CEO’s of several major corporations reiterate the lie?

Slippery-slope arguments are often valid — but not coming from the cultural Left, about marriage in the United States, in 2015.

After millennia of marriage being uncontroversially a union between one man and one woman, and after a decade of electorates in most states (and President Obama in 2008) upholding that traditional definition, the Left has used the courts to redefine the institution. People are fired for having taken the losing side. On college campuses, the current fights are about banning even the articulation of traditional views.

But no. Tolerance isn’t the goal. Religious conservatives must atone for their heretical views with acts of contrition: Bake me a cake, photograph my wedding, pay for my abortion and my contraception.

It is the thought police mandating that you condone and support the PC by your actions and tithes. This demand is the essence of the reason for the first three of the Ten Commandments in the Bible. What is a Christian, a Jew, or even a Muslim to do when the government insists he worship at the alter of a false god? Do you do as many of the businesses seem to have done and kneel as ordered. Or do you stand with your belief and take the consequences?

Leave a Comment

Fear mongering despite reality: the right to self defense

There is something about guns:

“What if someone who spies you walking down the street thinks you look suspicious? What if you become a target for would-be George Zimmermans? Or what if the man you argue with, or potentially insult or offend, even unintentionally, is armed and irascible—and the argument escalates?”

“The gun-rights movement claims it is a staunch defender of the peace, contributing to and bolstering law and order. As gun rights are currently advanced, nothing could be further from the truth.”

“LaPierre’s argument for being armed boils down to this: Americans are on the verge of—or already sinking into—a state of anarchy, where it is each man for himself. In that state, “the government can’t—or won’t—protect you…Only you can protect you,” he warns.”

“The cumulative effect of these efforts is a society where security must be upheld or enforced by individual gun owners, who could misperceive what justice demands in any given situation. Our police have a hard enough time with this task. Consider the controversies in Ferguson, Missouri, and Staten Island last year, where unarmed black men, implicated in minor crimes, died because police used excessive force.”

“A common feature of the many police shootings perpetrated over the last year, and highlighted in the media during and after Ferguson, is that police now assume their suspects to be armed. Given the state of affairs the NRA has fostered, this may be a prudent and understandable assumption. But it also means police are instinctively cautious, hostile, and all too ready to use their weapons against ordinary citizens. In an over-armed society, we may also expect to see a steady uptick in the number of cases involving police brutality or excessive force. And then, as the NRA would have it, the government is most fully and clearly the people’s enemy, too.”

How Gun Rights Harm the Rule of Law – “Second Amendment activists are redefining the public sphere, and with it, American democracy” by Firman Debrander provides an illustration of how modern debate is often not much more than irrational argument. In terms of the quote above, consider that the assertions about the Zimmerman and other cases are contrary to fact and that the assertion about the “gun-rights movement claims” is an ad hominem straw man. There is no substance in the essay. There is only fear about what is imagined might be that hasn’t any historical basis to support it. 

The facts are that the increase in legal gun ownership has resulted in a decrease in crime and that gun control laws have not been show to have any influence on whether or not the police will encounter armed criminals. The redefinition of American democracy lies at the feet of those who insist on redefining the second amendment and impugn the character of the American citizen by asserting that they will become violent criminals unless restrained by a benevolent government. 

Just how can you debate anything with someone who wants his own reality no matter how distant it is from the truth on the ground?

Leave a Comment

Don’t debate. Demonize!

It’s Ed Feulner on Muzzling the marketplace of ideas — “Leftists pounce on those who question their worldview” with a few examples.

““Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” The words of the First Amendment couldn’t be plainer. Yet more than two centuries after the Bill of Rights was written, they remain the subject of fierce debate.

Actually, I should amend that (no pun intended). These words would be the subject of debate — if debate were permitted. But these days, apparently, we’re all so thin-skinned that we can’t bear to hear an opinion that challenges our worldview.”

“Part of the problem, surely, is rooted in basic ignorance of American history and our founding documents. That’s why I opened by quoting the First Amendment. It may strike some readers as too basic to even mention, but numerous surveys show an alarming degree of ignorance and illiteracy.”

“More and more, this is our world. We don’t debate, we demonize. ”

“You don’t communicate with anyone purely on the rational facts or ethics of an issue,” wrote Saul Alinsky in “Rules for Radicals,” the bible of the so-called progressive left. “Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and popularize it.”

Some will try to tell you ‘both sides do it’ but that only gets interesting in seeing what they can offer to support the conclusion. Trying to be nice by pretending such things is a part of the problem, not a step towards a solution. It’s kinda’ like pretending the alcoholic doesn’t really drink any more than anyone else.

Leave a Comment

Public servants or public masters?

James Rust says Barack Goes Berserk on Climate ‘Deniers’ (gold stars for fed alarmists?) but the real story is that so many government employees have forsaken their primary duty and become a political arm.

“Organizing For Action (OFA) is a non-profit and community organizing project formed after President Obama’s 2012 re-election to promote his agenda. On March 5, 2015, OFA sent out a letter under President Obama’s signature reporting certain elected officials were climate change deniers with the following statement:

“You’re part of an important team with OFA, with a mission of holding climate change deniers’ feet to the fire.“

“Recent actions of intimidating letters sent to university presidents by Congressman Raul Gripalva February 24 and letters sent February 25 to 100 pro-energy organizations by Senators Markey, Boxer, and Whitehouse protesting alleged conflicts of interest due to compensation received by those who question carbon dioxide from fossil fuels causes catastrophic climate change.”

“Using the Freedom of Information Act, attorney Chris Horner uncovered a March 3, 2009 internal EPA memo to Richard Windsor (EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s cover-up name) that recommended a different approach be used to generate public support for EPA’s policies. ”

“Another example is shown by activities of the Department of Interior’s U. S. Geological Survey (USGS).”

“On February 10, 2015, the Department of Agriculture issued a press release “USDA Announces Funding for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Projects” which described the availability of $280 million from the 2014 Farm Bill for their Rural Energy for Americans Program (REAP)”

So many agencies with so many governmental employees: you’d think there would be some pushback on the effort to force an ideological fantasy on the public. So far, it seems, it’s just crickets chirping.

Leave a Comment

Fact Checking

Some media outlets started ‘fact checking’ columns to determine whether statements of politicians were true or false. In part, this effort was an outcome of the Left being caught in so many lies and distortions of fact that ‘balance’ was needed by ‘proving’ both sides do it. David Rutz illustrates just how this fact checking effort is severely biased by describing 5 Times the Washington Post Failed At Fact-Checking. What makes the field ripe for ‘interpretation’ is that the expression of opinion can use allegory, example, satire, and other rhetorical methods to make a point. Trying to determine the veracity of this expression can be a matter of opinion and interpretation about what is critical to the argument and what is not and even what the argument really is.

“Goldfarb got super-serious and dissected such details as executive orders versus executive actions and the constitutionality of Obama’s endeavor. He didn’t get into how Obama had said for years that his executive amnesty actions were outside his authority.

Also, it doesn’t appear the Washington Post ever checked for sure that Will Ferrell’s Bush wanted to put Germany, the economy and math into his “Axis of Evil.” That, of course, would have been absurd since this was a silly comedy show. They did get around, four years later, to debunking the idea that Sarah Palin had actually said “I can see Russia from my house,” as made famous by Tina Fey’s impersonation.

We give these blunders double double Pinocchios.”

There are many ways to avoid intellectual integrity. Sometimes, observing behavior yields better results – if intellectual integrity has any value – in determining veracity and truthfulness.

Leave a Comment

For the greater good

There was a letter sent to several universities inquiring about research funding from several members of the minority party in Congress. That created a backlash that has resulted in a number of FOIA requests to provide insight into the “Climate Empire.” Paul Driessen describes how The Climate Empire Gets Nasty (‘crony science’ for funding, power).

“As the pressure for debate and reform mounts, the Climate Empire insists that its actions serve “the greater good” – preventing catastrophic climate changes. But aside from the absence of evidence clearly linking fossil fuel emissions to significant climate events (or even to phenomena that are simply different in frequency or intensity to what mankind and planet have endured since time immemorial), there are two insurmountable problems with this alarmist tautology.

“The “Greater Good”?

“First, it requires depriving billions of people of reliable, affordable energy today – to prevent hypothetical crises decades from now. And that means causing thousands of deaths each winter in Britain and Europe in households where families cannot afford proper heat – and millions of deaths annually in Third World countries, from lung, intestinal and other diseases that modern energy and living standards would prevent.

“Should the Climate Empire have such life-or-death powers? And who has the moral or legal authority to grant it such powers? Perhaps there was a reincarnation of Moses’ burning bush?”

“a recent analysis by economists William Butos and Thomas McQuade on how “Big Players” can distort climate research and other scientific endeavors” provided topics for a more fruitful discussion than the efforts of the Congressmen.

“Will the lies and other outrages ever stop? Probably not anytime soon. But those of us who believe in the scientific method, evidence instead of models and proclamations, and modern living standards for all who want them must not cease our efforts.

For as Rabbi Tarfon said five centuries ago, “You are not obligated to complete the task, but neither are you free to abandon it.””

Much as Ferguson is revealing the outcome of catering to thugs and criminals due to race by senior government officials, The Mann court case and the assault on Professor Soon are revealing the tactics and that result in changes such as responsible researchers avoiding climate research altogether. The costs, as the economists note, are horrific. To those on the left, those who worship Marx and communism in any form, those costs are of no concern because it is all for the greater good.

Leave a Comment

Does not compute

Some things don’t make sense, don’t ‘compute’ and become the source of dissonance. Christopher Chantrill describes to of these things for him as The Democrats’ Thugocracy.

“There are a couple things about the Obama years that have registered “does not compute” for me. The first was the complete powder taken by the media. Yes, I know that they are all ruling-class liberals that believe in all the received liberal notions and still swoon today at the thought of a First Black President. But you would have thought that, here and there, a liberal journalist would have popped his head above the parapet to take a potshot at the president. Because fame and celebrity. But really there was nothing for six long years until after the 2014 midterms.

“The other thing that did not compute has been the extraordinary discipline of the Democrats in Congress. … You tell me that none of them saw the 2014 wave coming, and none of them had the self-preservation instinct to break out of the pack and save themselves from the GOP onslaught?”

Trying to resolve this cognitive dissonance leads to hypothesis formation or the attempt to propose different views of reality to one’s self in order to make some sense of the world.

“I think we are coming to understand the other “does not compute” now that the Justice Department has decided to prosecute Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The Dem officeholders have been kept in line because someone is keeping a little list of all their little foibles. It’s a delightful system. The Obama administration does nothing about corrupt acts by its supporters until the day that a supporter breaks ranks. Then it’s: Nice little political career you got here. Pity that something should happen to it.”

“I wonder what the Democratic Party would look like if everyone weren’t looking over their shoulder wondering what California Nance or Bugsy Harry or Big Ears Barry had got on them?”

Of course, there are two ways to go with this reconstruction of reality perceptions. One is illustrated by the climate alarmists who remain in stubborn denial. The other is to accept testing of the new hypothesis and adaptation of perceptions yielding to intellectual growth. 

Leave a Comment

Just what happened? Filibuster in solid partisan block won out in leaving the issue to the oligarchy

Hinderaker explains at Powerline:

The bottom line here is that the Democrats’ Senate filibuster succeeded. The House funded DHS through the end of the fiscal year, and Mitch McConnell tried repeatedly to bring the House bill up for a vote, but was stymied by the Democratic filibuster each time. It was the filibuster that prevented DHS from being funded, yet the press generally blamed Republicans for the impending shutdown. This makes no sense, but if those are the rules, Republicans should remember them next time they are in the minority. In the meantime, this episode has added steam to the “abolish the filibuster” sentiment now growing among Republicans.

In anticipation of the House vote yesterday, Jeff Sessions released this statement. I find what he says to be pretty much inarguable:

The Democratic Party has been completely unified in its defense of the President’s amnesty in the face of overwhelming public opposition—and in the face of the President’s own repeated declaration that his conduct was illegal.

They voted in unison, messaged in unison, and their outside allies have launched third-party attacks against Republicans.

As a result, our Constitution continues to be eroded, our immigration system continues to slide into anarchy, and our constituents continue to suffer the debilitating loss of their jobs and wages.

Essential to any sovereign nation is the enforcement of its borders, the application of uniform rules for entry and exit, and the delivery of consequences for individuals who violate our laws. President Obama has nullified those laws, rules, and borders, and replaced those consequences with rewards.

The President’s decree provides illegal immigrants with work permits, trillions in Social Security and Medicare payments, and billions in free cash tax credits—all benefits explicitly rejected by Congress. This takes jobs, benefits, and work opportunities directly from struggling and forgotten workers.

The will of the American people cannot be forever denied. Republicans will have to come to realize that it falls on their shoulders to give voice to the just demands of the American people for a lawful system of immigration that serves their interests, defends their jobs, protects their security.

Nor can we allow the President to dismantle the constitutional powers of Congress, ceding our status as a coequal branch, on the hope the Judiciary intervenes to restore some fraction of that lost authority. When it comes to defending our sovereignty there is no “moving on.” Now is not the time for recrimination; now is the time for renewed determination. What motivates and excites a small group of open-borders billionaires has no connection to the hearts and lives of the working people of this country. They have been silenced for too long. Those who think this fight is over could not be more mistaken; it is only beginning. When the power of the American people is finally leveraged, people will be astonished by the results.<b/lockquote>

Behavior as seen on this issue ups the ante and that requires a response. Tyranny of the minority is bad enough but when both law and precedent are tossed aside in the process, outcomes are foreboding. 

Leave a Comment

Psychodrama to farce – will anyone notice?

It’s Professor Hanson on The Liberal Circus. Here’s a sampler:

“Take Barack Obama. He has gone from mild displeasure with Israel to downright antipathy. …”

“Hillary Clinton likewise has gone from a rather run-of-the-mill liberal grandee to a political grafter. She apparently solicited donations from foreign government officials and wealthy foreign nationals to contribute to the Clinton Foundation — and this was while she was secretary of State conducting the foreign policy of the United States …”

“Inequality and fairness? …”

“Women’s issues? …”

“Transparency? …”

“We no longer live in an age of debate over global warming. It has now transmogrified well beyond Al Gore’s hysterics, periodic disclosures about warmists’ use of faked data, embarrassing email vendettas, vindictive lawsuits, crony green capitalism, and flawed computer models. Now Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, has taken the psychodrama to the level of farce in a two-bit McCarthyesque effort to demand from universities information about scientists who do not embrace his notions of manmade global warming. …”

“Attorney General Eric Holder came into office alleging racism and calling the American people cowards, and six years later is exiting, still blaming racism for his own self-inflicted failures. …”

“The IRS scandal likewise went from melodrama to farce. …”

“Debt? Barack Obama stated out in 2008 calling George W. Bush unpatriotic for piling up nearly $5 trillion in eight years; he may be on target to double that amount …”

“The debate over illegal immigration has gone from arguments over closing the border to Social Security cash rebates to illegals and presidential threats to punish Border Patrol officers who enforce existing law. …”

“The Trayvon Martin controversy descends from the purportedly preteen of released photos who was shot down in cold blood by a white vigilante into doctored NBC tapes, airbrushed photos, the New York Times’ invented rubric …”

“Michael Brown goes from the icon of a “gentle giant” in vain calling out “hands up, don’t shoot” only to be gunned down by a white racist cop — to a thug who strong-armed a store clerk, walked out into the middle of the road under the influence and then attacked a police officer. …”

“The answer to these failures has not been introspection, humility, or reevaluation why the liberal agenda proved unpopular and unworkable, but in paranoid fashion to double-down on it, convinced that its exalted aims must allow any means necessary — however farcical — to achieve them. …”

and he didn’t mention the I’net regulation repeat of the health care foisting … The party still acts as a solid block. It is a blind minority. The old rules of civility, respect, and procedure no longer apply. That leaves their opposition perplexed as it is difficult to understand such in-your-face delusion.

Leave a Comment

Those not celebrating secret legislation vs the ‘But this time it will be different’ crowd

At Breitbart Big Government: ‘Net Neutrality’ is a problem, not a solution.

“The oldest trick in the collectivist playbook is to create a problem through government regulations, let it stew for a while, and then propose even bigger government as the only possible solution to the “crisis” it planted, nourished, and harvested.

“We watched government tinkering in health care make it more expensive and complicated, year after year… until the time was ripe to stuff the biggest, sloppiest, most poorly-thought-out Big Government power grab of the modern era down our throats. Are we really going to fall for that again with the FCC’s new Net Neutrality regulations?”

“For the mid-range companies pushing Net Neutrality, this is all about bringing the government Goliath into the market to stop the telecom giants flat. It’s a crony capitalist arrangement, and like most other cronies who have used coercive government power to control the free market, they’re going to learn that Big Government makes a far less friendly and cooperative business partner than they anticipate. Political agendas will be forced down the tubes of compulsion our Net Neutrality boosters want to implant in the Internet; it won’t be long before baffled supporters are wondering why websites with dissident political views are having such a hard time obtaining government licenses. They’ll be absolutely astounded at how much web content suddenly runs afoul of the “decency standards” Cuban warns about.

“But most of all, they’re underestimating how energetically Big Government will use its control over the Internet to deliberately create crisis that only Even Bigger Government is allegedly capable of resolving.”

“You can already see some Net Neutrality advocates short-circuiting when confronted with extremely sensible questions about why companies would be more eager to make titanic investments in a marketplace frozen by government regulations and chopped into pieces by redistributionist ideology.”

But what can you do? The propaganda machine is out in full force but, it seems, very few listen to more than the emotional appear to consider questions or be skeptical about assumptions and interpretations. Meanwhile the debt rises and the freedom level lowers. The frog is cooking and seems quite content with the warming waters.

Leave a Comment

Secret massive governmental industry takeover: Internet edition

It is just like the previous, massive, partisan forced, regulation of an industry where you are told you won’t know what is in it until after it gets past. The Register has two items on the topic: Net neutrality secrecy: No one knows what the FCC approved (but Google has a good idea) and Net neutrality: The world speaks its brains on secret ‘open’ ‘net rules. On the secrecy:

“Analysis US watchdog the FCC formally approved new net neutrality rules on Thursday for America. But you’re out of luck if you want to know exactly how your access to the internet will be now be governed.

Despite getting the green light, the exact rules have not been revealed and will remain a mystery for some unspecified length of time.”

“In fact, the chairs of both Congressional committees that deal with telecoms issues requested that the rules be put out for public review, as did two of Wheeler’s four commissioners, who complained they wanted to publish the documents but were barred from doing so.”

“But that’s not all. Both commissioners expect changes to be made to the document after it has been formally approved by them, with the “OGC” – office of general counsel – given extraordinary leeway to edit and revise the rules even following formal approval.”

The second item is a bit whimsical

“Comment Look at this photo of FCC chairman Tom Wheeler holding hands and smiling with the two Democrat commissioners who backed his “open internet” regulations, the pair wearing vivid blue outfits. It sums all that was both good and worrying about the decisions today to pass secretive net neutrality rules.

Here, we see a historic debate on internet access in America, a crucial complex technology, jump the tracks and career into a quagmire of politics. Jubilant Dems on one side, the Republican commissioners who voted against the net neutrality rules on the other.”

“What do mean “once it’s released”? This is all done and dusted. We’ve got net neutrality, baby! The internet is free again! Rejoice!”

deja vu all over again.

Leave a Comment

An Alinski Jam

Neo Neocon asks What can the Republican Congress do?.

“As soon as the Democrats ended the filibuster for judicial appointments, arguments for Republicans to retain it became weak, because the reason for keeping it was always to protect one’s own minority rights when the time came. This required that both parties support the rule, knowing that someday it would be their turn to benefit from it (when they were in the minority) and another day it would be their turn to be stymied by it (when they were in the majority but not the supermajority). Respect for the rule also required a modicum of compromise from whatever the minority party du jour might be if Congress wanted to get any work done at all. But that sort of thing ended a while ago, too.

So there is no longer any reason to uphold something I always had defended. Now the situation is such that Republicans are fighting a battle where the implicit rules of the game have changed. As “Harold” puts it, they are in an Alinsky jam here. And they better study up on their Alinsky or they’re going to be in huge trouble (they already are in trouble, actually). But I don’t think most of them have the temperament, or perhaps even the interest, to go bold.”

“To recap: they can impeach but not convict. They can pass bills in the House that can’t get through the Senate, or that can get through the Senate but not get past the veto. They can…they can…what? They can decline to fund important parts of government, and try to bully the Democrats and Obama into blinking, but Obama rests secure in the fact that the public will be manipulated by the press into blaming Republican “obstructionism” for any lack of funding. That doesn’t mean the Republicans shouldn’t do it anyway, but it does mean they run an excellent chance of taking the hit for it rather than Obama and the Democrats.”

It is much like the terrorism problem. Just what does it take and just how much does it matter to prevent disaster? When you are up against opponents who do not care about anything but winning at any cost, there is no deal making. There is no effort to resolve issues. That approach is either broken by absolute defeat or you get what you see in Cuba or Venezuela or the many other examples where opposition to the Left decided it wasn’t worth the effort. 

Leave a Comment

Witch Hunts

Seven academics who had the audacity to speak to Congress about climate change are targets of US Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) who is the ranking member of the House of Representatives Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Roger Pielke, Jr. is one who says I am Under “Investigation”. Stephen Hayward is another target who see it as asking Are you now or have you ever been a climate skeptic?. Here is what Pielke says:

“The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject. I am a full professor with tenure, so no one need worry about me — I’ll be just fine as there are plenty of interesting, research-able policy issues to occupy my time. But I can’t imagine the message being sent to younger scientists. Actually, I can: “when people are producing work in line with the scientific consensus there’s no reason to go on a witch hunt.”

When “witch hunts” are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics.”

This inquiry makes McCarthyism look tame. Climate scientists are not the only game in this sort of hunt either. 

Leave a Comment

Net neutrality: the warning

First up is Karl Bode at TechDirt with a warning: Wireless Usage Caps (And Creative Abuses Of Them) Are The New Global Net Neutrality Battlefield.

“So while neutrality supporters here in the States are generally pleased to see that FCC boss Tom Wheeler is embracing Title II based rules, the discussion doesn’t end there. In fact, it’s only just beginning. Regulators truly interested in protecting net neutrality need to be every bit as tenacious, clever and intelligent as carrier executives who tirelessly look for creative new ways to abuse their uncompetitive telecom fiefdoms. Given the regulatory quality in most countries, that’s a damn tall order, but in the all-too-common absence of truly healthy and competitive broadband markets, there’s really no other choice.”

The warning is that the struggle will continue no matter what. The assumption on which this is based is “in the all-too-common absence of truly healthy and competitive broadband markets.” TechDirt represents the Left in this issue and they clearly illustrate the ‘attitude’ and tactics that are commonly found on that side of the issue.

William Teach at Right Wing News explains Net Neutrality: A Solution In Search Of A Problem (That Will Create More Problems) as an example on the other side of the debate.

“by turning the Internet into yet another heavily regulated industry, the government will not only stifle innovation and investment, but will be in a position to pick winners and losers, rather than as it is now, where competition reigns to pick winners and losers. No, the Internet is not perfect, nor are the companies involved. But, do you think it will get better, do you think minor problems will be solved, especially those problems that pretty much only exist within the minds of people who are saying “this could happen!!!!!!!!!”, by making it a highly regulated utility? “

The fact is that the proponents for regulation assume without evidence and without any significant support that I’net services are “uncompetitive telecom fiefdoms” and do this by creation of conspiracy and denial of economic realities. The basic problem is highlighted by the secrecy by which the FCC’s proposal is being held. The public will not know what is in it until after the FCC votes on it. That secrecy is part and parcel of manufactured presumptions, ad hominem argument, an army of straw men, and censorship of an questions or alternative ideas.

The persistence in trying to foist this ideology on the public, that of government knows best and much be in control, is evident and explicit by Bode. As long as that exists, and honest debate to determine real world actions of a productive nature will be difficult.

Leave a Comment

Jeff Sessions describes the situation

John Hinderaker sites Jeff Sessions as ;standing up for the Constitution and American Workers;.

A number of things have been happening today with regard to the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. There’s been a lot of spin about that and that somehow the Republicans are blocking the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. This gives new meaning to the word “obfuscation,” I suppose, or “disingenuousness.” The truth is, the House of Representatives has fully funded the Department of Homeland Security. It’s provided the level of funding the President asked for. It’s kept all the accounts at Homeland Security as approved through the congressional process. It simply says, but, Mr. President, we considered your bill, this amnesty bill that will provide work permits, photo IDs, Social Security numbers, Medicare benefits. You can’t do that. We considered that and rejected it. So we’re not going to fund that.

There is a Democratic Party minority in the Senate acting as a solid block using filibuster procedure to prevent the funding bill from even coming to the floor for debate. It is time that they were forced to the floor to explain themselves in proper debate on the issues at hand.

Leave a Comment

Cronkite to Williams: a sad tale of deception

Alicia Colon describes When Network Lies Kill.

“Whether Williams is a fabulist, an incestuous voyeur who bragged about his daughter’s soft porn role on HBO’s ‘Girls’ or simply your average liberal is less compelling to me than wondering if a more dangerous anchor will ever be exposed for his lies.

Unfortunately, Walter Cronkite is still revered as the most trusted man in America even though his lies about the Vietnam War caused countless military deaths by prolonging the conflict.”

Cronkite is becoming known for his false assessment regarding the outcome of the Tet offensive and military success in Vietnam. But he was only a starting point for the sad saga of the modern era’s news anchor. Williams is just the latest. The propaganda machine exists. It is not a machine of the state but rather of an ideology backed by a lack of intellectual integrity in a band of brothers leading the major media. Death and destruction as its effect is becoming more obvious.

Leave a Comment

Tactics: King v. Burwell on the legality of Obamacare

It’s a court case. The law is clear. The outcome threaten’s the desires and fantasies of the Left. William Levin describes  Battle station alert on the left.

“Steven Hayward correctly spotlights the panic on the left as King v. Burwell enters its final phase, adroitly terming it working the refs. Others call it battlespace preparation. In all cases, it is establishing the Narrative, which in the case of King v. Burwell is dedicated to the simple proposition that ending Obamacare subsidies will hurt the poor, even resulting in public epidemics and possible deaths. The move is a concession that the case is legally hopeless and it is on to politics.

This makes for a worthwhile moment to pause, because the case is like a control in a science experiment. We can view in slow motion the steps in the game book.

First, delegitimize the law. …”

“Second, ignore the facts. …”

“Third, create victims. …”

“Fourth, make it easy for the press. …”

“It matters not that the allegations have no relationship to the law passed by Congress, the legal controversy committed for review by the Supreme Court or the continuing harm done by the government itself to workable alternatives. Nor to be missed are the amici briefs as self-serving calls for interviews by the press, led by prominent lawyers and institutions, with throngs ready to help on background, and the full resource of notes listed in the citations of sources. Petitioner amici briefs offer the same, but except in rare occasions, their services will be duly ignored as partisan.”

There does appear to be some understanding of the tactics being used by the Left. That means they can be exposed, dissected, and put on display for everyone to consider as to their value for proper decision making in a just society.

Leave a Comment

The ‘Free Internet’ movement: Looking for governmental solutions

Ryan Radia says Don’t Extend the Dead Hand of the FCC to the Internet — “Entrusting the FCC with broad and ambiguous regulatory powers was, and remains, a grave mistake“.

“On February 26, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote on a proposal to regulate companies that provide Internet access as public utilities.”

“Why the sudden march to regulate? In 2008 and again in 2010, the FCC tried to impose somewhat less onerous rules on Internet providers, but both times, a federal court found that the agency exceeded its authority. Rather than admit defeat and move on, the FCC took a third stab at rulemaking in 2014—this time proposing more modest rules that hewed to the court’s rulings. But last summer, the White House began making its own plans for the Internet, as if it were a “parallel version of the FCC itself.”

“The rallying cry behind the FCC’s impending rules can be summed up in two words: net neutrality. According to this superficially benign concept, coined by the left-leaning law professor Tim Wu, Internet providers should be barred from discriminating against applications, services, content, or devices without an extremely good reason. Over time, net neutrality has morphed into the broader notion that Internet providers shouldn’t even be allowed to accept payment from content companies such as Netflix or Amazon for priority traffic handling.”

“Why the drive to handicap Internet providers’ business models? Because, the argument goes, infrastructure is special—so much so that it deserves comprehensive federal oversight. Internet service providers are supposedly all-powerful gatekeepers with the incentive and ability to pick winners and losers online.”

As a general rule, the government is a last resort for solving society’s problems. Advocating governmental involvement when you can’t really define a problem should raise many questions. Creating conspiracies and imagined collusion in order to assert monopoly is not a good basis for action. The record of the government in regards to telecommunications regulation was only adequate when there actually was a monopoly and technology needed a gateway. The heyday of that for telephones was forty years ago. Twenty years ago, technologies provided a means around the established infrastructure. But we still have taxes from a hundred years ago, taxes that hit the small and less capitalized persons and businesses the hardest. Getting government to let go is even more difficult that getting it involved in the first place. That is the threat with this effort to implement socialist theology on the I’net.

Leave a Comment

Irrational patterns on rational issues

David Harsanyi provides a good summary of politicized science based issues in describing When Liberals Ignore Science — “Media are largely silent about their fear of vaccination and their belief in astrology and UFOs“.

“How do we deal with the false perception that liberals are more inclined to trust science than conservatives? Also, how do we approach the media’s fondness for focusing on the unscientific views of some conservatives but ignoring the irrational — and oftentimes more consequential — beliefs of their fellow liberals?”

“if you walk around believing that pesticides are killing your children or that fracking will ignite your drinking water, or if you hyperventilate about the threat of the ocean’s consuming your city, you have a viewpoint that not only conflicts with science but undermines progress. So how do we approach matters that have been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by liberals?”

“The perception that one political group is less science-savvy than another is predominately driven by the unwillingness of many conservatives to accept alarmism about global warming and the policies purportedly meant to mitigate it. But when it comes to climate change, volumes could be written about the ill-conceived, unscientific, over-the-top predictions made by activists and politicians. We could start with our own Malthusian science czar, John Holdren, who once predicted that climate change would cause the deaths of a billion people by 2020 and that sea levels would rise by 13 feet.”

“It doesn’t end there. What are we to make of people who mock religion as imaginary but believe an astrological sign should determine whom you date or are concerned that they will be whisked away in a flying saucer?”

The political bifurcation is right in front of your face – consider the Californication meme, for instance. But that doesn’t phase most media reporters whose reports ignore the obvious evidence. For any paying attention, that is a serious issue of cognitive dissonance.

Leave a Comment

Solving nonexistent problems

It’s the net neutrality debate. Like human caused catastrophic climate change, the proponents are advocating massive government controls in order to prevent a problem that might occur in the future, maybe. For a bit about this nature of debate, see 3 things to know about the FCC’s net neutrality plan.

[FCC Chair] “Wheeler believes this principal of fairness, known as “net neutrality,” can be best protected by thrusting Internet service providers under some of the same rules that have applied to telephone companies for more than 80 years.”

“what if the major cable companies that provide much of the nation’s broadband had free rein to load some files faster than others? It is easy to imagine scenarios where these providers might favor content produced by their affiliates or start charging “tolls” to move data. Consumers naturally would gravitate toward faster sites and services that pay those fees, while smaller startups or nonprofits get shut out.”

“Unlike the 2010 rules that were struck down by the courts, Wheeler’s proposal doesn’t exempt wireless carriers from these open-access requirements. That’s important given that cellphones are becoming the primary way for many people to access the Internet.”

A primary stimulus for promoting net neutrality is that the greedy large corporation cable companies have a monopoly on providing end user I’net services. That basis is contradicted by the idea that the cell phone network is “becoming the primary way for many people to access the Internet.” The addition of the cell phone network was done because court cases failed without its inclusion.

Ask Radio Amateurs who tried to interface their equipment to the telephone network back forty years ago and have watched what happened to the telephone company under government regulations about what they witnessed. Ever wonder why the landline is now nearing extinction? 

The issue here isn’t “open access” but rather governmental control over service and pricing. That is an oxymoron.

Leave a Comment