Ready to Go

I'm #ReadytoGo stand in the unemployment line in Obama's economy. 

I'm #ReadytoGo cry after not being able to find a job after 27 weeks in Obama's economy.

I'm #ReadytoGo blow up a bridge to support the 99%! (OWS version)

The Justice Department is not #ReadytoGo prosecute those domestic terrorists.

#ReadytoGo beat he hell out of random white people over Trayvon Martin.

The Justice Department is not #ReadytoGo deal with that, either.  

#ReadytoGo meet my maker since I've been handed back to the Chinese Government. (Chen version)

These guns are #ReadytoGo to some Mexican drug cartels!

I'm horny and #ReadytoGo. (various politicians version)

We're #ReadytoGo on yet another taxpayer funded vacation! (Obama family version)

Obama's #ReadytoGo on yet another taxpayer funded campaign trip.

We're #ReadytoGo get some more Stimulus money! (various Obama cronies version)

I'm #ReadytoGo mock Obama for his Twitter incompetence. 

And since I'm #ReadytoGo look for more work, I guess I'm #ReadytoGo bang my head against a wall. 

I do hope Obama is #ReadytoGo come January. 

Dear Leader Dahlia...

But we seem to want to be free from that obligation as well. This morning in America’s highest court, freedom seems to be less about the absence of constraint than about the absence of shared responsibility, community, or real concern for those who don’t want anything so much as healthy children, or to be cared for when they are old. Until today, I couldn’t really understand why this case was framed as a discussion of “liberty.” This case isn’t so much about freedom from government-mandated broccoli or gyms. It’s about freedom from our obligations to one another, freedom from the modern world in which we live. It’s about the freedom to ignore the injured, walk away from those in peril, to never pick up the phone or eat food that’s been inspected. It’s about the freedom to be left alone. And now we know the court is worried about freedom: the freedom to live like it’s 1804.

That would be Dahlia Lithwick's despondent response to libertarians.  Apparently, freedom actually consists of being lead by the nose without complaint by Lithwick and her ilk whenever they decide what is good for us. 

The fact of the matter is, Dahlia, there are many different goods in the world.  There is no one Good in Plato's sense.  I get it, you think universal health care is the bee's knees.  Well, I don't, mostly because I'm young and not doing so well in the Age of Hope and Stimulus.  I need to put that money where it will do me some good (paying loans, food, rent, gas, etc.) rather than health care insurance, seeing as I haven't had a medical expense I couldn't pay out of pocket since...wow, yeah, I'm guessing since I was a toddler.  By the way, Scalia was exactly right: people my age are smart enough to make decisions individually about their own health care.  Most of us will not need it now and should be allowed to fund our more pressing needs rather than your health care.  As for those my age that do purchase insurance, they may have the resources or the need to do so; Scalia's entire point is that they would know better about their individual needs than Lithwick or Obama. 

She keeps speaking of obligations to each other.  I don't recall assuming any such obligation.  None of this means that I won't help people voluntarily; I have, I do, and I will again.  I grow so tired of this dishonest argument that conservatives and libertarians don't want the government to help people, ergo they don't want those people to be helped.  That's wrong (Bastiat destroyed it in 1850); there are sentient actors outside of the government who can and do help others on a voluntary basis.  They are called individual human beings. 

Freedom does indeed mean not having to comply with the demands of Dahlia Lithwick.  It should be a surprise to nobody that Lithwick thinks that is wrong, but then, what tyrant doesn't define freedom as "what I want you to do is best"?

UPDATE:  Just got mentioned by the Instapundit himself!  Many thanks, Professor Reynolds!

A (Very) Simple Voting Test

Quick, who is the head of the Federal Reserve?  

If you can't answer that, don't vote.  If you can't tell me what the Federal Reserve does (or, more likely, have never heard of the Federal Reserve), don't vote. 

Don't know who your Senators are?  Don't vote.  Your Congressman?  Stay at home Election Day.  The nine Supreme Court Justices?  What the Supreme Court even does?  Don't vote.  

Don't know who the President is?  Um...I'm not worried about you voting, just stay in your cave without Internet access.  Actually, come to think of it, how are you reading this?

These are not particularly difficult questions; in fact, they are asking basic matters of fact about the composition of our government.  If you cannot answer everything of the above, I'm quite serious, you are not qualified to be making decisions about our government.  This doesn't even bring into question the strengths and weaknesses of particular ideologies.  Just flat out facts.  

Democracy: rule of the ignorant. 

Beyond Educating, I Guess

This is from OWS' "Statement of Autonomy" (whatever the hell that may mean):

Occupy Wall Street is a people’s movement. It is party-less, leaderless, by the people and for the people. It is not a business, a political party, an advertising campaign or a brand.  It is not for sale.

...

Any statement or declaration not released through the General Assembly and made public online at www.nycga.net should be considered independent of Occupy Wall Street.

Really, nobody sees a contradiction between these two statements?  Those that control the website are the leaders.  They are the new hierarchy.  And note that they are making a point of differentiating themselves from anyone not publishing via their controlled website. 

And then there is this wonderfully idiotic protest for Thursday.  Shutting down the subways, that's the way to...um, what is this all about?  I'm sure that will do wonders for OWS' popularity in the city.  Note at the bottom they demand we "resist austerity."  What on Earth is that a reference to?  These guys claim to be above partisan politics, but they explicitly say cutting government spending is to be resisted.  It is a tenet of their faith that government spending is in and of itself a good thing.  Amazingly, they don't realize that austerity reduces the chances of corruption; the more politicians can spend, the more they will do so for their interests, not ours. 

Anyway, I'm just annoyed with these people.  People who cannot see reality right in front of their faces drive me off a wall.  Look at how these people have run their "camps" and ask yourself, do you really want their ideas running the country?

Berlusconi to Resign

Italy's Prime Minister is set to resign.  This is a man who has been under various scandals nonstop for the last decade and had shown no indication of resigning, mostly because he controlled the courts. 

You know what he can't control, though?  The laws of mathematics.  Italy, like all of the other welfare states, is going under. 

So Berlusconi's abandoning the ship.  If things have gotten so bad that this crazy bastard is giving up power, we may want to stock up on canned goods and shotguns. 

The Organizers vs. the Organized

Nymag.com points out what I already knew: the Occupy Wall Street movement is, in fact, hierarchical.  "Consensus" democracy runs into the same flaw every other type of democracy (or government, for that matter) hits: there are dissenters who have rights, and they won't just shut up and go along with the majority. 

This all has such a French Revolution without the balls feeling to it. 

Obviously Not a Tea Party

I somehow do not believe 99% of Americans support political violence and injuring police officers.  Somebody needs to bring these people back within the rule of law.  If the organizers of Occupy Wall Street won't do it, then the police need to crack down on these mobs. 

And yes, that's an accurate term.  Once you stop obeying the law and turn to violence, you are a mob.  The Tea Party never did that, despite the wet dreams of the media. 

Directive 10-289 Has Been Expanded and Amended

You just can't make this stuff up.  It reads like a law created in an early draft of Atlas Shrugged that Rand struck out because it was too unbelievable.  I can't go through 50 something pages of nonsense point by point, but some of the more entertaining things include:

"Truth in Journalism" law.  Why, we all know the government will make sure the truth is told! 

Compulsory voting.  Yes, we need more people who are not informed to vote.  They'll be thrilled about it, too.  Only good things can come of this.

Ban short selling.  Yes, when things are overpriced, we need to make sure nobody knows it until the shit hits the fan so that everyone suffers rather than those paying attention!

Hold out government accountable for a Gross Happiness Index.  Like Bhutan.  No, seriously, they are advocating that position, even the Bhutan part. 

Everyone supporting Occupy Wall Street should be required to read pages 41 and 42 of this trainwreck. For starters, oil is outlawed; you need to turn in your car.  How you will be getting to and from anywhere is left unstated.  Free education for all, provided by God knows whom.  Free healthcare for all, again provided presumably by God via manna from the sky. 

By far and away, my favorite part is the mandated salaries.  Here they are:

Concepts of Economic Sustainability and Right Livelihood

Bankers $20,000
Lawyers $27,500
Realtors $25,000
Doctors $28,000
Nurses $27,500
Teachers/Librarians/Train Engineers/Bridge Maintenance/Ship Pilots, etc. $35,000
Police $36,000
Public Servants $28,500
Laborers $20,000
Other public sector $30,000
Other private sector $29,000
Technical/Research/Academic $36,000
Entrepreneurs/Business Owners $10,000 (i.e., tax breaks for corps)
Congress $30,000
President 40,000
Soldiers N/A
Defense workers $25,000

All jobs include full health benefit for worker and family, full retirement benefits, full free
education for children.

Taxation - to run the government. The only tax will be a sales tax for all goods and services, which will be fixed at: 4%.

As a teacher, I will be among the richest Americans!  We're sure to have new businesses making new products with entrepreneurs being the least paid individuals in the nation.  It is good to know that people will put in the work and sacrifice to become doctors, even though they will be paid less than teachers who will make more than almost anyone for 180 days of work. As we all know, running a bank is child's play, especially when compared to being a realtor or a librarian!

This is what I've wanted from hardcore Leftists for some time, a detailed outline of their world.  And it is everything I expected it to be. My favorite part may be that this document begins with this requirement:

Actions should not interfere with the efficient functioning of a market economy, the allocation of capital, and incentives for innovators, entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers as long as basic welfare and genuine opportunity for the entire American people are served.

Between this and the abject failure of consensus democracy put on show in Atlanta, I can only hope Occupy Wall Street is highlighted more in the news.  The looks on the faces of those shouted down is priceless, especially since those people are fans of Representative John Lewis, a civil rights activitist and liberal Congressman.  They sure aren't Tea Parties is my point.  This "consensus democracy" doesn't actually remove dissent, it just silences it, much to the chagrin of those not in the majority.  Funny thing about democracy, there always seem to be a minority who wants to voice its point of view.  Jazz hands and shouting "mic check" makes those folks feel ostracized. 

Lacking Consistency

When George W. Bush held Al Qaeda agents that were not American citizens in Gitmo, people had a fit about how the President was violating their constitutional rights. 

When Barack Obama zaps an American citizen (Anwar al-Awlaki) without so much as a trial, no such objections are raised. 

Logically, those who criticized Bush's actions but not Obama's must believe that killing people without trial is a worse violation than holding people alive (in a Caribbean island, no less!) and that people without American citizenship deserve higher protections than those that are American citizens. 

Yes, I am glad the bastard is dead.  No, I don't believe the President broke the law.  But then, I don't think Bush did, either.  My position is consistent: those who conduct war upon us have no protections in law.  I would like to know how anyone on the Left squares their situation, though. 

The Daily Snark 8/28

RealClearPolitics has a nice feature following the major polling of the President's approval rating. Over the last two months, the President's numbers have been in free fall; in fact, Gallup has his approval rating at a mere 38% as of today. Nothing particular seems to be going on to drive those numbers further down; the debt ceiling debate ended a month ago. What is going on here?

Look at the Gallup numbers. Barack has a weekly average approval of 40%. Outside of liberals, blacks are the only demographic to be above 50% for the President with a whopping 88% supporting him. Basically, everybody in this country but African Americans have bailed on this President and overwhelming support from blacks is the only thing keeping him from crashing into the low 30's level of approval.

Independents have had it with this President.

Republicans seem somewhat happy with their options, a great difference from 2008. Really, without a very sudden and significant economic recovery occurring very shortly, I see the President being a one termer going down with the likes of Jimmy Carter. As I mentioned before, I'm not even honestly sure what the President will campaign on. "It Could Have Been Worse" is not a particularly inspiring message. ObamaCare is deeply unpopular, the Stimulus was a trainwreck, transparency has been nonexistent.

Seriously, what will he run on? In 2008, he could pick health care out of thin air and pretend it was some sort of national crisis requiring his guiding hand. In 2012, everyone would mock him for trying to do that with any other sector of the economy. The other thing he did in '08 was attack the incumbent, which is obviously not a viable strategy this time around. The cult of personality he built around himself is also gone; posters of his face with the word Hope will not be making a comeback outside of Republican ads mocking such vanity.

Most of all, conservative and in particular libertarians are going to be out for blood. We haven't been treated particularly nicely during this Administration's time in office; hell, the Vice President saw it fit to describe us as terrorists. We have a level of enthusiasm matching that of 2010 but which is otherwise not seen for a Republican candidate in a very long time. I would be shocked if the Democrats somehow threw the Republicans out of the House of Representatives, especially since the Republican hold on that House is stronger than it has been in 70+ years. In the Senate, only 10 Republicans are up for reelection and all of them are survivors of the 2006 election bloodbath. We have two people retiring, one in Texas and the other in Arizona, so I doubt we'll lose any Senate seats. That leaves 23 Democrats and 2 Democratic voting independents up for reelection. Six are retiring, leaving open races in North Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Additionally, Democrats will need to hang on to seats in Montana, Nebraska (no chance, Ben Nelson), Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Republicans only have to win half of those competitive seats in order to take the Senate.

As incredible as it seems, a mere two years after Democrats had absolute power in Washington, Republicans might rule unopposed.

This next year is certainly going to be interesting.

The Daily Snark 8/27

From the Associated Press:

Obama will have to win over people such as Brian Arnold, 33, of Pickerington, Ohio. He's an independent who voted for Obama in 2008 because he liked the Democrat's outsider image.

Now, Arnold says he's undecided and down on Obama. "He got elected, it was a big party and after that he went back to being a politician. As soon as he got in office, he just did more of the same."

No kidding. It's almost like someone said this over and over and over again during that campaign. Elections are not games and we were supposed to be voting for policy, not personalities. Believing this unknown to be the personification of Hope and Change was ridiculously dangerous.

I'm still flabbergasted by the way people acted in 2008. People wanted to punish the Republicans, that I get, but hoisting up this radical in the belief that he was somehow going to fundamentally transform the United States into a land in which politics would forever be a positive thing? Are you kidding me?

I hate to say it, but it really was a mob mentality. People were extremely excited about the person of Barack Obama without ever giving solid thought to policy. People actually believed electing a person due to his skin color was appropriate. Ironically enough, these same people accused opponents of Obama of latent racism.

Go find those people now. Most of them don't want to talk about Obama and sure as hell don't want to admit that they are personally responsible for the last two and a half years. They wanted to have their pop culture political party, but once the actual governing part occurred (you know, the reason we have those elections), all of a sudden the euphoria disappeared and politics wasn't an acceptable topic anymore.

Politics isn't a freaking party, people. If you don't want to put in the work to understand history, philosophy, law, economics, and everything else that goes into good governance, stay the hell out.

The Daily Snark 8/25

A completely non-political bit of snark here. I absolutely hate it when I meet people who are bound and determined to be my friend. The less interest you show in them, the more they will hang around you and talk themselves up; they will know nothing about you, but still insist on being chummy pals. It's that last part that really drives me up a wall. If you want to be a friend of mine, it would be nice if it had something to do with me. Such people just cannot handle that there is someone in the world not particularly interested or impressed by them. The only reason such people are interested in me is because I am a human being who still has vital signs, ergo I must be their friend.

Screw that. And the worst part of it is, the normal disinterestedness that would indicate to most people you don't give a damn about them is precisely the thing that draws this sort back to you.

The Daily Snark 8/23

I like Tyler Cowen's blog, Marginal Revolution. He's a pretty bright guy, very well read, and of a very calm demeanor online. Based on the comments, I think his attempt at snark went over people's heads on this post, though.

Anyway, I recommend reading Matt Yglesias's original post that Cowen is responding to. If you spend any time in the real world, or if in particular you work in a grocery store (like myself), it shouldn't take you long to spot the problems. For starters, the grocery store being robbed isn't as likely to hire new people and may be more likely to let people go. A lot of money is moving through these stores, sure, but not a lot of it is profit. You would have to steal a lot of product from a particular manufacturer in order to be noticeable (no company producing goods is going to go out and hire new people over a five dollar spike) and long term (no company producing goods is going to go out and hire new people over a two week spike). Random theft at a store isn't going to meet those conditions. Even prolonged shoplifting won't meet those conditions if different goods are taken, but repeatedly stealing noticeable amounts of a single product tends to be, well, noticeable. Which is a bad plan for shoplifting.

If you read Chapter III of The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism and think you now possess a great theory for stimulating our economy, go drink yourself stupid and start all over.

By this reasoning, those riots in London were a godsend. I don't think Yglesias is dumb enough to actually be proposing people go out and steal, but saying moving closer towards an abandonment of the rule of law by the people doesn't strike me as a good thing, no matter how it comes about.

The Daily Snark 8/22

E. J. Dionne is always good for a laugh. Why, what President Obama needs to do is ignore the Tea Party (and common sense) and propose a massive amount of short term spending! In fact, short term deficits should be ignored.

Nevermind that as is, we are going nearly two trillion dollars in debt over the last year. Might as well dump another trillion in debt on top of that, I'm sure all will be well.

But we need infrastructure spending! This one makes me laugh; wasn't that what the Stimulus was all about? We need to subsidize state spending; their constitutions require them to have a balanced budget and be responsible, so the only way for them to be irresponsible is for the federal government to jump in on their behalf.

My favorite part is that he mentions Europe's austerity should be a lesson. Apparently, nobody told Dionne that Europe can't borrow any more money because nobody is willing to lend it to them. Austerity isn't being imposed by a European "tea party" but by reality. Can't just ignore that one, chief.

We could hike taxes on the rich, just as Europe did, and end up in the same place.

People don't seem to want to face reality. For decades, we have lived on the wealth of the future. Now the future is here and the past must be paid for. Our democratic social welfare state is not designed to handle this transition.

The Daily Snark 8/20

I'm going to jump ahead of this train for a moment. Shortly enough, we'll be hearing outrage about Israel's "excessive use of force" or disproportionate use of force or some such nonsense. Which is odd, since I'm sure those people who will use those terms have not thought to condemn the Palestinian use of weapons against Israel over the last few days and the deaths that were caused.

Then again, I don't remember hearing outrage against Palestine's disproportionate use of force when an anti-tank missile was used against an Israeli school bus.

Let me offer a solution to this problem. The Palestinians need to get the hell out of Palestine. Go to Egypt, or Jordan, or Syria, or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or wherever you like, but leave Gaza and the West Bank. Cease your rather ridiculous claim to the area. It's not the end of the world. Look at the Irish outside of Ireland, the Africans outside of Africa, or (dare I mention it) the Jews who fled Europe. Prosperity will never follow rocket attacks against children; only incoming fire will follow.

The Daily Snark 8/19

So people are finally getting smart and realizing the best way to rob a place is by a flash mob. It effectively neutralizes any defense a shopkeeper or passerby might have. Sure, call the cops. By the time they arrive, the mob will be gone with just about everything they wanted. And with so many people robbing you at once, remembering details about anyone in particular becomes difficult, severely reducing the likelihood anyone will be prosecuted for the crime. Second Amendment arguments don't help you much here, either. One armed clerk vs. a mob which may or may not have weapons? In that situation, you keep your gun hidden and hope to god the mob just goes after property.

That said, if this really goes viral, you'll see very severe restrictions in our civil liberties, in particular to privacy in electronic communications.

The Daily Snark 8/18

I watched Apollo 13 the other night. Weird as it is, I actually get a little teary eyed at the launch scene and find myself rooting for the rocket to make it into space. The space program really was an amazing propaganda machine for both the United States and the USSR.

Then I got to thinking about how now we no longer have a vehicle to take Americans into space and that we're relying on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft. Almost made me think we should fund NASA more.

And then I read this. Nevermind.

To the extent that I think about such things, my belief is that if aliens do exist, they don't have the technology to get here. If we were reached by anything at all, it would be by a machine. And really, there's no real purpose in visiting Earth unless you are interested in extraterrestrial (by their definition) life as we are. I highly doubt the Earth has much raw materials worth colonizing us for at such distances.

The Daily Snark 8/16

“You can’t just make money on SUVs and trucks,” Obama said during a town hall forum in Cannon Falls, Minn. “There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market."

I'm pretty sure I just peed myself a little. Nobody wants to buy SUVs and trucks? President Stimulus himself is lecturing others about not understanding the market?

Let me let you in on a little hint here, Mr. President. The "market" isn't a term for "what the President wants us to buy." It means the collective input of all people's economic decisions. Do you know how we learn what it is people want to buy? By what they purchase, in this case SUVs and trucks. So yes, they can make money on SUVs and trucks; I'm puzzled as to how you thought it would be otherwise.

The Daily Snark 8/15

One of the benefits of the Tea Party movement is the expansion of political literacy. People like Hayek, Nozick, Rand, von Mises, Rothbard, and others are being read by people who never really bothered to think about such things before. Of course, the people in Washington are a bit ticked that the masses would do their own thinking and whatnot, so you get lots of charges of racism and hatred and such. My favorite one, though, is that the Tea Party folks are ignorant. Yes, nothing makes one ignorant like reading.

The Daily Snark 8/13

Apparently, we need yet another analysis of the game of Monopoly. Nothing that should surprise anyone at all familiar with the game, but I'm going to be snarky about this comment:

For others, it's a Machiavellian affair that tosses love and loyalty aside in favor of a capitalistic bloodlust where there is but one goal: Drive mom, dad, grandma and weird Uncle Steve into bankruptcy as soon as possible.

Sigh...the most significant aspect of capitalism is personal choice. If Monopoly was capitalistic, you would choose on which property you wished to land on. You would always pay the lowest possible rent and no monopolies would ever be formed. In fact, the only way Monopoly works as a game is because you are forced to buy from other people against your wishes.

You know, like ObamaCare.

Anyway, it's my experience that you want to get your hands on the orange and red properties. The green properties are expensive and don't pull their own weight; the dark blue's are similar but at least you only have two to develop there. Use utilities as trading pieces. Always look for trades. More than anything else, that is the key, finding someone you can trade with to build a monopoly before other people can. Never let just one person have a monopoly.