Tax rebates are coming.

This is a great plan by the Bush Administration, except that the Democrats, while realizing that it's a great plan, threaten to doom it unless certain concessions were made. For instance: 35M families who make at least $3,000 but don't pay taxes would get $300 rebates.

'Scuse me, but how in hell could someone who doesn't pay into something get a rebate on it? Only in the Democrat mind, where buying votes from those who've chosen to not help themselves leads to such outlandish ideas.

Even better, there were some Democrat crackpots like Charles Rangel (NY) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA), the Hero of the Chappaquiddick, who were very unhappy that arrangements to include additional benefits such as extending unemployment benefits for workers whose benefits have run out and plans to increase food stamp payments were left out of the plan.

Rangel said, "I do not understand, and cannot accept, the resistance of President Bush and Republican leaders to including an extension of unemployment benefits for those who are without work through no fault of their own," Rangel said.

Yeah. Unemployed people are without work through no fault of their own. More socialist hand-wringing.

So, where's all the doom and gloom today?

The Dow was up 2.5% today. Where was all the crowing about this? Not in the mainstream media. After all, there's Republican in the White House and another financial success story afoot. Oh, and Heath Ledger died yesterday.

Many different things today...

So, the mainstream media missed it again. The US Stock Market, after an early morning cut of the prime interest rate by the Fed, lost 1% today. I'd bank the early morning plummet on those who panicked about the world markets sliding. Overall, the market recovered nicely, losing 128 points most likely the result of fears of a world recession after Monday's performance.

Next topic: you could learn a lot reading Thomas Sowell. The man's a genius. Check this out.

Finally... why so much news coverage on the death of Heath Ledger and Tom Brady's soft cast? I guess we are so obsessed with the celebutard culture that tabloid topics have seeped into "regular" news broadcasts. I guess whatever appeals to the idiots that'll be electing our next president.

Woe are the global markets...

Interesting. Today, I heard on NBC Nightly News that markets in countries all over the world sustained large drops in value today (the US markets showed no change for the holiday). The media talking heads blamed it on the coming multi-billion dollar Bush economic expansion plan. You know, the one where the mainstream media have been moaning that perhaps as much as $800 will be distributed to each taxpayer? I've got a number of related thoughts about all of this, so bear with me.

(1) Why are those that don't pay any taxes at all bitching about not getting a tax refund? They didn't pay in, so how could they believe that they are possibly entitled to any refund? It's like stealing something from a store, and then being outraged that the store won't give "your" money back when you return it.

(2) So the mainstream media were all gloom-and-doom about tomorrow's market activity. Something tells me that, while the market has been very volatile lately, that there won't be much change. In fact, it may rise. Remember, the prime mover for any market is consumption. If the Bush plan puts money in the hands of those who are most likely to spend it right away, that money is going to come right back into our market. Though the media aren't willing to say anything about the results of the 2001 economic stimulus that Bush pushed through, the results were fairly grand, considering the market environment of the time. This will increase the purchasing power of our dollar against the other markets.

(3) Why in hell are we letting President Bush or any other government crony hold our purse strings for us? Even though I believe that giving money back to those that pay it is a good thing, I don't believe that they should be confiscating it at all. I don't need anyone telling me how to spend my money... what I work hard for everyday. That's why I support the FairTax.

(4) Related to this are the issues of illegal immigration, job deportation, and unemployment. To keep it simple: Employees join unions thinking that the unions are looking out for their best interests. The unions negotiate contracts increasing wages for their workers (in essence, buying their support) without taking into consideration any performance-based incentives. The unionized jobs become overpaid and the work output becomes sloppy. The companies find themselves in an unsustainable position. The companies fold, putting these highly paid union workers out of jobs.

These former employees, who are today's unionized workers, are unwilling to do what they have to do to make ends meet, in other words, they will not accept a lower-paying job so that they can make ends meet in the meantime. Illegals, who are willing to work these lower-paying jobs, because they are better than they had before, create a market for themselves with the companies. Those companies that cannot find reasonably priced labor are forced to deport their jobs to countries with lower costs of living to stay afloat. This causes the US markets then suffer overall.

And the cycle continues until it is interrupted properly. The proper way to interrupt it is for everyone to use their heads and not join unions. This goes hand in hand with people learning that they should be paid based on their skills and performance. Good luck getting today's employees who believe everything should be handed to them on a silver platter to understand that.

This is basic economics, folks. No rocket science, here.

Think, people. For yourselves.

So, remember a few posts ago when I spoke on the power of repetition as far as winning over popular opinion? This was in reference to so many people believing that the United States is a democracy (even though it is not).

So, what do you think happens when environmentalists and other weather folk with an agenda repeat their spiel about global warming over and over? That's right. Even those with government educations should be able to follow this one.

So, why does Hillary have to keep repeating over and over again that she's likable and would make a great president?

Folks, this is known as propaganda. Socialist and totalitarian regimes (and some that were/are both) have been using propaganda for years, long understanding the power that simply repeating the same thing over and over has over facts, logic, and reason. This is why such regimes take control of the press. Didn't this happen in Venezuela recently?

Think about it. Don't just follow along like all the other sheeple.

Global warming: Part 1 of an ongoing response to this old chestnut

So, when we had a record year for North Atlantic hurricanes in 2005, the global warming crowd crowed that this was a result of their favorite cause. In 2006 & 2007, there were 5 hurricanes each year, and now you don't hear about global warming fueling an increase in hurricanes.

BUT, we did just have an out-of-season tornado outbreak... how long will it be until one of these idiots proclaims that global warming causes tornado outbreaks?

Speaking of wonderful people, not long ago Dr. Heidi Cullen, then climatologist for The Weather Channel, was quoted as saying that meteorologists that do not believe in global warming should have their AMS seals revoked. Nice. You can see this here.

Here's my response:

In true peer-reviewed science, theories like global warming are tested for legitimacy. It is not up to TV mets to define theories as fact for their audiences. It is not up to TV mets or the AMS to force forth Ms. Cullen's political opinions or hypotheses on global warming with heavy hands. To do so undermines the scientific method and thus strips any idea of "science" from global warming.

These are not the times of Copernicus, when those that dared question (scientifically!) popular ideas such as earth-centered universes were put to death. So why should those that question (scientifcally!) lukewarm ideas such as global warming have their careers put to death?

The bottom line is this: attempts to legislate scientific theories as fact by over-zealous "experts" with a political agenda, ratings to increase, and some background in scientific study via threats to censure career credentials undermine scientific theory and are not appreciated by true scientists.

This press release from the US Senate Committee on Environmental & Public Works that shows there is still much dissonance in theories on global warming.

How is Ms. Cullen's opinion any better than these scientists'?

That TWC allows their name to be attached to such ideas lessens my view of them and explains why I haven't taken them seriously in years.

Hillary redux...

Again, those old enough to remember and geeky enough to care will recognize that which spawned this classic:



I can't think of a better way to sum up the direction of a Clinton presidency. I don't know why Barack Obama didn't take credit for this. It's genius.

11-string bass?!?!?

Neato. And at first I thought it was Chapman Stick. Even better, they're playing faves from my formative years. Those of you cool enough to be both about my age and a total geek will recognize these right away.

Some libertarian intemperance...

Those that know me have learned that I tend toward the rational, logical explanations. This creates a social conundrum: those who look at things more emotionally and less rationally tend to disagree with me and respond to me irrationally and emotionally (screaming, yelling, swearing, name-calling, etc.). Thus, my random thoughts tend to piss off various groups of peoples with various views. I didn't say this was a BIG problem for me... just a conundrum. So, at the risk of getting out the "sticks & stones", onward ho!

I find it interesting that so many genuine US citizens cannot even say what form of government we have in this country. In spite of the fact that the framers set this country up as a constitutional republic, we constantly hear that this country is a democracy. Not so much. See if you can find the word "democracy" (or derivatives thereof) in any of the founding documents. You can't. That's because the framers understood the evils of democracy; that it's like two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Amazing though, that "democracy" and it's derivative forms are found all over the Communist Manifesto. Just look at the power of repeating misinformation.

Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813), Scottish jurist and historian, professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University is quoted as having said:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

Someone else (can't remember right now) said:

"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

Truth. History bears it out. Time and time again. Right now, I see us moving from the apathy of the 90's into dependence. It's only a matter of time before we find ourselves right back in bondage. Guess it's about high time... the USA is just a smidge over 200 years old now.

Here's an example:

Katrina survivors are filing lawsuits against the Army Corp of Engineers because the levees weren't high/strong enough to hold back the epic floodwaters of a Category 5 hurricane. 'Scuse me, but when are these people going to take responsibility for where they chose to live? Living below sea level at the shore of a huge body of water in a hurricane-prone area is STUPID (eleventy-one!). WTF did these people expect? Well, we're seeing it now: for common sense and personal responsibility to be wiped away by a process no different than suing a screwdriver manufacturer because you stabbed yourself in the eye with their screwdriver. Hell, I chose to live in Oklahoma... smack dab in the middle of Tornado-freaking Alley. Who do I sue when an EF5 flattens my house? Nevermind that I could have chosen a more milquetoast place to live, someone will owe me BIG time! I know: I'll the manufacturers of the cars that slam into my house. They never said that their cars wouldn't fly through the air when lifted by 200+ mph winds. For that matter, why should I even bother to evacuate or take shelter? I'll just sue the National Weather Service, FCOL!

This is what our society is becoming: an entitlement-based rule-of-man dystopia, the cornerstones of which are (1) everyone expects things to be given to them instead of earning them; (2) personal achievement is bad; (3) the smallest inconvenience is an emergency for someone else; (4) being different than the mob is bad; (5) truths are formed out of how many people believe them to be true; (6) freedom is not as important as security.

Hillary

So, Hillary Clinton (self-avowed socialist), "anguished" over her loss in the Iowa Caucus, cries, and suddenly wins the New Hampshire Primary? Is this an example of how she would run government were we to make the mistake of electing her? Just throw an emotional tantrum when she don't get her way?

Hillary not a socialist? She was recently quoted as saying:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

This seems to be rooted in the very definition of socialist. From the dictionary.com definition of socialism:

socialism noun
the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners

So, taking things away from private owners (i.e., those who were free to work to earn what they have) and giving them to the people is what socialists do. Hmm. Sounds like I've heard this somewhere before.

Here's another beautiful thought:

“I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they [sic] have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home.”

Given roughly 4 million annual births, Clinton’s proposal would cost taxpayers some $20 billion each year. Taking money that private owners have earned and giving to the "collective good". Doesn't that feel good? Anything to buy a vote for the future. Isn't it hilarious that the very votes that she wants to buy are being paid for with money she wants to take from us to begin with. What kind of crazed sadomasochism is this that her constituency wants to foist upon themselves and us?

It doesn't stop there:

“I am a fan of a lot of the social policies that you find in Europe.”

Nevermind that the European countries are much more socialist than we are right now.

Hillary would provide every citizen a 401(k) retirement account and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government, which would cost $25B/year. This makes it her largest domestic proposal beside her plan for universal health insurance. She would fund it by taxing estates worth more than $7M per couple, which would help narrow the "gap" between the rich and those who didn't save enough for retirement.

There is a term for someone that believes that every whim and and individual need should be taken care of by the government, from cradle to grave: socialist.

Here's another good read.

Keep in mind that the world's socialist nations are splendid places to live. Places like the former USSR, Cuba, North Korea... where squalor and propoganda are the rules. What we see there today makes me want to move right in.

As an afterthought, I'm reminded of Bill Clinton's presidency. Y'know, those 8 years that Bill spent marching a string of lovers right past Hillary. Why were no tears shed then?

Wow...

Jeff Schmidt definitely has a different style from what I've been influenced by over the years. He sounds like a mixture of Andy McKee and Michael Manring, but somewhat darker. So of course I love it.

Played out on a piccolo-strung Pedulla Pentabuzz fretless, this is called "Apotheosis":



Oh, for those who care to hear me blather about football: I wasn't at all surprised that LSU laid waste to OSU. I was disappointed, but not surprised.