Charity is Saintly

I would never call anyone a Communist for asking why the poor have no food.

Interetingly enough, though, many people have starved because of Communism.

The poor in this union do not lack food. It's more likely that most of the poor in our fifty (fifty-seven?) states are overweight.

Giving your own food to those who need it is saintly behavior. Collecting donations of food and giving it to those who need it saintly behavior.

Taking food by force from one person and giving it to another is immoral, and is just one thing that happens under forced Communism.

It is dismaying that so many on the Left do not see a dffirence between voluntary interactions and forced interactions. No wonder some Leftists think all sex is rape.

So a Politician Walks Into a Bar...

Actually, a restaurant. Should a restaurant be able to refuse service to someone based on their beliefs or their politics? Read more over at The Opine Editorials.

Update on State Battles Over Neutering Marriage

Read the latest over at The Opine Editorials.

Letters to LAT

The letters printed in the Los Angeles Times can sometimes be insightful, sometimes an indicator of societal decay.

Rosemary Hagerott of Sierra Madre had a great letter:

I agree with your subheadline's characterization of what the president said in his State of the Union address: "Obama says all must pay 'fair share' of taxes."

I'd like him to start by collecting taxes from the nearly half of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

Right on!

And how about all those Americans who don't file tax reports? And how about all those who earn most of their money "under the table" and report very low income?

Such is a problem with income taxes.

Once he addresses this issue, I might listen to him about the "rich" paying their fair share. Right now, the "rich" are the only group of taxpayers paying their "fair share."

And when did it become anathema in this country to achieve the American dream by becoming rich?

When too many people decided it was better to slack off, make poor choices, and let Big Brother take care of them. And then link to blogs like this and complain about it rather than learning from the simple steps to avoid poverty.

Eugene Sison of San Dimas may have Bush Derangement Syndrome:

It has been said that men such as Obama must be "twice as good" as the George W. Bushes of the world to succeed at the same job.

Huh? It this a racial reference? If so, Obama only has to be 50% better.

So, as president, Obama listed his administration's accomplishments: preventing a second Great Depression while saving the auto industry, ending the Iraq war while getting Osama bin Laden, passing healthcare reform while reining in Wall Street. Two words came to mind: Mission accomplished.

Obama's stimulus effort made things worse.

He didn't save the auto industry - he bailed out American Big Labor.
Pulling troops out of Iraq was made possible by the decisions of the Bush administration in addition to all of the hard work of the military and contractors.
Yes, it is good that he kept up the pursuit of OBL, and didn't wimp out when it came time to kill OBL.

Healthcare reform? He inserted the federal government into private health insurance matters and is creating an new dependency program.

What exactly has he done to "Wall Street"? Wall Street PAID FOR OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN.

What a bunch of hooey.

In response to an item in the Business section, "How the wealthy get tax breaks," Business, Jan. 24, Anthony Maenza of Oceanside wrote:

If a criminal stole 35% of my money last week and 15% this week, would The Times write that the criminal's actions this week helped to increase my wealth? If not, then how does The Times justify writing that "wealthy people grow even wealthier with the help of the tax code"?

Because the article wasn't about subsidies given to the rich but instead about the wealthy keeping a larger share of their own money, one must conclude that The Times believes the money belongs to the government, which then favors the wealthy by letting them have a disproportionate amount of said government's money.

How about mentioning the earned income tax credit, which "refunds" unpaid taxes to the poor — taxes paid by others (likely the wealthy)? That would be honest journalism.

Perfect.

Al Barrett of Santa Monica is clueless, and so must be right at home in the People's Republic of Monica ("Santa" should be banned for being religious.):

Keeping Mit Romney's income tax rate no higher than 15% is necessary to help him create jobs, according to some economics experts.

Hey genius, that the personal tax rate on capital gains, which is investment income. The money used to invest has already been taxed, and the profits are taxed again before they are paid to Romney (and elderly widows), who then have to pay taxes on the money AGAIN.

It doesn't seem to be working.

Actually, Romney's efforts have created a heckuva lot of jobs. Jobs NOT dependent on taxes, unlike so many "green" jobs.

Apparently, high school economics courses need to be required and improved.

My State of the Union Wish List

I know most of these positions will be completely avoided by President Obama, never mind that they wouldn't have a chance of being implemented with the current Senate, even with a Republic POTUS.  But permit me to dream. Also notice that with most of these, I'm calling on the President to encourage action by the people, not to use the force of law.

Equal Access to Capitalism. Explain some of the major benefits of capitalism, and that the best thing the federal government can do to foster a good business climate that provides jobs is to provide protection from interstate crime and foreign terrorists, and to be involved as little as possibly in voluntary employment and business transactions, not picking winners or losers in business, subsidizing some and restricting upstarts while protecing established businesses.

Strong Marital Unions Are Good For the Union. It brings together both sexes to raise the next generation of citizens. Men and women are different, and unifying them in the marital union forms a strong, inclusive building block for society, benefiting the individuals and society. Call on the Federal government to help by continuing to affirm, as Presidents Clinton and Bush did, that marriage unites a man and a woman, and pledge that the federal government will not force states to recognize counterfeit marriages. Encourage people to voluntarily take marriage seriously, thinking for the long term, getting good pre-marital counseling - and counseling during marriage as necessary. Encourage individuals, families, congregations, businesses, and the media to respect and value marriage, and support marriages instead of undermining them. Encourage individuals to save sex and childrearing for marriage, because doing so is good for them and good for the country.

Education Is a Private Responsibility. With so many educators complaining about No Child Left Behind, and given the state of American public education since the Carter administration, call for the dismantling of federal involvement in education.

Don't be Santa Claus. Don't propose new federal programs and expansions of existing federal social programs. Enough already. There are 50 states in the union and a few territories that are supposed to be handling their own matters – that is, the matters that are not supposed to be left up to "the people".

Explain That the Federal Government Is Not the Answer to Every Challenge, Problem, or Choice - Rather, it is the Last Resort Answer to Very Few. That is what freedom and liberty are all about.  Challenge individuals, businesses, congregations, nonprofits, and local and state governments (where appropriate) to take action instead of relying on the federal government. The federal government is there to protect the union from foreign threats and to and resolve some disputes between states.

Stop Using the Tax Code For Social Engineering. Tell the Congress that instead of taking the carrots (taxes) from the people and then dangling some of them back in front of the people, that the people should keep their carrots in the first place and do with them what they will. Call for tax simplification and a move away from income/payroll taxes. If someone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.

Individuals Should Plan for the Future. Talk about the numerous options individuals and families have for saving for the future. Encourage them to save and invest for the future and not rely on the federal government to take care of them in their senior years. Point out that a reduction in federal spending will allow people to keep more of their own money to aid in saving for retirement.

Explain that Planning for Your Health Care is Part of Planning for the Future. Call for more freedom, competition, and private decision-making in health care.

Encourage Proven Conservation Techniques. Quote the scientists and activists who, in the 1970s, warned that we were heading for a new ice age, and quote those who said that by 2000, the rainforests and the oceans would be destroyed. Go on to say that we must not hastily and uncritically accept alarmist warnings and use federal government force to impose destructive restrictions on the people and business that may not result in significant environmental benefit.

Encourage private innovation and solutions to reducing reliance on terrorist oil.

Border Control Is a Matter of National Security. Announce that, effective immediately, the National Guard will secure our borders to prevent terrorists, disease-carriers, and smugglers from entering the U.S. They will stay there until suitable barriers and checkpoints are constructed – however long that takes. We will NOT encourage further invasion by offering amnesty, health insurance, and other tax-funded benefits for citizens of other countries who illegally enter/stay in the U.S. Speed up the process for legal immigration for those who want to come to the U.S. legally to become citizens and can find sponsors who will ensure they will stay off of public assistance. As for illegal aliens currently living in the United States – do not offer amnesty; they can go through the same channels of those who are trying to immigrate legally. If the border is secure, this problem will eventually take care of itself because their children born here are citizens and the illegals can continue to function as they have until they die off, if they don't want to go the legal route. Any illegal alien who serves honorably in the U.S. armed forces should be granted citizenship. If a true shortage of labor occurs (meaning American unemployment is low and employers need more temporary labor), a true guest worker program can be developed.

Property Rights and Personal Freedom. Most Americans understand that people should be considered as individuals and based on their behavior and abilities, not as members of a non-ideological group (ethnicity, etc.). Therefore, the federal government should no longer be involved in preventing people from renting, selling - or not - to whomever they choose for whatever reason, and should no longer be involved with who an employer hires and fires and why. Airlines, for example, should not be forced to carry anyone who makes the majority of their employees and passengers uncomfortable.

Tout the Successes of the War on Terror. Laud those military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who have uncovered and prevented terrorist plans and actions, pointing out that is has been over ten years since terrorists have carried out a major attack in the U.S.

Break the Street Gangs. Pledge federal agencies to assist state and local law enforcement "sweep and hold" gang-infested urban areas.

Civility. Call on partisans to vigorously debate the issues, but refrain from threats of violence an character assassination, as they renew their vow to defend the Constitution.

A Status Update

Recognizing that marriage always unites a bride and a groom does not make someone ignorant, bigoted, hateful, prejudiced, or anti-gay. None of these people were ever quoted as saying marriage could exist without a bride or without groom: Moses, Jesus, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Chief Joseph, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Susan B. Anthony, Gautama Buddha, JFK, FDR, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and the other signers of the Constitution of the United State of America. Not one world religion has traditionally called anything without both a bride and a groom "marriage". No country, including officially atheist countries, in thousands of years of history, did until the Netherlands in 2001. Were they all hateful? Having a word that has always distinguished a relationship uniting both sexes into a social and legal unit obligated to each other and the newborn citizens they may naturally produce together, as only both sexes together can, is not hateful. Repost if you agree.

Two Leftist, Libertarian Issues at the Back of the Line

Libertarians and many Leftists want legalization of all drugs and elimination or almost complete opening of national borders.

The most compelling argument against drug legalization is that more people will use currently illegal drugs if they are legalized. That is based on alcohol consumption per capita before, during, and since Prohibition. Is that enough of a reason to refuse legalization? I'm not sure.

What I am sure about is that I will not be motivated to support legalization until AFTER:

1) Taxpayer money ceases to be spent on health care

2) I am allowed to control and defend my property and myself, meaning I do NOT have to rent to a druggie and I can carry a loaded firearm and shoot a druggie who is a threat to me or my family

3) Employers are allowed to not hire, hire, promote, demote, and fire people for any reason, including being a druggie.

Make THOSE parts of the libertarian dream happen first. Good luck getting the Left to go along with that.

As far as border control/immigration issues... we're always going to need some defense of our borders for national defense purposes, but see what I wrote before about "comprehensive immigration reform". I'll care a lot less if someone wants to hire an illegal aliens if society is otherwise mostly libertarian. Again, good luck getting the Left to go along with that.

So drug legalization and letting illegal aliens come and go as they please, work here, etc., are things that have to go to "the back of the line". They do not make sense unless our society is more libertarian already.

We'll Need Congress

It's primary season, so Republicans are in dispute about who will be the best nomimee for President, including who can beat Obama, who is more solidly conservative, and who will be a good leader for the GOP.

But whether we end up with Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Obama, or someone else (if something unusual happens) as President a year from now, I think it is clear that we'll need a Congress that will be strongly focused on conservative, limited government. It will be critical if Obama is re-elected. It will be important even with a Republican President.

You may not be enthusiastic about any of the possible GOP candidates. Get excited about electing Senators and Representatives who will value the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, and American exceptionalism.

They'll Always Want Government to Get Bigger

Neutering marriage would inevitably mean increasing the size of government. Read why over at The Opine Editorials.

You've Fired and Laid People Off, Too

I don't think all layoffs are a good idea or good for a business in the long-term, but sometimes they are. They are part of a free market system that maximizes liberty, generally rewards merit, encourages innovation, and grows wealth.

Those who fault Romney for his responsibility in layoffs, or for saying that he likes being able to fire people need to realize that they have likely laid someone off or fired someone, too.

When you change service or product providers (or decided to do something yourself), whether we're talking about an accountant, lawyer, tutor, bank, insurance company, therapist, doctor, personal trainer, hair stylist, phone/Internet/television provider, magazine subscription, plumber, gardener, mechanic, auto dealer, dry cleaner, clothing store, restaurant - anything for which you have paid in the past - you are laying someone off, if even on a small or fractional scale. You are firing them.

Let's take the example of a mechanic that you weren't happy about. Maybe you found a better or less expensive mechanic and you switched. What happens if enough people do likewise, no longer taking their vehicles to that first mechanic? The mechanic either has to find a new line of business, move his or her business, improve his or her business, or retire. Or, maybe there was nothing wrong with the mechanic, but you decided you needed to save money and do your oil changes yourself, or paid your nephew less money to do it. That's a layoff or firing. What would you think if the mechanic were to pick your house and say that you earn enough that you should have kept going to him or her for your oil changes? What if your mechanic cited the model of car you drive as proof that you have enough to keep paying him or her for those oil changes?

Should you be prevented from laying those people off? Are you obligated to keep using the same person/provider for the rest of your life, just because you've used them before? Not if you don't have a binding contract with them.

If you have stopped buying paper books an adopted, as so many have, the use of electronic books, you have laid off paper and ink providers and those who transport paper, ink, and finished books. If you ever bought movies on VHS buy now buy them on DVD or Blu-ray, you laid off the people making VHS tapes.

When business managers lay people off, is usually out of a responsibility to business owners, which often means shareholders, which often includes many people on Main Street. The company must slim down or die, and even more people will lose their jobs and people will lose their investments. Business managers usually are not laying people off to be mean. But when we lay people off by changing our service or product providers, it is sometimes for petty or arbitrary reasons, sometimes for nepotism. Sometimes, we do it for the same reasons as managers like Romney - for the sake of efficiency.

Ideally, more jobs are created through new businesses, new companies, and growing companies, than lost through layoffs, but layoffs are a necessary part of how the market functions.

So those who point fingers are people like Romney need to take a look in the mirror first.

Previously:

Nobody Owes You a Job

Turning Washington, D.C. Into a State?

So some people in D.C., the seat of our federal government and the place that elects crackheads as mayor (mere coincidence?), want the District to become our union's 51st state.

That would ensure two more Democrats in the Senate, so we can expect support for this to come from the Left. (Interesting how their ideas for gaining/retaining control always involve changing the rules... making voter fraud easier, making new states out of Democrat areas, getting more felons to vote, lowering the voting age, giving current illegal aliens the vote).

How about an old-fashioned compromise that allows Orange County, California (and perhaps a larger center-right area) to become the 52nd state simultaneously? If not The OC, how about some other conservative area in the western area? I'd like Orange County to escape the control of San Francisco and Los Angeles for personal reasons, and California Senators are likely going to be Democrats for the forseeable future. I'm open to other ideas, though.

Bullies and Hypocrites

What would you say if I picked one fellow American, whose statements and actions I disagreed with, and I engaged in a deliberate campaign (and had the power) to assign a definition to their name describing something most people would find disgusting and inappropriate to talk about in public, so much so that when you searched that person's name, a description of that disgusting thing would be the first to list?

Would you consider that bullying... to turn someone's name into a euphemism for something most people would find disgusting?

What if the person I did that too was a homosexual person?

What if I then started an anti-bullying campaign while continuing to bully? Wouldn't that make me a hypocrite?

This situation is not hypothetical, except that the person this is happening to is not homosexual; rather, the bully and subsequent coattail riders (to use a polite term) are homosexuality advocates.

I was disappointed when I learned this, because I support the message that bullying is wrong, and had some respect for someone taking the initiative to spread that message. But now I see that person has deliberately smeared the name of another human being. If that isn't bullying, what is it? I think if you asked most people if they'd rather take a punch to the gut and be called names while a teenager, or have their lifelong name made synonymous with something disgusting, they'd chose the former with no hesitation. If you asked them which was a more hateful form of bullying, they'd choose latter.

Bullying is being done by those who claim to be fighting bullying. And that's the most disgusting thing about all of this. But what should we expect from a savage?

(This is a repost)

How 'Bout Dem Apples?

I know you'll be shocked by this, but Reuters continues to be biased in reporting about marriage neutering, and the Los Angeles Times is still obsessed. Read my analysis of their coverage of things in the State of Washington over at The Opine Editorials.

Two Opinion Pieces in the Los Angeles Times

The paper headlined Dimitri B. Papadimitriou’s piece "Need Jobs? Call on Government".

The subheadline is:

International experience shows that direct job creation by governments is one of the very few options that has succeeded at raising employment levels more than just marginally during a crisis.

Here's how the text starts:

Is high unemployment as certain as death and taxes? Of course not. But if we depend on the private sector to bring rates down, joblessness could join those two certainties.

Huh.

It's unreasonable to expect private enterprises to solve these problems.

That's like saying it is unreasonable to expect food to feed people. You're right - it is unreasonable when you have oversized and overly intrusive government inefficiently handling the food and impeding farmers.

Full employment isn't an objective of businesses.

It's not an "objective of business" to innovate, either, but that's what businesses to do to make profits.

In contrast, direct public-service job creation programs by governments have a history of long-term positive results.

Yeah, it's worked out so well in Greece, hasn't it, Papadimitriou?

At the theoretical heart of job-creation programs is this fact: Only government, because it is not seeking profitability when it is hiring, can create a demand for labor that is elastic enough to keep a nation near full employment.

But who is the government? It is the people. Specifically, in the sense he's writing, the government is People in Group A forcing people in Group B (some of whom are not in Group A) to pay for the things Group A deems worthy.

Government jobs that are funded through taxes depend on the private sector for funding. The more people employed in such government jobs instead of in the private sector, the greater the burden on the private sector. In theory, it would be better for someone who is unemployed and collecting redistributed (tax) funds to perform some work for that money, but the problem is government jobs tend to persist beyond their need, or when a private sector job could do the same work more efficiently. Perhaps government shouldn't be involved in charity in the first place?

Alexander Edmonds wrote a piece the paper titled "Is It Time to Ban Cosmetic Surgery?"

Go head. Conservative women are naturally hot. It's the Left that will suffer. And would such a ban include addadictomies, like the one Castity Bono is seeking?

The faulty breast implants made by the French company Poly Implants Protheses, or PIP, have grabbed headlines around the world in recent weeks, and it's no wonder. The prostheses are more prone to rupture than other models, and they contain an industrial grade of silicone never intended for use in a medical device.

Is this going to turn out like the Dow Corning thing, in which hysteria and fraudulent opportunism destroyed a legitimate enterprise?

Taxing the Kardashians

Sounds like a Ryan Seacrest-backed reality show.

Yes, Kim Kardashian can pay more in taxes and still live a good life. And I'm assuming that she's being targeted because people make the assumption that she doesn't deserve all of the money she has. Her talent seems to be... keeping people interested enough in her for long enough for her to make money doing things like talking on taped, edited video.

But are most of "the rich" anything like Kim Kardashian? Most of them have put in long hours and extra days of hard work on a consistent basis for years and years. Most of them have undertaken significant risks - not for the sake of being risky, but on the chance that it would pay off by providing goods or services for which people would be willing to pay. Most of them have created great jobs, great investments, and/or useful goods or services for many people. Their hard work and creativity have paid off, and they are rich.

But since so many of the loudest people in Hollywood either directly call for higher taxes or verbally and financially support politicians who do, how about we put a surcharge on wedding sponsorships (like from Kardashian's "wedding"), and earnings from acting in, directing, or producing feature films and television shows? That would mean Kim Kardashian would pay more, right? I'm sure the unions, such as the Screen Actors Guild, would be ever so helpful in making this happen.

When Government Gets Really Hands-On

Will Californians really vote to require condomns in "adult movies" filmed in California? What about "mainstream" movies that push that boundary?

What will the ads for this campaign be like?

Mind you, this is a state where 14-year-old girl can have her baby sucked into a sink without her parents ever been notified.

How will this be enforced? Will state government workers have to be on-set, or just view videos after they are produced and try to determine if they were produced in California or not? How will all of this work, given strict sexual harassment laws and policies?

The adult video industry in California has already suffered due to foreign competitors and the ubiquity of amateur porn. Will the industy move out of California? And will the tax loss be worth it?

Speaking of amateurs, what if a couple films themselves for their own viewing, then later that couple sells the video, or, as with certain celebrities, the video get's "stolen" and distributed. Will anyone be fined for not wearing condoms?
Prostitution, in which a man (it is almost always a man) pays someone else for sex will still be illegal, but if instead a third person pays that man and woman and films them, it will all be legal as long as the man being filmed wears a condom, right?
Does workplace oversight by the state really allow the state to do this, without allow the state to mandate it when no camera is around?

Do hear fiddling? Do I hear deck chairs being rearranged?