Author Topic: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces  (Read 926199 times)

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: Lincoln...
« Reply #1450 on: July 14, 2015, 01:26:28 PM »
I'm not arguing that abolishing slavery was a bad thing, and neither is Dr. Williams (who by the way, is black.)  What both of us are saying is that the rationale used by Lincoln was intellectually dishonest and simply not correct.  The individual members of a confederation have the inherent right to nullify the agreement if they feel they are being abused by the federation.  The issue of the morality of slavery is separate and distinct.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1451 on: July 15, 2015, 12:25:57 PM »
Excellent posts-- but would someone please post them on the American history thread or the Constitutional law thread?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1452 on: July 15, 2015, 05:41:01 PM »
I like Walter Williams and am aware he is black. The reasons and motivations behind the civil war are complex, however the institution of slavery was unacceptable and ending it at gunpoint was the correct thing to do.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Rothstein: Why did Europe conquer the world?
« Reply #1453 on: July 19, 2015, 09:22:39 AM »

Why Did Europe Conquer the World?

By Philip T. Hoffman
Princeton, 272 pages, $29.95

Such abstract formulations—mainly relegated to footnotes and appendices—make an appearance because Mr. Hoffman, who teaches at the California Institute of Technology, uses economic theory to scrutinize the supremacy of the West. He notes that scholars have ascribed Europe’s success to a variety of features: geographical and ecological advantages (Jared Diamond in “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” 1997); competitive markets and military rivalries ( Paul Kennedy in “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” 1987); a culture that stresses adaptability and a fierce defense of democracy ( Victor Davis Hanson in “Carnage and Culture,” 2001); a style of detached investigation and scientific inquiry ( David Landes in “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations,” 1998); and principles like private property and the rule of law ( Niall Ferguson in “Civilization: The West and the Rest,” 2011). Mr. Hoffman, finding many of their answers unsatisfactory, suggests something different: the West’s mastery of gunpowder.

This claim may seem strange. Gunpowder was discovered in China and was in wide use in the Ottoman Empire. Yet well before the Industrial Revolution, Mr. Hoffman argues, the West surpassed the war-making capacity of other societies by improving the accuracy, range and speed of its weaponry. Why? First, Mr. Hoffman says, because of political priorities. Today we expect leaders to deliver prosperity, security and peace, but in early modern Europe the belief was, as Machiavelli put it, that rulers “ought to have no object, thought, or profession but war.”

War was the main reason why taxes were levied. In the two centuries before 1750, between 40% and 80% of European government budgets went to the military. European tax rates were also significantly higher than those in other regions. In 1776, England’s per capita taxes (measured in grams of silver) were equivalent to about 180 grams, France’s to 61 grams and China’s to just 7 grams.
Advertisement

European nations also gained proficiency through experience, not least when fighting among themselves. Between 1550 and 1600, Mr. Hoffman says, the principal European powers were at war 71% of the time; from 1600 to 1650, 66% of the time. And because nearly all European battles used gunpowder technology—unlike, say, those in China, where nomadic tribes were routinely fought without such weaponry—the result was innovation and mastery: “learning by doing,” as Mr. Hoffman puts it.

If money and practice gave the West an edge, other factors played a role as well. Mr. Hoffman uses a “tournament model” of economic competition to examine the variables affecting military success and suggests that, for several centuries, European nations, fighting among themselves, steadily gained the mastery to overwhelm others. In this model, two powers vie for a prize (financial gain, land, glory). To attain it they must first raise taxes and build armies and an infrastructure. The real variations come when war breaks out. Rulers must mobilize fighters and prepare for battle; there might be different amounts of money spent but also different political costs to mobilization—say, in the political deals made or the taxes raised for war or the reactions of the populace. According to the model, the odds of winning are assumed to be proportional to the resources being mobilized: Spend more and you have a better chance of winning. The odds increase if your political costs are low—e.g., if there is little popular opposition. Both high resource use and low political costs were generally true in the West in centuries of internecine wars, which gave them distinctive advantages in world conquest.

The model is illuminating: A nation might refuse to fight, for example, if it were facing a powerful opponent, thus ceding the prize. Mr. Hoffman calls the result “peace”—but it is created by intimidation, accommodation or appeasement. War is more likely when nations are roughly equivalent than when one of them is immensely superior (the Pax Romana). The model can be made more sophisticated by incorporating the effects of innovation, which may lower costs and also increase fighting efficiency.

Through such analysis, Mr. Hoffman finds four conditions in early modern Europe that he finds nowhere else: (1) frequent wars between countries that have roughly the same size and financial power; (2) huge sums lavished on warfare along with low political costs; (3) the heavy use of gunpowder technology; and (4) few obstacles blocking innovation. Mr. Hoffman observes that European governments uniquely allowed their war technologies to be used for private expeditions. Entrepreneurial explorers as well as corporations like the Dutch East India Co. engaged in colonization, conquest and trade.

With all of this nurturing, gunpowder technology advanced rapidly. One rough measure: The relative price of pistols in England, between the mid-16th century and the early 18th, fell by a factor of six. Other countries couldn’t match the efficiency. In the 17th century, the prices of Chinese weapons were much higher than their equivalents in England. The “model makes clear,” Mr. Hoffman writes, “once and for all, the political and military conditions that distinguished Europe from the rest of the world.” And that gave them the ability to readily conquer foreign armies, none of which were remotely as deadly as the European forces.

Mr. Hoffman’s argument is both brilliant and eccentric: brilliant in the way it contributes to historical speculation, eccentric in its formalist reduction of a culture’s complexities. But look what kind of European order it conjures up: Here are a group of fierce, Spartan-like states warring with one another, battling over colonial holdings, trying to expand their terrain, perfecting their weaponry. Such a portrait actually resembles the familiar caricature of the West, in which the West is considered a military culture that achieved dominance through ruthless combat and acquisitiveness, resulting in centuries of imperialism, slavery and exploitation. And indeed, Mr. Hoffman concludes that the triumph of the West imposed overwhelmingly heavy costs on the populations of Europe and that outside of Europe “the damage done was immeasurably greater.”

The widespread acceptance of this general belief can now be seen in the West’s self-denigrating view of itself—in the confessions of guilt, gestures to make recompense, and shamefaced withdrawal from the exercise of power and self-interest. Such a perspective, though, is deeply flawed. Imperial desires, slavery and exploitation have been hallmarks of every powerful culture and are hardly unique to the West (more unique, in fact, is the West’s abolition of slavery). The presence of villainy (another universal) also explains nothing. Mr. Hoffman helps explain a certain kind of success but not a certain kind of civilization. And it’s not clear that the two can be so easily separated.

In fact, gunpowder advances may be not the cause of Western power but a reflection of it—the power of its ideas and modes of understanding. Innovation depends on a certain kind of ambition and a particular way of thinking; it doesn’t happen simply because there are few obstacles and many resources, as Mr. Hoffman’s theory suggests. Thus for millennia most nomadic tribes didn’t go beyond bow-and-arrow technologies. Building a better gun requires a grasp of physical principles and a certain flexibility of mind—being able to apply those principles in new ways. Innovation is thus in part a scientific enterprise and a product of the same impulses that shaped the Western Renaissance.

Similarly, the far-flung explorations that characterized early modern Europe were not undertaken just to attain power and riches; they reflected a desire to illuminate the unknown, to comprehend the universe and map its qualities, to discover not just novelties but fundamental principles. They involved a kind of nervy geographic universalism. This is one reason why the West might be the only culture in human history to undertake the systematic study and analysis of other cultures, discerning differences and commonalities. These impulses and their moral implications are more rare than the mastery of gunpowder—and more powerful.

—Mr. Rothstein is the Journal’s critic

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19761
    • View Profile
A data base world - perfect for the left!
« Reply #1454 on: July 19, 2015, 12:25:33 PM »
Some thoughts from the top of my head:

Gathering data and mining it with statistics and formulas and conclusions and then formulating policy from that is a perfect storm against the right.

In medicine the new coding formula with tens of thousands of codes trying to categorize every health ailment into a code that can be translated into a set of ones and zeros is making our heads spin in medicine. 

Now we see on Drudge bamster and his liberal policy makers from the Ivy's along with his fascist friends in tech doing the same with "racial" profiling.

The legal system is also a target.

This explosion of data is perfect for liberals to use in ways that they will insist is for social justice and equality.  They are the new Kings, the new Emporers, the new Queens, the new despots.

Freedom is defined as that which is permissable by THEM.

Not by our Constitution.

Data is easy to interpret in many different ways and the opportunity for nefarious misuse much greater but subtle and under the radar  that makes this very dangerous.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: Steyn on McCain & Trump...
« Reply #1456 on: July 24, 2015, 08:12:09 AM »
I LOVE Mark Steyn.  He tells it like it is - John McCain IS an A-hole - ask anyone who's ever worked with him...
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
VDH: Trump and the Fed-up Crowd
« Reply #1457 on: July 28, 2015, 08:59:59 AM »
Donald Trump and the Fed-Up Crowd
July 27, 2015 8:11 am / 40 Comments / victorhanson
Watching Trump’s rise, America’s middle class “fed-up crowd” is enjoying the comeuppance of an elite that never pays for the ramifications of its own ideology.

by Victor Davis Hanson // PJ Media
Yeah, I kind of love this guy —->@unsavoryagents [1] Ha ha #LosAngeles [2] violent crime up 26% wake up! #SanctuaryCity [3] pic.twitter.com/4TtvwVWY5C [4] — RockPrincess (@Rockprincess818) July 10, 2015 [5]

Yeah, I kind of love this guy —->@unsavoryagents [1] Ha ha #LosAngeles [2] violent crime up 26% wake up! #SanctuaryCity [3] pic.twitter.com/4TtvwVWY5C [4]
— RockPrincess (@Rockprincess818) July 10, 2015 [5]
Donald Trump — a former liberal and benefactor of Democrats — is still surging. But his loud New York lingo, popular put-downs of obnoxious reporters and trashing of the D.C. establishment are symptoms, not the catalyst, of the growing popular outrage of lots of angry Americans who are fed up.The fed-up crowd likes the payback of watching blood sport in an arena where niceties just don’t apply anymore. At least for a while longer, they enjoy the smug getting their comeuppance, as an uncouth, bullheaded Trump charges about, snorting and spearing liberal pieties and more sober and judicious Republicans at random.

Perhaps they don’t see the abjectly crude Trump as any more crude that Barack Obama calmly in academic tones assuring Americans that they all could keep their doctors and health plans when he knew that was simply untrue or announcing to the nation that his own grandmother was a “typical white person” or advising supporters to “get in their face.”  They see Trump as no more vindictive that Harry Reid lying about Mitt Romney’s tax returns (and then bragging that such a lie helped defeat him), or a Sen. Barbara Boxer publicly attac­­king the single, non-parental status of then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. And they certainly don’t see Trump as uncouth as an Al Sharpton — former presidential candidate, chief advisor on matters of race to Barack Obama, and current TV news show host. Trump’s crass bombast is enjoyed by the fed-up crowd as the proper antidote to the even greater bombast of the Left, who created Trump’s latest manifestations.

The conservative base is tired of illegal immigration. Their furor peaked with the horrific killing of Kate Steinle by a seven-time convicted felon and five-time deported illegal alien.  They are baffled that one apparently exempt and privileged ethnic group can arbitrarily decide to ignore federal law. They are irate that they are lectured about their supposed racism from an open-borders movement predicated on La Raza-like ethnic chauvinism. They do not want to hear about nativism from a lobby that so often at rallies waves the flag of the country that none of the protestors seems to wish to return to, a country whose authoritarianism is romanticized as much as their host country is faulted for its magnanimity. Call this what you will, but emotion over neglecting federal law is much less worrisome than cool calculation over violating it.

The fed-up crowd expects statistics to be massaged to counter reality; in the real world nearly a million illegal aliens have committed crimes, with almost 700,000 charged with felonies and serious misdemeanors. In fantasyland, they are said to be more lawful than U.S. citizens. Most Americans would be guilty of felonies for creating false identities, or using fraudulent Social Security numbers; in matters of illegal immigration, these common crimes are not even considered crimes.

The furor over the death of Ms. Steinle reflected the mounting outrage — especially at the hypocrisy of the elites who crafted sanctuary-city legislation. Would they be so nonchalant about the law if a daughter of one of the architects of the legislation were to be gunned down by an illegal alien? Would San Franciscans object if Tulsa nullified federal gun legislation or declared open season on federally protected species? Only liberalism can take a reactionary Old Confederacy idea of federal nullification and turn it into a progressive fad.

The recent disclosures about Planned Parenthood likewise infuriated the fed-up base. Again, they were not incensed just at the callous and sick way supposed humanitarians at Planned Parenthood talked of slicing up fetal tissue and selling organs, but at the hypocrisy of it all. At a time liberals are Trotskyzing our past to damn to memory any ancient historical figure who owned slaves or practiced racism, how does Planned Parenthood’s godhead Margaret Sanger, the racist eugenicist and promoter of abortion to curb minority populations [6], get a pass?

Liberals lecture about “settled science” and adherence to logic instead of myth and folklore. But they also insist on talking of fetuses as non-human organisms, even as they concede both that fetuses in the womb possess viable — and marketable — human tissues and that developing babies at 22 weeks are now viable outside the womb.

For those who bandy about words like troglodyte, it is quite Neanderthal, in the scientific sense, to believe that a baby is not a living, viable organism until it emerges from the birth canal. For a movement that talks of caring and compassion, it is hard to write a script more cruel and callous than that of the Planned Parenthood talking heads referencing a Lamborghini or a “less crunchy” abortion technique or the macabre house of horrors of the abortionist and convicted murderer Dr. Gosnell. As for the supposed questionable ethics of catching Planned Parenthood with ruse and stealthy tape, no one seemed to object over secretly taping at a private gathering Mitt Romney’s unfortunate quip about the “47 percent,” much less did liberals object to four decades of 60 Minutes ambush-style, secret-video reporting.

The fed-up crowd is tired of racial hypocrisy. In the Trayvon Martin case, the president weighed in on the ongoing case in blatantly racist fashion by announcing the deceased might have looked like his own son, as the New York Times invented “white Hispanic” to lessen George’s Zimmerman’s ethnic fides (e.g., is Barack Obama, of similar half-minority lineage, a “white African-American”?) and as the media photo-shopped Zimmerman’s head wounds and selectively edited his taped 911 call.

Fantasy was thematic ad nauseam from the Duke lacrosse fiasco to the Michael Brown mythologies, the font of the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie that became a national slogan. But again, the hypocrisy is what irritates more — a Barack Obama siccing his administration after supposedly elite segregated neighborhoods as he sends his kids to Sidwell Friends.

The fed-up crowd expects that Paula Deen, the Duck Dynasty crowd, and Donald Sterling can become public enemies with a racist or insensitive word. But this is not so when a Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Chris Rock, Jamie Foxx, Spike Lee, Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson mouths unequivocal racism. They assume that Jefferson can be rendered no more than a slave owner, but not liberal icon Woodrow Wilson who practiced 20th-century not 18th-century-style racism.

The fed-up crowd senses that if America continues its present regressive trajectory it will end up as a Greece, Detroit, or Chicago, without anywhere in America to flee to. It no doubt wants Trump to continue for a bit longer, as he struts about and shouts over why Hillary has a career when Gen. David Petraeus’s was ruined for roughly the same offenses, or cuts short an agenda-driven and biased Telemundo reporter as biased and agenda-driven. At some point the fed-ups will have vented and become fed up themselves with the circus-master Trump, who equates his own money-making with both virtue and wisdom. But we are not there yet quite yet.

To explain the inexplicable rise of Donald Trump is to calibrate the anger of a fed-up crowd that is enjoying the comeuppance of an elite that never pays for the ramifications of its own ideology. The elite media, whose trademark is fad and cant, writes off the fed-up crowd as naïve and susceptible to demagoguery as the contradictory and hypocritical Trump manipulates their anger. In fact, they probably got it backwards. Trump is a transitory vehicle of the fed-up crowd, a current expression of their distaste for both Democratic and Republican politics, but not an end in and of himself. The fed-up crowd is tired of being demagogued to death by progressives, who brag of “working across the aisle” and “bipartisanship” as they ram through agendas with executive orders, court decisions, and public ridicule. So the fed-ups want other conservative candidates to emulate Trump’s verve, energy, eagerness to speak the unspeakable, and no-holds barred Lee Atwater style — without otherwise being Trump.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19761
    • View Profile
VDH "is the man"
« Reply #1458 on: July 28, 2015, 09:54:43 AM »
" So the fed-ups want other conservative candidates to emulate Trump’s verve, energy, eagerness to speak the unspeakable, and no-holds barred Lee Atwater style — without otherwise being Trump."

VDH ***gets it***!!!

Yet CNN, Republicans and Fox troglodites are scratching their collective heads, "gee wiz I don't understand why Trump is so popular".

As I've said before no one party represents ME.

Trump speaks like he does represent me.

So he is refreshing.

I will not vote for Bush or Kasich, period.

Why bother?





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
Quote Worth Noting
« Reply #1460 on: August 27, 2015, 04:57:40 PM »
It's a bad idea, even posthumously, to give suicide murderers exactly what they want:

Quote
A suicide-homicide is an act of ultimate rage. People who do these kinds of things feel like they’re the victims. Their acts of suicide and homicide are a way to make a point. Although they don’t live to see the results, they would probably like what they see: Millions of people not only being momentarily horrified, but agreeing with the murderer’s classification of him- or herself as a victim. Whatever the President and the Pope have to say about this, rest assured that the killer — if he were alive to hear — would be happily applauding.

Michael Hurd.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Generational Changes are bigger than any presidential candidate
« Reply #1462 on: September 01, 2015, 08:01:44 AM »
Generational Economic Changes Are Bigger than Any Presidential Candidate

These are the sort of thoughts that come to mind when a bunch of conservative bloggers get together and start arguing about Donald Trump . . .

Americans came to think of the economic conditions of the postwar boom -- low unemployment, easy entry into the workplace, job stability, considerable purchasing power and lots of consumer goods, high exports, good pensions, etc. as “normal.” What no one wanted to really acknowledge was how rare our advantage of that era was: We were an intact first-world economy on a planet where almost every other country was rebuilding from being blasted to hell during World War II.

Decade by decade, the rest of the world caught up and offered economic competition, primarily in the form of cheaper labor. The debate between trade and protectionism was largely one among elites. Non-wonk Americans lamented the decline of manufacturing jobs while buying Japanese (and then Chinese, Korean, and Taiwanese) electronics, German and Japanese cars, etc. Free trade is terrific for consumers but not so great when somebody overseas can do your job for less money. From where I sit, it’s on the whole advantageous but horrible if it’s your job being “outsourced” overseas.

The public’s interest would briefly stir for NAFTA or Most Favored Nation status for China, but by and large, Americans either applauded globalization, loved its benefits but lamented its costs without ever connecting the two, or just ignored it.

For a while, Americans were told that the graduate-high-school-and-go-to-the-widget-factory-assembly-line life model was disappearing, but was being replaced with a better one: graduate-from-college-and-go-to-the-white-collar-job. In fact, it was so much better, it was worth taking on tens of thousands or even $150,000 in debt, because you would make more money over the course of your lifetime.

And then, sometime around the Great Recession, that deal changed, too. Companies realized they didn’t need that many entry-level positions (or they could shift it to unpaid labor in the form of internships). Undoubtedly, some colleges let their standards slide, and too many young people focused on basket-weaving, gender studies, or humanities majors and found themselves with a degree that didn’t translate well to the needs of the job market. A dramatic expansion of unskilled labor in the form of illegal immigration put the squeeze on another corner of the workforce; automation did even more. For many, that path to the good life seems steeper, rockier, and less clear than their parents ever faced.

Some folks at the top of the economic pyramid were or are quite comfortable with the new arrangement, offering perspectives like, “If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile means one American drops out of the middle class, that’s not such a bad trade,” and, “We demand a higher paycheck than the rest of the world. So if you’re going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value. It sounds harsh, but maybe people in the middle class need to decide to take a pay cut.” An American company may not self-identify as all that American anymore, and certainly doesn’t feel much obligation to put a national interest ahead of the bottom line.

These are giant, sweeping problems that are best measured on generational time-frames and go well beyond one law or one president or lawmaker. This change is tied to our nation’s long, slow, painful slide from a system of public schools where kids were likely to get at least a “good enough” education to prepare them for the workforce to one where public schools range from excellent to abysmal. It’s tied to the U.S. going from a nation of 14 million immigrants in 1980 (both legal and illegal, 6.2 percent of the population) to 40 million immigrants in 2010 (12.9 percent). It’s tied to changing from a world with one primary, stable, relatively predictable antagonist (the Soviet Union) to an asymmetric, multinational, amorphous, adaptive slate of demonic foes like ISIS and al Qaeda. And it’s tied up in going from a relative monoculture influenced by Judeo-Christian values and identities to a cultural Balkanization where the counterculture became the dominant culture, then shattered itself.

Ultimately, electing a better president is one step on the road -- an important one, but only one. A lot of this comes down to what Americans expect of themselves. Do we want to compete in the global economy, and if not, are we willing to live with the consequences of closing ourselves off from the rest of the world? Are we willing to study hard to be qualified for good jobs and work hard once we get them? Are our companies willing to see themselves as national institutions instead of global ones? Are employers willing to show greater loyalty to their employees, and are their employees willing to reciprocate?

It would be spectacular if we could shake the country out of its fascination with caudillo-like figures. You would hope people would have learned from the experience of electing Barack Obama the Lightworker, the Munificent Sun God, the first man to step down into the presidency. But no, for far too many people, the lesson is not that we shouldn’t look to a president to be our savior, it’s that we chose the wrong one -- but Hillary, or Donald Trump, or Bernie Sanders will be the right savior.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Stratfor: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power
« Reply #1466 on: September 12, 2015, 08:07:55 AM »
An interesting discussion, albeit flawed IMHO:

Summary

Editor's Note: To mark Labor Day, we are republishing Stratfor founder George Friedman's essay on how the American middle class — one of the country's core values — is steadily losing ground. This analysis was originally published in January 2013, when unemployment in the United States was hovering around 8 percent and recovery from the 2008-2009 financial crisis was still tenuous.
Analysis

By George Friedman

When I wrote about the crisis of unemployment in Europe, I received a great deal of feedback. Europeans agreed that this is the core problem while Americans argued that the United States has the same problem, asserting that U.S. unemployment is twice as high as the government's official unemployment rate. My counterargument is that unemployment in the United States is not a problem in the same sense that it is in Europe because it does not pose a geopolitical threat. The United States does not face political disintegration from unemployment, whatever the number is. Europe might.

At the same time, I would agree that the United States faces a potentially significant but longer-term geopolitical problem deriving from economic trends. The threat to the United States is the persistent decline in the middle class' standard of living, a problem that is reshaping the social order that has been in place since World War II and that, if it continues, poses a threat to American power.
The Crisis of the American Middle Class

The median household income of Americans in 2011 was $49,103. Adjusted for inflation, the median income is just below what it was in 1989 and is $4,000 less than it was in 2000. Take-home income is a bit less than $40,000 when Social Security and state and federal taxes are included. That means a monthly income, per household, of about $3,300. It is urgent to bear in mind that half of all American households earn less than this. It is also vital to consider not the difference between 1990 and 2011, but the difference between the 1950s and 1960s and the 21st century. This is where the difference in the meaning of middle class becomes most apparent.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the median income allowed you to live with a single earner — normally the husband, with the wife typically working as homemaker — and roughly three children. It permitted the purchase of modest tract housing, one late model car and an older one. It allowed a driving vacation somewhere and, with care, some savings as well. I know this because my family was lower-middle class, and this is how we lived, and I know many others in my generation who had the same background. It was not an easy life and many luxuries were denied us, but it wasn't a bad life at all.

Someone earning the median income today might just pull this off, but it wouldn't be easy. Assuming that he did not have college loans to pay off but did have two car loans to pay totaling $700 a month, and that he could buy food, clothing and cover his utilities for $1,200 a month, he would have $1,400 a month for mortgage, real estate taxes and insurance, plus some funds for fixing the air conditioner and dishwasher. At a 5 percent mortgage rate, that would allow him to buy a house in the $200,000 range. He would get a refund back on his taxes from deductions but that would go to pay credit card bills he had from Christmas presents and emergencies. It could be done, but not easily and with great difficulty in major metropolitan areas. And if his employer didn't cover health insurance, that $4,000-5,000 for three or four people would severely limit his expenses. And of course, he would have to have $20,000-40,000 for a down payment and closing costs on his home. There would be little else left over for a week at the seashore with the kids.

And this is for the median. Those below him — half of all households — would be shut out of what is considered middle-class life, with the house, the car and the other associated amenities. Those amenities shift upward on the scale for people with at least $70,000 in income. The basics might be available at the median level, given favorable individual circumstance, but below that life becomes surprisingly meager, even in the range of the middle class and certainly what used to be called the lower-middle class.

The Expectation of Upward Mobility

I should pause and mention that this was one of the fundamental causes of the 2007-2008 subprime lending crisis. People below the median took out loans with deferred interest with the expectation that their incomes would continue the rise that was traditional since World War II. The caricature of the borrower as irresponsible misses the point. The expectation of rising real incomes was built into the American culture, and many assumed based on that that the rise would resume in five years. When it didn't they were trapped, but given history, they were not making an irresponsible assumption.

American history was always filled with the assumption that upward mobility was possible. The Midwest and West opened land that could be exploited, and the massive industrialization in the late 19th and early 20th centuries opened opportunities. There was a systemic expectation of upward mobility built into American culture and reality.

The Great Depression was a shock to the system, and it wasn't solved by the New Deal, nor even by World War II alone. The next drive for upward mobility came from post-war programs for veterans, of whom there were more than 10 million. These programs were instrumental in creating post-industrial America, by creating a class of suburban professionals. There were three programs that were critical:

    The GI Bill, which allowed veterans to go to college after the war, becoming professionals frequently several notches above their parents.
    The part of the GI Bill that provided federally guaranteed mortgages to veterans, allowing low and no down payment mortgages and low interest rates to graduates of publicly funded universities.
    The federally funded Interstate Highway System, which made access to land close to but outside of cities easier, enabling both the dispersal of populations on inexpensive land (which made single-family houses possible) and, later, the dispersal of business to the suburbs.

There were undoubtedly many other things that contributed to this, but these three not only reshaped America but also created a new dimension to the upward mobility that was built into American life from the beginning. Moreover, these programs were all directed toward veterans, to whom it was acknowledged a debt was due, or were created for military reasons (the Interstate Highway System was funded to enable the rapid movement of troops from coast to coast, which during World War II was found to be impossible). As a result, there was consensus around the moral propriety of the programs.

The subprime fiasco was rooted in the failure to understand that the foundations of middle class life were not under temporary pressure but something more fundamental. Where a single earner could support a middle class family in the generation after World War II, it now took at least two earners. That meant that the rise of the double-income family corresponded with the decline of the middle class. The lower you go on the income scale, the more likely you are to be a single mother. That shift away from social pressure for two parent homes was certainly part of the problem.

Re-engineering the Corporation

But there was, I think, the crisis of the modern corporation. Corporations provided long-term employment to the middle class. It was not unusual to spend your entire life working for one. Working for a corporation, you received yearly pay increases, either as a union or non-union worker. The middle class had both job security and rising income, along with retirement and other benefits. Over the course of time, the culture of the corporation diverged from the realities, as corporate productivity lagged behind costs and the corporations became more and more dysfunctional and ultimately unsupportable. In addition, the corporations ceased focusing on doing one thing well and instead became conglomerates, with a management frequently unable to keep up with the complexity of multiple lines of business.

For these and many other reasons, the corporation became increasingly inefficient, and in the terms of the 1980s, they had to be re-engineered — which meant taken apart, pared down, refined and refocused. And the re-engineering of the corporation, designed to make them agile, meant that there was a permanent revolution in business. Everything was being reinvented. Huge amounts of money, managed by people whose specialty was re-engineering companies, were deployed. The choice was between total failure and radical change. From the point of view of the individual worker, this frequently meant the same thing: unemployment. From the view of the economy, it meant the creation of value whether through breaking up companies, closing some of them or sending jobs overseas. It was designed to increase the total efficiency, and it worked for the most part.

This is where the disjuncture occurred. From the point of view of the investor, they had saved the corporation from total meltdown by redesigning it. From the point of view of the workers, some retained the jobs that they would have lost, while others lost the jobs they would have lost anyway. But the important thing is not the subjective bitterness of those who lost their jobs, but something more complex.

As the permanent corporate jobs declined, more people were starting over. Some of them were starting over every few years as the agile corporation grew more efficient and needed fewer employees. That meant that if they got new jobs it would not be at the munificent corporate pay rate but at near entry-level rates in the small companies that were now the growth engine. As these companies failed, were bought or shifted direction, they would lose their jobs and start over again. Wages didn't rise for them and for long periods they might be unemployed, never to get a job again in their now obsolete fields, and certainly not working at a company for the next 20 years.

The restructuring of inefficient companies did create substantial value, but that value did not flow to the now laid-off workers. Some might flow to the remaining workers, but much of it went to the engineers who restructured the companies and the investors they represented. Statistics reveal that, since 1947 (when the data was first compiled), corporate profits as a percentage of gross domestic product are now at their highest level, while wages as a percentage of GDP are now at their lowest level. It was not a question of making the economy more efficient — it did do that — it was a question of where the value accumulated. The upper segment of the wage curve and the investors continued to make money. The middle class divided into a segment that entered the upper-middle class, while another faction sank into the lower-middle class.

American society on the whole was never egalitarian. It always accepted that there would be substantial differences in wages and wealth. Indeed, progress was in some ways driven by a desire to emulate the wealthy. There was also the expectation that while others received far more, the entire wealth structure would rise in tandem. It was also understood that, because of skill or luck, others would lose.

What we are facing now is a structural shift, in which the middle class' center, not because of laziness or stupidity, is shifting downward in terms of standard of living. It is a structural shift that is rooted in social change (the breakdown of the conventional family) and economic change (the decline of traditional corporations and the creation of corporate agility that places individual workers at a massive disadvantage).

The inherent crisis rests in an increasingly efficient economy and a population that can't consume what is produced because it can't afford the products. This has happened numerous times in history, but the United States, excepting the Great Depression, was the counterexample.

Obviously, this is a massive political debate, save that political debates identify problems without clarifying them. In political debates, someone must be blamed. In reality, these processes are beyond even the government's ability to control. On one hand, the traditional corporation was beneficial to the workers until it collapsed under the burden of its costs. On the other hand, the efficiencies created threaten to undermine consumption by weakening the effective demand among half of society.
The Long-Term Threat

The greatest danger is one that will not be faced for decades but that is lurking out there. The United States was built on the assumption that a rising tide lifts all ships. That has not been the case for the past generation, and there is no indication that this socio-economic reality will change any time soon. That means that a core assumption is at risk. The problem is that social stability has been built around this assumption — not on the assumption that everyone is owed a living, but the assumption that on the whole, all benefit from growing productivity and efficiency.

If we move to a system where half of the country is either stagnant or losing ground while the other half is surging, the social fabric of the United States is at risk, and with it the massive global power the United States has accumulated. Other superpowers such as Britain or Rome did not have the idea of a perpetually improving condition of the middle class as a core value. The United States does. If it loses that, it loses one of the pillars of its geopolitical power.

The left would argue that the solution is for laws to transfer wealth from the rich to the middle class. That would increase consumption but, depending on the scope, would threaten the amount of capital available to investment by the transfer itself and by eliminating incentives to invest. You can't invest what you don't have, and you won't accept the risk of investment if the payoff is transferred away from you.

The agility of the American corporation is critical. The right will argue that allowing the free market to function will fix the problem. The free market doesn't guarantee social outcomes, merely economic ones. In other words, it may give more efficiency on the whole and grow the economy as a whole, but by itself it doesn't guarantee how wealth is distributed. The left cannot be indifferent to the historical consequences of extreme redistribution of wealth. The right cannot be indifferent to the political consequences of a middle-class life undermined, nor can it be indifferent to half the population's inability to buy the products and services that businesses sell.

The most significant actions made by governments tend to be unintentional. The GI Bill was designed to limit unemployment among returning serviceman; it inadvertently created a professional class of college graduates. The VA loan was designed to stimulate the construction industry; it created the basis for suburban home ownership. The Interstate Highway System was meant to move troops rapidly in the event of war; it created a new pattern of land use that was suburbia.

It is unclear how the private sector can deal with the problem of pressure on the middle class. Government programs frequently fail to fulfill even minimal intentions while squandering scarce resources. The United States has been a fortunate country, with solutions frequently emerging in unexpected ways.

It would seem to me that unless the United States gets lucky again, its global dominance is in jeopardy. Considering its history, the United States can expect to get lucky again, but it usually gets lucky when it is frightened. And at this point it isn't frightened but angry, believing that if only its own solutions were employed, this problem and all others would go away. I am arguing that the conventional solutions offered by all sides do not yet grasp the magnitude of the problem — that the foundation of American society is at risk — and therefore all sides are content to repeat what has been said before.

People who are smarter and luckier than I am will have to craft the solution. I am simply pointing out the potential consequences of the problem and the inadequacy of all the ideas I have seen so far.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Things that make you go hmmm , , ,
« Reply #1468 on: September 23, 2015, 08:00:49 AM »
https://www.facebook.com/supporttonyabbott/photos/a.543213439116244.1073741829.539741976130057/757523487685237/?type=3

What is the difference between the vast majority of peaceful muslims and bigfoot?

There are people who claim to have seen bigfoot.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Wesbury: TARP created Trump
« Reply #1469 on: September 24, 2015, 06:52:59 PM »
Back in 2008, rather than fix mark-to-market accounting, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulsen, Federal Reserve Board Chair Ben Bernanke, and other members of the financial market crisis team, chose to use a government-funded bazooka. A $700 billion bank bailout named The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

President Bush, who authorized this approach, later explained it by saying he “abandoned free market principles to save the free market.” That statement makes no sense. Either you believe in free markets, or you don’t. Violating a free market means it’s not free. More truthfully, the Bush team abandoned free markets because it was the politically expedient thing to do.

But, by doing this, Republican leadership undermined a sacrosanct belief of conservatism – markets are self-healing and government intervention creates unintended consequences. Abandoning this philosophy left voters literally adrift. Politics is just politics. The GOP ship has no anchor or rudder. Why vote for a philosophy if those who claim to support it do so only when it is convenient? The result: Donald Trump.

The subprime bubble was government failure, not free market failure. We knew back then, and we have the data now to prove that government had created the housing bubble. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy subprime loans. To fulfill government mandates, Fannie and Freddie “pushed” banks to make loans to low and moderate income families. This required accepting lower credit scores and smaller down-payments. And that’s exactly what the private sector did; fill government orders.

Then, when these loans inevitably started to go bad, mark-to-market accounting forced banks to write down assets that were still viable, to illiquid, virtually non-existent market prices. On paper, this destroyed private bank capital, forcing them into the arms of the government. Hank Paulsen knew this, but refused to change the rule. Instead, he used massive government intervention and justified it by saying the market would fail without it. He didn’t believe in free markets.

What no one talks about is the fact that the S&P 500 fell an additional 40% after TARP was passed. The $700 billion didn’t save the banks or the economy. In fact, the $700 billion was sucked up by mark-to-market losses, which would have continued indefinitely without a change in rules. Thank the Lord that this happened in March 2009 when Congress forced the Accounting Board to fix it. That’s when the market and the economy bottomed, not when government flooded the system with money.
Nonetheless, the philosophical damage was done. Government grew, TARP was used to justify passage of Dodd-Frank financial regulation. But most importantly, it created a narrative that the private sector, and fat cat bankers, needed a government bailout. This was a huge political mistake that the GOP has yet to recover from.

The GOP created a “mosh pit” of beliefs that elevates personal desires, inconsistent thinking, an interventionist government, a mistrust of private institutions, fear of our own neighbors, and celebrity above consistent philosophy and trust in our fellow man. And they have governed like that ever since, refusing to use the power of the purse to stop Obamacare (even though they said that the healthcare law would destroy America) and refusing to use scandal at the VA to show how bad government run healthcare really is. Ending one-half the Sequester, and claiming it was conservative to do so, was also nonsense. Don’t misunderstand, no one is going into the voting booth with TARP, itself, on their mind. What they know is that the GOP is just another political party who abandons philosophy for expediency.

And this has far reaching effects. If the GOP doesn’t trust banks, why is President Obama wrong when he says we shouldn’t trust private health insurers or power plants?
If the GOP can’t stand up and defend free markets and its supposed core principles, how can it ever stand up to political arguments from the left?

Unfortunately, this argument will fall on deaf ears to many because it seems so out of sync with the narrative that politicians of both sides want you to believe. The GOP will not admit it made a mistake with TARP, neither will those who supported it, like The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page. And the Democrats believe in big government and evil corporations, so they love this, just like they loved the Great Depression – Happy Days Are Here Again!

In the meantime, the establishment GOP, when it had complete control of government, grew the government. And, now, that it controls the Senate and the House, but does not have a super majority, it says, well, we need to play along so we can get a GOP president in the White House. Then they will cut the size of government. In other words, they have no real principles except a desire for power.

What they do have is lots of lung power for blasting Donald Trump. But isn’t it interesting that they say he isn’t a real conservative? Neither are they. I’m old enough to know a real conservative when I see one, and the current leadership is not conservative.

They are right that Donald Trump has no true guiding philosophical principles, at least none that are visible. “Making good deals” is not a principle, and it’s not even a strategy, it’s a tactic. On the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders is a socialist who doesn’t trust the private sector. Senator Sanders is attracting crowds because of his principles, winning political points when he claims the GOP only cares about bailing out fat cats. He has a point. Donald Trump is attracting crowds with tough talk even if it’s incoherent from a philosophical point of view, because the GOP and the President aren’t tough.

Neither candidate can “fix” the economy, not with their current proposals. But, voters don’t have a clear vision of what the US economy needs to be fixed, because the GOP pulled up the philosophical anchor. So, the next time the GOP claims Donald Trump isn’t reflective of conservative values, they ought to look in the mirror. They created him. The only way out is for Paul Ryan, George Bush, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, Hank Paulson and every other GOP member that supported TARP to admit it was a mistake.

The way to beat Donald Trump is to attack the Establishment GOP, not cozy up to it. Even John Kasich seems to understand this. Trump is the result of a vacuum in principled leadership. A rudderless ship, or a ship with no anchor in a storm, creates fear. True leadership has an anchor, a rudder. It’s time to elect a real conservative as president. Someone who can lead the American people back to a consistency of thought that supports free markets and fights against government growth. A true conservative GOP candidate will run against the establishment, pointing out its failure to hold any real philosophical ground. That will be the winning strategy come November 2016.

Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Click here for PDF version


Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
Well this Ought to Make . . .
« Reply #1470 on: September 30, 2015, 07:09:35 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Mark Levin Strikes Again
« Reply #1471 on: October 04, 2015, 07:31:07 PM »
Mark Levin Strikes Again
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on October 4, 2015
Mark Levin's new book, Plunder and Deceit, takes aim at the familiar catalog of destructive Obama Administration policies but with a new twist: He focuses, specifically, on how they harm children and the next generation.

It's quite a catalog beginning with how Common Core compromises educational integrity and quality and proceeds to show how the student loan industry keeps professors overpaid and underworked while it jails our young in a modern debtor's prison of obligations.  He explains how ObamaCare requires the young to pay higher insurance premiums that they should and how Social Security represents a massive robbery of our children to support us in our old age.  Levin chronicles how a host of public services are now being run to fund salaries and pensions of the workers who provide them, not to meet the needs of their intended recipients.  Nowhere is this pattern more blatant than in education where he teachers unions have come to epitomize the famous saying of their founder Albert Shanker who said "when school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of children."
 
Ultimately, ObamaCare will squeeze state and local budgets as they struggle to pay for the vast expansion of Medicaid.  By 2020, when the federal subsidies dial back and end, the burden of paying the local share of Medicaid will absorb all state revenues that might have been earmarked for education.  Forget about any teacher pay raises in the future.  The money all went to Medicaid.  We are paying for the health costs of America's poor (but not old) off the backs of our children's education.

But most interesting is the basic question Levin asks: Why are we so protective of our children as parents and so reckless in endangering them as citizens, voters, and taxpayers?  On the one hand, we overprotect our young and on the other, our fiscal policies are the equivalent of telling them to go play in the middle of traffic.

His question is capitalism on its head.  In our economy, we use personal selfish desires to power an economy that benefits us all.  But in this case, we use selfish public policies to screw our own children.

Leave it to Mark Levin to ask why.

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Some Cultures ARE Superior to Others...
« Reply #1472 on: October 06, 2015, 11:53:08 AM »
CHARLATANS AND SHEEP: PART III

The profound impact of culture.

October 6, 2015  Thomas Sowell   

The prevailing social dogma of our time — that economic and other disparities among groups are strange, if not sinister — has set off bitter disputes between those who blame genetic differences and those who blame discrimination.

Both sides ignore the possibility that groups themselves may differ in their orientations, their priorities and in what they are prepared to sacrifice for the sake of other things.

Back in the early 19th century, an official of the Russian Empire reported that even the poorest Jews saw to it that their daughters could read, and their homes had at least ten books. This was at a time when the vast majority of the population of the Russian Empire were illiterate.

During that same era, Thomas Jefferson complained that there was not a single bookstore where he lived. In Frederick Law Olmsted's travels through the antebellum South, he noted that even plantation owners seldom had many books.

But in mid-18th century Scotland, even people of modest means had books, and those too poor to buy them could rent books from lending libraries, which were common throughout Scottish towns.

There is no economic determinism. People choose what to spend their money on, and what to spend their time on. Cultures differ.

On a personal note, as a child nearly nine years old, I was one of the many blacks who migrated from the South to Harlem in the 1930s.

Although New York had public libraries, elite public high schools and free colleges of high quality, I had no idea what a public library was, or what an elite high school was, and the thought of going to college never crossed my mind.

Jewish immigrants who arrived in New York, generations before me, seized upon the opportunities provided by public libraries and later their children flooded into the elite public high schools and free city colleges. This was consistent with the values of their centuries-old culture.

For most of the black kids of my generation, those things might as well not have existed, because nothing in their culture would have pointed them toward such things.

There was no reason to believe that I would have been any different from the rest, except for the fact that members of my family, who had very little education themselves, wanted me to get the education that they never had a chance to get.

They had no more idea of the role of public libraries and elite quality high schools and colleges than I did.

But they knew a boy a little older than I was, who came from a better educated family, and they decided that he was somebody I should meet and who could serve as a guide to me on things they knew nothing about.

His name was Eddie Mapp, and I can still recall how he took me to a public library, and how patiently he tried to explain to me what a public library was, and why I should get a library card. He opened a door for me into a wider world. But most other black kids in Harlem at that time had no one to do that for them.

Nor did kids from various other ethnic groups in New York have someone to open doors to a wider world for them. It didn't matter how smart they were or whether opportunities were available for them, if they knew nothing about them.

An internationally renowned scholar of Irish American ancestry once said in a social gathering that, when he was a young man of college age, he had no plans to go to college, until someone else who recognized his ability urged him to do so. There was no reason to expect all groups to follow in the footsteps of the Jews.

In my later years, two middle-class couples I knew took it upon themselves to each take a young relative from the ghetto into their home and, at considerable cost in time and money, try to provide them with a good education.

One of these youngsters had an IQ two standard deviations above the mean. But both of them eventually returned to the ghetto life from which they came. It wasn't genetics and it wasn't discrimination.

The youngster with an IQ two standard deviations above the mean will probably never achieve what a Jewish or Asian youngster with an IQ only one standard deviation above the mean achieves.

Those who are celebrating the ghetto culture might consider what the cost is to those being raised in that culture. And they might reconsider what they are hearing from charlatans parading statistical disparities.



"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
What Police Patrol Patterns Tell You
« Reply #1473 on: October 08, 2015, 09:43:59 AM »
Don't see much empiric data in this piece, but it does reflect some of my observations, particularly when I have to contend with trips to DC or Baltimore. Note how the War on Drugs is the gift that keep on giving:

http://www.singledudetravel.com/2015/10/the-single-dudes-guide-to-survival-volume-3/

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1474 on: October 08, 2015, 10:18:12 AM »
BBG, interesting article.

Some observations from my own city....and also a comment on DC.

My nephew is in a high position with Metro DC police. They have a problem where in the really black and poor areas, crime is extensive. When murders occur, the people in the area will not cooperate with the police to solve the crime. It reached such a point that the cops told the residents that when major crimes occurred, they would come in and do a basic investigation but the people were otherwise on their own. They also told them that the crimes must stay in that area and if the perps committed crimes in other parts of the city, then the cops would come in and all hell would break out.

Today, DC has a huge problem with the Top Cops. They have created such an adversarial relationship with the beat cops and that they have "restricted" real enforcement standards to such a degree, crime has worsened even more. It is so bad that cops are leaving with just a handful of years left to retirement.

Now, to my city.......with the housing downturn, we suffered greatly. Cops leaving the force were not replaced, so for a city of 100k, we were down to 85 sworn officers, when 120 plus were authorized. Now, my comments about this in blue....

Police Patrol Style (from best to worse)

Beat cops on foot, evidence of commitment of the department to send immediate backup and of community support.
There are not enough cops to put them on foot. Plus in the dangerous areas, beat cops are unable to respond quickly.

Beat cops parked, evidence of community support, but lack of faith in backup.
This is an absurd conclusion. Beat cops parked are likely doing paperwork, or taking a short break. Often they are parked in staging areas waiting for additional cops so as to respond together to an incident. Smart cops do not respond alone.

Single officer patrolling in a cruiser, indication that policing patterns revolve around intelligence gathering, suggestive of ongoing crime.
Absurd again. They patrol in cars for quick response to incidents.

Single officers patrolling with flashers lit up, which is an attempt to seem more committed than they are in the face of spiraling crime.
Patrol with flashers lit? I haven't seen that.

Paired officers patrolling in the same cruiser for defensive purposes, which mean it has gotten so bad that the cops could care less about you, and have been briefed to protect themselves first and foremost.
Another absurd comment. Yes, there is concern for themselves, but this is not about not caring for the people they protect. This is about responding to incidents with enough "force" to ensure both safety and ability to solve the problem, especially domestic incident.

No visible police coverage, indicating that the police are busy elsewhere, and that this is known by opportunistic criminals, which would be 100% of the criminal population. An alternative, and even more ominous reading of this, is that the police are afraid to enter this area!
Agree with the first part. Cops are busy elsewhere.  Second argument........b.s.

In my city, crime was rampant caused by one part of the city. 3% of the population lived in one area (almost projects type) and caused over 65% of the crime. When major incidents occurred, due to lack of staffing, all units in the city would respond. Then, the next city over would cover other priority 2 and 3 calls. Priority 1 calls were put off until units couls respond, often taking a couple of hours or more. This continued for several years.

In 2014, the cops changed their practice with new hires coming on. The bad area now found cops patrolling all the time, no matter what other incidents were occurring. They would pull over anything suspicious and engaged in very aggressive profiling. Since then, crime and murders are down considerably because the bad elements were taken off the streets due to increased manpower.

Everything is situational....
PPulatie

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19761
    • View Profile
Not bad!
« Reply #1475 on: October 09, 2015, 12:20:43 PM »
She is quite attractive:    :-D

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVy5iEhhWDfMAKsNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=Renee+Ellmers&fr=yfp-t-901

True or not how dare any Dem use this as fodder after what they did to this country with Clinton.  

A Wikipedia insert  from a DHS IP address is a big deal however.
Likewise,  Secret Service agents looking up Chafitz file.  They must all be fired. All of them except the reported few who had legitimate reasons to at his file.
These people work for us not the other way around.

Somebody has to clean up our government.   What a darn mess.  The crook at the Copyright Office (now head of a department there - as Mark Levin says, "that's right I said it!") seems like the tip of the iceberg so to speak. 
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 12:23:55 PM by ccp »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Not bad!
« Reply #1476 on: October 09, 2015, 09:16:17 PM »
She is quite attractive:    :-D

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVy5iEhhWDfMAKsNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=Renee+Ellmers&fr=yfp-t-901

True or not how dare any Dem use this as fodder after what they did to this country with Clinton.  

A Wikipedia insert  from a DHS IP address is a big deal however.
Likewise,  Secret Service agents looking up Chafitz file.  They must all be fired. All of them except the reported few who had legitimate reasons to at his file.
These people work for us not the other way around.

Somebody has to clean up our government.   What a darn mess.  The crook at the Copyright Office (now head of a department there - as Mark Levin says, "that's right I said it!") seems like the tip of the iceberg so to speak. 

The federal government politicized and corrupt like Chicago. Who could had seen this coming?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19761
    • View Profile
Firing Federal empolyees
« Reply #1477 on: October 10, 2015, 07:18:43 AM »
I was trying to find information on this.  IN 2009 over 6,000+ were fired.  In 2013 9000+ mostly from the VA despite the rise of the Federal work force during the Obama years.

Why were so many fired in '09?   Any information on this.  I wonder if this was to pack the workforce with leftist political people:

****Firing Federal Employees Isn’t Easy, But It Can Be Done
By Kellie Lunney
May 29, 2014

Members of Congress are working overtime these days churning out, or clambering onto, legislation that would make it easier for the Veterans Affairs Department to fire senior executives. The House on May 21 passed such a bill, and there’s more to come on that subject from both sides of the Capitol and both parties. The mismanagement at VA facilities regarding patient care and the alleged cover-up in Phoenix of medical appointment scheduling delays to help top managers secure bonuses and meet performance goals for the department has consumed Washington during the last month.

Among the many questions the controversy has raised, one seems to be at the heart of the debate: Why isn’t it easier to fire career civil servants?

As is the case with most processes in the federal government, firing a career employee is not simple. There is a good reason why it isn’t so easy, or as commonplace, as it is in the private sector: There are laws protecting career civil servants from being dismissed without cause or for politically-motivated reasons. Certainly there’s a case to be made that the federal firing process (which does exist) could, and probably should, be improved. But making it too easy seriously threatens the due process long afforded to federal workers, significantly increases the risk of politically-motivated sackings, and could have adverse effects on the recruitment and retention of talented federal employees.

The federal workforce is made up of about 2.1 million employees. In fiscal 2013, only 9,559 employees were terminated or removed for discipline or performance, according to Office of Personnel Management statistics. That’s less than 1 percent of the total workforce. So, which Cabinet-level department fired the most employees (2,247) in fiscal 2013 for discipline or performance? The Veterans Affairs Department. VA is one of the largest federal agencies, but it’s not the biggest.

In our July 2012 magazine, we looked at the federal firing process for most career employees to see how it works, and why it’s underused, in Wielding the Ax. The process for senior executives is a little bit different, but they too are afforded due process under the system.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Prager: The selfishness of socialism
« Reply #1479 on: October 15, 2015, 06:50:54 AM »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1480 on: October 16, 2015, 12:19:04 PM »
I am sitting on the epub of Bill O'Reilly's book "Killing Reagan". I have not started yet, but here is an interesting article about the book.Apparently the book is thinly sources and full of factual errors. Four authors who have written extensively about Reagan combine to rip the book in this article. One author is Stephen Hayward.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/16/what-bill-oreillys-new-book-on-ronald-reagan-gets-wrong-about-ronald-reagan/

After reading BOR other "Killing" books, it does not surprise me that this book would be filled with errors as well...
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1481 on: October 16, 2015, 12:26:48 PM »
I am sitting on the epub of Bill O'Reilly's book "Killing Reagan". I have not started yet, but here is an interesting article about the book.Apparently the book is thinly sources and full of factual errors. Four authors who have written extensively about Reagan combine to rip the book in this article. One author is Stephen Hayward.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/16/what-bill-oreillys-new-book-on-ronald-reagan-gets-wrong-about-ronald-reagan/

After reading BOR other "Killing" books, it does not surprise me that this book would be filled with errors as well...

I liked him better when he was on the Mary Tyler Moore show.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1482 on: October 16, 2015, 01:54:36 PM »
I am sitting on the epub of Bill O'Reilly's book "Killing Reagan". I have not started yet, but here is an interesting article about the book.Apparently the book is thinly sources and full of factual errors. Four authors who have written extensively about Reagan combine to rip the book in this article. One author is Stephen Hayward.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/16/what-bill-oreillys-new-book-on-ronald-reagan-gets-wrong-about-ronald-reagan/

After reading BOR other "Killing" books, it does not surprise me that this book would be filled with errors as well...

May I suggest the candidates and the electorate read Steve Hayward's books on Reagan instead of O'Reilly's fantasies.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Reagan-Conservative-Counterrevolution/dp/1400053587
http://www.amazon.com/Steven-F.-Hayward/e/B000APZKLO

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces
« Reply #1483 on: October 17, 2015, 07:56:46 AM »
What? No Peggy Noonan book?   :evil:
PPulatie

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
Unintelligence Agencies
« Reply #1484 on: October 18, 2015, 08:30:27 AM »
This piece argues that, despite all its myriad civil intrusions, American intelligence agencies are unwieldy behemoths that rarely produce actionable intelligence. Last two paras follow:

My own suspicion: you could get rid of most of the 17 agencies and outfits in the U.S. Intelligence Community and dump just about all the secret and classified information that is the heart and soul of the national security state. Then you could let a small group of independently minded analysts and critics loose on open-source material, and you would be far more likely to get intelligent, actionable, inventive analyses of our global situation, our wars, and our beleaguered path into the future.

The evidence, after all, is largely in. In these years, for what now must be approaching three-quarters of a trillion dollars, the national security state and the military seem to have created an un-intelligence system. Welcome to the fog of everything.


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-fog-of-intelligence/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
The Art of Not Giving a Fornication
« Reply #1485 on: October 28, 2015, 11:52:38 AM »
Warning:  F-bombs abound

http://markmanson.net/not-giving-a-fuck

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The Art of Not Giving a Fornication
« Reply #1486 on: October 28, 2015, 11:59:04 AM »

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
How Collectivism Gains Ground...
« Reply #1487 on: November 07, 2015, 08:24:54 AM »
The Tools Collectivists Use To Gain Power

Wednesday, 04 November 2015    Brandon Smith


While many divisions within our society are arbitrary or engineered, there is one division that represents perhaps the most pervasive and important conflict of our time; the division between collectivists and individualists.

Now, people who do not understand the nature of collectivism will often argue that individualism and collectivism are not mutually exclusive because individuals require groups in order to survive and thrive. However, a “group” is not necessarily a collective.

For some reason the core fundamental of collectivism – the use of psychological coercion or physical force to compel participation – goes right over the heads of many skeptics. A group does not have to be collectivist. Any group can and should be voluntary. Collectivism is NOT voluntary. Therefore, collectivism and individualism are indeed mutually exclusive. Collectivists and individualists cannot exist in the same space at the same time without eventually coming into conflict. There is simply no way around it.

From the position of the liberty minded (or the average Libertarian), collectivism is by far the inferior of the two philosophies. Collectivists often boast of the social and economic “harmonization” collectivism creates, as well as the mobilization of labor to “streamline progress.” The reality is that artificially rigged harmony is no harmony at all. If people are forced to homogenize and get along through fear, then peace has not truly been accomplished.

Human beings must come to their own conclusions on cooperation and tolerance in their own time. They cannot be manipulated and shoehorned into a “utopian” framework. Problems will result, like genocide, which tends to erupt during almost every attempt at collectivist utopianism.

Economic harmonization is even less practical, with government force inevitably used to confiscate resources from one group to give to another group, essentially punishing success or frugality. This creates an environment in which achievement becomes less desirable. When people do not have individual incentive to pursue achievement, they see personal effort as wasted. Innovation and entrepreneurship fall by the wayside, and society as a whole begins to diminish in prosperity. Without individual accomplishments and ingenuity, the group is nothing but a hollow mindless ant hill.

Another argument which usually arises is that individualism leads to “selfishness” and the dominance of wealth devouring machines like corporations. I would remind collectivists that corporations exist only through the legal framework and protections of corporate personhood created by governments, and without government protections and favor, corporations could not exist. It is by collectivism, not individualism, that corporatocracy thrives.

At the same time, collectivists consistently blame individualist "free markets" for the numerous ailments of nations.  Yet another misrepresentation considering America has not had true free markets in well over a century, and most other nations have never had true free markets in their history.  Feudalism and its child Socialism have always been present to plague mankind.

There are no merits to collectivism that are not accomplished with greater success by individualism and voluntary community. In fact, collectivism only serves to enrich and empower a select few elites while destroying the future potential of all other individuals.

Given the disturbing nature of collectivism, one would think that attempts at collectivist societies would be a rarity, shunned by most people as akin to inviting cancer into the body. Unfortunately, cultures based on individualism are the minority in history.

The average collectivist is not usually much of a beneficiary of collectivism. We call these people “useful idiots” or “sheeple” who unknowingly serve the darker machinations of elitists while under the delusion that they are changing society for the better. The reason useful idiots participate in collectivism are many, but I have found that across the spectrum these people tend to be weak willed, weak minded, and by extension, possess a rabid desire for control over others.

It is perhaps no coincidence that “intellectuals” (self proclaimed) tend to end up at the forefront of modern efforts for collectivism. While the poor and destitute are often exploited by collectivism as a mob to be wielded like a battering ram, it is the soft noodle-bodied and fearful academia that acts as middle management in the collectivist franchise. It is they that desire the power to impose their “superior” ideologies on others, and since they are too weak to accomplish anything on their own, they require the cover and momentum of collectivist movements to give them the totalitarian fix they so crave. In other words, they believe in humanitarianism by totalitarianism.

Individualism is under constant and imminent threat as the collectivist obsession with control grows. The ultimate end game of collectivists is to derive submission from individuals, to corner people into handing over their individualism willingly.  It is not enough for them to merely apply force, the greatest power is in the power of consent.  Here are the most common tools used by collectivists to obtain power and manufacture consent from the masses.

The Illusion Of Consensus

Collectivists rely greatly on the force of a well-aimed mob to convince the general public they have the consensus position; that they are in the majority. Appearing to be in the majority is the single most important goal of a collectivist movement, even if they are in reality a small minority. The anonymity of web activism gives the force of the mob a new potency. No more than a dozen collectivists working in tandem can wreak havoc in multiple web forums or harass numerous individualist publications while giving casual readers the impression that their ideology is “everywhere.”

The key here is that collectivists understand that the average person does not want to be seen as too contrary to the majority. They understand that the majority view matters to the public, even if the majority view is utterly wrong. If collectivists can convince enough people that their ideology is the majority view, they know that many people will blindly adopt that ideology as their own in order to fit in. The lie of consensus then becomes a self perpetuating prophecy. This problem will remain forever a danger as long as people continue to care at all about the majority view.

The Destruction Of Core Institutions

Those institutions people consider “core institutions” are sometimes vital, and sometimes not. That said, it is the openly admitted objective of collectivists through socialist-style movements to destroy core institutions so that there is no competition to their new system. A collectivist society cannot allow citizens to have any loyalties beyond their loyalty to the group or the state.

So, individual liberties must be degraded or removed, as per the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution as a “living document.”  Religious institutions must be painted as shameful affairs for stupid barbaric cave-people. And, the family unit must be broken apart. This is done through economic depravity so pronounced that families never see each other, through state influence over children through public schooling, and through identity politics and propaganda which create sexual and racial conflicts out of thin air.

Dominating Discussion

This coincides with the idea of artificial consensus, but it goes beyond the use of the mob. In our daily lives we are now bombarded with collectivist messages — in mainstream news, in television shows, in movies, through web media and print media. The money behind these outlets belongs to a very small and select group of people, but through them the collectivist worldview is injected into every corner of our society. I would call this propaganda by attrition; an indirect but steady insertion of collectivism creating an atmosphere in which the ideology becomes commonplace even though it is being promoted by a limited number of people.

Exploiting The Youth

When we are young, most of us spend a great deal of time and energy working to be taken seriously. The question is, should we be taken seriously?

In my view and the view of the liberty minded, it really depends on the person’s actions, experience, efforts and accomplishments. Most younger people have little to no experience in life and haven’t had the time to accomplish much. They are still learning how to function in the world, and what kind of goals they want to pursue (if they ever pursue any goals). Because of this, it is hard for those of us who have gone through considerable struggles in life and reached a certain level of achievement to take them seriously when they decide to stroll into a room and pontificate on their moral and philosophical superiority. It makes me want to ask; what the hell have you ever accomplished?

This is not to say that there are not ingenious young people out there, or ignorant and lazy older folks. There are. But collectivist movements seek to exploit younger generations exactly because of their general lack of experience and naivety, as well as their feelings of entitlement when it comes to respect.

Collectivism almost always utilizes a theory called “futurism” in order to appeal to the young. The theory, which was a leading philosophy behind the rise of fascism, proclaims that all new ideas are superior in their social usefulness and all old ideas and beliefs should be abandoned like so much dead skin. According to futurism, those who cling to old ideas and principles are an obstacle to the progress of society as a whole.

The funny thing is, the ideas usually expounded by collectivists are as old as time — elitism, feudalism, totalitarianism, etc. None of these methodologies are “new” by any stretch of the imagination, but collectivists repackage them as if they are some grand new secret to Shangri-La. Younger adherents of collectivism latch onto futurism almost immediately. For, if all new ideas are superior, and all old ideas are barbaric, and younger people are the purveyors and consumers of everything new, then this means that it is the youngest generations that are the wisest, and the village elders that are naïve. By default, the young become the village elders without them ever having to struggle, make sacrifices, learn hard lessons, suffer loss, rise to challenges, or accomplish anything.

The enticing nature of this sudden groundswell of cultural respect is simply far too much for the average person college age or younger to ignore. Collectivism gives the young what they think they want, then uses them as tools for greater conquests.

Forcing Society To Accept The Lowest Common Denominator

Collectivism requires the homogenization of society, to the point that individualism is frowned upon and success is treated as negligible. Whether it is public schools lowering standards to the point that students with little or no reading comprehension graduate, or businesses being forced to lower standards in the name of “diversity” while rejecting employees with superior skill sets because they do not belong to a designated victim group, or government institutions like the military lowering physical standards to accommodate far weaker candidates in the name of “gender parity” while putting every soldier’s life at risk in the process, we are constantly being asked to accommodate the lowest common denominator instead of reaching for the highest level of excellence.

This makes the concept of success a bit of a joke. For “success” within such a system is easy as long as one follows the rules; excelling as an individual is not a factor. And by success I mean being allowed to survive, because that is the best you are going to get in a collectivist structure. The only way to fail is to not follow the rules, rules which may be arbitrary or idiotic at their core. Individualists are immediately punished for thinking or acting outside the box, when this is exactly the kind of behavior that should be encouraged. A society built on the lowest common denominator is a society destined for collapse. Individuals are systematically weeded out in the name of homogenization and all of their potential achievements and innovations disappear with them.

The nightmare of collectivism is the defining battle of our age. It is in this era that we will decide whether or not individual liberty and freedom of thought are more important than the illusory security and “harmony” of the collective.

I, for one, long to see a future in which individual enterprise is allowed to thrive and voluntary participation is the root principle on which our culture functions; a future in which state power is reduced to zero, or near zero, and government force is no longer an acceptable means by which one group can seek to control another group. I may not see this world in my lifetime, but the liberty-minded can make it possible for newer generations by avidly defending ourselves against collectivism today. As pointed out in the beginning, collectivism and individualism cannot coexist; confrontation is inevitable. Recognizing this, and preparing for it, is our duty as free human beings.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Fighting Back Against Tyranny...
« Reply #1489 on: November 13, 2015, 05:39:13 AM »
Methods For Fighting Back Against Collectivist Tyranny

Wednesday, 11 November 2015   Brandon Smith


In any examination of historical precedence, it is easy to see that the sheer number of collectivist and tyrannical systems have far outweighed any experiments in individual liberty. I have explored the reasons for this in numerous articles, including recent pieces such as “How To Stamp Out Cultural Marxism In A Single Generation” and “The Tools Collectivists Use To Gain Power.” To summarize, there is a driving desire among weaker-minded people to seek control over other people in the name of arbitrary standards of safety as well as arbitrary standards of “civil” conformity. While such people proclaim publicly that they do what they do for the “greater good,” in reality they seek only to satiate a private lust for power.

In the darkest corners of their souls, many people have personal aspirations to attain godhood in their own little worlds. And if they cannot achieve such godhood outright on their own, then they will join a mob with similar aspirations so that they can at least feel omnipotent through vicarious tyranny.

This is why collectivism and individualism are mutually exclusive. A collectivist uses force or manipulation to compel the masses to accept a society that follows his personal ideology. An individualist adheres only to the tenets of natural law and the non-aggression principle. He believes force is justified only when the personal liberties of an individual are threatened by others. And he demands that if he participates in any society, it be voluntary. Collectivism is society through coercion. Individualism promotes society through voluntary cooperation. The two philosophies cannot coexist.

I'll say it again because there are some people out there with severe reading comprehension issues; the definition of collectivism requires the prioritization of the group over the rights of the individual.  Collectivism by its very nature denies or destroys individualism and individual choice in this prioritization.  Collectivism therefore requires the engineered organization of individuals predicated by COERCION, or force.  Period.  If a group organizes voluntarily, then it is NOT collectivist.  If a group is organized through force and manipulation, then it IS collectivist. Period.  Bananas are yellow.  Oranges are orange.  The sky is blue.  Two plus two equals four.  And, collectivism compels participation by force, while voluntary community does not.

There is no rational debate to be made against this clear dichotomy.  It is truly amazing how some folks cannot seem to grasp the very obvious difference between collectivism and voluntary community; the same people that will likely still attempt to argue that collectivism and individualism are "not mutually exclusive" after reading this very article.

I certainly would never make the claim that most collectivists are intelligent...

The collectivist threat is not merely due to environmental factors alone. As the psychologist Carl Jung outlined in his collected papers titled “The Undiscovered Self,” at any given point in history at least 10% of the human population has inherent (but often latent) psychopathic tendencies. Less than 1% of these people will actually act out their full psychopathy under stable social conditions. However, in times of great distress or political and economic upheaval, the psychopathic 10% are given a kind of playground in which to let the devil out; Jung called this the “collective shadow.”

As I have explained in the past, these are the “useful idiots” within any society. They are the reason why there will never be a time now or in the future in which collectivist oppression will not be a potential threat, and why individualists will have to remain forever on guard. That said, they are only a part of the bigger problem. In almost every instance of mass tragedy or despotic government, an elitist minority pulls the strings of the useful idiots, aiming them like a shotgun at individualists in order to clear a path for total centralization. The elites are another horror altogether.

These are the men and women who EMBRACE their psychopathy. It is not latent or subconscious; it is a fully integrated and accepted part of their psychological life. They have found that psychopathy can be an effective tool for gaining power and influence when average people around them are less vigilant or less confrontational due to fear or apathy. And contrary to popular belief, psychopaths CONSTANTLY organize into effective working groups, some of them vast and global in scope, as long as there is the promise of mutual benefit involved.

This is not to say that they organize around “gain” alone. Elitists have their own pervasive ideology and their own rationalizations for seeking control of others.

They see themselves as “philosopher kings” as described in Plato’s 'Republic,' exemplary and “special” people who are born with the inherent genetic capacity to rule over the masses with the utmost clarity. They believe they know what is best not only for you, but for the human experiment in total. Their goal is to construct a sociopolitical apparatus that will allow them to have complete overreaching influence over every aspect of every individual life, up to and including the erasure of that life if they think it serves their ends.

"...You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner…” — George Bernard Shaw, Fabian socialist, from 'The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism'

"My conclusion is that a scientific society can be stable given certain conditions. The first of these is a single government of the whole world, possessing a monopoly of armed force and therefore able to enforce peace. The second condition is a general diffusion of prosperity, so that there is no occasion for envy of one part of the world by another. The third condition (which supposes the second fulfilled) is a low birth rate everywhere, so that the population of the world becomes stationary, or nearly so. The fourth condition is the provision for individual initiative both in work and in play, and the greatest diffusion of power compatible with maintaining the necessary political and economic framework.” — Bertrand Russell, member of the Fabian Society, from 'The Impact Of Science On Society'(Note: Russell believed that individuals should be given at least the illusion of choice within minor aspects of society in order to maintain their willing participation.)

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. … t remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons… It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.” — Edward Bernays, father of modern propaganda, from 'Propaganda'

Elitists are rarely as open about their true intentions as the men quoted above. They often entice the public with fantastical promises if collectivist systems are supported, including: equality of wealth and prosperity; reduction of labor and increases in leisure time; incredible technological advances; universal education; universal healthcare; the end of nationalism, resulting in the end of war, resulting in infinite global peace; etc.

When they are not able to sell the public on a particular aspect of collectivism, they will create artificial divisions and artificial crises in order to engineer chaos. As per the Hegelian dialectic, when we are thoroughly tenderized by fear and disaster, the elites return to the scene with a “solution” to their original crime, a solution that usually involves more collectivism.

So how do individualists fight back against collectivism, elitists and the useful idiots they exploit? Here are some practical strategies that anyone can employ in his daily life.

Stop Participating In False Paradigms

Yes, in the everyday world there are leftists and right wingers, liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. People subscribe to particular ideologies and philosophies backed by fundamental differences in belief. These divisions between regular people are indeed real. However, it is important to realize that at the gatekeeper level in these systems, the leadership in both parties subscribe to the same goals. They are not divided. They are part of the elitist structure. And while their rhetoric differs cosmetically, in policy and in action they will always work to destroy individual liberty and promote collectivism, whether they claim to be on the right or the left.

This reality also applies to supposed conflicts between nations. If two nations appear to be at odds with each other, yet the leadership of each nation remains in league with the same international elitists (bankers, Fabians, globalists, etc.), then their conflict is a sham designed as theater for the masses.

Refuse to participate in false paradigms. Point out the inconsistencies of BOTH parties or sides and identify how each works against individualism and toward collectivism. Do not affiliate with any group or institution that has a demonstrated history of antagonism towards individual freedom or that partners with known collectivist (globalist) organizations and frontmen. If you are going to fight for any side, make sure it truly represents liberty through its actions and associations.  Rhetoric is meaningless.

Decouple From Dependency On Corrupt Systems

As our economic situation becomes more and more dire, people are much more apt to become dependent on the system for survival, and this is an intentional result. I would not expect, for example, that the 94 million people in the U.S. who have been unemployed for so long they are no longer counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics should refrain from government aid or cut themselves off from welfare measures and become immediately self-reliant. They should, however, consider working toward that goal over time; and so should everyone else.

This is not quite as impossible as it seems. Can you produce or repair items that act as survival necessities? Can you teach a necessary skill? If so, then you are already well on your way to independence. Once you have a necessary skill, trade is possible outside the controlled economic framework. The more individuals involved in an alternative economy, the more diversity of skill sets will be available and the more prosperous that voluntary community will become.

The ultimate achievement in my view would be similar in aspects to the American agrarian models of the past with the integration of helpful technology: completely voluntary communities in which free trade is the foundation; the existence of grid water and grid power is unnecessary; food production is local and ample rather than reliant on national or international freight systems and the artificial scarcity of corporate farming models; and security is provided by each individual for himself, as well as for the community, through voluntary neighborhood watches or militias.

All of this starts with each individual taking action to become a producer, rather than a wage slave or welfare slave.

Organize Locally With People Of Like Mind

Again, organizing voluntarily is counter to collectivism.  Collectivist systems cannot be defeated unless you are willing to establish a competing model that works better while maintaining freedom. This is not hard to do, considering collectivist models are failure-driven machines that devour people and use them as fuel to move society as a whole towards a “greater good” which is neither great nor good.

As outlined above, independent localism is the answer. It is a voluntary structure that encourages self-reliance and preparedness, while making production and innovation the mainstays of a healthy society. It rewards personal success and achievement, rather than punishing it. And, it helps a larger percentage of wealth to keep cycling locally, rather than being siphoned out of communities by governments or government-chartered and protected corporations.

Localism always starts small, with families, friends and neighbors. But as your organization continues to make life better for those involved, it will inevitably attract more participants.  The redundancy of localized economies would also protect people from economic collapse.  In fact, without the forced interdependency of centralized collectivist economic models, large scale financial crises would probably become a thing of the past.

Educate Children Privately

I’ve been saying it a lot lately, and I’ll say it again: Public schooling as it stands today is an apparatus for brainwashing, nothing more. With the dismal world ranking of U.S. students in math, science and reading, I hardly see what service public education is actually performing in America. The only service public schools do seem to excel at is indoctrination, with children now being immersed in collectivist lessons through Common Core and being conditioned into pacifism and fear through insane zero-tolerance policies.

The only working solutions available for parents today are to decouple from the federally dominated public school system and place their children in a well-vetted private school or to home-school. Any sacrifice, financial or otherwise, is worth it to save American children from a vicious system of propaganda and conditioning that could conceivably suppress their individualism and warp them into collectivist monsters.

Arm And Train For Self-Defense

I think it should be pretty obvious that there is a simple reason behind the collectivist habit of attempting to disarm common people: Armed people are harder to manage or control.  If an armed population was not a threat to collectivists then they would not keep trying to disarm everyone. Therefore, if you are not armed and trained in self-defense, then you are not a threat to collectivists.

You can be the most brilliant of thinkers with pristine logic and truth on your side; but without the means and ability to destroy an attacker or tyrant, you are nothing in the grand scheme. Intellectual warriors are not really warriors. And as a writer, I will say in all honesty that the threat of the pen is not mightier than the threat of the sword.

Keep in mind, though, that it is not enough to merely purchase a firearm or shoot at the range. Team tactics and training are essential for free people, which is why they are so admonished by collectivist elements in our society. Train with friends and family or with your Community Preparedness Team, as I do through Oath Keepers; but learn tactical methodologies and how to fight with others. Present a viable danger to collectivists, or be subsumed by them.

Remove The Elitist Hierarchy

Eventually, the fight between individualism and collectivism will become physical rather than informational. There is no way around it. The more individuals begin to decouple from the corrupt system and construct their own alternative framework, the more violent collectivists will turn in response. The virtue of self-defense requires that tyrants be cut off from their means to project violence onto others.

While it is impossible to stop the inherent nature of psychopathy other than to participate in communities where psychopaths are not welcome or encouraged, there is the matter of organized elitism to deal with.

Any fight for freedom from collectivists will require the removal of command and control. This is the only way that humanity can be given breathing room to rebuild without remaining under constant preplanned threat. There are, in fact, many organizations that openly work toward collectivist oligarchy, from central banks (this means central bankers in ALL nations, not just in the West), to the Council On Foreign Relations, to Tavistock, to the Rand Corporation, to the International Monetary Fund or the Bank for International Settlements, to Bilderberg, to the Fabian Society, etc. These institutions need to be dismantled by any means necessary and the participants removed from positions of control. Make no mistake; it will take a war before such people give up the reins of power. This is the inevitable cost of individualism and the inevitable cost of freedom.



"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Greg Gutfield
« Reply #1491 on: November 15, 2015, 09:11:32 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Profli-gate: The Modern American Way of War
« Reply #1493 on: November 21, 2015, 05:09:17 PM »

 
The American Way of War in the Twenty-First Century
Roads to Nowhere, Ghost Soldiers, and a $43 Million Gas Station in Afghanistan
by Tom Engelhardt, November 13, 2015
Print This | Share This
Originally posted at TomDispatch.
It’s a $cam!: The American Way of War in the Twenty-First Century
By Tom Engelhardt

Let’s begin with the $12 billion in shrink-wrapped $100 bills, Iraqi oil money held in the U.S. The Bush administration began flying it into Baghdad on C-130s soon after U.S. troops entered that city in April 2003. Essentially dumped into the void that had once been the Iraqi state, at least $1.2 to $1.6 billion of it was stolen and ended up years later in a mysterious bunker in Lebanon. And that’s just what happened as the starting gun went off.

It’s never ended. In 2011, the final report of the congressionally mandated Commission on Wartime Contracting estimated that somewhere between $31 billion and $60 billion taxpayer dollars had been lost to fraud and waste in the American “reconstruction” of Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, for instance, there was that $75 million police academy, initially hailed “as crucial to U.S. efforts to prepare Iraqis to take control of the country’s security.” It was, however, so poorly constructed that it proved a health hazard. In 2006, “feces and urine rained from the ceilings in [its] student barracks” and that was only the beginning of its problems.

When the bad press started, Parsons Corporation, the private contractor that built it, agreed to fix it for nothing more than the princely sum already paid. A year later, aNew York Times reporter visited and found that “the ceilings are still stained with excrement, parts of the structures are crumbling, and sections of the buildings are unusable because the toilets are filthy and nonfunctioning.” This seems to have beenpar for the course. Typically enough, the Khan Bani Saad Correctional Facility, a $40 million prison Parsons also contracted to build, was never even finished.

And these were hardly isolated cases or problems specific to Iraq. Consider, for instance, those police stations in Afghanistan believed to be crucial to “standing up” a new security force in that country. Despite the money poured into them and endless cost overruns, many were either never completed or never built, leaving new Afghan police recruits camping out. And the police were hardly alone. Take the $3.4 millionunfinished teacher-training center in Sheberghan, Afghanistan, that an Iraqi company was contracted to build (using, of course, American dollars) and from which it walked away, money in hand.

And why stick to buildings, when there were those Iraqi roads to nowhere paid for by American dollars? At least one of them did at least prove useful to insurgent groups moving their guerrillas around (like the $37 million bridge the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built between Afghanistan and Tajikistan that helped facilitate the region’s booming drug trade in opium and heroin). In Afghanistan, Highway 1 between the capital Kabul and the southern city of Kandahar, unofficially dubbed the “highway to nowhere,” was so poorly constructed that it began crumbling in its first Afghan winter.

And don’t think that this was an aberration. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) hired an American nonprofit, International Relief and Development (IRD), to oversee an ambitious road-building program meant to gain the support of rural villagers. Almost $300 million later, it could point to “less than 100 miles of gravel road completed.” Each mile of road had, by then, cost U.S. taxpayers $2.8 million, instead of the expected $290,000, while a quarter of the road-building funds reportedly went directly to IRD for administrative and staff costs. Needless to say, as the road program failed, USAID hired IRD to oversee other non-transportation projects.

In these years, the cost of reconstruction never stopped growing. In 2011, McClatchy News reported that “U.S. government funding for at least 15 large-scale programs and projects grew from just over $1 billion to nearly $3 billion despite the government’s questions about their effectiveness or cost.”

The Gas Station to Nowhere

So much construction and reconstruction – and so many failures. There was thechicken-processing plant built in Iraq for $2.58 million that, except in a few Potemkin-Village-like moments, never plucked a chicken and sent it to market. There was the sparkling new, 64,000-square-foot, state-of-the-art, $25 million headquarters for the U.S. military in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, that doubled in cost as it was being built and that three generals tried to stop. They were overruled because Congress had already allotted the money for it, so why not spend it, even though it would never be used? And don’t forget the $20 million that went into constructing roads and utilities for the base that was to hold it, or the $8.4 billion that went into Afghan opium-poppy-suppression and anti-drug programs and resulted in… bumper poppy cropsand record opium yields, or the aid funds that somehow made their way directly into the hands of the Taliban (reputedly its second-largest funding source after those poppies).

There were the billions of dollars in aid that no one could account for, and a significant percentage of the 465,000 small arms (rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, and the like) that the U.S. shipped to Afghanistan and simply lost track of. Most recently, there was the Task Force for Business Stability Operations, an $800-million Pentagon project to help jump-start the Afghan economy. It was shut down only six months ago and yet, in response to requests from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the Pentagon swears that there are “no Defense Department personnel who can answer questions about” what the task force did with its money. AsProPublica’s Megan McCloskey writes, “The Pentagon’s claims are particularly surprising since Joseph Catalino, the former acting director of the task force who was with the program for two years, is still employed by the Pentagon as Senior Advisor for Special Operations and Combating Terrorism.”

Still, from that pile of unaccountable taxpayer dollars, one nearly $43 million chunk did prove traceable to a single project: the building of a compressed natural gas station. (The cost of constructing a similar gas station in neighboring Pakistan: $300,000.) Located in an area that seems to have had no infrastructure for delivering natural gas and no cars converted for the use of such fuel, it represented the only example on record in those years of a gas station to nowhere.

All of this just scratches the surface when it comes to the piles of money that were poured into an increasingly privatized version of the American way of war and, in the form of overcharges and abuses of every sort, often simply disappeared into the pockets of the warrior corporations that entered America’s war zones. In a sense, a surprising amount of the money that the Pentagon and U.S. civilian agencies “invested” in Iraq and Afghanistan never left the United States, since it went directly into the coffers of those companies.

Clearly, Washington had gone to war like a drunk on a bender, while the domestic infrastructure began to fray. At $109 billion by 2014, the American reconstruction program in Afghanistan was already, in today’s dollars, larger than the Marshall Plan (which helped put all of devastated Western Europe back on its feet after World War II) and still the country was a shambles. In Iraq, a mere $60 billion was squandered on the failed rebuilding of the country. Keep in mind that none of this takes into account the staggering billions spent by the Pentagon in both countries to build strings of bases, ranging in size from American towns (with all the amenities of home) to tiny outposts. There would be 505 of them in Iraq and at least 550 in Afghanistan. Most were, in the end, abandoned, dismantled, or sometimes simply looted. And don’t forget the vast quantities of fuel imported into Afghanistan to run the U.S. military machine in those years, some of which was siphoned off by American soldiers, to the tune of at least $15 million, and sold to local Afghans on the sly.

In other words, in the post-9/11 years, “reconstruction” and “war” have really been euphemisms for what, in other countries, we would recognize as a massive system of corruption.

And let’s not forget another kind of “reconstruction” then underway. In both countries, the U.S. was creating enormous militaries and police forces essentially from scratch to the tune of at least $25 billion in Iraq and $65 billion in Afghanistan. What’s striking about both of these security forces, once constructed, is how similar they turned out to be to those police academies, the unfinished schools, and that natural gas station. It can’t be purely coincidental that both of the forces Americans proudly “stood up” have turned out to be the definition of corrupt: that is, they were filled not just with genuine recruits but with serried ranks of “ghost personnel.”

In June 2014, after whole divisions of the Iraqi army collapsed and fled before modest numbers of Islamic State militants, abandoning much of their weaponry and equipment, it became clear that they had been significantly smaller in reality than on paper. And no wonder, as that army had enlisted 50,000 “ghost soldiers” (who existed only on paper and whose salaries were lining the pockets of commanders and others). In Afghanistan, the U.S. is still evidently helping to pay for similarly stunning numbersof phantom personnel, though no specific figures are available. (In 2009, an estimated more than 25% of the police force consisted of such ghosts.) As John Sopko, the U.S. inspector general for Afghanistan, warned last June: “We are paying a lot of money for ghosts in Afghanistan… whether they are ghost teachers, ghost doctors or ghost policeman or ghost soldiers.”

And lest you imagine that the U.S. military has learned its lesson, rest assured that it’s still quite capable of producing nonexistent proxy forces. Take the Pentagon-CIA program to train thousands of carefully vetted “moderate” Syrian rebels, equip them, arm them, and put them in the field to fight the Islamic State. Congress ponied up $500 million for it, $384 million of which was spent before that project was shut downas an abject failure. By then, less than 200 American-backed rebels had been trained and even less put into the field in Syria – and they were almost instantly kidnapped orkilled, or they simply handed over their equipment to the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front. At one point, according to the congressional testimony of the top American commander in the Middle East, only four or five American-produced rebels were left “in the field.” The cost-per-rebel sent into Syria, by the way, is now estimated at approximately $2 million.

A final footnote: the general who oversaw this program is, according to the New York Times, still a “rising star” in the Pentagon and in line for a promotion.

Profli-gate

You’ve just revisited the privatized, twenty-first-century version of the American way of war, which proved to be a smorgasbord of scandal, mismanagement, and corruption as far as the eye could see. In the tradition of Watergate, perhaps the whole system could be dubbed Profli-gate, since American war making across the Greater Middle East has represented perhaps the most profligate and least effective use of funds in the history of modern warfare. In fact, here’s a word not usually associated with the U.S. military: the war system of this era seems to function remarkably like a monumental scam, a swindle, a fraud.

The evidence is in: the U.S. military can win battles, but not a war, not even against minimally armed minority insurgencies; it can “stand up” foreign militaries, but only if they are filled with phantom feet and if the forces themselves are as hollow as tombs; it can pour funds into the reconstruction of countries, a process guaranteed to leave them more prostrate than before; it can bomb, missile, and drone-kill significant numbers of terrorists and other enemies, even as their terror outfits and insurgent movements continue to grow stronger under the shadow of American air power. Fourteen years and five failed states later in the Greater Middle East, all of that seems irrefutable.

And here’s something else irrefutable: amid the defeats, corruption, and disappointments, there lurks a kind of success. After all, every disaster in which the U.S. military takes part only brings more bounty to the Pentagon. Domestically, every failure results in calls for yet more military interventions around the world. As a result, the military is so much bigger and better funded than it was on September 10, 2001. The commanders who led our forces into such failures have repeatedly been rewarded and much of the top brass, civilian and military, though they should have retired in shame, have taken ever more golden parachutes into the lucrative worlds of defense contractors, lobbyists, and consultancies.

All of this couldn’t be more obvious, though it’s seldom said. In short, there turns out to be much good fortune in the disaster business, a fact which gives the whole process the look of a classic swindle in which the patsies lose their shirts but the scam artists make out like bandits.

Add in one more thing: these days, the only part of the state held in great esteem by conservatives and the present batch of Republican presidential candidates is the U.S. military. All of them, with the exception of Rand Paul, swear that on entering the Oval Office they will let that military loose, sending in more troops, or special ops forces, or air power, and funding the various services even more lavishly; all of this despite overwhelming evidence that the U.S. military is incapable of spending a dollar responsibly or effectively monitoring what it’s done with the taxpayer funds in its possession. (If you don’t believe me, forget everything in this piece and just check out the finances of the most expensive weapons system in history, the F-35 Lightning II, which should really be redubbed the F-35 Overrun for its madly spiraling costs.)

But no matter. If a system works (particularly for those in it), why change it? And by the way, in case you’re looking for a genuine steal, I have a fabulous gas station in Afghanistan to sell you…

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author ofThe United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com. His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.
 
 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19761
    • View Profile
The goverment/military/health care complex
« Reply #1494 on: November 21, 2015, 05:36:23 PM »
It's like the health care stocks.   When taxpayer money is involved they skyrocket:

http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX%3ADWCARD&sq=defense%20stocks&sp=1&ei=QBtRVoGFKMfCe6yVrZgB

I don't get it.  How come I don't do better like all the big pharma and insurance companies?  I am a part time government employee?   :wink:

Yeah A half bill for a single plane does sound NUTS.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Col Peters goes off on Baraq
« Reply #1496 on: December 07, 2015, 10:36:42 AM »
second post

Actually calls him a pussy on national TV: https://www.facebook.com/FreeBeacon/videos/922267914488899/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
More Ralph Peters
« Reply #1497 on: December 08, 2015, 09:18:39 PM »

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Dubious Value of College To Many Workers...
« Reply #1498 on: December 09, 2015, 11:39:28 AM »
SQUANDERED RESOURCES ON COLLEGE EDUCATION

The dubious benefit of college degrees to workers over the next decade.

December 9, 2015  Walter Williams

Most college students do not belong in college. I am not by myself in this assessment. Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson said, "It's time to drop the college-for-all crusade," adding that "the college-for-all crusade has outlived its usefulness." Richard Vedder, professor emeritus of economics at Ohio University, reports that "the U.S. Labor Department says the majority of new American jobs over the next decade do not need a college degree. We have a six-digit number of college-educated janitors in the U.S." Vedder adds that there are "one-third of a million waiters and waitresses with college degrees." More than one-third of currently working college graduates are in jobs that do not require a degree, such as flight attendants, taxi drivers and salesmen. College was not a wise use of these students', their parents' and taxpayer resources.

What goes on at many colleges adds to the argument that college for many is a waste of resources. Some Framingham State University students were upset by an image of a Confederate flag sticker on another student's laptop. They were offered counseling services by the university's chief diversity and inclusion officer.

Campus Reform reports that because of controversial newspaper op-eds, five Brown University students are claiming that freedom of speech does not confer the right to express opinions they find distasteful.

A Harvard University student organization representing women's interests now routinely advises students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence and that might therefore be traumatic. Such students will be useless to rape victims and don't belong in law school.

And some college professors are not fit for college, as suggested by the courses they teach. Here's a short list, and you decide: "Interrogating Gender: Centuries of Dramatic Cross-Dressing," Swarthmore College; "GaGa for Gaga: Sex, Gender, and Identity," University of Virginia; "Oh, Look, a Chicken!" Belmont University; "Getting Dressed," Princeton University; "Philosophy and Star Trek," Georgetown University; "What if Harry Potter Is Real?" Appalachian State University; and "God, Sex, Chocolate: Desire and the Spiritual Path," University of California, San Diego.

The fact that such courses are part of the curricula also says something about administrators who allow such nonsense.

Then there is professorial "wisdom." Professor Mary Margaret Penrose, of the Texas A&M University School of Law, asked, during a panel discussion on gun control, "Why do we keep such an allegiance to a Constitution that was driven by 18th-century concerns?"

Perhaps the newest "intellectual" fad is white privilege. Portland State University professor Rachel Sanders' "White Privilege" course says "whiteness" must be dismantled if racial justice is ever to be achieved. Campus Reform reports on other whiteness issues (http://tinyurl.com/oof9wu3). Harvard's classes on critical race theory combine "progressive political struggles for racial justice with critiques of the conventional legal and scholarly norms which are themselves viewed as part of the illegitimate hierarchies that need to be changed."

Back to those college administrators. Dartmouth College's vice provost for student affairs, Inge-Lise Ameer, said, "There's a whole conservative world out there that's not being very nice." She did, however, issue "an unequivocal apology" for stoking tensions with such a disparaging comment about conservatives to Black Lives Matter protesters.

After a standoff with other Black Lives Matter protesters, Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber acceded to demands that former Princeton President Woodrow Wilson's name be removed from the campus because of his behavior as U.S. president. President Wilson was a progressive and an avowed racist who racially segregated the civil service and delighted in showing D.W. Griffith's racist "The Birth of a Nation" to his White House guests. Professor Thomas DiLorenzo's recent column suggests that a worthier target for Black Lives Matter protesters would be Abraham Lincoln, who he says was "the most publicly outspoken racist and white supremacist of all American presidents" (http://tinyurl.com/jza7ntf).

The bottom line is that George Orwell was absolutely right when he said, "There are notions so foolish that only an intellectual will believe them."
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
The Myth of Christian Pacifism...
« Reply #1499 on: December 10, 2015, 09:08:56 AM »
This is an excellent book explaining the Biblical rationale for self-defense, and putting to rest the idea that Christians should be pacifists.  Extensive scriptural references are provided.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0982215150?keywords=a%20time%20to%20kill%20book&qid=1449767016&ref_=sr_1_3&sr=8-3

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.