California earthquake

Glenn Beck:

Other than you paying for California’s long-standing stupidity, what's their plan to turn the state around?  Governor Schwarzenegger proposed $15 billion in cuts and warned that if his propositions fail, California would need to release 40,000 prisoners, lay off more than 50,000 teachers and close down dozens of fire stations.
...
How many times do we have to hear this fraudulent argument?  When you have literally no government structure whatsoever, then I’ll believe you have nothing less important to cut than fire fighters and prisons.  You can’t make that argument when you’re still spending: $1.5 million for nontoxic dry cleaning; or $40.5 million for migrant day care; or the estimated $13 billion for education, health care and other services for the state’s 3.2 million illegal immigrants.

Of course, the press is already pulling out the meme it tried to paste on the TeaParty folks:  Anyone who voted against the propositions is a hypocrite who “wants” all those “services,” but doesn’t want to pay for them.

By rejecting five budget measures, Californians also brought into stark relief the fact that they, too, share blame for the political dysfunction that has brought California to the brink of insolvency.
...
“They clearly want more in services than they’re willing to pay for in taxes,” said Ethan Rarick, director of the Robert T. Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service at UC Berkeley.
...
“We all want a free lunch, but unfortunately that doesn’t exist,” said former Gov. Gray Davis...
...
On Tuesday, Californians showed they were unwilling to scale back their demands in tight times: Voters turned down propositions that would have freed up money that they set aside years ago for mental-health and children’s programs.

Which ignores two points:  First, every line in California’s budget has a constituency that “wants” it, and each constituency has its pet legislators who would be glad to give it to them.

But there will never be enough money.  Even if the government takes 100% of everyone’s income, it still won’t be enough.  Because “wants” are infinitely expansible.  Meaning the job of government isn’t just giving people stuff, it’s also telling people no.  Which California’s politicians have failed to do... miserably.

I want a 23-room mansion, with an Olympic-sized pool, a golf course, and an amusement park.  I am not, however, willing to pay for it.  By Sacramento logic, the only conclusion would be to provide it for me.
- commenter “Underpants Gnomes Publishing, Inc.” at Ace

And the second point:  Amid all the special-interest log-rolling, what about the average taxpayer?  You know, the person for whom projects such as artist grants and sea otter conservation are “nice, if we can afford them,” but whose first priority is for someone to answer the phone when they dial 9-1-1.

When these people feel neglected:
When they find themselves paying a ton of taxes as their roads fall apart, their schools rot, and the public payroll skyrockets–
When the people they elect– regardless of party– only have time for the “we-want-a-handout” blocs–
When their government seems to have plenty of time to hassle them about cigarette smoking, plastic bags, and wearing seatbelts, but just can’t quite manage to get the gangbangers off the streets, stop the “taggers” from vandalizing their property, and catch the crooks who break into their homes–
When, in short, citizens begin to believe that they’re not getting their money’s worth and that there is no prospect of getting it–

Is it any wonder they start getting fractious?


Related:

Elsewhere:
HT:  “momma” (Beck), Ace (Times)

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 17:25:06 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 7 kb.

Important: Time to write your Senators

Nanny Alert!

President Obama’s pick to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration raises a few red flags.  If confirmed by the Senate, Chuck Hurley, CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, will drive motorists over the cliff with regulation.

The nation’s traffic-safety czar has broad powers to control the roads and road-going habits of Americans.  Mr. Hurley has a history of pushing laws that harass millions of law-abiding citizens to ensnare a few lawbreakers.  He supports returning the 55 mph speed limit to our highways as well as roadblocks and random pullovers to make sure drivers aren't doing anything wrong.  This methodology is based on a presumption of guilt - not innocence - of the average driver who is doing nothing wrong.

Mr. Hurley has promoted a mania of overregulation at MADD.  Absent from his advocacies is the principle that a punishment should fit the crime, or that a crime even needs to be committed to incur a penalty.  Under this influence, MADD has been lobbying to lower the allowable blood-alcohol content (BAC) for drivers to .04 - which means one glass of Pinot can land anyone behind bars... - Washington Times editorial: “MADD about regulation”

From its original, commendable, mission of getting dangerously blotto drivers off the roads, MADD has morphed itself into the Brady.Bunch of auto “safety,” pushing for alcohol abolition and other draconian restrictions on civil liberties with all the zeal of a global warmingist, and the same degree of scientific validity.^[1]  Hurley is a principal reason for  MADD’s mission creep, and putting him in charge of the NHTSA would be like putting Code Pink in charge of the Defence Department (or, for that matter, Janet Napolitano in charge of the DHS).

Nothing since prohibition (and I include the “war on (some) drugs”) did more to turn Americans into scofflaws than Jimmy Carter’s Richard Nixon’s^[2] stupid federal speed limit restrictions.  And nothing has done more to separate the average citizen from law enforcement than the mostly-federally-driven (and funded) random “safety” checkpoints.  With Hurley in charge, we can expect all of that- doubled.  He is a zealot who has no business in any federal office, let alone one like NHTSA chief.

This weekend, the weather in most parts of the country promises to be beautiful.  Why not take an hour or so, and jump in the car, head out to the nearest interstate, and crank up the speed (and the stereo) for an hour or two.  Lean back and savor the experience.  Think of it going away.

Then, when you get back home, write your Senators.

(And even if cruising along with your favorite tunes at 70 miles per hour isn’t your particular thing, write ’em anyway.  Because Hurley is no friend of freedom– of any sort.)

HT:  Instapundit, and “thanks” for ruining my Friday afternoon.
-----

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 22:35:44 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 6 kb.

*Which* “Net Neutrality” are you talking about?

Steven Macklin over at Hold the Mayo linked a video by author and screenwriter Andrew Klavan about what is increasingly the liberal answer to conservative arguments: “Shut Up!”^[1]  (And while I can’t play videos, fortunately Steven did a transcript.)

Klavin’s topic is certainly familiar to anyone who has had dealings with the left:

The left has been making the “Shut Up” argument at least since the 70’s, when it became clear that all their other arguments had failed.  Since it was the only argument remaining to them, they had to invent different ways to say it.

...and he proceeds to list the ways. Most are familiar and accurate (characterizing opponents as “racists”or “fascists,” declaring some ideas as “hate speech,” then using the force of government or institutions to forbid expressing them). But one sentence rang false:

A book called “A Manifesto for Media Freedom” by my City Journal pal Brain C. Anderson and Adam D. Fhierer describes how high-level Dems also support a plan with another Orwellian name. “Net Neutrality” it’s called, that would try to force conservatives to “Shut Up” online as well.

I’ve run into this before, but I had discounted it as confusion or a lack of understanding of the issue.  But now that it’s popped up again (and since somebody has put this interpretation into a book), it’s time we define our terms to be certain of what we’re arguing about.  Because, if  misunderstood, argument over “Net Neutrality” could drive an unnecessary wedge between the libertarian geeks and the conservatives.

How, you say?  Read on...

more...

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 01:10:14 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 977 words, total size 9 kb.

Pro-“Cybergrab” bill propaganda begins

On Sunday I wrote about the S.773/S.778 “Cybergrab” bills being perpetrated in the name of “security” by Senators John Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).  Today the Wall Street Journal chimes in with a mostly-content-free front-page article which attempts to stoke the paranoia up another notch by using generalities, innuendo, irrelevant examples, confusion, and off-the-record sources.  Lots of propaganda, little substance.

Deconstruction proceeds below the break...

more...

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 14:29:20 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1469 words, total size 17 kb.

Rockefeller wants massive Presidential cyber-grab, Snowe signs on

Spotted by Joanna:

Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so.  On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure...

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 [SEE NOTE* - o.g.] gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.”  The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency.  That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president.  It also grants the Secretary of Commerce “access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.”  This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws. - Steve Aquino, “Should Obama Control the Internet,” Mother Jones, April 2, 2009

Gee, seems like only yesterday that all those lefties (and a number of righties, to give them credit) were fulminating about Bush’s post-9/11 power grabs!  This looks pretty grabby to me, and whaddaya know, a Democrat wrote it:

“...from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records—the list goes on,” Rockefeller said in a statement.

Not much limit there.  (Traffic lights?)  Dear Senator Rockefeller:  A “network” isn’t necessarily “the internet,” and good administrators already know enough to keep the “critical stuff” separate.  A law that required such separation might be a good idea (just to help the smart people keep the bean counters and suits under control), but your bill ain’t it.

Instead you wrote yet another bad bill which massively- and unnecessarily-  extends executive power, and here comes Snowe, eager to sign on as a co-sponsor.

Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, “if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina.”

Ooooh, rhetorical overload!  If it happens (as Joanna asks) do we get FEMA to sort things out?  Give me a f*ckin break!

Oh, and if you work in IT, you’ll find this little provision (which the MJ article missed) quite “interesting,” too:

SEC.7:  LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION OF CYBERSECURITY PROFESSIONALS.

(a) IN GENERAL.— Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall develop or coordinate and integrate a national licensing, certification, and periodic recertification program for cybersecurity professionals.

(b) MANDATORY LICENSING.— Beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any individual to engage in business in the United States, or to be employed in the United States, as a provider of cybersecurity services to any Federal agency or an information system or network designated by the President, or the President’s designee, as a critical infrastructure information system or network, who is not licensed and certified under the program.

Looks like a whole bunch of techies are going to have to get certified.  Makes you wonder which “education” lobbyist bought Senator Rockefeller, doesn’t it?

I won’t go further at enumerating the problems with this bill.  For public reaction, the Mother Jones comment thread is a good place to start.  (I imagine there will shortly be some technically interesting comments at Slashdot, Ars Technica, and the Register.)

Anyway, I believe this one qualifies Olympia for another point.  Done!

Elsewhere:

Previously:

Related, in a “more bad legislation” way:

-----

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 18:51:39 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 845 words, total size 11 kb.

More nuance, please!

Ooooo-kay:

SPIEGEL:  Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.”  Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

NAPOLITANO:  Of course it does.  I presume there is always a threat from terrorism.  In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters.  That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

“Nuance,” huh?

Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack were all inconvenienced in a series of deliberate unfortunate and deadly terrorist acts man-caused disasters.

The victims inconvenienced were in airplanes or in their offices -- secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers.  Moms and dads.  Friends and neighbors.  Little Eichmanns.

Thousands of lives were suddenly ended altered by evil, despicable acts of terror culturally and historically justifiable man-caused disasters.

The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief grudging admiration, terrible sadness guilt, and a quiet, unyielding anger sincere desire to understand why they hate us.

These acts of mass murder man-caused disasters were intended to frighten inspire our nation into chaos and retreat thoughtful reflection.  But they have failed.  Our country is strong stubborn.  A great people has been moved to defend attack a great nation that is no better than any other.

Terrorist attacks Man-caused disasters can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but and also they cannot touch reflect the foundation evil of America.  But although these acts shatter steel, but unfortunately they cannot have not yet dented the steel of American resolve arrogance.  Which is kind of sad, when you think about it.

Via:  NewsBusters via Ace
-----

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 01:35:18 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 6 kb.

Hey “Atlas:” Three words for ya

Lot of brave talk around the web about “going Galt;^[1]” with productive people making noises about easing off so they can duck Obama’s tax increases.

Not so fast, Atlas. Three words: Cap And Trade.

The cost of energy for consumers would be driven higher in Presiden Barak Obama’s proposed budget by a cap-and-trade carbon system that is projected to raise $80 billion a year starting in 2012...

The budget assumes a starting price of $20 per ton for carbon emissions, an amount that Mr. Obama’s aides say is conservative and would likely rise.

The budget projects raising $645 billion from the auction of emissions credits between 2012... and 2019.  Mr. Obama would use some of that money to pay for about $120 billion of spending on various low-carbon technologies...  The rest of the money– about $525 billion– would be returned “to the people, especially vulnerable families, communities, and businesses...”^[2]

Well guess what, Atlas, “vulnerable” ain’t you.

So while the Democrats’ clients and buddies get paid, you get to absorb an $80+ billion/year hit.  And it won’t make any difference what your income is, or how much your 1040 taxes are.

Ready for $15 a gallon gasoline?  Ready for you electric bill to quadruple?  Ready for those costs to work their way through the rest of the economy, into the food, and clothing and rents?  Oh, and don’t forget those state and local taxes: It’ll cost more to keep the lights on (and the politicians comfortable) down at the statehouse, and you'll get to pay for it.

Yep, you’ll pay, my pretty.  And you’ll pay more.  And you’ll pay again.

Or you’ll freeze in the dark.



Elsewhere:

Related:
-----

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 17:19:32 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 4 kb.

Texas Republicans (one Senate, one House) want 2-year internet logging

c|net news:

Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations.

The legislation, which echoes a measure proposed by one of their Democratic colleagues three years ago, would impose unprecedented data retention requirements on a broad swath of Internet access providers and is certain to draw fire from businesses and privacy advocates.

Details?

[The Senate and House versions both contain] the same language: “A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least two years all records or other information pertaining to the identity of a user of a temporarily assigned network address the service assigns to that user.”  Translated, the Internet Safety Act applies not just to AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and so on--but also to the tens of millions of homes with Wi-Fi access points or wired routers that use the standard method of dynamically assigning temporary addresses.

Of course, there’s the usual excuse...

“While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children,” U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said at a press conference on Thursday. “Keeping our children safe requires cooperation on the local, state, federal, and family level.”

If Republicans ever want to regain their reputation for favoring limited government, they must stop advocating this kind of big-brother nonsense.  What lover of freedom calls for keeping two-year records of your internet use?

Well, it appears that’s just fine with these guys.

And as I have said before, it is time we stopped giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Congress is full of lawyers.  Congressional staffs are full of lawyers.  Lawyers are supposed to be able to figure out what their words mean.  Therefore, we must assume that the scope and impact of these bills is intentional.

Republicans used to be able to tell the difference between “protecting the children” and “giving the police and prosecutors everything they ask for, without considering the impact on individual liberty and privacy.”  But noooo....

Thanks a bunch, Cornyn.  Good job, Smith.  Should have left it to the Democrats.

And I hereby pledge $100 to the first real Republican who wants to run against either of you clowns in the next primary.

Naming names:

Via: Slashdot

(NOTE:  THOMAS links fixed 090320.)

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 00:07:48 GMT | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 6 kb.

Government orders book burnings- Nobody cares

As Our Masters in Washington decree:

...the federal government has now advised that children’s books published before 1985 should not be considered safe and may in many cases be unlawful to sell or distribute.  Merchants, thrift stores, and booksellers may be at risk if they sell older volumes, or even give them away, without first subjecting them to testing—at prohibitive expense.  Many used-book sellers, consignment stores, Goodwill outlets, and the like have accordingly begun to refuse new donations of pre-1985 volumes, yank existing ones off their shelves, and in some cases discard them en masse.

The problem is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), passed by Congress last summer after the panic over lead paint on toys from China...  Penalties under the law are strict and can include $100,000 fines and prison time, regardless of whether any child is harmed.
...
A commenter at Etsy, the large handicrafts and vintage-goods site, observed how things worked at one store:

I just came back from my local thrift store with tears in my eyes! I watched as boxes and boxes of children’s books were thrown into the garbage!  Today was the deadline and I just can’t believe it!  Every book they had on the shelves prior to 1985 was destroyed!  I managed to grab a 1967 edition of “The Outsiders” from the top of the box, but so many!

Congress passes a poorly-drafted law, a clueless president (yeah, Bush II) signs it, and here we are.  Can you say McCain-Feingold Again?

No. Let’s NOT give ’em the benefit of the doubt.  Let’s call this one more step in the liberal fascists’ plan to cut our children off from their history.

Because you can bet that the usual suspects will fight tooth-and-nail against any attempt to stop this.  (And that assumes there’s anyone left in Congress with enough brains and balls to try.)  Just watch.

(Yeah, I’m furious.  Can you tell yet?)

Elsewhere (added 090217 18:47):

Via: Ace

Previously.

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 17:53:44 GMT | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 4 kb.

Liberty and The Medical Mindset

Via Cranky via Tam, a pointer to this from The Happy Hospitalist:

Kill Off The Cardiologists And Save America At The Same Time

How you ask?  Erect A Federal Smoking Ban.
...
It's amazing how we spent over two trillion dollars last year, the vast majority of which was spent on conditions directly attributed to smoking.  Heart disease.  Stroke.  Emphysema.  Cancer. It's all directly correlated to smoking...  We spend billions of dollars a year on medications trying to counteract the results of these preventable disease processes.
...
...If Obama really wants to make a dent in the health care expenditures, he should, by executive decision, in the interest of National Security, sign a federal decree banning smoking in all public places.  Talk about leadership.  He would save America, I believe, with that one act.  Decreased health expenditures, increased productivity, fewer sick days, no more smoke breaks.

Needless to say, the links from C&T have resulted in HH getting a beating from the libertarian side of the ’sphere.  In their posts, both Cranky and Tam address the issues of nanny-state-ism, the proper sphere of government, and personal liberty, but it seems those involved are shouting past each other.  I believe I know the reason why.

There are doctors on both sides of my family.  In addition to my father and grandfather, two of my uncles and a pair of cousins are/were M.D.s., D.D.S.s, or the like.  (I also have lawyers on both sides of the family; perhaps I should be considered doubly cursed!)  And after growing up surrounded by physicians (but not being one), I think I can write fairly about them.

Most doctors are tremendously dedicated.  The ones who aren’t don’t make it through med school and internship– or, if they do, find some non-practicing niche to occupy themselves (medical administration, perhaps, or employment at one of the drug companies).  The ones left– who actually see and treat patients– are saints, giving up their evenings, weekends, and Christmases to help frightened, cranky, uncooperative, and, frequently, ungrateful people.

But sainthood is only a step or two away from godhood, and there’s the rub.  After traversing the obstacle course of medical education, doctors feel, with some justification, that they are special; that the M.D. they’ve been granted also means “smarter than the average bear.”  And the whole medical environment encourages this.  In hospitals and clinics, the man (or woman) with the degree is boss.  Their orders are law, their opinions are solicited, their concernes are addressed, their whims catered to.  The deferential treatment given star specialists is comparable to that received by four-star generals, corporate CEOs, or members of Congress.

The only fly in the ointment is those damn patients.  Every time, it seems, it’s the same old scenario: Someone comes to you with a problem.  You diagnose it, and prescribe a course of treatment to cure (or at least alleviate) it.  The patient says, “yes, doctor,” and then proceeds to do as he damn well pleases.

Your hard living, Twinkie eating, cigarette smoking, drive-instead-of-walk lifestyle dug your own grave.

Medications prescribed but not taken, courses of treatment begun but left unfinished, lifestyle changes that never change... what’s a doctor to do?  It’d all be so much easier if we could make ’em do the right thing.  They’d live longer and be grateful, and doctors wouldn’t be frustrated.

So the doctor, accustomed to deference, accustomed to saying “let it be,” and having it be, thinks:  What’s more natural than to pass a law.  That’ll fix it.

And should someone object, the doctor will be amazed.  Isn’t he the expert, the one dedicated to taking care of people, the one who has the correct solution (and only the best interests of others at heart)?  Where is the understanding?  Why all the ingratitude?

Except...

Except people will still be people.  But now they’ll be lawbreakers, too.


(Note:  I added the 3^rd para from the end on 090107 08:20, because on rereading it didn’t seem sufficiently clear what my point was.  Demonstrating one problem with instant-posting: Insufficient time for the ideas to gel completely. - o.g.)

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 17:09:30 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 682 words, total size 6 kb.