Vitriol, Hate, Spin

Posted with permission from the author:

I for one am tired of hearing about the "Vitriol" and "Hate" some say are used in todays discussions and speech about politics.

It seems that for some, a difference of OPINION and political views is enough to get one classified as a "HATER" or as someone who uses vitriolic speech.

We should be careful not to fall into this trap or mindset, labels are often thrown around to try and silence those that have an honest sincere disagreement with anothers views.

I would like to ask those that are using these terms and throwing these labels around, just what they want and expect from the MILLIONS of Americans who have concerns about our country and the direction it is going.

If you want to have an HONEST straightforward discussion/debate about the state of politics in this country, you MUST consider the views of both sides.
You must understand that there are MILLIONS of Americans who love their country, are extremely concerned about the welfare of their children, are and have been hard working tax paying citizens..... all they have is their VOICES and VOTES to try and keep the country that they love intact.

Consider WHAT they see and HOW they feel when:

They see the Health Care Bill rammed down their throats... with votes that were bought and paid for. When a Congresswoman is shown on national TV saying that " I didn't come cheap, I got a hospital for MY vote."

The speaker of the house laughs when asked about the constitution and answers "Are you serious??, Are you serious??"

When John Kerry says... "The American voter has historically been disinterested in the politics of our country...." and laments that now, the American voter has opened his eyes..... sad that some of us are awake and paying attention now.

When Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory Czar says that he believes children should be able to be aborted up to the age of TWO YEARS OLD because they are not self aware.... and that ANIMALS should have the right to sue humans and should have their day in court.

There are MANY examples of acts and statements that cause honest Americans to be concerned.

I would suggest that those that are so very quick to talk about vitriol and hate are those that would see our country ravaged and changed for the worse.

Maybe, just maybe, if we had an administration that followed our constitution
instead of looking at it as an impediment to their way of governing, we wouldn't have this "VITRIOL."

Maybe if the laws of our country were followed and the government DID it's job instead of being concerned about the things that it was not given the power to do, things would be better.

I don't know what the label throwers want.... maybe we should just shut up, sit down, and pay our taxes.... because apparently if we don't, we are haters.

I'm just tired of the smoke and mirrors, tired of of the labels and lies.

Just venting....... sorry for the RANT!!

Monckton: The Not-So-Hidden Agenda of GoreBull Warning

Viscount Monckton explains the GoreBull Warning endgame:

Words Mean Things: Surrendering the High Ground

Good old Jazz Shaw and I engaged in a little back-and-forth via Twitter today, sparked by his tweet:

Dear Congress: You can keep all the Bush tax cuts, but you have to cut spending. This isn't rocket surgery.

I responded by pointing out the missing word in that first clause:

@JazzShaw Not "tax cuts". Tax RATE cuts, which INCREASED tax revenues. Expiration will REDUCE tax revenues.

In subsequent volleys, Jazz assured me that I was reading in meaning he hadn't intended (that the two parts were linked, so that the "tax cuts" would result in lower revenue, which then must be "paid for" by the spending cuts). I'm glad to hear I was wrong about that, but I still believe that we should always refer to "tax rate cuts", and avoid even the appearance of linking tax rate cuts to spending reductions, in order not to surrender ground in policy debates.
I wasn't just reacting to Jazz when I tweeted that, but to the kind of "argument" provided yesterday by Nancy Skinner on Freedom Watch with Andrew Napolitano:

Now, I don't for a moment mean to compare Jazz to Nancy, who seems to fill the same role for Andrew as Alan Colmes did for Sean Hannity: mindlessly repeating Democratic talking points that serve as hanging curve balls to be smacked out of the park. You can almost see her flipping through the list of liberal shibboleths (shall I go Palin and coin the portmanteu "lib-oleths"?) until she could find one that fit the situation at hand.

But when we debate on their terms, we unnecessarily handicap ourselves. As you can see in the above clip, Nancy spewed such a barrage of BS that Charlie Gasparino got stuck dealing with only one particularly large pile of it (the idea that money in the hands of higher-bracket earners has a smaller "multiplier" than money "redistributed" into the hands of lower-income people who will use it to consume more, thereby providing a "stimulus" to the economy). I think Don Boudreaux was trying to make the same point as mine but it got lost in the crosstalk. (Note to Napolitano: Try having two guests instead of three; it might make cut down on that.)

I don't want to get bogged down debating the Laffer Curve here, but to put it simply, the idea is that higher marginal tax rates will change the behavior of high-bracket earners. They may put in less time on the job to spend more with the kids, or divert money that would have gone into investing in new production capacity (which means more jobs for lower-bracket folks) and put it in tax shelters like municipal bonds. These alternative investments aren't expected to make as large of a profit, but after the effects of the tax rates are considered, the taxpayers figure they'll actually get to keep more. This pulls capital out of the economy and somewhat depresses the rates paid on the tax-sheltered investments.

Either way, if the marginal rate goes above a certain point, it will actually result in lower revenues for governments. Leftists refer to a tax rate reduction as a "tax cut" that must be "paid for", even when the tax rate reduction produces the same or higher revenues, in effect paying for itself. Note that even a rate reduction that goes below the point of maximum revenues can still meet that standard, because for any point above the maximum, there exists a point below it that brings in the same revenue.

The reason the "Bush" tax rate cuts, like the "Reagan" cuts before them, worked so well, is that they reduced those highest marginal tax rates to a level where people could improve their after-tax income by concentrating on making their investments profitable, and stop worrying about the tax implications. The money that was tied up in arcane shelter instruments came back to create new jobs. Tax revenues went up in real dollars under both the "Reagan" and "Bush" tax rate cuts.

However, there was a difference. The earlier cuts were "permanent", meaning that they would remain low until Congress took action to increase them again (during the Clinton administration) but the "Bush" cuts had a built-in expiration date, which will see them end this year unless Congress extends them with Jazz' permission. For several years now, taxpayers have been making investment decisions recognizing that Democratic majorities in Congress are very unlikely to "cut taxes on the rich", so the high-bracket marginal rates are nearly certain to rise back to pre-Bush levels.

Restoring those tax rate cuts, and committing to keep them for several years, will not need to be somehow tied to spending reductions to "pay for" them. As they have done before, they will again pay for themselves. Using our opponents' terminology of "tax cuts" reinforces their ability to frame the debate in terms of fiscal responsibility. We need to convey that cutting rates will actually be a tax increase. Everyone understands that a business can cut prices and increase revenues. We need to talk about tax rate cuts as putting taxes "on sale".

[Even if those tax rate reductions do result in lower revenues, we can't allow ourselves to be in favor of that being an excuse to raise the taxes. Government spending always costs us, regardless of how it's "paid for". But that is a topic for another day.]
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Reason TV: Evolutionary Psychology

I've been planning on writing a series of posts about how our species evolved into its current condition, and how that process has influenced the way people think about the organization of society. Here is a husband-wife team of researchers into the very topic. Listen to what they have to say; it helps to explain a lot we need to be looking at.

America's new culture war: Free enterprise vs. government

Arthur C. Brooks had a column in yesterday's Washington Post (?!?).

Read it. Print it out. Email it to your friends. He nails it!

Money quotes:

"When it comes to support for free enterprise, we are essentially a 70(for)-30(against) nation.

"Free enterprise brings happiness; redistribution does not. The reason is that only free enterprise brings earned success."

"The 70 percent majority, meanwhile, believes that ingenuity and hard work should be rewarded."

"What matters most to Americans is the commitment to principle, not the exercise of power. The electorate did not repudiate free enterprise in 2008; it simply punished an unprincipled Republican Party."

An Entrepreneur and the Minimum-Wage

by Don Boudreaux on April 29, 2010

A.G. (who asks me to use, in this post, only his initials) is a regular reader of Cafe Hayek. He’s 28 years old and is an entrepreneur in Charlotte, North Carolina. His firm employs 25 people, 21 of whom are low-skilled workers. A.G. just sent this memo to his employees:

To All Team Members:

The schedule for next week has been posted. You may notice that hours have been cut back on your schedule. This is across the board, not just you. I don’t want anyone to think they’ve done something wrong to deserve a cut in hours, so I wanted to explain why it’s happening.

There are a couple of reasons for this:

Go here and read the whole thing.

Cults of Personality: Romania, Lebanon,...

A Romanian who lived through the Ceauşescu cult of personality, and now lives in Lebanon, warns that Nasrallah's Hisb'allah party is pretty much the same thing:

I thought the danger is there, in the cult of personality, lingering in the secrecy, in the spying, in the songs indoctrinating people.... If it were a state, Hezbollah would operate a dictatorship.

Read the whole thing, and see if you can spot emerging examples in Western countries, too.

Mike Rowe: The War on Work

Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs and countless other shows on Discovery Networks speaks about the War on Work. This should be mandatory viewing for all government employees.

A Picture is Worth....

UPDATE: ACORN Baltimore sues Giles, O'Keefe, and Breitbart.

Remember folks. Discovery isn't just a cable channel.

UPDATE 2: There is now a Legal Defense Fund

Whittle vs. The Narrative

I don't normally bother to comment on just every "Afterburner" episode Bill does on PJTV. The link is over there in the sidebar, and I figure most people who come here go there. Insty links to most of them too.

But this one is a must see. Bill eviscerates MSNBC and the rest of the MainScream Media as the dishonest scum that they are. Set aside 15 minutes, pop yourself some popcorn, and enjoy a good old-fashioned ass-whoopin'. (Bill is the one doing the whoopin'.)

Of course you can keep your coverage...

Our old buddy Don tipped us off with this analysis of ObamaCare. I normally rely on Muscle Daddy to dig through lengthy legislation, because he can do that without reflexively grabbing an icepick to stab his eyes out. What's a mere Monster to do? Well, I can whip out my digital hi-lighter and see if I can connect some dots.
This particular provision grabbed my eye:

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

This sounds troubling. If you don't have "acceptable health care coverage", you get stuck with an extra 2.5% marginal income tax. But what does "acceptable health care coverage" mean? Subsection (d) lists Medicare, Medicaid, Armed Forces, and VA, as well as these:

(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009).

(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRANDFATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
. . .
(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.

So what's in 100(c)?

(1) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- The term ‘acceptable coverage’ has the meaning given such term in section 202(d)(2).

Good grief. So what does section 202(d)(2) say?

(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan.

(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER CURRENT GROUP HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102) or under a current group health plan (described in subsection (b) of such section).
. . .
(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage, such as a State health benefits risk pool, as the Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, recognizes for purposes of this paragraph.

It's déjà vu all over again! Nowhere does anything define "a qualified health benefits plan".

How about that "grandfathered" business in 102(a)? Check out the reassuring title, then the gory details:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
. . .

Note that the only coverage "grandfathered" is individual coverage, which is explictly not group coverage (like most employer-based plans are) according to the prior 101(c)(2):

(2) INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE- The terms ‘individual health insurance coverage’ and ‘group health insurance coverage’ mean health insurance coverage offered in the individual market or large or small group market, respectively, as defined in section 2791 of the Public Health Service Act.

The way I read this definition, when President Obama says "you'll be able to keep your existing coverage", he's hiding the fact that for most Americans with health insurance today, the coverage they'll be allowed to keep won't prevent them from paying the 2.5% tax for "freeloaders" who don't have "adequate coverage".
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]
I've barely begun to read this bill. I think the average person who manages to read the whole thing will be begging for a "death panel" to put him out of his misery. MuscleDaddy, I have no idea how you do it.

Reading (Bills) is Fundamental

By now, everyone who pays attention to how the US Congress operates knows that many bills are passed into law without most Congressmen having actually read what they voted for. I was listening to KMBZ's Scott Parks explaining why Emmanuel Cleaver (D-MO5), being one of the few members of Congress who is not a lawyer, might have to rely upon a staff member who is one, to read bills on his behalf and tell him what they mean.

I was gobsmacked. Cleaver has a Master of Divinity degree and is an ordained minister. That means he has more education than the average US citizen. If the laws enacted by Congress are impossible for such a man to understand, how can the rest of us, who must obey those laws, understand them well enough to do so? The entire point of a "government of laws, not of men" is that the law will be well known and understood by the people it governs, so that those people can live their lives free of the threat of force being imposed upon them.

Just as our constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto laws (which criminalize past acts, which were legal when they were committed) and Bills of Attainder (which legislatively declare guilt, without benefit of a trial), I believe legislation beyond the reading comprehension required of those expected to obey it is unconstitutional. The constitution also protects the right to trial by jury, which at the time it was adopted would have implied a random selection of people of the community in which the crime is alleged to have taken place. The Framers were well aware of the jury in Zenger nullifying a law they considered unjust. I believe it is a reasonable assumption that a jury so empowered would also acquit someone charged with violating a confusing law.

Unfortunately, judges and prosecutors conspire to deprive jurors of their inherent power. Perhaps an amendment is in order. I'd prefer one explicitly enumerating jury nullification, but I'd take this as a consolation prize: No law may be enacted that is beyond the comprehension required of high-school graduates, except if it only applies to certain industries, in which case it might apply technical language that is common knowledge in those industries.

Double Standard on Politicians' Kids

Well, David Letterman has offered up a pathetic explanation for his recent comments:

The late-night host had drawn particular fire from Palin and some pundits for a joke about one of Palin's daughters being impregnated by New York Yankees star Alex Rodriguez during a trip to Yankee Stadium. Camp Palin apparently took the joke to be a crack against Palin's 14-year-old daughter Willow, who had recently attended a Yankees game, but Letterman insisted today that the real target was 18-year-old daughter Bristol.

Let's see if we can discern the rules here.

I'd like someone to diagram that joke any way that isn't calling Willow Bristol a whore. So, we've established that it's just fine to joke about a female politician being slutty, and her daughter being knocked up by a professional baseball player during the seventh inning, and the daughter is a whore. And that's OK because both the politician and her daughter are over 18.

Well, now. Let's set the Wayback Machine for February 2008, shall we? Chelsea Clinton was within a few weeks of her 28th birthday, and MSNBC's David Shuster commented on her participation in her mother's campaign.... He thought she was "sort of being pimped out" by the campaign. There are many interpretations of the phrase (Billy Mays and Vince Shlomi can be said to be "pimping" various products, or an actor appearing on Letterman's show might be "pimping" a movie role), but Hillary expressed her outrage at Shuster calling her daughter a whore. She received an apology from the head of NBC News, and Shuster was suspended from the air for two weeks.

Why is it OK to call Bristol Palin a whore, when she is nearly a decade younger than Chelsea Clinton was when Shuster made his remark?
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Nothing to see here, move along.

By now, most of the Dextrosphere (including our own MuscleDaddy) has weighed in on the DHS Memo on "Rightwing Extremism" Those of the sinister persuasion, and even "moderates" like Jazz Shaw think we're all a-twitter about nothing.
His basic point seems to be this:

The only way this isn’t Fauxrage is if you you think these extremist descriptions apply to you. If you don’t, then you’re dancing with straw men to score cheap political points. If you do, then I hope the DHS catches up with you before you kill someone.

Hardly. The problem is not that I think the "extremist descriptions" apply to me, but that DHS may think so. After all, I'm a white male who has actually read the Constitution, and thinks that our national government far exceeds the authority it has been granted. Anyone who's heard my opinions on political issues (whether they like it or not) knows that I advocate repeal of several Amendments that have increased that authority (16, 17, and 23 right off the top of my head). I've opposed nearly everything the current administration has done (allowing SEALs the green light to pop pirates is the obvious exception). That makes me an "extremist" from the frame of reference of a typical government employee. Given the similar report in Missouri (located less than a mile from my home in Kansas City, KS), there's plenty of reason for concern that someone would think I'm one of those wack jobs.

In reading the DHS document, I found something that really chilled me. Under the final section of the report, entitled "Outlook", are these ominous paragraphs (emphasis mine):

(U//FOUO) A number of law enforcement actions and external factors were effective in limiting the militia movement during the 1990s and could be utilized in today’s climate.

— (U//FOUO) Following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, the militia movement declined in total membership and in the number of organized groups because many members distanced themselves from the movement as a result of the intense scrutiny militias received after the bombing.
— (U//FOUO) Militia membership continued to decline after the turn of the millennium as a result of law enforcement disruptions of multiple terrorist plots linked to violent rightwing extremists, new legislation banning paramilitary training, and militia frustration that the “revolution” never materialized.

...

Apparently I'm paranoid to connect the dots here. I see the Department of Homeland Security saying that either a successful Reichstagsbrand bombing of a government office building, or one which Law Enforcement happens to disrupt, but "link" to those extremist RethugliKKKan wingnuts, could be utilized in today's climate to effectively limit the "militia movement".

I'm told that the word "could" means they're just talking about a possibility here. They aren't actually planning to have an agent provacateur push some poor soul into plotting a terrorist act, and then either stop it before too many people get hurt, or let it actually happen to more effectively utilize the crisis. I'm completely nuts to think someone could want to do that:

"You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste" -White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel

Hey, if I'm paranoid to connect those dots and say that a government employee could want a pretext for a crackdown on political opposition, what does it make the DHS staffers who produced this report about what members of that political opposition could do?
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

"The Takedown" Deconstructs Propaganda

The hypocrisy of Jon Stewart's attack on Jim Cramer, and the larger problem of an electorate that is "informed" by biased media, is laid bare for all to see in this 4-part video.

Set aside about 40 minutes to watch it. Quick, before it gets taken down.

Gorebal Warming Agenda Revealed

FOX News has uncovered the real agenda behind "global warming climate change":

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Long ago, I read something (can't recall exactly where or the precise words, but here's the gist of it) that explains how middlemen operate.

There is a point in any transfer of money between two parties, when the money is no longer in the first party's hands, but is not yet in the second party's hands. This magic moment is when an opportunist can snatch off a little piece of the money, leaving the principal parties to the transaction unaware that they've lost anything.

The mechanism is clear in such things as withholding from wages and salaries; most people don't even realize the extent to which they are taxed over the course of a year, and some are even now bragging about how big of a refund they are getting. Now, think about a scheme that forces trillions of dollars a year to be transferred from productive endeavors. Even if the putative recipients of those transfers are performing a valuable function in abating atmospheric CO₂ levels (which I vehemently dispute, given the record of temperature levels rising and falling about eight centuries before the corresponding changes in CO₂ levels), those trillions will be an irresistable target for the middlemen.

And Al Gore is already established in the business of "carbon offset" middleman, so he figures to have a good market share under this new regime. How can the credibility be tainted of a scientist debunking second hand smoke scares, who has received funding from tobacco companies; but not that of propagandists like Gore with a clear financial interest in implementing these cap-and-trade and carbon-tax schemes, and the scientists pushing AGW scares, who receive funding from governments that stand to raise a good deal of money from those schemes? And am I nuts to think that George Soros has an inside track to position his considerable assets so as to benefit from these major changes in the world economy?[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

So, what IS he trying to do?

Let's do some dot-connecting here...

So apparently our 44th President, Barack Hussein Obama, has decided that 'good judgement' means:

- Beefing up the Palestinian Army

In addition, U.S. President Barack Obama intends to add a budget of as much as $55 million for training the force at the base, according to the Reuters news agency. The current budget is $75 million, and such an increase would almost double American military assistance to the PA.

(supporting the standing-army of a not-country that largely longs for a second holocaust - no, that's an excellent idea)

- Inviting Iran to Afghanistan talks

"The new approach is expected to emphasize nonmilitary means of blunting the power of the Taliban and other insurgents..."

(last time I checked, 'nonmilitary means' of dealing with barbaric forces involved "Danegeld")

... because Iran is interested in peaceful existence in the ME... no, wait:

"Iran throws conference to support Hamas"

(Okay - back to The One's "judgement")


- Making deliberate, symbolic gestures...

"A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back."

"But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

- ...to alienate America's closest Ally

"No British leader in modern times has been greeted with less decorum by his American counterpart, and the amateur reception he received was more fitting for the arrival of a Third World potentate than the leader of America’s closest ally."

- Slapping a gag-order on the DoD concerning any "changes" in Defense budget-spending

"The Obama administration has directed defense officials to sign a pledge stating they will not share 2010 budget data with individuals outside the federal government."
(Hm - 'Transparency'... What could those changes be, that Obama wouldn't want word of them getting out?)

- Continuing to Do Everything that is Demonstrably Wrong for the Economy

"It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis."

So - to Recap:

- Sucking up to avowed enemies...

- Alternately imperiling and alienating avowed allies...

- Instituting a "leaks-for-me-but-not-for-thee" policy regarding "changes" to Defense-spending...


And all while, doing everything he can think of to make sure that the U.S. economy goes all-the-way into the tank ... and stays there.

.......................................*

I submit to you my opinion that this much propensity for 'Wrong' in such a short amount of time - from someone who has successfully survived to adulthood - cannot merely be "Bad Judgement".

With a "Leader" like this....

God help us.

- MuscleDaddy