Pasadena Politics

Hope and Change vs A Chicken in Every Pot.

Sound bites are not the way to decide who you will elect, or, for that matter, should looks be the deciding factor.   The big warning flag people should have given everybody pause in their support of Obama was the simple phrase: “Hope and Change”.    The comment itself begs the question: what is the hope and what is the change?    The phrase is vapid; without real substance.   At least with “a Chicken in every pot”, you at least could sink your teeth into the meaning of the slogan.

State Laws Modeled on Federal Laws Violate Human Rights

Were not the Democrats talking about the USA being a “Nation of Laws”?  If you think the title is erroneous, please look here.  Basically, the Federal Government is boasting that it’s really looking out for Human Rights as the U.N. Defines them by suing a State who modeled an Immigration law on Federal law.  The point should be taken by anybody paying attention: Hillary Clinton cares more about what the U.N. thinks than about the security and integrity of the United States of America.   Something to remember next time she runs for President.

Where is the equal protection?

The First Amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Yet children are being taught that Evolution is the only explanation for the universe and, by consequence, that there is no god.  The problem with this is two fold: The Declaration of Independence is based on the idea that our Rights come from God, not man, and therefore are not something man has a right to define.   The second problem is that Evolution, while sounding scientific, does not offer convincing proof and only offers one viewpoint of the facts, ignoring, evening condemning any viewpoints that differ.   This violates the First Amendment by treating atheism with preference over any other religion and establishes a foundation that undermines the integrity of the Constitution and our very rights.

Thank you sir, may I have another?

It seems that the “establishment” is under the delusion that it is a drill sergeant and the rest of us are the recruits, unworthy of respect until we have been broken and our thoughts reflect their own.

Imagine two rival Football teams that have to vote for their Quarterbacks.  One team, A, puts up only one choice for Quarterback while the other team, B,has two contenders: one who has trained and put on the weight and another who read about it in books but lacks practical training and weight.    However, it is somehow agreed to that the members of one team can vote for the contender of the other team if they want instead of their own.

Now, who do you think the members of A will vote for?   Obviously, they could vote for their own Quarterback, but they already know he will win.  So naturally, members of team A will cast votes for the Quarterback of team B.  After all, they want to participate in the process, right?  So, which Quarterback will they vote for?  The one with training or the one who merely thinks he can do it?    If the choice is not obvious: which one would you vote for if you knew it would give your team a better chance to win?

Open primaries are very similar.  They are not the game itself, they are not where two teams battle it out for the victory.  They are meant as a means for each team to vote for who it thinks is the best contender; candidate, within the team.   While an Open Primary sounds great (”increases voter participation”) it misses the point: it is not for those outside the team to decide who the team members are they compete against but the team itself.   Certainly more people will come out to vote if they would otherwise have not due to a lack of competition within their own party.

The primary merely decides who will be representing the team, not the victorious team itself.  So if you are going to allow open primaries, you may as well eliminate the primary completely and save tax payers money.

The last effect this would have is simple: you could disenfranchise members of a political party by creating a situation where two candidates from the same party which, I imagine, is the ultimate goal: by professing to increase voter choices, they in truth limit voter choices.

Vote No on Proposition 14.

While driving home, I heard an interesting advertisement proposing to raise money to fight against Meg Whitman for California Governor.  It made me think of several things, one of them the recent Supreme Court Decision finally allowing US Corporations to enjoy their Second Amendment Rights and the Revelations that Anthropomorphic Climate Change is Junk Science at best and blatant fraud at worst.  Now, I don’t really know which Republican candidate is best at this point as I have been busy with other issues.  But any advertisement that claims you should oppose a candidate because they are a threat to State legislation built on the Junk Science of Anthropomorphic Climate Change catches my attention and rings warning bells in my mind.

So what is this Level the Playing Field dot com?  Good question.  WhoIs was unable to tell me as they chose to be anonymous.  Not a big issue there.   Following links through the site, it seems painfully obvious that the site avoids giving you contact information for a live person as well as mentioning sponsors.   Well, thankfully SFGate gives some information about the new site: Averell “Ace” Smith who handled the California campaign for Hillary Clinton and Chris Lehane, a former Clinton spokesman are mentioned as Senior Strategists.

“Level the Playing Field is one of three independent expenditure entities created to bolster 2010 Democratic campaign efforts in California. Such efforts, by law, are not associated with or directed by the Brown campaign. But they allow organizers to sidestep campaign fundraising limits with advertising that will assist Democrats.” – SFGate point.

This leads first to warning bell number two: Campaign Finance Laws.   This website is devoted to defeating a candidate.   Campaign Laws against corporations would have had no effect on this despite the Supreme Court Ruling, yet, how do you know who is donating money and even from what country they are from?  Where is the accountability on this site?   Oh, there is a check box to indicate you are a citizen, but it does nothing to verify that you are one.   Additionally, you see that the site the Donate link goes to is for www.actblue.com, or as their banner reads: ActBlue – The online clearinghouse for Democratic action.    The Fund-raising pages show John Edwards at the Top of the Fundraising Pages.   At the bottom of the section is a “Do it for Ted! Support Martha Coakley” link.   Poor link, it must be embarrassed.

So, we know this: leveltheplayingfield.com is supported by Clinton supporters who both happen to be Democrats.  We also know that ActBlue is a Democrat fundraising clearinghouse.    We also know that the site is geared towards asking Meg hard questions, questions such as: how do you plan to cut the budget, aside from cutting state worker jobs.  Of course this is actually a critical step towards cutting the budget – but as the SacBee reporter says this would be impossible and that: “Whitman has almost no contact with reporters who know something about the budget and could ask knowledgeable questions“   The irony about this is simple: Meg has enough intelligence to know these reporters only report based on agenda.  You can’t talk to them without having what you said and did not say, mean something grossly different and convenient to their world view.

I find it rather convenient that the SacBee article came out a day before the leveltheplayingfield.com radio blurb with both making the same accusation: she won’t talk to reporters and let the public know her.   Please note that the leveltheplayingfield.com site was registered Jan 20th 2010, which suggests the site was being planned before Feb 15th and that such radio spots take some time to put together and air.

Also along the theme is the: Don’t vote for her, she has money!  To which I should say: good for her.  She obviously got it from doing a better job than any Sacramento Politician.  Certainly e-Bay is more profitable than the State of California so her experience as an executive means a heck of a lot more than Jerry Brown’s experience.   If you follow the logic they apply, you should grab the homeless guy off the street and make him Governor.    But that is idiotic, you don’t vote for someone to pull you out of a fiscal crisis who has proven to be incapable or unwise in the handling of money, you vote for someone who has demonstrated wisdom and the capability to make money.   In the particular crisis we face in California, you should vote for the person who has the best record for making a profit and if the choice is between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman (and believe me, the whole point of leveltheplayingfield dot com is promoting Jerry Brown surreptitiously and in a most circuitous manner) you want the one with the best results.

Next is warning bell number one: “…special interests who want to roll back California’s bi-partisan law fighting Global Warming…“.   Now, I am all for that.    Actually, I am all for just about anything that contradicts the idiocy of Global Warming legislation and action.  That the press in the USA is pretty quiet about the whole collapse of Anthropomorphic Global Warming gives greater credence to claims that the Media is just a propaganda arm of Liberals in America.

Anyways my fellow Californians, watch out for the advertising.  It is already clear that the Media is against Meg simply because she was a successful business woman who does not view government as savior of the people.  It is now clear that the Democrat Party is starting to hurt in the Golden State and looking for ways to bolster their candidate any way they can – well, as long as it is not corporate money I suppose it is ok?

Edit: A short article pointing out the obvious: money buys advertising which does not automatically translates into votes.   This simple logic should have been obvious in the 2008 Presidential Election: McCain did not lose for a lack of money, but because he didn’t put enough effort into the campaign and getting the message out as to why he was the better candidate.   Plus he lacked something money could not buy: an ideologically sympathetic mass media.

The first one deals with fathers in the delviery room.  A rather interesting article due to its linking the rise of men in the delivery room with the decline of men being fathers.    An interesting observation.   Perhaps more or less a subliminal recognition in the culture that men need to be there as fathers?

The other article just lends more fuel to my general: “I hate Unions” sentiment.    Essentially detailing how the unions and their political supporters once again attack their competition via regulation if not outright decimation of the competition’s funding.    The irony that “professional educators” claim they want children to succeed with one hand out for more money while bludgeoning Charter Schools, Free Choice/Vouchers, and Home Schooler with a bat in the other hand is rich.   In the end, it all boils down to greed and envy.

The Unions are greedy for more members (cries for smaller class sizes and unionization of all educators) and thus greedy for more money (see how the Teachers Union in California has done an amazing job of grabbing money while increasing the idiocy of the youth lending to more cries for funding).    Poor performing teachers are not weeded out by the Unions – it doesn’t matter if the teacher gives other teachers a bad rap, harms the children, or fails to educate, all that matters is that the Union maintains it’s membership and thus income.  Leaches seems the most appropriate word.

Then there are the enlightened educators and politicians who view children as the future for their sustained power in politics and societal views.  Thus children are not taught Grammer, Logic, or rhetoric.  Nor are they taught essential math and the soundness of the Scientific Method lest they learn to think logically.   No, they are taught to perform based off of their feelings.  To expect promotion despite poor performance, and otherwise coddling by the Institutions and latter on Government.    These ‘enlightened’ people seek to usurp an Uncle  for a Mother.   If the last election were any indication of their success in this arena, I can’t think of what else may be.

May 20th, 2009 Voters of California rejected measures 1A-1E, all of which would have allowed Sacramento to ignore the needed buget cuts in favor of higher taxes and raiding of voter secured programs.    Given statements from the Governor and other elected officials, you would have thought that a formal letter had been sent saying California Voters don’t care about Democracy and would rather have the Legislature figure out how to do this on their own.    If you listened the link (27:35 into the recording), you will hear that Arnold thinks people may not like exercising Democracy by voting.  Really?   You will also hear Arnold give the typical trope about cutting Education, Police, and Fire services – AS IF THOSE ARE THE ONLY PROGRAMS the State of California funds.    If only.

One can only hope that sense will prevail in the State’s Legislature and they will stop playing to the Unions and Special Interests.

Not creep as in some shady character but creep as in encroching, sneaking, preparing to jump on you kind of creep.    This last year, we had “revenue problems” in California.  Mind you, the issue was really a spending problem, but Legislatures cannot call it a spending problem when they count on that spending to keep the interests that spend money on them to stay in office happy.   After all, what a better way to show you care about a ‘group’ – especially a ‘disenfranchised group’ than by spending other people’s money on them?    No leading by example, just a little Robin Hood action.

Of course, populism, collectivism, and the preying upon the emotional jealousies of the poor may appear to be a great way to get elected, but in the end it only produces oligarcy, resentment, civil strife, bloated government, and more and more poor.    Regan’s Trickle Down Economics – derided by Bush Sr. as Voodoo Economics, is still preferable to anything Liberals/Progressives can devise.    After all, it takes money to make money and who better to invest their wealth than those who had the wisdom and intelligence to create it to begin with?    It may seem nice to redistribute wealth through taxation but such redistributions do to generate income for their target audience.    The net effect is the stagnation of the generation of wealth which would have otherwise gone to improving the lives of those now receiving government aide or hand-outs.

Indeed, government redistribution of wealth is the surest form of crippling one’s economy and society.

Anyways, back on track:

The new form of Tax creep appears to be the internet.  With States like California who seem to think the problem is a revenue problem rather than their lavish spending on anything but essentials is it no small wonder Congress, who is overseeing a blooming increase in government spending to rival the History and Future of the USA, is eying the taxation of the Internet?   Oh, it will certainly start small.   But we all know how government, once the foot is in the door, invites itself in for dinner, your checkbook, bed and then breakfast before casting you from your own home under the rubric that you have more than someone else and should feel guilty over it.

If you don’t want to increase government’s impact on your life, now might be a good time to take a stand against increasing taxation – if you have not started already.  Talk to your Representatives – State and Federal.   Let them know you are opposed to further increases in government’s increasing it’s purse even as your’s grows smaller or stretches thinner.

Well, as if the Government in California does not have enough to do, they have decided that you, yes you, are not intelligent enough to decide which TV is best for you.    Actually, it is more of a matter of which TV is best for the environment… well, the commission’s conscience more than the environment itself.    The absurdity, as with the majority of any regulation, is that they assume an informed buyer should chose a certain way.   They assume that they know what the wise decision is and so, by their regulation, imply that you are unwise; that you are not capable of deciding what is best both for yourself and the world around you.

Well, given disclosure, given access to knowledge, people can know what is best for them and without government regulation.  Which, coincidentally, is why keeping government from regulating the Internet is as important as keeping it from regulating Freedom of Speech:  knowledge is power.  

Now, personally, I have always been conscientious towards the power consumption of the equipment I use.   When LCD monitors in 1999 were affordable enough, I purchased one because I knew they used less power and they took up less space.    Note: my knowledge was executable when the price was more in line with my budget.    People buy Plasma TVs, not because they are energy efficient but because the image is superior.    As a consequence, they pay more money in electrical bills for that increased power consumption.   

The market is self-regulating in that regards.   So long as people’s rights are respected and information is made available concerning a product, they can be trusted to make informed decisions.   The offence of regulation is that it steps on the rights of the individual while treating them as children.  

Oh, did I mention California was considering steps to regulate the color of your car?   While not a ban, it would certainly have the effect of limiting your choice.   Not because you were informed, but because you were regulated. 

Think about the Incandecent bulb ban (’phase out’). The idea is to save the environment by using less electricity which will in turn require less fuel to produce said electricity.  Of course, this effort misses the important point that the Mercury in CFLs is a hazard to the environment and man and I can attest from personal experience that CFLs do not last as long as claimed.   I have never had one last longer than 12 months, let alone 60.   Again you have the issue: government regulation interfering with your right to make an informed decision and worse forcing you to chose an option that is more hazardous.

You may hear people berating you about holding up the budget, but they are either lying to you are ignorant of the reality that all you are asking is that the “Hard Decision” they harp about is in cutting the budget.    It is the decision as to where to apply the scalpel of reform, where to cut the fat that is “Hard”.

Raising taxes is not a”Hard decision”.   It is typically the easier one to make.

They are afraid.   You have them where we, the taxpayers, want them: cornered with no escape but to beg you to release them; to let them take the easy way out and in so doing change nothing but send more taxpayers to other States.    So let them rail at you and threaten you.   They only do so from a position of weakness.   Take them to task.  Make them make the Hard Decision and cut the bloated and obnoxious budget – not one teacher will lose pay or a job if you do it right.