Morning Links

Monday, September 20th, 2010

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

57 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Cynical in CA | 

    “However the theft nonsense is infantile. It’s exactly that self-indulgent “I’m a victim” mentality that has caused the process to produce simultaneous expansion of government and lowering of taxes.”

    Holy unfounded assertion Batman! How on Earth did you get here from there? Please enlighten us!

    Truth = infantilism

    Wow. Just wow.

  2. #2 |  takoyaki | 

    Re: The Tea parties

    I don’t have a clue what the tea parties stand for because all I hear are ambiguous statments like “cut spending”, “taking back our country” and “getting back to American values”. Okay, I like the cut spending part but what spending? Social Security? Don’t hear them advocating that and doubt it anyway since many supporters seem drawing on it. Medicare? Doubt it for the same reasons as social security. Defense? Wouldn’t hold my breath on that from the amount of jingoism I hear from them. So that eliminates the three biggest programs by expenditure and leaves little else to balance the budget without tax increases. I’d like to see specific budget proposals or I have to assume they are just spouting rhetoric. Doesn’t inspire much confidence that they are any different than the two big parties. And, I see a lot of ignorance about just how much current govt spending touches their lives. Just one example, the state I live in has two big population centers and the rest is basically rural or empty. Most of the rural clinics only operate in these locations because of govt subsidies and reimbursements. I know this because I have seen their cost reports and heard their complaints. If it was left to the free market, these clinics wouldn’t exist and most of the inhabitants of these areas would have to travel to the two metro areas, and we’re talking 4 or 5 hours in some cases, to get any meaningful healthcare. Yet, from much of what I see and hear, the Tea Party supporters in these rural areas want govt out of their healthcare. Okay, I’m fine with that but they seem to have no clue about how dependent their local clinics are on govt dollars. Now, am I really supposed to believe that if they somehow got their wish and it was seriously proposed to end govt subsidies to these clinics, which would undoubtedly lead to their shutdown or shrinking of services, that they wouldn’t be out lobbying to keep the govt money flowing??? I see them as govt spending on programs they agree with good, other govt spending bad. No different than the Reps/Dems. I can’t really elaborate on the latter two ambiguous statements because “taking back our country” seems to have some connection with Obama/liberals=socialism/Marxism and “getting back to American values” pines for some idealized, utopian American past and seems to be code for “illegal brown people, gays, Muslims, liberals and anybody else who isn’t like me isn’t a true American and are trying to take over the country”. I speak only for myself and the undercurrents I feel when I hear their rhetoric. And please, I’m not calling them all bigots or racists. Defining what is a “true American” doesn’t automatically make you a racist, but calling others who don’t share your views “un-American” does make one an arrogant, close-minded prick in my book. But again, I speak only for myself. I’m sure there are principled fiscal conservatives and social libertarians that belong to the various Tea Parties, but, by the candidates I’m seeing being supported by the Tea Parties and the rhetoric these candidates push, I don’t see any evidence of their impact.

  3. #3 |  Monica | 

    RE: The Michigan story — law enforcement has been going to any and all lengths to undo the will of the people regarding the MM law, because the law itself is one of the few instances where it is SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN to keep the government off the backs of patients. The law passed overwhelmingly in all counties – imagine that, the most diverse group of people from liberals to conservatives voted to keep the government off the backs of sick people who use MM. People are really pissed.

  4. #4 |  Steve Finlay | 

    You and Jesse Walker WANT a movement that understands and advocates libertarian principles to exist. So do I.

    But do not let your desire become so strong that you see a knight in shining armour where there is none. The Tea Party movement must be assessed on what it DOES, not what a few intelligent people within the movement say. And the only thing that it does is nominate insane authoritarians such as O’Donnell and Palin, and scream and yell in rallies led by profiteering madmen such as Glenn Beck.

  5. #5 |  Elliot | 

    @Steve Finlay (#54), if you’re going to criticize people for not being libertarian, you might want to refrain from using the ignorant “profiteering” pejorative. That’s the sort of thing I expect from collectivists and others who don’t understand the principles of the free market, like supply and demand.

    Glenn Beck’s emphasis on faith is a total non-starter for me. It’s a huge distraction from the real problems of Big Government, which he could focus on. Also, I don’t get how you see him as a “madman.” He’s more of a milquetoast type, who will say a lot of prayers, encourage people to line up at the ballot box, and then wonder why the problems they see never get solved. He’s not pushing for any sort of civil unrest. Any self-respecting “madman” would be at least breaking windows or something.

  6. #6 |  Steve Finlay | 

    Good point – Beck isn’t mad; he appears to know exactly what he is doing. And while he is profiteering in that he is being paid for activities that are objectively destructive and damaging, the people who are foolish enough to pay him are more to blame than he is. It IS hard to walk away from easy money.

  7. #7 |  Elliot | 

    @Steve Finlay (#56). Do you have a specific definition for “profiteering” which means something other than: “Making money doing things with which I disagree”? Perhaps you should review some history of the use of the word, including the legal prosecution of people who react to supply and demand signals during a crisis, and thus have done nothing morally wrong. Might I suggest something without the connotation of illegality, like “snake oil salesman”?

    Also, can you describe these “activities that are objectively destructive and damaging”? I know a little about his activities, but I can’t imagine what could fit that description. What is being destroyed or damaged? Again, these words have specific meaning, beyond “doing things with which I disagree.”