Sunday, May 19, 2013
Libtards Want to Turn the Tribune into a Communal Paper
These people are completely clueless. If the Tribune and other print news were
turning out a decent product, they wouldn’t be in financial trouble. They need to be restructured. Better yet, they need credibility which is in
short supply in today’s media.
Libtards are always railing against
corporations. Yet, if they were to take
over the Tribune, they too would have to be a corporation. I’m amazed at how stupid these people are.
H/T: Weasel Zippers
A Brief History of Elizabeth Community in Charlotte, NC
Here is a video documenting the history of one of Charlotte's oldest communities. Todays denizens will recognize some of the landmarks and the names of citizens who once resided in their neighborhood.
It's Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence Day
May 20th is Mecklenburg Declaration of
Independence Day, or locally known as Meck Dec Day. This day of celebration is emblazoned on North
Carolina’s state flag. The following is
an introduction, along with the resolves:
On April 30, 1819, the Raleigh (N.C.) Register published the
following document, said to have been adopted by the Committee of Mecklenburg
county, North Carolina, on May 20, 1775, the day after the receipt of the news
of the battle of Lexington. The similarity of some of its phrases (here
italicized) to phrases in the Declaration of Independence raised questions as
to plagiarism on Jefferson's part, or, on the other hand, as to the
authenticity of the Mecklenburg document. It is clear that Jefferson never
heard of it before 1819; and the explanation most commonly adopted is, that it
is a compilation, based in part on general recollections of certain
resolutions, still extant, which were drawn up by the committee-men of
Mecklenburg on May 31, 1775.
The Document
"1. Resolved, That whosoever directly or indirectly
abetted, or in any way, form, or manner, countenanced the unchartered and
dangerous invasion of our rights, as claimed by Great Britain, is an enemy to
this County, to America, and to the inherent and inalienable rights of man.
2. Resolved, That we the citizens of Mecklenburg County, do
hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us to the Mother
Country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British Crown,
and abjure all political connection, contract, or association, with that
Nation, who have wantonly trampled on our rights and liberties¬and inhumanly
shed the innocent blood of American patriots at Lexington.
3. Resolved, That we do hereby declare ourselves a free and
independent people, are, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and
self¬governing Association, under the control of no power other than that of
our God and the General Government of the Congress; to the maintenance of which
independence, we solemnly pledge to each other, our mutual cooperation, our
lives, our fortunes, and our most sacred honor.
4. Resolved, That as we now acknowledge the existence and
control of no law or legal officer, civil or military, within this County, we
do hereby ordain and adopt, as a rule of life, all, each and every of our
former laws -where, nevertheless, the Crown of Great Britain never can be
considered as holding rights, privileges, immunities, or authority therein.
5. Resolved, That it is also further decreed, that all, each
and every military officer in this County, is hereby reinstated to his former
command and authority, he acting conformably to these regulations, and that
every member present of this delegation shall henceforth be a civil officer,
viz. a Justice of the Peace, in the character of a 'Committee¬man,' to issue
process, hear and determine all matters of controversy, according to said
adopted laws, and to preserve peace, and union, and harmony, in said County,
and to use every exertion to spread the love of country and fire of freedom
throughout America, until a more general and organized government be
established in this province."
http://charmeck.org/mecklenburg/county/ParkandRec/TrailOfHistory/Pages/default.aspx
http://charlottein2012.com/blog/meck_dec_day/
Friday, May 17, 2013
EPA to Investigate Bias Against Conservative Groups
The federal government is corrupt from head to foot. Here is a report of another agency abusing
its power:
The Environmental Protection Agency’s
inspector general will review claims the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
refuses to waive public records fees for conservative groups while granting the
waivers for environmental organizations.Acting Administrator Robert Perciasepe asked the agency’s inspector general to review claims after GOP lawmaker accusations of a double standard.
The charges came up Thursday during a
House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, where Republicans compared the
EPA's actions to the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups.
Perciasepe told lawmakers he’s asking the
inspector general to help conduct a “programmatic audit” of Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request fee decision.
The
action follows a May 14 report
by the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) that claims the EPA
waives the fees for major environmental groups more than 90 percent of the
time, while often denying fee waivers for CEI, Judicial Watch and other groups.
Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/300167-epas-internal-watchdog-to-probe-bias-claims-amid-gop-comparisons-to-tax-scandal#ixzz2TbKbo1IX
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/300167-epas-internal-watchdog-to-probe-bias-claims-amid-gop-comparisons-to-tax-scandal#ixzz2TbKbo1IX
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Obama's Know Nothing Administration
I know nothing, or its somebody elses fault sums up the Obama administration and all their underlings. You know its bad when the Charlotte Observer is publishing cartoons like this one:
And here are some clips to emphasize this culture of corruption.
GOP Congressman Gets Standing Ovation After Grilling IRS Commissioner
I gave a standing ovation, and I wasn't there.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
IRS Executive Received Healthy Bonuses for Harassing Conservatives
An Obama foot soldier received healthy bonuses for
harassing conservatives during a time when most Americans feared the loss of
their jobs. This IRS Agent was then
promoted to head the prestigious Obamacare unit. Who says ideology doesn’t pay in Chicago
D.C.?
Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS executive in
charge of the tax exempt division in 2010 when it began targeting conservative
Tea Party, evangelical and pro-Israel groups for harassment, got more than
$100,000 in bonuses between 2009 and 2012.More recently, Ingram was promoted to serve as director of the tax agency's Obamacare program office, a position that put her in charge of the vast expansion of the IRS' regulatory power and staffing in connection with federal health care, ABC reported earlier today.
Ingram received a $7,000 bonus in 2009, according to data obtained by The Washington Examiner from the IRS, then a $34,440 bonus in 2010, $35,400 in 2011 and $26,550 last year, for a total of $103,390. Her annual salary went from $172,500 to $177,000 during the same period.
I wonder how much of a bonus she’ll get for each conservative she kills by harassing and denying healthcare to them. Don’t think it’s possible? Then you haven’t been paying attention.
Source: http://washingtonexaminer.com/irs-tax-exemptionobamacare-exec-got-103390-in-bonuses/article/2529899?custom_click=rss
IRS Fascist Promoted to Oversee Obamacare
The Internal Revenue Service has been completely
corrupted. Three years ago, bloggers and unconventional
news organizations warned that this oprichniki was targeting tea party
organizations. Come to find out, they
were targeting all conservative and religious organizations, period.
Now one of those criminals has been promoted to oversee Obamacare. Fox News reported the following: WASHINGTON – DEVELOPING: The IRS official who led the tax-exempt organizations unit when Tea Party groups were targeted is now in charge of the IRS office responsible for ObamaCare, two Capitol Hill sources tell Fox News.
The acknowledgement fueled criticism of the
agency and led one prominent Republican senator to call for the IRS to be
blocked from implementing the health care law.
In a statement from Texas Sen. John Cornyn
touting his plan to block the IRS from receiving money to implement part of the
health care law, he said "now more than ever, we need to prevent the IRS
from having any role in Americans’ health care."
Sarah Hall Ingram had been serving as
commissioner of the office responsible for tax exempt organizations from 2009
to 2012, and has since left to serve as director of the IRS' Affordable Care
Act division. While still the commissioner of the Tax-Exempt and Government
Entities Division, she was assigned to head the implementation of ObamaCare at
the IRS in 2010 after the law was enacted. It is not clear when she stopped
being the head of the tax-exempt office or how active her role was there while
she was implementing ObamaCare.
But the official who succeeded her, Joseph
Grant, is now leaving the agency in the wake of the scandal. His retirement was
announced Thursday, even though he only took the job May 8.
"Stunning, just stunning," Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday following the news that the IRS
official who oversaw the scandal-plagued office that targeted conservatives, is
now leading the IRS’ ObamaCare office.
Sarah Hall Ingram is the Dr. Mengele of the Obamcare
Death Panel. Good luck to anyone
associated with a conservative organization in getting decent health care with
this fascist breathing down your neck. Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/16/second-irs-official-to-leave-amid-tea-party-scandal/#ixzz2TVXcSQDh
Beware of Reassurances from a Tyrant
Barack Obama reassured college graduates that goverment is beneficent and their friend. Nice coming from someone whose administration is abusing its authority and harassing their political opponents.
Wickard v. Filburn: Bastardization of the Commerce Clause
Wickard v. Filburn is one example of overreach by the Supreme Court. To this day the federal government uses this ruling to trample over the states and our individual rights. Precedence over principles is the liberal doctrine. That is why they consider our Constitution a living and breathing document.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Benghazi Talking Points Completely False
Hell, we all knew that! Did the Obama administration actually believe they could blame a video no one ever saw? They really do believe we're that stupid.
Look Away, Red State Land
It looks like the Divided States of America is
having another great awakening. Liberty
loving citizens have signed petitions to secede from the union, as a form of protest,
over an ever grasping federal government.
Red states are taking a stand against the totalitarians that infest
Washington D. C. Recently, Kansas passed
a law protecting its citizens from federal gun-grabbing laws. South Carolina’s state House passed a bill
that would prohibit anyone from enforcing Obamacare on individuals and
businesses. And the whole country knows
about Texas.
This is just the opening salvos of what is to be a
long and contentious war of attrition. Either
we can accept the Democratic Party’s notion of America by disabusing ourselves
of federalism and a constitution; or, we as a people can renounce the
progressive movement by repealing the 14th, 16th, and 17th
amendments, and restore limited government and the genius of our founding.
Even libtards are coming to the realization that
this country cannot stand; either we are free, or totalitarian. Lee Siegel of the Daily Beast wrote an article
about our nation's conundrum. Of course, he
characterized Southerners as a bunch of illiterate hayseeds completely devoid
of common sense, education and culture.
We hillbillies have come to expect that kind of condescending attitude from elitist snobs from New York City. Their sense of superiority is something to behold, even as their citizens flee their collective utopia. United Van Lines submits an annual report. I don’t see anyone migrating to blue states. I beg you Mr. Siegel, please put up a Berlin-style wall to keep your teat squawking carpetbaggers from invading the South. We already have a problem with illegal aliens; we don’t need your ilk down here.
What Mr. Siegel fails to understand is this isn’t a
repeat of the War of Northern Aggression.
What we have is a rural vs. urban conflict. The last general election is indicative of
what truly divides America. Take a look
at the county by county map. That says
it all.We hillbillies have come to expect that kind of condescending attitude from elitist snobs from New York City. Their sense of superiority is something to behold, even as their citizens flee their collective utopia. United Van Lines submits an annual report. I don’t see anyone migrating to blue states. I beg you Mr. Siegel, please put up a Berlin-style wall to keep your teat squawking carpetbaggers from invading the South. We already have a problem with illegal aliens; we don’t need your ilk down here.
Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/30/memo-to-the-south-go-ahead-secede-already.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/2/attorney-general-eric-holder-kansas-gov-sam-brownb/#ixzz2S9yQjV55Sunday, May 5, 2013
Is America Becoming Europe?
Listen to any libtard and the answer is yes, they want to become like Europe. They constantly state we are lagging in the "industrial world" when it comes to health care. They pine for a nanny state despite the looming collapse of the EU.
But hey, libtards don't care about such trivial happenings. They just want their "free stuff."
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Obama's Anti-Christian Policies
Look at the people Obama appoints to positions of power. They're either grafters, racist, self-loathing Americans, or anti-Christian bigots.
If we continue electing these kinds of politicians, this country will not last.
H/T: Moonbattery
Muslim Birthday Card is the Bomb!
Art mirrors reality.
Of course, Muslims are incensed when art pertains to them. Doubt me?
Just ask cartoonist in France and Denmark about that. I’m sure CAIR will sue the entrepreneur for
coming up with the clever birthday card portrayed in the above picture.
The card is produced by NobleWorks Inc. with credit for its design given to
“Ron Kanfi” according to the company’s website, www.nobleworkcards.com. The
motto of the company printed under their logo on the back of the card is
“modern cards for modern people.”Notice that nothing identifies this doll as a terrorist in the minds of the card designers other than that she wears a Hijab. Moreover, she – like many Muslim girl who choose to wear the Hijab – is a smiling, non-threatening normal-looking female wearing a pink Hijab and a flower-patterned dress. The unmistakable message behind the “humor” is that even the most peaceful looking Muslims are synonymous and exchangeable with terrorists.
The Boston bombers are proof of that.
http://chicagomonitor.com/2013/05/antimuslimgreetingcard/
Shame the Rich, Make Them Wear the Scarlet Dollar
Because in Obama's America, it's a shame to be rich and have ambition.
Democracy and Political Ignorance
Political junkies are
well aware of the ignorance of the common voter when it comes to politicians and
their policies. The majority of the
electorate dons their party’s jersey and pulls the lever every other November
without understanding the consequences of their vote. Carolina Journal Radio discusses this problem
with a professor from George Mason University.
RALEIGH — If you’ve
ever questioned the quality of our politicians and their policies, you might
want to consult the work of Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason
University. During a recent speech at Campbell University, Somin offered
highlights from his forthcoming book Democracy and Political Ignorance.
Somin discussed the book with Mitch Kokai for Carolina Journal Radio. (Click here to find
a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Kokai: What’s the basic message in Democracy and Political Ignorance?
Somin: The basic message is that the level of political knowledge in the electorate overall is very low and that this is not simply a consequence of people being stupid or the information not being available. It’s a consequence of perfectly rational and understandable behavior that even smart people engage in. And, ultimately, the way to best reduce the magnitude of this problem is to reduce the role of government in society and also to decentralize it more than it is today.
Kokai: Why are we so ignorant about politics?
Somin: Obviously, all of us are ignorant necessarily about the vast majority of the knowledge that exists in the world. We have to be. Our brains are limited, and our time is limited. And with politics, as with everything else, we are more likely to learn information if there is actually some benefit or some advantage to learning it. And if your only reason to become informed about politics is to be a better voter — to decide whether Romney or Obama, for example, will be the best president of the United States — that turns out to be very little incentive because the chance that your vote will actually make a difference to the outcome of an election is infinitesimally small, maybe one in 60 million in a presidential election.
So if you’re not interested in politics for its own sake, if you don’t find political information to be a lot of fun, then you’re probably going to acquire only a very small amount of political knowledge because you know, at least intuitively, that it won’t make much difference, just as for the very same reason you’re not going to learn much about theoretical physics because you know it’s not fun to learn that information and it’s not going to be useful to you in your life. There are no decisions that you are going to make, probably, in your life which will turn on your knowledge of physics, at least no decisions that actually will make a difference to you and your family and the like.
Kokai: If most of us are ignorant about politics, how does that impact elections?
Somin: I think it impacts it in a couple of different ways. One is as between the candidates that actually exist, often voters decide based on ignorance. A good example is they often credit or blame incumbents for things they didn’t cause. So, for instance, when there is a drought, for example, incumbents are likely to be voted out even though obviously they didn’t cause the drought. On the other hand, when the local sports team does well, that increases the mayor’s or the governor’s chance of being re-elected even though in most cases they didn’t cause that, either. Also, incumbents are repeatedly rewarded or punished for trends in the world economy, which they didn’t cause.
But the deeper and more important effect is not just about what decision we make between the candidates who are put before us, but on what choices we have in the first place. Obviously the parties are not stupid. They’re trying to put candidates before us and platforms before us that have the best possible chance of winning. And the platforms that have a better chance of winning with an ignorant electorate often are very different and of worse quality in various ways than the ones that might be more successful if the electorate were more knowledgeable.
So the problem is not just between choosing between Tweedledum and Tweedledee or between Democrats and Republicans. The problem is that how ignorant we are affects what choices are put before us to begin with.
Kokai: Some people will hear what you say and respond, “Well, let’s make people more knowledgeable about politics.”
Somin: Obviously, that’s the solution that many people have advocated. There are a couple of problems with it. One is simply, empirically, we’ve tried this, and it hasn’t worked very well. For instance, education levels have risen enormously for the last 50 or 60 years, the percentage of people who go to college or get high school diplomas and so on is much higher than it was before. It’s even the case that IQ levels have risen enormously. But political knowledge levels have remained roughly the same. So it seems that just making people more educated doesn’t necessarily make them more knowledgeable about politics.
In addition, given the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government, it’s difficult or impossible to get any large fraction of the population to be informed about more than a small percentage of this information. In the United States today, government spending at all levels accounts for nearly 40 percent of our gross domestic product, and that doesn’t account for all sorts of other government activities that are not on the budget. So even if voters knew more than they do today, significantly more, they would still only be knowledgeable about a small fraction of what government does.
Finally, of course, political ignorance also applies to education policy. Given that the electorate is often ignorant about what’s going on in education policy, as in other areas of policy, the government actually doesn’t have much incentive to run education policy in such a way as to increase political knowledge. If anything, they often have an incentive to the opposite: to use education policy to indoctrinate people in whatever beliefs are preferred by political incumbents or by influential interest groups. And you see this kind of thing playing itself out in education policy both in the U.S. and many other counties as well.
Kokai: You contrast the process we use when we buy a television set with the process we use to choose a president.
Somin: Buying a TV or buying a car versus buying a presidential candidate, if you will. When we buy the TV or the car, we do two things differently from when we vote for president. One is we tend to acquire more information. We spend much more time on those decisions, most of us, than on voting decisions. Secondly, we tend to be less biased in the way we evaluate what we do know.
I mentioned earlier that some people acquire political information for the purpose not of becoming better voters, but just because they find it to be fun. They’re political fans just in the way that many people are sports fans and acquire information about sports teams not because they want to influence the outcome of games or they think that they can influence the outcome. It’s because it’s fun to cheer for your team.
The problem is when you’re acquiring knowledge to cheer for your team or cheer against the bad guy, so to speak, you’re not going to be very objective in the way you evaluate the information. You’re not going to seek out opposing points of view. You’re going to be highly biased. And the data show that is, in fact, the way most of us process political information, particularly those of us who are most interested in politics and therefore act most like fans in our behavior. When, on the other hand, we make decisions where we know what we do will actually make a difference, the outcome, we certainly don’t completely eliminate all our biases, but we work harder against them.
So notice just everyday social norms. People hate it when their political views are criticized. If you explain to me why I am wrong about politics, I’m going to be resentful and annoyed. That’s why there is a norm against arguing about politics in polite company. On the other hand, if you point out to me where I could get a better deal on a new car or TV, I’ll be very grateful. Right? So our attitudes toward these things reflect a difference between a decision where we know what we do has little effect on the outcome, so we don’t try very hard to be unbiased, versus one where we know our decision does make a difference, so we welcome new points of view, at least more so than we would otherwise.
Kokai: And you would take account of voter ignorance by having a smaller government. How so?
Somin: I don’t sketch out a detailed trajectory, but I do give some evidence that it’s at least possible to achieve this. Just in the last 20 or 30 years several advanced democracies have successfully greatly reduced the role of government in their societies. Our neighbor Canada is a good example. It used to be Canada was a much less free-market nation than the United States, and now it’s more of one actually than we are. That’s partly because our government has grown but partly because they shrank theirs. Other good examples include New Zealand, Ireland, and there are several other cases of significant shrinkage in the size, scope, and complexity of government.
Kokai: What’s the basic message in Democracy and Political Ignorance?
Somin: The basic message is that the level of political knowledge in the electorate overall is very low and that this is not simply a consequence of people being stupid or the information not being available. It’s a consequence of perfectly rational and understandable behavior that even smart people engage in. And, ultimately, the way to best reduce the magnitude of this problem is to reduce the role of government in society and also to decentralize it more than it is today.
Kokai: Why are we so ignorant about politics?
Somin: Obviously, all of us are ignorant necessarily about the vast majority of the knowledge that exists in the world. We have to be. Our brains are limited, and our time is limited. And with politics, as with everything else, we are more likely to learn information if there is actually some benefit or some advantage to learning it. And if your only reason to become informed about politics is to be a better voter — to decide whether Romney or Obama, for example, will be the best president of the United States — that turns out to be very little incentive because the chance that your vote will actually make a difference to the outcome of an election is infinitesimally small, maybe one in 60 million in a presidential election.
So if you’re not interested in politics for its own sake, if you don’t find political information to be a lot of fun, then you’re probably going to acquire only a very small amount of political knowledge because you know, at least intuitively, that it won’t make much difference, just as for the very same reason you’re not going to learn much about theoretical physics because you know it’s not fun to learn that information and it’s not going to be useful to you in your life. There are no decisions that you are going to make, probably, in your life which will turn on your knowledge of physics, at least no decisions that actually will make a difference to you and your family and the like.
Kokai: If most of us are ignorant about politics, how does that impact elections?
Somin: I think it impacts it in a couple of different ways. One is as between the candidates that actually exist, often voters decide based on ignorance. A good example is they often credit or blame incumbents for things they didn’t cause. So, for instance, when there is a drought, for example, incumbents are likely to be voted out even though obviously they didn’t cause the drought. On the other hand, when the local sports team does well, that increases the mayor’s or the governor’s chance of being re-elected even though in most cases they didn’t cause that, either. Also, incumbents are repeatedly rewarded or punished for trends in the world economy, which they didn’t cause.
But the deeper and more important effect is not just about what decision we make between the candidates who are put before us, but on what choices we have in the first place. Obviously the parties are not stupid. They’re trying to put candidates before us and platforms before us that have the best possible chance of winning. And the platforms that have a better chance of winning with an ignorant electorate often are very different and of worse quality in various ways than the ones that might be more successful if the electorate were more knowledgeable.
So the problem is not just between choosing between Tweedledum and Tweedledee or between Democrats and Republicans. The problem is that how ignorant we are affects what choices are put before us to begin with.
Kokai: Some people will hear what you say and respond, “Well, let’s make people more knowledgeable about politics.”
Somin: Obviously, that’s the solution that many people have advocated. There are a couple of problems with it. One is simply, empirically, we’ve tried this, and it hasn’t worked very well. For instance, education levels have risen enormously for the last 50 or 60 years, the percentage of people who go to college or get high school diplomas and so on is much higher than it was before. It’s even the case that IQ levels have risen enormously. But political knowledge levels have remained roughly the same. So it seems that just making people more educated doesn’t necessarily make them more knowledgeable about politics.
In addition, given the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government, it’s difficult or impossible to get any large fraction of the population to be informed about more than a small percentage of this information. In the United States today, government spending at all levels accounts for nearly 40 percent of our gross domestic product, and that doesn’t account for all sorts of other government activities that are not on the budget. So even if voters knew more than they do today, significantly more, they would still only be knowledgeable about a small fraction of what government does.
Finally, of course, political ignorance also applies to education policy. Given that the electorate is often ignorant about what’s going on in education policy, as in other areas of policy, the government actually doesn’t have much incentive to run education policy in such a way as to increase political knowledge. If anything, they often have an incentive to the opposite: to use education policy to indoctrinate people in whatever beliefs are preferred by political incumbents or by influential interest groups. And you see this kind of thing playing itself out in education policy both in the U.S. and many other counties as well.
Kokai: You contrast the process we use when we buy a television set with the process we use to choose a president.
Somin: Buying a TV or buying a car versus buying a presidential candidate, if you will. When we buy the TV or the car, we do two things differently from when we vote for president. One is we tend to acquire more information. We spend much more time on those decisions, most of us, than on voting decisions. Secondly, we tend to be less biased in the way we evaluate what we do know.
I mentioned earlier that some people acquire political information for the purpose not of becoming better voters, but just because they find it to be fun. They’re political fans just in the way that many people are sports fans and acquire information about sports teams not because they want to influence the outcome of games or they think that they can influence the outcome. It’s because it’s fun to cheer for your team.
The problem is when you’re acquiring knowledge to cheer for your team or cheer against the bad guy, so to speak, you’re not going to be very objective in the way you evaluate the information. You’re not going to seek out opposing points of view. You’re going to be highly biased. And the data show that is, in fact, the way most of us process political information, particularly those of us who are most interested in politics and therefore act most like fans in our behavior. When, on the other hand, we make decisions where we know what we do will actually make a difference, the outcome, we certainly don’t completely eliminate all our biases, but we work harder against them.
So notice just everyday social norms. People hate it when their political views are criticized. If you explain to me why I am wrong about politics, I’m going to be resentful and annoyed. That’s why there is a norm against arguing about politics in polite company. On the other hand, if you point out to me where I could get a better deal on a new car or TV, I’ll be very grateful. Right? So our attitudes toward these things reflect a difference between a decision where we know what we do has little effect on the outcome, so we don’t try very hard to be unbiased, versus one where we know our decision does make a difference, so we welcome new points of view, at least more so than we would otherwise.
Kokai: And you would take account of voter ignorance by having a smaller government. How so?
Somin: I don’t sketch out a detailed trajectory, but I do give some evidence that it’s at least possible to achieve this. Just in the last 20 or 30 years several advanced democracies have successfully greatly reduced the role of government in their societies. Our neighbor Canada is a good example. It used to be Canada was a much less free-market nation than the United States, and now it’s more of one actually than we are. That’s partly because our government has grown but partly because they shrank theirs. Other good examples include New Zealand, Ireland, and there are several other cases of significant shrinkage in the size, scope, and complexity of government.
Oregon Medicaid Expansion Has No Measurable Effect
Here in North Carolina, we’ve been debating the
expansion of Medicaid. Liberals and
their mouthpieces in the media are vociferous in their outrage that the republican
led General Assembly and governor have declined the federal government’s overtures. They believe it is inhumane not to provide “free
healthcare” to those who are in need.
The simple fact is expanding the roll will not
improve health care outcomes, and neither the state nor the federal government
can afford the expenditures. A recent
Oregon program has validated what we conservatives have known all along. Here is an I told you so moment by
FreedomWorks:During the battle against the government takeover of health care, conservatives were scorned for questioning the ability of a huge bureaucratic program to meet the medical needs of those without coverage. Conservatives and libertarian policy experts had many concerns about expanding government coverage, especially Medicaid. Not only because of the enormous costs, but also the likelihood that expanding such programs and dumping large numbers of people into an already broken system would only add to the numerous problems providing timely access to quality care. Yesterday, a report proved these naysayers right in many regards.
In 2008 Oregon expanded its Medicaid coverage with a lottery system. The state could not afford to cover everyone who qualified, but they did cover an additional 30,000 of the 90,000 residents in waiting. This new expansion allowed for researchers to contrast specifically designated health care outcomes for over 6,300 low-income adults now covered under the expansion to 5,800 who were not picked in the lottery.
The New England Journal of Medicine published The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, (OHIE) conducted by the nation's top health policy experts. The study found no measurable effect on any of the measured physical health outcomes studied. Participants spent on average 35% more than those not on the plan, averaging over $1,150 per person.
That's right, even with access to medical care and increased spending, those on the expanded Medicaid program showed no measurable physical health benefits over those not selected. The study states:
“This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured health outcomes in the first two years, but it did increase use of health services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.”
After reading Avik Roy's take on this study, I spoke with him about the most significant findings and what conservatives should take away from all of it.
"Here's what's most important to note; we're currently spending over $450 billion a year on Medicaid, and we're about to spend over $600 billion a year for a program that does not appear to actually achieve the goal of helping the poor become healthier. I am not opposed to spending money on the poor, I'm opposed to wasting money on the poor. The dominant argument from the Left is that we must spend more to help these people, and we have, but it's not achieving the goals."
As Philip Klein puts it "The landmark study shatters liberal health care claims" stating:
"So the study suggests that expanding Medicaid is one way of reducing financial pressure on low-income groups, but it's costly and does not improve their health. Another interesting finding was that though medical spending increased among Medicaid enrollees due to more prescription drug usage and doctor's visits, the study "did not find significant changes in visits to the emergency department or hospital admissions." This undercuts another favorite talking point of liberals, which is that expanding insurance actually save money by reducing costly emergency room visits."
As I said in the
opening line, it doesn't feel good to be right this time. I think I can speak
for all conservatives when I say that we want the poorest and most vulnerable
members of society to have access to quality health care. We want the sick and
the elderly to be able to access a doctor when needed and have the ability to
make decisions for their health that benefit them and that also does not waste
the taxpayer's money. Unfortunately, Oregon shows us that pouring more people
into an already burdened and broken system is not the answer.
Somebody get a hold
of the Charlotte Observer and give them a copy of this study. It won’t do any good? I’m afraid you’re right. This study doesn’t comport with the left’s
mantra of republicans are at war on women and the poor.Slap Shot: A Movie Made for Men
Slap Shot has to be one of the most politically
incorrect movies of all time. And I
loved it! I haven’t laughed that hard in
a long time. I wish a squishy, millennial libtard could
watch it with me so I can measure the reaction on his face. I can just imagine the thought processes of
an emasculated wussy sitting in a stupor as the characters in this
film assault his delicate sensibilities.
In a day and age when a president of the United
States wears mom jeans, a helmet, and bubble wrap when riding a bicycle, it
felt good to reflect upon a time when men were men, and a leader of the free
world could throw a baseball.
The seventies
was a great era, except of course the fashion.
What in the hell was going on there?
I still remember the bellbottom pants, white belts, platform shoes, and
god awful flowery shirts. How that
ensemble happened is a mystery to me.
But to be fair, the cars and music were great. And there was none of this touchy-feely crap
that has permeated our society. Slap
Shot definitely has none of that nonsense in the story line.
What I found amazing is that this movie is based on
an actual minor league hockey team. Some
of the exploits are so over-the-top that you’d say there is no way that could’ve
happened. Even some of the characters
are loosely based on some of the players.
Slap Shot is a man’s movie and a top 10 cult
favorite. Hell, even today’s lesbian
might enjoy it. They’re as much of a man
as our president.
A Brief History of North Carolina's Mecklenburg County
Denizens of Charlotte will without a doubt recognize some of the landmarks and streets named after prominent founders of this area. I for one have noticed the marker off of Randolph Rd. And the narrator is correct. If you stop to read it, you might get hit by a car.
The Dark Side of the Age of Enlightenment
Last Thursday was National Prayer Day, and
subsequently, the malcontents had to throw a hissy fit. In response, the atheist at the American
Humanist Association issued a proclamation designating the same as National Day
of Reason. Here are their instructions
for activism:
Work to
have a Day of Reason proclaimed by your state or local government;
Hold a
press conference for your local media to promote respect for the separation of
religion and government, and to draw attention to the many breaches of that
principle during recent months;
Organize a
letter-writing campaign urging your elected officials to support the separation
of religion and government;
Visit the National
Day of Reason web site to sign-up as an endorser, to view planned
events, or to read some of the media coverage from previous years
The Humanist has adopted the Age of Reason as their
platform. This epoch in history was said
to have ended with the French Revolution.
We all know what a bloody affair that turned out to be. Here is an excerpt from the book Citizens by
Simon Schama:
But the most unruly demonstrations of dechristianizing zeal
probably happened more or less spontaneously. When a regiment of the army, two
thousand strong, arrived at Aurexxe en route to Lyon, for example, the
cannoneers smashed in the church doors and mutilated images and statues of
saints. A crucifix was taken from the chapel of Mary and paraded about upside
down for citizens to spit on. When a local quarryman refused to do this, one of
the soldiers cut off a part of his nose with his saber.And given the opportunity, the Humanist would probably act like this malcontent:
More orderly forms of dechristianization were provided by such representanats-en-mission as the ex-Oratorian priest Fouche, who undertook a particularly enthusiastic campaign in the Nievre, where he stripped cemeteries of all religious symbols and posted on the gates his famous dictum “Death is but an eternal sleep.”
Contrast that with the American Revolution. Despite what the Humanist say, the population
was devoutly Christian.
One of the prominent philosophers of that age was
David Hume. Many believe his writings
influenced Charles Darwin. The Progressives
have adopted Darwin’s evolutionary theory as a means to co-opt our Constitution
rendering it a “living and breathing document,” and in doing so, they have
abrogated our founding principles. Even
more sinister, is the programs that the Progressives have advocated such as
eugenics and infanticide. Some would say
the Holocaust sprung from the Age of Reason:
Here is a video on the Age of Reason:
Here is one on David Hume:
NC Libtards Salivate Over Public Policy Polling Survey
North Carolina libtards are all in a flutter
about a recent gun control survey.
Public Policy Polling, a liberal organization known for skewing their questionnaires,
has all the usual suspects swooning over the prospect that Senator Kay Hagan
has a shot at getting re-elected because of her vote for background
checks. Here is an excerpt from the
Disturber:
The Raleigh-based organization said
a poll conducted Tuesday and Wednesday among 600 North Carolina respondents
showed 73 percent of voters support background checks, with 22 percent opposed.
Survey officials say support for the checks is strong across the board -- 86
percent of Democrats, 67 percent of independents, and 61 percent of
Republicans.
The survey comes about two weeks
after the U.S. Senate rejected an effort to add background checks to all gun
sales, as a way of toughening firearms law. The proposal encountered strong
opposition from the National Rifle Association, but polls showed a majority of
Americans favored the idea.
In the Public Policy Polling survey,
52 percent of the respondents said they are more inclined to re-elect Democrat
Kay Hagan next year, with only 26 percent saying Hagan’s support of background
checks will cause them to vote against her.
In contrast, the poll found that 50
percent of voters are more inclined to vote against Republican U.S. Sen.
Richard Burr in the future, while 26 percent said Burr’s opposition to the will
make them more inclined to support him.
The margin of error in the survey is
plus or minus 4 percent, according to Public Policy Polling.
Of course the Charlotte Disturber is
jumping for joy, along with two libtards that featured PPP on their radio
program. The Brad and Britt Show are
salivating at the prospect of trampling all over our Second Amendment rights,
while at the same time professing not too.
I’ll never forget one of these idiots called the National Rifle Association
a fringe group. During the same show, they
equated the National Football League to snuff films. Welcome to the Great Socialist State of
Mecklenburg County!
Good News for North Carolina: Deborah Ross Resigns from General Assembly
Good news out of the North Carolina General
Assembly. Democratic legislator Deborah
Ross has decided to resign. She has
found greener pastures with Triangle Transit. Ross is a huge advocate for illegal aliens
that reside in the Old North State.
Maybe she can provide them with “free” passes so they won’t feel
persecuted from those mean Americans.
Oh, I’m sorry Ms. Ross, ‘North Americans.’
Citizenship isn’t exactly her strong suit. We’ve come to expect this kind of
self-loathing from a former lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties
Union
Ms. Ross is good at throwing temper tantrums,
especially when she doesn’t get her way.
Being a democrat, it usually comes in the form of phantom persecutions
and ridiculous ravings of perceived rights.
Here is an example of Deborah Ross' view of special rights as reported by the Winston-Salem Journal:
Once a top lieutenant to then-House Speaker Joe Hackney, D-Orange,
Ross is the latest member of his team to leave the General Assembly. She has
spent the past 2 1/2 years in the minority party trying to block GOP
legislation that she and other Democrats view as reversing gains made by her
party over the past several decades. Ross spent Wednesday morning in a
judiciary committee unsuccessfully trying to mitigate a bill that would
prohibit sex-selective abortions, which she ultimately voted against.
At a rally for women's rights in March, Ross said an abortion bill
was part of a larger war on women and families in North Carolina that includes
rejection of federal dollars to expand Medicaid and a proposal to require photo
identification for voting. Both issues affect women disproportionately, she
said, adding that the photo ID especially affects older women, who are less
likely to drive.
"Why are they afraid of these older women?" she asked
then. "It's because they are the women who have fought for rights. They are
the women who care about family issues. ... They're doing everything they can
to keep us quiet. But we're not going to be quiet."
I’m sure you won’t. Not even a scold’s bridle could shame your
special brand of stupidity. 