Thursday, June 26, 2003


The Democratic presidential candidates stumbled all overthemselves to pander to black voters at a Rainbow/PU$H sponsored forum on Monday.

I'm sure Karl Rove is already cutting and pasting a few of these into future campaign ads:

"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," said Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri.

"The president has divided us," former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said. "He's divided us by race by using the word 'quotas.' There's no such thing as a quota at the University of Michigan, never has been."

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry said: "We deserve a president of the United States who doesn't call fairness for minorities special preferences and then turn around and give special preferences to Halliburton or to Enron to write the energy policy."

Al Sharpton said Democrats shouldn't be talking about getting more blacks in high places, but getting the right blacks.

"If we doubt that, just look at (Supreme Court Justice) Clarence Thomas," he said. "Clarence Thomas is my color, but he's not my kind."

Hmmm. None of them seem to think that creating a system that looks at race as a factor more important that achievement is a bad thing for the university system. Morons all - especially Howard Dean who is just about as big an idiotarian as you can possibly be.

But first things first - the Al Sharpton comment.

What would you think the response would be if you saw this quote in the news:

"Pat Robertson said Republicans shouldn't be talking about getting more whites in high places, but getting the right whites.

"If we doubt that, just look at (Supreme Court Justice) John Paul Stevens," he said. "Stevens is my color, but he's not my kind."

People would be bouncing off the walls. Even though Robertson was a fringe presidential candidate with no chance whatsoever of winning, the national media would have been feeding on him until not even the bones were left.

But Al Sharpton can essentially call Clarence Thomas an "Uncle Tom" and hardly any mention is made about it outside of the "bloggosphere".

Every other candidate, if they had any integrity at all, should have walked off of the stage and left the meeting hall when Sharpton voiced this ugly smear. But none of them did. I haven't even heard anyone criticize him.

So in summary you have a meeting of Dimmocrat presidential candidates where:

1) a sitting Justice of the United States Supreme Court is called an "Uncle Tom"
2) a sitting U.S. Representative claims that if elected president he would override Supreme Court decisions with Executive Orders
3) candidates claim that their (they hope) future opponent in the presidential election is dividing the country because his administration does not support a college admissions system that gives the race of the candidate more weight than the candidate's college entrance exam scores

Nice job boys.

The people who perpetuate racial division in this country aren't the conservative Republicans who insist on evaluating people based on their merits. No, it is the racists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who's sole grip on power relies on continuing racial unrest, that work to keep the wounds open. And all of the Democrats are afraid to take on these pigs because they are too busy pandering to black voters.

Maybe I don't give these guys enough credit. After all, it has to be hard to stand on the same stage with a slimeball, ambulance-chaser like Sharpton and not puke.

Wednesday, June 25, 2003


Looky what our "friends" in Europe are trying to do now:

The Commission is in the final stages of drawing up a directive to ban sex discrimination, with implications for the media, advertising and insurance industries.

The draft directive, revealed in Tuesday’s Financial Times, would leave it to the courts to decide whether programs or advertisements were sexist or “did not respect human dignity”. An explanatory note says: “The purpose of this provision is to avoid throughout all forms of mass media all stereotypical portrayals of women and men, as well as any projection of unacceptable images of men and women affecting human dignity and decency in advertisements.”

The law could have profound implications for institutions such as Britain’s topless Page Three girls in The Sun newspaper and vast swathes of Italian television. Advertisers using sex to sell could also be affected.

First, they act to ban "hate speech" now the EU bureaucrats will decide what represents "unacceptable images of men and women affecting human dignity and decency in advertisements". Wow.

While liberal "chicken littles" in America hysterically complain about the "facist" Amerikka being created by the Bush "regime", EU superstate is taking aggressive action to curtail free speech that would make Jerry Falwell blush.

If John Ashcroft proposed something like this, he would be removed by the President almost immediately. There would be deafening protests decrying the latest attempt of the Religious Right to enforce its morality on the rest of the country. And all of the hysterics, in this hypothetical, would be justified.

Even though I'd like to see less use of sex in advertising, giving government the power to censor on the basis of "dignity" is extraordinarily dangerous.

Far and away the greatest threat to individual liberties in the developed world today comes not from the USA-PATRIOT Act or the Ashcroft-led Justice Department, but from the leftist utopians in Brussells. These elitist bureaucrats have not learned from the failures of socialism and still believe that the educated, postmodern European elites can engineer a superior society that values "fairness" and "dignity" most of all - even at the expense of freedom.

What they create will be neither fair nor dignified and certainly not free.


The absurdity of bureaucrats knows no bounds (via Tim Blair and Sydney Morning Herald):

Last year, NZ signed up to the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and agreed to reduce production of greenhouse gases that are suspected of being a major cause of climate change.

Now the government plans to introduce a tax to help pay for research into livestock emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, which account for more than half of the country's greenhouse gases.

What about FAT people? They consume more food than the average. How much energy is wasted producing food in excess of what they need? How much pollution is generated from that excess food production? How much extra methane do they produce because of their increased intake? How much do they increase water pollution by the excess human waste they generate?

I think we need a government study on this topic. But I can see the necessary policy already....FAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE BANNED!

We could go farther and ban ALL HUMAN BEINGS from the planet. There would be no chance of global warming then would there? Or would there?

Monday, June 23, 2003

I caught a little bit of an interview with Ted Kennedy on CSPAN this weekend. He was talking about the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Kennedy has finally come to grips with politcal reality and now understands that he can't get everything he wants in one fell swoop. So he is trying to incrementally grow the system with a "downpayment" that he can get through a Republican congress.

As I heard House bill explained, the Republicans have proposed a system which encourages Medicare users into private programs by offering greater benefits. Kennedy was adamantly opposed to this approach, taking the attitude that government had done a fine job administering the program and should continue to run an expanded system.

When was the last time that you ran across a well run government program? Any function that can be privatized into a competitive marketplace will be run at less cost and more benefit to the consumer than if it were to be run by the government.

Medicare is an government owned insurance company. The US government charges all citizens "premiums" in the form of taxes. If there is a shortfall taxes are incresed to cover it. There is no pressure to keep "premiums" low because there is no competition.

Similarly, Social Security is a government operated pension plan. While the typical pension plan places its capital in investments designed increase its value over the lifetimes of its members, Social Security depends on the growth of tax revenue over time instead. The problem with it's formula is that the number of workers paying into the system is going to decline rapidly in relationship to the number of beneficiaries in the next few decades.

The shortfall in revenues can only be made up by increasing taxes on those still working, increasing the retirement age, decreasing benefits or increasing the return on investment or, perhaps most likely, a combination of all of these actions. One should not, however, look at the problem bound by the assumption that the system is the right system and only needs to be repaired not scrapped. My question would be - why should the United States government run a retirement system when the capacity easily exists within the marketplace?

The biggest argument against privitization is that if the stock market crashes all the members of the system will be wiped out. They could be if you allowed a private system to operate with no rules - but we know that won't happen. I would suggest that the accounts be guaranteed by the federal government up to a minimum amount ($200,000?) and investments up to that minimum must be made in very low risk commodities. Above that amount, system members would be able to make their own judgement about how much risk they can tolerate, knowing that their investments (above the original 200K) were no longer insured.

Not being an insurance or pension expert, I can't tell you what the exact design of the system should be. I do know, however, that taking the system private would increase benefits per dollar invested for the citizens of this country and reduce the scale of the disaster that is going to happen when all of the "baby boomers" start to retire. Also, it takes all of the money that people have been forced to save for retirement OUT of the federal budget and make it more difficult to mask so much "pork". Finally, it takes some power out of the hands of Washington - always a benefit.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=