Friday, November 28, 2008
The Post points out the G.W. Bush, like Bill Clinton before him and other outgoing presidents prior to that, has converted political appointee jobs into civil service jobs on their way out the door.
The difference is that appointees serve at the pleasure of the President, while civil servants are protected from being fired for political reasons.
This is just another example of why government power should always be curtailed, and never expanded. Power is abused by politicians.
The government is not comprised of altruistic individuals. Unfortunately, and despite examples throughout all recorded history, believers in government somehow think that politicians and bureaucrats only act in the best interest of society.
The fallacy is tragic.
by Robert Hardaway
Hardaway is a law professor at Denver University. And he completely misses the point.
He states that Republicans should not "assume that independent voters will vote for the candidate who best upholds such traditional values as fiscal responsibility .... and limited government."
That might have some truth if the Republicans had nominated someone that stood for fiscal responsibility and limited government. They did not.
John McCain is a big-government Keynesian. When the Republicans nominate someone that thinks the government should regulate free speech (The McCain-Feingold Act), that gives tribute to Al Gore's Cult of Global Warming and thinks that taxpayers should bail out failed private business, they become irrelevant.
The Democrats have these things covered. The Republicans are not going to win by trying to be "Democrat-lite."
That is the single most important lesson the GOP needs to learn.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
The Post offers bad economic advice and simplistic platitudes this Thanksgiving. To wit:
"...Americans have a can-do spirit and work-together heritage..." Here we have a meaningless platitude offered up as sage encouragement.
"...now doesn't seem at all the time for Congress to take a vacation. This is [an economic] crisis that demands an all-hands-on-deck, no-time-to- waste work ethic." Wrong. The more Congress does, the worse the economy gets. One does not need to be a laissez-faire capitalist to understand that if you keep stirring the souffle, it will only make a mess. At some point, you just have to leave it be and let it bake.
"Lincoln found solace in our nation's promise even during our darkest hours." Here we have a platitude mixed with a horrific comparison of the Civil War to our current government-induced economic downtown.
"We should remember that example on this Thanksgiving Day and put our best, bipartisan effort to work for our future." And yet another meaningless platitude.
Too many of confuse useless words like "put our best, bipartisan effort to work for our future" with meaningful advice. It takes effort to stake out a position and explain why it is best for our future. The Post merely hopes we can all come together and figure something out. How about a suggestion?
Either say that Congress needs to let failed private businesses go bankrupt or that Congress needs to forcibly take money earned by taxpayers to prop up failed businesses because it will benefit the collective.
I obviously think the second solution is horribly wrong, but I have more respect for thost that advocate it in good faith than I do for those sitting on their hands hoping someone else will save us all.
The Post demonstrates that it can take a stand when it is so inclined. In its second editorial of the day, the Post declares emphatically: We're talking about the ubiquitous plastic "clamshell" packaging that can turn a pleasant gift exchange into an exercise in "wrap rage." As we hurtle toward Black Friday, the day shoppers are supposed to be out in force snapping up post-Thanksgiving Day deals, several major retailers and manufacturers have announced that they're creating alternatives to those packages that are maddeningly difficult to open. Hallelujah. Hallelujah in deed. The Post took a firm stand - it is against hard to open packages.
We're talking about the ubiquitous plastic "clamshell" packaging that can turn a pleasant gift exchange into an exercise in "wrap rage."
As we hurtle toward Black Friday, the day shoppers are supposed to be out in force snapping up post-Thanksgiving Day deals, several major retailers and manufacturers have announced that they're creating alternatives to those packages that are maddeningly difficult to open.
Hallelujah in deed. The Post took a firm stand - it is against hard to open packages.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
More evidence the Republican Party is a sad joke.
Knollenberg, a Republican, says that taxes "are not your money" at about the 3:00 mark. My God, what arrogance.
He is nothing more than a looter, wishing to forcibly take peoples' earned money, then giving it to his cronies in Michigan. We, the American people, get exactly what we ask for. And he is it.
When you vote Republican because "it's not as bad as voting for a Democrat," this is the pathetic result.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
The Rocky says displays of cadavers is a bad idea and disrespectful to the dead, when the bodies were not donated to science by the person while living and not yet a cadaver.
Apparently there is such a display of non-voluntary plastinated corpses at Colorado Mils Mall right now.
I can't see that helping sales at the food court.
At first, it seems the Post is lamenting Obama's collection of Clinton cronies in his cabinet:
He promised to bring change to Washington, but so far, Barack Obama's early administration lineup looks like a Clinton White House class reunion.
But, no! The Post says this a good thing!
By surrounding himself with Beltway veterans who know the ins and outs of Washington, it should be easier for Obama to push through his agenda.
So, paradoxically, the best way to effectuate change is by doing things the same way.
The Post calls for donations so private charity can assist "those in need."
I thought the government was supposed to do that. Once Obama takes over, will not the government "spread the wealth around a little bit" so the needy get their fair share?
Private charity is an old school idea. What is the point of charity when the government is supposed to take care of us? Money given to charity would be better spent by the government.
If people have money to donate to private charity, tax rates are not high enough.
The best thing about this column is the clever headline. (Get it? Be "apart" of Christmas, not "a part" of Christmas?)
This is just one of thousands of articles that will decry the commercialization of the holiday.
The Post laments the Denver Police Department's accidental sale at auction of a car filled with evidence in a murder case.
The purchaser of the car understandably threw away the bloody bandanas and other evidence she assumed was trash.
This is just another example of the ineptitude of government, yet somehow some people want to give the government more authority over our lives.
BlueCarp categorically states that increasing government power is always a bad idea. Always.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Check it out here.
That money would have been better spent if it had been converted to $1 bills and burned to provide heat for panhandlers on 16th Street Mall.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
I don’t see drug legalization as an issue that’s going to build a governing coalition - that’s one of those “agree to disagree” issues.
“Prohibition on gambling”? I’m not aware of any movement to outlaw Vegas, Atlantic City, etc. This is not some make-or-break issue for the “religious right”.
“Condemnation of consenting adults’ private sexual behavior” - Do you have a problem with this as long as it doesn’t resort to the tools of government?
Government-funded “faith based initiatives” were & are a bad idea, and believe it or not - the non-monolithic “religious right” does not have any sort of principled devotion to this idea.
I admire your devotion to libertarian principles, but many of the issues you raised are red herrings. For example, questioning and speaking against the morality of homosexual behavior is not the same as using government to outlaw it. And I don’t know any serious person who advocates the latter.
The case for limited government won’t be won by equating the church and religious community’s powerful pulpit for free moral suasion with government prohibitions. If abandoning the latter entails abandoning the former, what you have is the Libertarian party that won 0.4% in the recent election.
Above all, Ben, I love you.
Having said that: Drugs - no, the issue is not one that is "going to build a governing coalition." That is not my concern. My concern is freedom and smaller government (they are largely the same thing). Joining a coalition that is opposed to freedom and smaller government is complicity in statism.
Gambling - yes, there are a places that allow gambling. They are in the minority, and the moral police have succeeded in preventing people from making their own choices throughout most of the country, including the ban on internet poker. That is an illegitimate use of government force, imposed by those in favor of state power over individual freedom.
Banning gay marriage is far more than questioning the morality of homosexuality. Banning homosexuals from adopting children is far more than the use of a bully pulpit. Both use the force of government to enforce a moral code. As a libertarian, I see no role for the government in marriage between heterosexuals, either, but if the government is going to mandate marriage licenses, discriminating on who gets them is an illegitimate use of power. Marriage is between two people and their god. Where does the state come in? What role does it play? Does the state make a sacred commitment between two people more sacred? I think not. Once God has blessed a union, is the state's blessing needed? Marriage licenses, and thereby state involvement in a private, religious ceremony, came about so the state could keep the races from mixing. The state has no legitimate interest in the recognition of marriage.
I'm a Southern Baptist, and grew up going to Sunday School, church, and Wednesday night fellowship. In my religious education, I have not been made aware of a single instance when Jesus advocated the use of government power to enforce morals. Jesus spread morality via example, teaching and love. Jesus did not spread morality via force. Indeed, spreading morality via force is an absurd notion, yet one that groups like Focus on the Family insist on pushing.
Address: 3575 South Yosemite
Denver, CO 80237
Type: Bar & Grill
Date: November 12, 2008
Entree: Nachos with beef (10.45) & Coors Light Draft ($3.00)
Thursday, November 13, 2008
[t]o make [The Republican Party] work would require the more doctrinaire elements of both the libertarian and social conservative wings of the party to give a little, but I believe it’s the kind of approach necessary to build a principled and winning coalition around life, liberty, and limited government.
Where does the drug war, prohibition on gambling, condemnation of consenting adults' private sexual behavior and government funded "faith based initiatives" fall in the "less government, more liberty" rubric? I see a fundamental conflict between freedom and the religious right. Barry Goldwater said, "If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet," he told U.S. News & World Report in 1994, "they could do us in." Goldwater, as usual, was right.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Address: 6482 S Parker Rd
Aurora, CO 80016
Type: Casual Mexican, Sports Bar
Date: November 4, 2008
Entree: Shredded beef burrito, smothered in the half and half pork green chili.
I have heard the radio advertisements for the Brewery Bar franchise, so when I found myself driving by one near lunchtime, I stopped and checked it out.
I visited Brewery Bar IV, the fourth in the series. (Hence the Roman numeral designation.)
The layout is airy, with television screens covering every potential field of vision.
Like every Mexican restaurant in the United States, I was promptly given a bowl of chips and salsa upon being seated.
The salsa was fresh and just spicy enough for my taste. The chips were room temperature, but crunchy.
I ordered the shredded beef burrito. When I requested the "hot" pork green chili to go with it, my server, Chanelle, warned me that I had better try the "half and half" sauce before I committed to the "hot." I followed her advice, and it was about the right heat. I will try the "hot" next time.
The $6.95 burrito was good, but nothing special. I would be hard pressed to distinguish any restaurant's burrito from another.
Then again, I ordered a burrito smothered in green chili, not poached salmon.
If I find myself near one of the three Brewery Bar locations (the original no longer exists), and I'm hungry, I would go again.
I imagine that the place is packed for sporting events on television, and one of the main draws of the place seems to be its array of drinks. I did not have a drink this time, but I look forward to testing the Brewery Bar's margaritas.
despite its name, the BB IV is not a brewery.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Monday, November 03, 2008
"Senor d'Anconia, what do you think is going to happen to the world?""Just exactly what it deserves.""Oh, how cruel!""Don't you believe in the operation of the moral law, madame?" Francisco asked gravely. "I do."
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Giving your vote to someone out of some misguided sense of loyalty is a wasted vote.
If winning is the only thing that matters, everybody voting for McCain is wasting their vote.
A vote for someone that does not represent your principles is a wasted vote.
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams
The implication that the Republican Party (or any other party) OWNS my vote and if I don't give it to them is offensive. Every vote must be earned. Giving a vote to someone who has not earned it is a wasted vote.
If you accept two poor choices, you will keep getting two poor choices. If McCain wins, the Republicans will continue down the big government bailout trail, and everyone that voted for him is an accomplice.
That's worse than a wasted vote. That's complicity.
by Ryan Brown
According to the Post, "Ryan Brown grew up in Colorado and is a sophomore at Duke University in Durham, N.C., where she is a features writer for the student newspaper and co-editor of the undergraduate literary magazine."
Ms. Brown's column concerns how the government has failed to help people in New Orleans, three years after Katrina.
Ms. Brown "had never seen anything like it — an entire American city submerged. I didn't know people could die in droves in a natural disaster in this country in the 21st century."
Welcome to reality, Ms. Brown. Mankind has not yet triumphed over hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis and mudslides. Nature is heartless. Rabbit babies get eaten by wolves. (Although I imagine the groundskeepers at Duke do a good job of keeping that from happening inside the gothic stone walls of the University.)
Its reasons for supporting Obama include the belief that "Barack Obama is better equipped to lead America back to a prosperous future."
This is baffling.
When has a government controlled economy ever led to prosperity?
When has an increase in government control over an economy led to an increase in prosperity?
I'm serious, someone help me out here.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
McCain favors the confiscation of money via taxes to prop up failed private business. He is in favor of rewarding bad business decisions by paying those that made the decisions $700 billion.
For the sake of argument, let's say McCain isn't as much of a looter as Barack Obama, and therefore warrants our support.
Henry Rearden, one of the heroes of Atlas Shrugged, had a pertinent thought on the subject:
Degrees do not matter, he thought; one does not bargain about inches of evil.- Atlas Shrugged, 35th Anniversary edition, page 303.
I responded in the comment section of that post, but my vanity precludes me from leaving it there where someone might - mon dieu! - not get to see it. I repost it here, with some additional commentary.
Here ya go:
My feelings about the Constitution Party are addressed in this earlier BlueCarp post, where I outline the CP's belief that the New Testament should play a major role in the government. I do not share that belief.
As a Goldwater fan (note: the poster's handle is "goldwater_ conservative"), I think you would appreciate a distaste for the mix of religion and politics. Goldwater said "I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country."
You can find more of his thoughts on religion and politics right here. I agree with Barry.
In sum, I think the Constitution Party, if it where in power, would implement a theocracy, thereby destroying individual rights and growing government in an attempt to enforce the New Testament. To me, they are as dangerous as any other pro-state party, just in a different way.
I grew up going to Sunday School in the Southern Baptist Church. I have been taught, and believe, that religion is about love and faith.
The government's only tool is force. The government can force people to behave in certain ways or put them in jail, yet force is a tool incapable of producing faith.
Government can use force to put you on your knees, but it can not make you pray once you get there.
No government can make anyone love or have faith. It is a futile exercise.
You can not beat love into someone's heart. You can not create faith by force.
That's why I voted for Bob Barr and not Chuck Baldwin.