Hello everyone, Joe Wahler here again for some more of my opinion, I recently read this piece in the NYT by Mark Bittman and thought how thoroughly condescending and at the same time naive of him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24bittman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hpw
If you tax soda the only thing that will be accomplished is that you will take more money from poor, uneducated people. They will not stop drinking soda, it's loaded with caffeine, and sugar.
The answer is to do something effective, educate don't legislate, and if the people choose not to participate... well that's their choice, not anyone else's.
The point of good food is not to attempt to feel superior to, or to pass judgement upon, or to impose your will upon those so less fortunate that they don't know the difference between pork injected with a solution to enhance flavor, and a proper piece of old breed loin. That condescending attitude will only serve to alienate those whom you are trying to reach.
It's like placing a tax on soda, "We know what's best for you, and will punish you for this behavior", that attitude is smug at best, and it may fill you with a self satisfied sense of superiority, but it's a false one because in the end, you want those whom you are punishing with your taxes as your allies, not your underlings.
These people are your fellow citizens, they are not your charges to care for because you know best. They have the exact same rights to do with their own bodies as you have. This debate is actually a political one, it's the age old battle between collectivism on the tax side, and individualism on the other. Barring a completely and totally irrefutable argument from the former, I shall always choose the latter. Because the latter always allows one to participate in the former if he so chooses, while the former by it's very nature precludes the latter.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
What a strange trip.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general
I just read an article by Paul Krugman in the New York Times titled "The Lesser Depression", and it reminded me of the time when a moving sidewalk malfunction at one of our safe and secure airports deposited me in our "mirror universe". A place where the people are all the same, but something about them is different. Paul Krugman as an example, in that alternate universe he was an actual economist, was well versed in history, and could quite literally grasp basic mathematic concepts. Oh yeah, and he didn't have a beard.
That Krugman would have never blamed the crash on corporations not falling upon their swords by way of extravagant spending in order to save the economy, and he certainly would have never made any such statement which implied that the "stimulus" plan was anything but a cash grab for the FOOB, or "Friends Of OBama". Where did all that money go by the way? Does anyone know?.... anywhere?
I lost my shirt investing in a "job ready" shovel company.
PS. Obama is the president over there as well, but he got there by having Hilary killed in a shooting accident with his now cyborg VP Dick Cheney. They both have beards. Joe Biden had to close his hot dog and foot massage stand due to some questionable practices we won't go into here.
So anyway, someone got me to say my name backwards and here I suddenly find myself, where Krugman is an idiot, and all is right with the world.
Till next time;
relhaw eoj
I just read an article by Paul Krugman in the New York Times titled "The Lesser Depression", and it reminded me of the time when a moving sidewalk malfunction at one of our safe and secure airports deposited me in our "mirror universe". A place where the people are all the same, but something about them is different. Paul Krugman as an example, in that alternate universe he was an actual economist, was well versed in history, and could quite literally grasp basic mathematic concepts. Oh yeah, and he didn't have a beard.
That Krugman would have never blamed the crash on corporations not falling upon their swords by way of extravagant spending in order to save the economy, and he certainly would have never made any such statement which implied that the "stimulus" plan was anything but a cash grab for the FOOB, or "Friends Of OBama". Where did all that money go by the way? Does anyone know?.... anywhere?
I lost my shirt investing in a "job ready" shovel company.
PS. Obama is the president over there as well, but he got there by having Hilary killed in a shooting accident with his now cyborg VP Dick Cheney. They both have beards. Joe Biden had to close his hot dog and foot massage stand due to some questionable practices we won't go into here.
So anyway, someone got me to say my name backwards and here I suddenly find myself, where Krugman is an idiot, and all is right with the world.
Till next time;
relhaw eoj
Monday, July 11, 2011
THE BARRIER IS DOWN!!!!
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-job-losses-prove-stimulus-worked
The logic barrier, after years and years of attempts, has finally been shattered completely. People as far as 100 miles away were able to hear the "reason boom" as our great leader Barack Obama was able to outpace the nearest national competitors Kim Jung Il and his Venezuelan rival mr. saggy face.
The key to this triumph it seems was not in the mere absurdity of any one claim, as this only generates random directional bursts of ridiculousness which die out rather quickly and never really threaten the logical thought barrier. But rather the gyroscopic "spin" which has become the hallmark of this great administration's efforts with the cutting edge "bamboozle drive" Without the "spin" as it were, the "bamboozle effect" would never have been able to achieve sufficient "anti logic" for long enough to even attempt to shatter the heretofore impervious barrier.
We are all to be applauded, for without the tireless efforts of all those years of federally controlled public education, a feat such as this could never have even been dreamed of, let alone actually accomplished. I say, 3 cheers, and a hip hip huzzah!
Where's my gin and tonic, I'm going to the pool now. CHEERS!!
The logic barrier, after years and years of attempts, has finally been shattered completely. People as far as 100 miles away were able to hear the "reason boom" as our great leader Barack Obama was able to outpace the nearest national competitors Kim Jung Il and his Venezuelan rival mr. saggy face.
The key to this triumph it seems was not in the mere absurdity of any one claim, as this only generates random directional bursts of ridiculousness which die out rather quickly and never really threaten the logical thought barrier. But rather the gyroscopic "spin" which has become the hallmark of this great administration's efforts with the cutting edge "bamboozle drive" Without the "spin" as it were, the "bamboozle effect" would never have been able to achieve sufficient "anti logic" for long enough to even attempt to shatter the heretofore impervious barrier.
We are all to be applauded, for without the tireless efforts of all those years of federally controlled public education, a feat such as this could never have even been dreamed of, let alone actually accomplished. I say, 3 cheers, and a hip hip huzzah!
Where's my gin and tonic, I'm going to the pool now. CHEERS!!
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
WOW!! and I thought I was crazy
I just read an article by an insane person.
http://www.salon.com/books/history/index.html?story=%2Fpolitics%2Fwar_room%2F2011%2F07%2F05%2Flind_three_fundamentalisms
The progressives are exactly the same, their sect alone understands the True religion, and the True Constitution, and the laws of the market. The answer lies somewhere in the middle , between the 2 radical ends, which do not represent the vast majority by the way.
You see, the great society was a failure, not because of it's ideals and morals, but because the left refused to incorporate the concepts of fiscal conservatism. Borrow and spend became the policy du jour, and it became so acceptable that it became the norm no matter which side was in power. When the only time that is really acceptable is in a time of national emergency. When your government is run in a constant state of emergency, spending more money than you have on programs that cannot be done away with and paying for it with borrowing, the piper will one day be paid.
The "conservative" answer is to cut spending before we go over that precipice. The "liberal" answer is to raise taxes. Now, there is a given in government, that the more money they have, the larger they will make the government, that is an axiom that has been proven in this nation for 235 years now. So, given that known fact, does it really make sense to just feed the beast more.
Our current government is that 1000 pound man who cannot leave his bed, if something is not done very soon, he will die. The liberals say the only answer is to bring him another bucket of fried chicken.
By the way, his rather simplistic and quite obvious disdain for any who may share a right leaning view is not even remotely disguised in this article.
I myself am somewhat of a social liberal, while maintaining that fiscal conservatism is the only sane policy. Yet to the average person on the left these days, I am considered to be the equivalent of Mussolini.
Remember this article was written by a man who truly believes that affirmative action was implemented for the sole purpose of destroying the connection between liberalism, and the civil rights movement.
This guy also believes: "After the 1990 census, the first Bush administration collaborated with the civil rights establishment to reapportion and create as many black and Hispanic congressional districts as possible, thereby pulling the rug out from under white Democrats in surrounding districts and making it easier for the GOP to win control of Congress in 1994."
Does that really make any sense to anyone at all?
Lind favors a system of "proportional voting", what the hell is that? .
He wants to raise wages by BANNING all unskilled immigration.
He is in favor of a tariff on all third world imports, but not on any others.
Many of the points he makes in his book are indeed true, but so were Mussolini's. Read his book, and you will see enough truth to make you consider his solutions, hopefully right before you decide he is a madman and a very poorly hidden racist, Oh wait, my mistake, that's probably my right wing, conservative, white supremacist acceptance of multiculturalism showing.
OK, I'll shut up now.
http://www.salon.com/books/history/index.html?story=%2Fpolitics%2Fwar_room%2F2011%2F07%2F05%2Flind_three_fundamentalisms
The progressives are exactly the same, their sect alone understands the True religion, and the True Constitution, and the laws of the market. The answer lies somewhere in the middle , between the 2 radical ends, which do not represent the vast majority by the way.
You see, the great society was a failure, not because of it's ideals and morals, but because the left refused to incorporate the concepts of fiscal conservatism. Borrow and spend became the policy du jour, and it became so acceptable that it became the norm no matter which side was in power. When the only time that is really acceptable is in a time of national emergency. When your government is run in a constant state of emergency, spending more money than you have on programs that cannot be done away with and paying for it with borrowing, the piper will one day be paid.
The "conservative" answer is to cut spending before we go over that precipice. The "liberal" answer is to raise taxes. Now, there is a given in government, that the more money they have, the larger they will make the government, that is an axiom that has been proven in this nation for 235 years now. So, given that known fact, does it really make sense to just feed the beast more.
Our current government is that 1000 pound man who cannot leave his bed, if something is not done very soon, he will die. The liberals say the only answer is to bring him another bucket of fried chicken.
By the way, his rather simplistic and quite obvious disdain for any who may share a right leaning view is not even remotely disguised in this article.
I myself am somewhat of a social liberal, while maintaining that fiscal conservatism is the only sane policy. Yet to the average person on the left these days, I am considered to be the equivalent of Mussolini.
Remember this article was written by a man who truly believes that affirmative action was implemented for the sole purpose of destroying the connection between liberalism, and the civil rights movement.
This guy also believes: "After the 1990 census, the first Bush administration collaborated with the civil rights establishment to reapportion and create as many black and Hispanic congressional districts as possible, thereby pulling the rug out from under white Democrats in surrounding districts and making it easier for the GOP to win control of Congress in 1994."
Does that really make any sense to anyone at all?
Lind favors a system of "proportional voting", what the hell is that? .
He wants to raise wages by BANNING all unskilled immigration.
He is in favor of a tariff on all third world imports, but not on any others.
Many of the points he makes in his book are indeed true, but so were Mussolini's. Read his book, and you will see enough truth to make you consider his solutions, hopefully right before you decide he is a madman and a very poorly hidden racist, Oh wait, my mistake, that's probably my right wing, conservative, white supremacist acceptance of multiculturalism showing.
OK, I'll shut up now.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
what a twit
I was recently asked by an author friend of mine whom I respect greatly to do a critique on this piece in "Slate"
http://www.slate.com/id/2297019/
Following is my response to him, please do read the piece yourselves and do try to refrain what using foul language while doing so. I could not. But please do feel free to voice your opinion here in comments, was I wrong? Or is this guy really as much a condescending, academic twit, as I think he is?
Dear Dan,
"Man dude I just can't. I have never seen so much twaddle piled up in one condescending place at one time, it's overwhelming. Firstly, Robert Noznick was NOT the "father" of libertarianism, that's been around for centuries.
Then he could not get his head out of the academia ass long enough to look around and breathe, where one could logically argue the merits of full blown communism ad nauseum and have it be perfectly accepted. Until it enters the real world that is, where that model must then interact with actual living human individual beings, and it, as a result, falls utterly apart. No worker bees in a free society.
Which is exactly what this turd is arguing against, a free society. Even his "gardener" example is a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" statement. It sounds wonderful, but you know what, I don't want to take care of "your needs". I'm busy enough handling my own, and who the hell is the arbiter of those needs of mine? Who is it placed "in charge"?
There is absurdity after rose colored glasses absurdity in this piece.
And the mere fact that it is a libertarian concept of a free press which allows him to print this drivel without fear of reprisals is apparently quite lost on him.
This buffoon ignores the fact that libertarianism takes advantage of human nature and the fact that people are not worker bees, but indeed they are thinking individuals, with different ideas, and agendas. Even agendas which try to push worker bee mentality onto us poor, ignorant masses.
This was in no way the complete dissection and refutation this article so desperately deserves, but I only have so much time on earth to devote to showing the fools a mirror. So, I'll shut up now ;-)"
http://www.slate.com/id/2297019/
Following is my response to him, please do read the piece yourselves and do try to refrain what using foul language while doing so. I could not. But please do feel free to voice your opinion here in comments, was I wrong? Or is this guy really as much a condescending, academic twit, as I think he is?
Dear Dan,
"Man dude I just can't. I have never seen so much twaddle piled up in one condescending place at one time, it's overwhelming. Firstly, Robert Noznick was NOT the "father" of libertarianism, that's been around for centuries.
Then he could not get his head out of the academia ass long enough to look around and breathe, where one could logically argue the merits of full blown communism ad nauseum and have it be perfectly accepted. Until it enters the real world that is, where that model must then interact with actual living human individual beings, and it, as a result, falls utterly apart. No worker bees in a free society.
Which is exactly what this turd is arguing against, a free society. Even his "gardener" example is a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" statement. It sounds wonderful, but you know what, I don't want to take care of "your needs". I'm busy enough handling my own, and who the hell is the arbiter of those needs of mine? Who is it placed "in charge"?
There is absurdity after rose colored glasses absurdity in this piece.
And the mere fact that it is a libertarian concept of a free press which allows him to print this drivel without fear of reprisals is apparently quite lost on him.
This buffoon ignores the fact that libertarianism takes advantage of human nature and the fact that people are not worker bees, but indeed they are thinking individuals, with different ideas, and agendas. Even agendas which try to push worker bee mentality onto us poor, ignorant masses.
This was in no way the complete dissection and refutation this article so desperately deserves, but I only have so much time on earth to devote to showing the fools a mirror. So, I'll shut up now ;-)"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)