We have pondered - how in the world did so many come so completely unhinged in so little time?
Marin County was normal a few years back, or, just barely left-of-center. But now there are more lefty extremists per square foot in this county than there are fleas on my favorite dog Kona. We mean big-time liberals - liberal with everyone else’s money but their own, rabid environmentalists for example unless of course that creek full of salmon just happens to be getting in the way of their new driveway. So nothing unusual with the left here on that account - all of ‘em talk the talk.
But back to our central consideration - why are there so many of these little darlings in this county?
One of the most astute observers of the political scene today is Victor Hansen, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution (plus a man in ownership of a list of other honors that if detailed would fill this space). Hansen surmises that a good part of the answer is weather and geography. In this most temperate of climates, "It is as if nature offers no reality check to human naVveté, no reminder to the would-be utopian that, yes, there are rigorous impediments like snow and constant storms that transcend man’s ability to ensure the good life with tenured, high-paying government jobs, lavish payouts."
In other words," he continues, "a communitarian statist morphs out of control in a place like Mill Valley in a way he would not in equally liberal Minneapolis. The sun multiplies the therapeutic efforts of the state; in addition, the natural bounty that good weather and geography bring can, for a while at least, cover the results of human foolishness."
That’s a good long way to our explanation folks. The weather and geography have always been here, it’s just that it became fashionable. These types are driven by fashion, and so here they came.
Plus let us add that political choice in this county is more glandular than cerebral. Lefties here don’t understand the implications of their view but even if they did, they wouldn’t care. There’s enough of them in this county to give them effective mass; that is, they can be quite content reassuring each other at the nursery counter or the salon, of their wisdom - the blind, holding hands together in the dark.
They live as if in a cocoon but they know it. They know they’re an outlier; they know they’re not held responsible for real-world results. They get a pass just as handicapped folk get a pass. If not, and they actually cared for their kids, they’d have to change. They’re free to make noise because no one, no normal person, no regular American takes them seriously.
But they get a kick out of it.
Robert Craven
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Living By Example
A dear friend from grad school days sent us a release from the Canada Free Press. It was about Michelle. She held forth a while back, saying that, "The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped educational system, someone is going to have to give up a piece of the pie so someone else can have more." OK, that’s perfectly consistent with BO’s agenda of redistribution; we all understand that. And we assume Michelle is not a flake, has been living by example, so fine, that’s her view.
But wait! Just before she said that, on Oct/15/2008 Michelle snacked at the Waldorf, room service for one that is, at 2 pm. For her snack she had lobster, Iranian caviar and some kind of champagne we never heard of; the bill was $447.39. Now that’s giving up to be sure, the poor thing. Hey, but she was a private citizen you say, not the first lady so throw her some slack?
Well, Michelle's now at the WH. She has 22 people on her staff to whom we pay a sum total of $1,591,200 annually, not including make up artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright (my goodness, if Johnny's a "first," how many more?).
OK, that’s at least 22, compared to Mamie Eisenhower’s one (1) paid for out of Ike’s salary / Jackie, Rosaline and Barbara Bush’s one (1) each / Hilary’s three (3) naturally, and Laura Bush, one (1). From one (1) to twenty-two (22) for someone with no official executive duties under the constitution? Does this simply smack of the need for luxury, as did the $447.39? No, the conclusion none of us can escape is that Michelle is living perfectly by example, that of a confirmed statist, and the wife of a confirmed statist, neither of which has ever seen a branch of government they would not embrace; in this case, Michelle simply created her very own.
Robert Craven
But wait! Just before she said that, on Oct/15/2008 Michelle snacked at the Waldorf, room service for one that is, at 2 pm. For her snack she had lobster, Iranian caviar and some kind of champagne we never heard of; the bill was $447.39. Now that’s giving up to be sure, the poor thing. Hey, but she was a private citizen you say, not the first lady so throw her some slack?
Well, Michelle's now at the WH. She has 22 people on her staff to whom we pay a sum total of $1,591,200 annually, not including make up artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright (my goodness, if Johnny's a "first," how many more?).
OK, that’s at least 22, compared to Mamie Eisenhower’s one (1) paid for out of Ike’s salary / Jackie, Rosaline and Barbara Bush’s one (1) each / Hilary’s three (3) naturally, and Laura Bush, one (1). From one (1) to twenty-two (22) for someone with no official executive duties under the constitution? Does this simply smack of the need for luxury, as did the $447.39? No, the conclusion none of us can escape is that Michelle is living perfectly by example, that of a confirmed statist, and the wife of a confirmed statist, neither of which has ever seen a branch of government they would not embrace; in this case, Michelle simply created her very own.
Robert Craven
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
TYRANNY
Because not everyone reads this blog, yet, there are still plenty of folk out there who continue to believe that Obama’s health initiative is about health. This is simply not true. These poor lambs have been had.
One of today’s astute political observers, Mark Steyn, puts it this way: "The governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible. Government health care is not about health care, it’s about government." Thank you.
We’ve already looked at the bill in detail, earlier posts; as Buffett and others now understand, it will raise not lower costs, and, break the federal bank in the bargain.
No one argues that the US has the world’s best health care. No one argues that it is expensive, either. But it’s not a secret how to fix that - start with tort reform, then unleash the hand of competition, nationwide. Improve the private health sector incrementally and judiciously, and with the agreement of the majority. To quote Jeff Anderson of the Weekly Std., as a start, "end runaway malpractice lawsuits, allow Americans to buy insurance across state lines, and allow companies to offer lower premiums for healthier lifestyles." These reforms could be implemented independently. Anderson concludes, "All three involve having the government or the legal system get out of the way, thereby enabling health care costs to decline."
Even the far left understand that’s the right way to go. They also understand it does not fit their agenda.
Know what folks? It doesn’t matter one bit if anyone out there wants BO's health initiative or not (and hardly anyone does). Opposition is just noise, a nuisance. Representation is not on the table in Washington. Far-left "representatives" - BO, Pelosi and the rest - are not representatives at all, they are dictators. Theirs is a barely-disguised tyrannical existence with one aim - to effect permanent change by annexing about 16% of the economy to serve their statist agenda.
It is the chance of a lifetime for these extremists, Americans only on paper and patriots not at all.
Robert Craven
One of today’s astute political observers, Mark Steyn, puts it this way: "The governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible. Government health care is not about health care, it’s about government." Thank you.
We’ve already looked at the bill in detail, earlier posts; as Buffett and others now understand, it will raise not lower costs, and, break the federal bank in the bargain.
No one argues that the US has the world’s best health care. No one argues that it is expensive, either. But it’s not a secret how to fix that - start with tort reform, then unleash the hand of competition, nationwide. Improve the private health sector incrementally and judiciously, and with the agreement of the majority. To quote Jeff Anderson of the Weekly Std., as a start, "end runaway malpractice lawsuits, allow Americans to buy insurance across state lines, and allow companies to offer lower premiums for healthier lifestyles." These reforms could be implemented independently. Anderson concludes, "All three involve having the government or the legal system get out of the way, thereby enabling health care costs to decline."
Even the far left understand that’s the right way to go. They also understand it does not fit their agenda.
Know what folks? It doesn’t matter one bit if anyone out there wants BO's health initiative or not (and hardly anyone does). Opposition is just noise, a nuisance. Representation is not on the table in Washington. Far-left "representatives" - BO, Pelosi and the rest - are not representatives at all, they are dictators. Theirs is a barely-disguised tyrannical existence with one aim - to effect permanent change by annexing about 16% of the economy to serve their statist agenda.
It is the chance of a lifetime for these extremists, Americans only on paper and patriots not at all.
Robert Craven
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Parenthood and the Left, or, Getting Personal
Folks, one day you may have grand kids. Put ‘em on your knee and tell ‘em about this most bizarre of American political experiences ever: Yep, I was there sonny; I saw it in 2010 - the attempted hijacking, the attempted theft of a major share of our economy by a group of far-left zealots, collectivists all in their blackest of hearts, moving zombie-like through the political landscape, satisfied, we knew, only when their thirst for blood and their craving for flesh had reduced those of us who were free to dried husks, merely dust in the wind. But we rose up I tell you, torch and ax in hand; we took out their hearts, threw them on Liberty’s fire, saved our country......
Whoa! Ok, let’s see. Seventy-three per cent (73%) of Americans told CNN (not FOX but CNN) that they don’t want BO’s plan. Fine. No surprise there. We understand that one. However, it’s not about health except as a vehicle; that is why this result is irrelevant to far-left operatives. It was never about care except to some naive partisans, never about Americans, except as dupes.
Let's pick up a book. Ah, F.A. Hayek’s The Road To Serfdom! Good. Turning randomly, we arrive at page 87, speaking of a planned society, of the sort BO has in mind: "There can be no doubt that planning...involves deliberate discrimination between particular needs of different people, and allowing one man to do what another must be prevented from doing....Where the precise effects of gov’t policy on particular people are known, where the gov’t aims directly at such particular effects, it cannot help knowing these effects, and therefore it cannot be impartial. It must of necessity take sides, impose its valuations upon people and, instead of assisting them in the advancement of their own ends choose the ends for them."
BO and others understand this, they know the implications; most of their following, that is, most Democrats, apparently do not. They simlply have not thought it through. The far left operates because there are enough folk out there looking for the easy way out. They don't understand perhaps that the Road To Serfdom is paved with good intentions. These folk are not only lazy, they are irresponsible. They have forsaken their own children, in the inactive sense as poor role models, through their lack of understanding, their lack of scholarship, in their lemming-like behavior. Or, they have forsaken their own children in the active sense by teaching them that only gov’t planning of their lives leads to happiness. Either way, they have failed miserably in their responsibility.
Robert Craven
Whoa! Ok, let’s see. Seventy-three per cent (73%) of Americans told CNN (not FOX but CNN) that they don’t want BO’s plan. Fine. No surprise there. We understand that one. However, it’s not about health except as a vehicle; that is why this result is irrelevant to far-left operatives. It was never about care except to some naive partisans, never about Americans, except as dupes.
Let's pick up a book. Ah, F.A. Hayek’s The Road To Serfdom! Good. Turning randomly, we arrive at page 87, speaking of a planned society, of the sort BO has in mind: "There can be no doubt that planning...involves deliberate discrimination between particular needs of different people, and allowing one man to do what another must be prevented from doing....Where the precise effects of gov’t policy on particular people are known, where the gov’t aims directly at such particular effects, it cannot help knowing these effects, and therefore it cannot be impartial. It must of necessity take sides, impose its valuations upon people and, instead of assisting them in the advancement of their own ends choose the ends for them."
BO and others understand this, they know the implications; most of their following, that is, most Democrats, apparently do not. They simlply have not thought it through. The far left operates because there are enough folk out there looking for the easy way out. They don't understand perhaps that the Road To Serfdom is paved with good intentions. These folk are not only lazy, they are irresponsible. They have forsaken their own children, in the inactive sense as poor role models, through their lack of understanding, their lack of scholarship, in their lemming-like behavior. Or, they have forsaken their own children in the active sense by teaching them that only gov’t planning of their lives leads to happiness. Either way, they have failed miserably in their responsibility.
Robert Craven
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Reality and Health Care
Plenty of folk believe that what is on the health menu in Washington will save them money. Why, just the other day I nearly had my heart torn out by an enraged nursery worker who saw me and my kind as standing between her and lower health bills.
This individual and so many others just like her - they are not cranks, they read the newspaper from time to time; they are however innocent of most forms of scholarship; worse, they are sadly and completely naive.
Reality is that Obama’s plan will raise medical costs, for all of us. Period. What part of higher medical costs is it that our nursery-worker friend and others don’t get?
Of course we can bang away in this blog; it’s something else when Warren Buffett gets it. "Unfortunately, we came up with a bill that really doesn’t attack the cost situation that much and we have to have a fundamental change," he laments. Heck, the president’s own Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that the Senate bill would hike national health expenditures $234bln by 2019.
That is, BO’s plan(s) only make our present, horribly high costs higher. Why are our costs so high? Because, as Thomas Sowell points out, "When the ‘single payer’ was the patient, people were more selective in what they spent their money on. You went to the doctor when you had a broken leg but not..every time you had the sniffles or a skin rash." The obvious which comes up for all of us - Medicare, an example often used by our friends from the left of slick and efficient delivery. In fact it is grossly inefficient, for the simple reason that when someone else is paying care gets overused.
It’s easy. As the Heritage Foundation noted, "Our current system is out of control for the same reason most Americans over-eat at buffets: when you don’t have to pay for each plate of food, you usually eat more." We might add that it is our pricing, not delivery system which is out of control. And so it is. Out of pocket expenses by patients have fallen from 52% in 1965 to 15% in 2005. It’s the third party gov’t and insurance companies who pay for all this stuff.
Heritage concludes, "When prices are determined through administrative procedures rather than market processes, both patients and producers are anesthetized from normal market incentives to reduce prices and spending." Yet our friends from the left think that more of this will cure the problem. This excuses them from making the tough decision, a signature failing of the left.
Many of us have offered up good, real-world solutions to problems of health cost. These fall not so much on deaf ears but on a president with a radical, statist agenda.
Robert Craven
This individual and so many others just like her - they are not cranks, they read the newspaper from time to time; they are however innocent of most forms of scholarship; worse, they are sadly and completely naive.
Reality is that Obama’s plan will raise medical costs, for all of us. Period. What part of higher medical costs is it that our nursery-worker friend and others don’t get?
Of course we can bang away in this blog; it’s something else when Warren Buffett gets it. "Unfortunately, we came up with a bill that really doesn’t attack the cost situation that much and we have to have a fundamental change," he laments. Heck, the president’s own Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that the Senate bill would hike national health expenditures $234bln by 2019.
That is, BO’s plan(s) only make our present, horribly high costs higher. Why are our costs so high? Because, as Thomas Sowell points out, "When the ‘single payer’ was the patient, people were more selective in what they spent their money on. You went to the doctor when you had a broken leg but not..every time you had the sniffles or a skin rash." The obvious which comes up for all of us - Medicare, an example often used by our friends from the left of slick and efficient delivery. In fact it is grossly inefficient, for the simple reason that when someone else is paying care gets overused.
It’s easy. As the Heritage Foundation noted, "Our current system is out of control for the same reason most Americans over-eat at buffets: when you don’t have to pay for each plate of food, you usually eat more." We might add that it is our pricing, not delivery system which is out of control. And so it is. Out of pocket expenses by patients have fallen from 52% in 1965 to 15% in 2005. It’s the third party gov’t and insurance companies who pay for all this stuff.
Heritage concludes, "When prices are determined through administrative procedures rather than market processes, both patients and producers are anesthetized from normal market incentives to reduce prices and spending." Yet our friends from the left think that more of this will cure the problem. This excuses them from making the tough decision, a signature failing of the left.
Many of us have offered up good, real-world solutions to problems of health cost. These fall not so much on deaf ears but on a president with a radical, statist agenda.
Robert Craven
Monday, March 1, 2010
The Jihad and Obama
We like Clive Cook, and we like his paper - London’s Financial Times. We’ve been featured in that fine paper ourselves a time or two, way back. Clive writes Mar/1 that, "What should have been clear all along is now impossible to ignore: the US is to the right of Mr. Obama on domestic policy." Oh, that. Should have been clear to whom? The media, academics, college kids, Clive? All of those who pulled the trigger? Is this an admission of lack of scholarship, or a told-you-so?
Stalin would have loved these guys. But at least Clive didn’t blame the whole shebang on the "ignorant masses," in the fashion of most of his US colleagues. In fact, the American people have stopped Obama before he could do more damage.
We’re not laughing at Clive; he and a lot of others are in the same boat - they have been in a state of denial about BO all along. Political correctness got us all in trouble.
In the meantime, prepare for the left’s operatives to continue to sacrifice their own, claiming as Pelosi recently did that it is for the good of their country. Certainly. Not all Democrats are ready to walk the plank of course; they’ve politely declined the Kool Aid which is precisely what the recent meeting in the Blair House was all about - to get them to reconsider.
Now that extremists have control of the party its demise is sealed, but even knowing that it is not enough to stop them. They don’t care. (A new Democratic party will eventually emerge, but closer to what Andrew Jackson had in mind.)
Friends have told us, "You’re nuts," for drawing as we recently did the parallel between radical Islam combatants and operatives of the far left. We are not crazy; we’re right; it may be chilling, but it is accurate. Naturally the far left are not out to murder each of us, but just like the jihadists they will sacrifice their own in their conflict. That’s why the rules are now changed. For both, there is no middle ground, no compromise, only their way. They’re not wired like normal people. Both the far left and jihadists are welded to an archaic document; neither has experienced a reformation. Both are out to extinguish a Western free society - muslim thugs with guns, radicals like BO and Pelosi, with suffocating government.
Robert Craven
Stalin would have loved these guys. But at least Clive didn’t blame the whole shebang on the "ignorant masses," in the fashion of most of his US colleagues. In fact, the American people have stopped Obama before he could do more damage.
We’re not laughing at Clive; he and a lot of others are in the same boat - they have been in a state of denial about BO all along. Political correctness got us all in trouble.
In the meantime, prepare for the left’s operatives to continue to sacrifice their own, claiming as Pelosi recently did that it is for the good of their country. Certainly. Not all Democrats are ready to walk the plank of course; they’ve politely declined the Kool Aid which is precisely what the recent meeting in the Blair House was all about - to get them to reconsider.
Now that extremists have control of the party its demise is sealed, but even knowing that it is not enough to stop them. They don’t care. (A new Democratic party will eventually emerge, but closer to what Andrew Jackson had in mind.)
Friends have told us, "You’re nuts," for drawing as we recently did the parallel between radical Islam combatants and operatives of the far left. We are not crazy; we’re right; it may be chilling, but it is accurate. Naturally the far left are not out to murder each of us, but just like the jihadists they will sacrifice their own in their conflict. That’s why the rules are now changed. For both, there is no middle ground, no compromise, only their way. They’re not wired like normal people. Both the far left and jihadists are welded to an archaic document; neither has experienced a reformation. Both are out to extinguish a Western free society - muslim thugs with guns, radicals like BO and Pelosi, with suffocating government.
Robert Craven
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Rules of Engagement - Health Care and Terror
In high school staff rooms throughout America, public employees meeting halls in California, trial lawyer shindigs in Baton Rouge - the left are stunned to witness their elected officials line up to walk the plank. Or should we say the average Democrat is stunned. Party operatives - the far left - are not at all concerned; this is the trade off to insure a massive and permanent new layer of government control on Americans. If some must be sacrificed, just as communist labor organizer Mac sacrificed Jim in Steinbeck’s In Dubious Battle, so be it.
We have dedicated several past posts to this topic - the disconnect. Most of our readers understand the phenomena. The majority of Americans don’t want this health scam but KEY - since it was never about health anyway, in the minds of present day Democratic party operatives (none of whom Truman or JFK would recognize) that is beside the point. These types don’t play by the usual rules. As one observer put, "they’re not wired that way." This explains what has become known as the disconnect.
BO seems to many to be deaf. He is not. As we all have witnessed, he and other radicals won’t moderate as most reasonable people expect them to do, even if it means losing the majority. Their aim is to construct another layer between individuals and their independent actions, to change the relationship of state (servant) and individual (master), the Founders intent, to just the reverse. Given the nature of health care the change the far left has in mind won’t be rolled back, thus the perfect vehicle for their agenda. This is to be their legacy.
So, near-term consequences are not a consideration for these types. Thus, to folk who may not agree with this agenda this makes them doubly dangerous - they are fanatics. My son-in-law and others in Afg are asked to fight in an arena where we also find that rules of engagement have changed, where radical Muslim thugs willingly sacrifice themselves and their own kind, welcoming self-destruction in pursuit of their agenda - the eradication of a free Western civilization.
What’s the difference?
Robert Craven
We have dedicated several past posts to this topic - the disconnect. Most of our readers understand the phenomena. The majority of Americans don’t want this health scam but KEY - since it was never about health anyway, in the minds of present day Democratic party operatives (none of whom Truman or JFK would recognize) that is beside the point. These types don’t play by the usual rules. As one observer put, "they’re not wired that way." This explains what has become known as the disconnect.
BO seems to many to be deaf. He is not. As we all have witnessed, he and other radicals won’t moderate as most reasonable people expect them to do, even if it means losing the majority. Their aim is to construct another layer between individuals and their independent actions, to change the relationship of state (servant) and individual (master), the Founders intent, to just the reverse. Given the nature of health care the change the far left has in mind won’t be rolled back, thus the perfect vehicle for their agenda. This is to be their legacy.
So, near-term consequences are not a consideration for these types. Thus, to folk who may not agree with this agenda this makes them doubly dangerous - they are fanatics. My son-in-law and others in Afg are asked to fight in an arena where we also find that rules of engagement have changed, where radical Muslim thugs willingly sacrifice themselves and their own kind, welcoming self-destruction in pursuit of their agenda - the eradication of a free Western civilization.
What’s the difference?
Robert Craven
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
