Free Markets, Free People

Saturday open thread

Talk about whatever strikes your fancy.

Some things that have caught my eye:

Is the Obama administration trying to unionize the government procurement process?

Speaking of unions, what is SEIU’s president, Andy Stern, doing on a Obama’s “deficit reduction” panel.  Does that say “I’m serious about this” to you?

Anyone else see the irony in the Hillary Clinton claim that domestic political infighting is hurting America’s image abroad?

Brits aren’t buying the “January was the warmest month ever” nonsense.

Speaking of the Brits, is there a reason we won’t back their claim to the Falklands in a drilling-rights dispute?

Apparently some Dems are calling for Charles Rangel to step down from his House committee chairmanship because of ethics violations. Why isn’t Nancy “the most ethical Congress in history” Pelosi doing the same?

Paul Ryan was the rock star in the health care summit. To date no one has refuted his fiscal points.

The Obama administration has consistently talked about the Bush administration not counting the cost of war in its deficits. Well, it isn’t a war, but the Obama administration continues to nrefuse to cout the hundreds of billions going to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – primarily because it would bump this year’s 1.4 trillion deficit by another 300 billion.

And finally there’s some relatively good news.  Jeremy Lott says there have been quite a few “quiet libertarian victories” here lately.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

26 Responses to Saturday open thread

  • what is SEIU’s president, Andy Stern, doing on a Obama’s “deficit reduction” panel.

    LOL {chuckle} As I’ve tried and tried to tell you dense righties, everyone needs to sit down at the table and put aside their partisan differences and come to an agreement about what we need to do. That certainly includes someone who represents so many workers, especially since those workers deliver essential services to the public every day.

    You thick righties have a totally wrong idea about our virtuous public sector workers. Like me, toiling away teaching young minds to shun the nonsense constantly spewed by far-right people like Limbaugh, and not to be taken in by the full lips and ample bosom of Sarah Palin. LOL.

    We are public servants. We should have a strong voice in what happens to our government and what the level of taxation, spending and debt are going to be. And that’s not either a conflict of interest because we might subvert the process to gain at the expense of the common citizen, so stop saying that! We’re virtuous, I said! We would never do that!

    Anyone else see the irony in the Hillary Clinton claim that domestic political infighting is hurting America’s image abroad?

    What irony? It’s true. Hillary is experienced and smart, and she has her finger on the pulse of world opinion. I’m an expert in foreign affairs, you know, with a book that really ought to be higher than two million on Amazon’s book selling list because it has so much distilled wisdom from my godlike powers of political science. And it’s not either from a vanity press that suckers social science academics! I don’t know why you stupid righties keep thinking that! It’s a serious work of scholarship, and it’s just too bad none of you are in a position to read and understand it.

    Anyway, other nations look at us, and just laugh and laugh. Their people understand that political elites have trained their entire lives to run society, and there just isn’t any real doubt anymore about the best way to do it, which is with wise, pragmatic leftism. The Europeans, who we ought to be more like, figured this out long ago. They’re even moving further in this wise direction by setting up a European Commission that is completely insulated from any vulgar voting by the proles. You’ll see. America is in decline because of Ronald Reagan, and we should start imitating Europe if we are to have any chance of staying relevant. I decree it.

    Why isn’t Nancy “the most ethical Congress in history” Pelosi doing the same?

    Nancy understands the need to protect people like Rangel from mean-spirited partisan attacks. She is very experienced and wise, and she certainly does not have any full lips or ample bosom, so she’s an example of what our female politicians ought to be. I do wish I understood why she has that surprised look on her face all the time, but it’s probably because she is perpetually surprised by the partisan behavior of Republicans, who simply won’t sit down and work things out in a reasonably fashion, which means doing pretty much what we were going to do anyway but more slowly so the Republicans have a chance to get over their ridiculous opposition to it. It’s really a compromise that’s best for everyone if we do it that way.

    People like Rangle need a seat at that table, because he represents underprivledged members of society. He understands them intuitively, and it doesn’t matter in the least that he owns all those properties or breaks New Yorks rent control laws or flouts tax laws. He’s far too busy to worry about such things, because he has a higher calling to represent his underprivledged constituents.

    Paul Ryan was the rock star in the health care summit.

    {chuckle} You dense righties really think that don’t you? As if someone could be a rock star by rambling on about “evidence” and “facts” and droning about how Obama’s brilliant plans might cost more than estimates. Who cares about that? Health care is a right, and you engineer type grunts need to just pony up the money for it. And that doesn’t either violate your rights! It just doesn’t! I decree it!

    Well, I hope that has cleared up some of your questions. You know I’m always happy to come here and lecture down to inform you dense righties on the fine points of how the world really works, from someone with godlike powers of political science and total understanding of the holy writ of postmodernism. Oh, by the way, do you realize you guys are post-modernists too? That’s one of my multiple truths, so you can’t dispute it. Suck on it. {chuckle} LOL {eyes rolling}

  • GLOBAL WARMING STRIKES AGAIN IN CHILE

    • I knew that was coming  … so thanks for the relief.

    • I know you’re being sarcastic, but I’m waiting for some idiot liberal (sorry; redundant) to make that exact claim.

  • “Emergency shipment of condoms headed to Olympic athletes”

    Film at eleven?
    Has a new event been added?
    Perhaps they are reverting to an older definition of ‘sport’, as in ‘sporting house’; “Obsolete Amorous dalliance; lovemaking.”
    I have not watched the Olympics, so perhaps I missed something interesting, but I am looking forward to the summer games, when the weather is much more conducive to sporting.

    http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/blogs/postblog/2010/02/emergency-shipment-of-condoms-headed-to-olympic-athletes.html

  • I would bet a lot of those condoms were not used, but taken as souvenirs.

  • Speaking of the Brits, is there a reason we won’t back their claim to the Falklands in a drilling-rights dispute?
     
    For some reason  Obama seems to hate the Brits. He has gone out of his way to slight them, and insult Gordon Brown. Even though Brown is an ideological tax and spend soul mate. I don’t understand the animus there.

    • It must be gonna get worse .. why the $1 billion new embassy with a moat to keep the Brits out ?

    • They are the wrong kind of Ally for us.  We should be strengthening ties with Cuba and Venezuela.

  • I’m curious about the reconciliation process … first, they pass the “Senate Bill,” then, they pass the “reconciliation.”
    Exactly what happens if they pass the “Senate Bill” but “reconciliation” fails ?
    Doesn’t this possibility open the door for all kinds of “backroom deals” ?
    Wouldn’t this make the election even worse for Democrats ?

    • San Fran Nan doesn’t care about the election. She’s not going to lose her seat. She wants to go down in history as the Speaker that brought about universal healthcare. The fact that it’s not universal, and doesn’t do anything tangible to increase delivery of healthcare, is beside the point. As a good post-modern leftist, she cares a lot more about perception and consensus opinion than she does facts and truth.

      On a semi-related subject, I saw Erb’s idiotic comments accusing people here of being post-modernists. He claims to understand post-modernism and says that it’s “proven” (in the same sense all the other claptrap he posits is proven, I suppose), but that comment indicated that he’s as woefully ignorant of what post-modernism really means as I suspected all along. Basically he doesn’t know Derrida from his derriere.

      • Having endured seminars reading Derrida, Foucault, and numerous other post-modernists, I daresay your insult is ill informed.   Like so much of what you write when you throw insults, you give no rationale for your claim.   What about post-modernism don’t I understand?   It is complex, especially Derrida’s efforts to avoid any center (I read him as mostly playing a game — and he plays it better than most), but your accusation was so vague as to be meaningless.
        As for climate change — read what I wrote.   Given the evidence there is overwhelming belief that it is very likely that human induced climate change is occurring, and if so the consequences could be dire.  I said nothing was “proven” for certain — science doesn’t work that way.
        So I’m not sure what you were drinking when you read my post, Billy.   I hope it was a good scotch.

        • Okay, what definition of post-modernism defines it as “choosing data to fit your preconceived notion,…”

          “I said nothing was “proven” for certain — science doesn’t work that way.”

          The standards of proof for climate ‘science’ seem to be as rigorous as those for political ‘science’. In real science  the standards are a little different.

        • I said nothing was “proven” for certain — science doesn’t work that way.

          “THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED”

          YOUR OWN WORDS.

          You’re a liar, I get that. But you gotta try to be a bit more subtle. This one is just laughable.

        • Otto: “Apes don’t read philosophy.”

          Wanda: “Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it.”

          • In case the message isn’t clear, to move to another realm, I don’t care how many books on calculus someone says they’ve read or how many seminars they’ve sat it on. If they claim that calculus is the same as algebra, they didn’t understand what they read or heard.

            No philosopher (post-modern or otherwise) defines post-modernism as cherry picking to support a position. Cherry picking is a variety of logical fallacy, and has zilch to do with post-modernism. The fact that you would assert what you did is strong evidence that you understood little or nothing from whatever amounts of study you’ve invested in the subject.

            And I hate scotch. It tastes like grease solvent to me.

          • And I hate scotch. It tastes like grease solvent to me.

            Then I’d venture to say you’ve never really had a good single malt neat (blends suck and I agree with your assessment of them). Next time I wander into Nashville I’ll buy you a good Macallen 12.

          • Macallen 12 – good man!!
            Next time you swing into Arizona, Ill share my stock of Talisker and Dalwinnie with you!

          • Deal – and if you’re in the ATL, the offer stands for you as well.

        • “Given the evidence there is overwhelming belief that it is very likely that human induced climate change is occurring…”

          Overwhelming belief?  Very likely?
          So something like this then?
          E, based on overwhelming belief, is very likely to = MC^2
           

      • Yeah, he knows all the big words, he just doesn’t know what they mean.

    • Kim Priestap at Wizbang has a good take on this.

      Cast your mind.  Imagine that you’re a Congressional democrat (I know, I know: you have to imagine that you’re a corrupt, dishonest, America-hating plutocrat, but work with me).  You know that you’re facing an up-hill battle in the midterms, and even if you get reelected, it’s likely that your party will be in the minority after the dust settles.  So, does it make sense to try the time-honored tactic of desperately tacking to the center by voting against your party leadership?

      No.

      For one thing, taking over the health care system has been your party’s dream for decades.  You know that, once you control health care, you will control the voting public as surely as if you held a gun to the heads of their children, parents and grandparents.

      For another, you know that this new, huge bureacracy will need lots of people to run it.  People who will get nice salaries, big offices, and great health care benefits (courtesy of the government unions).  It will also be a lobbyist’s dream: EVERYBODY will be looking for lobbyists to help them shape this new system to their benefit.  Lobbyists who have connections on the Hill.  Lobbyists who know how Congress works.

      In short, you don’t need to worry about selling your condo in Georgetown, ‘cuz no matter how the mid-terms turn out, you’re not going anywhere.

      Yes, it may be that quite a few dems (and some Republicans) will lose the privilege of being called “senator” or “congressman” after the mid-terms, but if they play ball with the democrat leadership, they’ll land on their feet.

      So, it’s really not much of a choice, is it?

  • What’s post modern is the idea there is no central truth.   If there is no central truth, you just de-construct others’ narratives and construct your own.   I wasn’t saying you guys were philosophical post-modernists, but in response to me being called post-modern I noted that such an approach I detect here — there is no truth except what fits our narrative — is a lot more post-modern than my more traditional approach.   I think there is truth and reality out there, not just memes and narratives.
    Shark, you didn’t read the comment I made — I said “what’s settled is this…” (and went on with what I have above that a vast majority believe it’s most likely that human climate change is happening, etc.)   I was very specific in what I wrote, I even clearly said that nothing is certain, that science doesn’t work that way.   Settled science is NOT proven science, that is NOT how science works.  Settled science can be overturned by new evidence.
    And to the scotch haters out there I have one word: Lagavulin.

    • “…such an approach I detect here — there is no truth except what fits our narrative …”

      Such an approach I detect in your comment-”the science is settled”

      I surmise you have studied under the noted Prof. Irwin Corey.

  • People who throw around the term “settled science” when discussing global warming (even if they think they are being careful to qualify it) are nearly always ignorant or dishonest. There has been warming in the past century and human industry produces gases which probably contribute to the increase, even if just a tiny percentage. However, most of the hype and terror are easily debunked. Warming will not turn into any crazy “runaway” syndrome if we pass some fictional “tipping point”, or that would have happened in the past in a similar manner.  (It didn’t.)
    The fact is, most people with a political motive (including a certain Professor of Political “Science”) who are pushing this hysteria are wearing red under their new green costumes. If it wasn’t “global warming” it would be some other excuse to punish productive industry to force a “redistribution” of wealth.

  • Scotch is OK.  But I’d rather pay for a pint of Guiness than drink a free shot.