Category Archives: Political Commentary

Things That You Think Will Make You Happy

But won’t.

I’ve never wanted to be famous — it looks like a miserable life to me. But I would have no problem being rich. The problem with most lottery winners is that they don’t have any sort of higher purpose to life, and don’t understand how to handle sudden wealth. I have no interest in making people envious of my possessions. I’m not a very materialistic person in general. I buy things that will provide enjoyment to me, for practical reasons, and give very little thought as to what others will think about them. But the main thing is that I know exactly what I’d do if I became suddenly wealthy. I’d do the same thing that Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos did, but I’d do it right, because I already know what I’m doing, and wouldn’t have to hire other people to figure it out.

Oh, and the one about power?

The thing is, it’s the desire itself that’s poisonous. You find that need for power most in the type of person who hates having to obey all of society’s social contracts, particularly the ones that require them to not act like cocks all day. These are the people who are only nice guys because of fear of retribution if they do otherwise, so their main goal is to become strong enough that no retribution is possible (this is why sociopaths tend to seek positions of power, by the way).

Anybody who wants to be president badly enough to go through everything that it takes is intrinsically not to be trusted. I think that we’d be a lot better off with a search committee, who sought out someone for their competence and character, and who didn’t really want the job, but was reluctantly willing to do it. He’d probably still get corrupted eventually, but at least he wouldn’t start off that way right out of the box. Actually, I think that a Fred Thompson would be a good candidate in that scenario.

The Democrats’ War On Science

The EPA has quashed a politically incorrect study. Meanwhile, Jim Hansen, non-climate scientist, goes around shouting from the rooftops that he’s being silenced.

More here:

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

After all the complaints about the Bush administration’s “war on science,” the self-righteous hypocrisy of these people is sickening.

Miracle Of Miracles

Yesterday, the legislative geniuses in Congress managed to pass a bill that didn’t exist.

The Republicans should take this one to court. I know that SCOTUS doesn’t like to meddle with the legislative branch, but this seems likely to be unconstitutional.

Of course, the real problem is the willingness of legislators to vote for bills that they haven’t read, or even given time to read. Once that became acceptable, it was inevitable that they would start voting on wills of the wisp. I would dearly love to see everyone one of these criminals punished at the polls next year. Especially the Republican capntr8trs.

[Update a few minutes later]

Well, I went over and took a look at Article I. Unfortunately, the founders decided to leave everything pretty much up to Congress:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

That’s it. No definition of what constitutes a “bill” or procedures of how it should be “passed” at all. I guess they didn’t anticipate that we would ever have such an irresponsible and criminal lot running the place.

The Albany/Trenton/Sacramento Disease

As go the “progressive” states, so will go the nation, if this keeps up:

President Obama has bet the economy on his program to grow the government and finance it with a more progressive tax system. It’s hard to miss the irony that he’s pitching this change in Washington even as the same governance model is imploding in three of the largest American states where it has been dominant for years — California, New Jersey and New York.

A decade ago all three states were among America’s most prosperous. California was the unrivaled technology center of the globe. New York was its financial capital. New Jersey is the third wealthiest state in the nation after Connecticut and Massachusetts. All three are now suffering from devastating budget deficits as the bills for years of tax-and-spend governance come due.

These states have been models of “progressive” policies that are supposed to create wealth: high tax rates on the rich, lots of government “investments,” heavy unionization and a large government role in health care…

…Mr. Obama believes union power is a ticket to the middle class. The middle class is getting creamed in all three of these “progressive” states, where organized labor is king. The unionized share of the workforce is 20% in California, 19% in New Jersey and 27% in New York compared to 13% across the country. All three are non-right-to-work states, have super-minimum wage requirements and provide among the nation’s most generous public-employee pensions.

Workers in these paradises are indeed uniting — by leaving. New York ranks first, California second and New Jersey third in moving vans leaving the state. A study by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research found that over the past decade these and other high-union states (mostly in the Northeast) had one-third the job growth of states with low union penetration.

This is why we have federalism, folks. And you know the state that’s doing well? Texas. Why doesn’t Washington try emulating that? Including a part-time legislature (though as fast as these vandals rush bills through, they can do a lot of damage even if they only meet for a month).

Congratulations, Mickey

A look back at ten years of blogging. And yes, Matthew Yglesias does owe him an apology. But Matt being Matt, he won’t get one.

Also, the UAW’s revenge:

The U.A.W., now a major GM shareholder, has delivered its final punishment to those auto workers who dared move to Spring Hill, Tennessee and show up the rest of the union by building reliable car without Wagner-style work rules. GM’s new small car will be made in Michigan, and the Spring Hill plant will close. …. P.S.: Nikke Finke has a better chance of making money producing this car than GM does.

That’s what happens when you elect a fascist. And gee, I can’t wait to see the rest of the country go down the tubes like Michigan once they pass card check (probably in the middle of the night, without reading the bill).

Flint, Without Us

It is returning to nature. A nice little photo essay.

There’s a quote from a New Yorker review of the book, The World Without Us:

After thousands of years, the Chunnel, rubber tires, and more than a billion tons of plastic might remain, but eventually a polymer-eating microbe could evolve, and, with the spectacular return of fish and bird populations, the earth might revert to Eden.

Why do I think that the reviewer would look forward to that? Except, of course, he or she wants an Eden without either Adam, or Eve.