I just saw this quote:

A strong middle class equals a strong America. We can’t have one without the other.  This Task Force will be an important vehicle to assess new and existing policies across the board and determine if they are helping or hurting the middle class.  It is our charge to get the middle class – the backbone of this country – up and running again.

Instead of working to make everyone part of the middle class, why aren’t these alleged do-gooders working to make us all part of the upper class?  I mean, judging from their actions and words, they don’t just want to lift up the poor, but they want to knock down the rich and just mush everyone into the middle.

It’s like an legislative orgy of mediocrity there in Congress.

It also strikes me as patently foolish to regard the “middle” of this relative hierarchy as some how a clear-cut objective goal for our economy.  If we want to drag more people up to where the middle is now, shouldn’t we do things to let the upper get even higher? And don’t tell me those folks don’t know that the hierarchy of incomes is relative because they’re constantly looking at how poor the poor are versus how rich the rich are.

Isn’t it clear that this obsession with the middle that so many in Washington have is actually fueled by malice and disdain for Americans both rich and poor alike?

I was listening to This American Life, the episode called “Social Contract.”  It’s about people working to try to maintain failing/bankrupt governments — governments like the state of New York, the country of Greece, or Barbados.

What struck me, though, is this: I wonder if people object to Atlas Shrugged as being unrealistic just because she didn’t spend an extra 60,000 pages outlining all the absurd and ridiculous politics that statist governments could go through before they collapse entirely.

I mean, Ayn Rand described some pretty accurate things, but I think she’d have to have been a sociopath or some sort of deviant to imagine some of the “solutions” that get proposed and implemented by politicians the world ’round in response to the problems they themselves created with excess spending.

Look at this:

And she didn’t post that with any apparent irony.

People are going around as if BP somehow planned to lose billions of dollars into the ecosystem.  That simply isn’t the case.

This oil spill was an accident and I’ve yet to hear that it was the result of any sort of gross negligence or malfeasance on BP’s part, so why do people act as if it were some sort of horrible moral failing by the people in that corporation?

I’ll tell you why: Because so many people in our culture have bought into the notion that oil is some sort of inherent evil and anyone involved in the production of oil is also evil.

Never mind that oil has brought us a frenzy of life-enhancing, wealth-producing, comfort-creating advancements over the past hundred years or so and that it remains an essential part of our lives and industry. I see nothing particularly objectionable about being “dependent” upon oil any more than it’s objectionable that we were “dependent” upon wood for sailing ships two hundred years ago or that we’re “dependent” upon sand for concrete and glass and other such wonderful things.

Anyone who advocates flipping a switch and cutting off oil in our economy hates human life because such a decision would mean widespread destruction and misery.

I need to stop paying attention to this man.  It just makes me so angry that people think he’s some sort of middle-of-the-road, voice-of-reason kind of guy when he’s a total loon.

So, I subscribed to the podcast of his show and listening to it now, here’s an exchange:

Maher: Your book is crazy, too. You book is wrong too because you say there are wingnuts equally on left and right and your own book is full of wingnuts on the right and hardly any on the left.

This is comment highlights perfectly Maher’s lack of critical thinking skills.

See, his goal in the context of the conversation is to show how ideologically superior, how much more rational the people on the left are over those on the right because, in his words, the people on the left believe in evolution and global warming. But those aren’t essential aspects of people on the left, are they?

Maher never tells us what the essential ideological characteristics of those on the left are, but he does implicitly identify those on the right as being fueled by religion.  I happen to agree with him on that point. But what is the unifying ideology of the Left in America today? I don’t think he can say, but I would describe it as some sort of melange of semi-socialistic, semi-mystical socialistic pragmatism.

Because the people on the right have a pretty clear, centralized ideology, it’s easy for them to produce extremists or, as Bill Maher calls them, wingnuts.  They are the evangelicals who essentially seek to legislate their own morality down on everyone in the country.

But it seems to me that Maher and most people in the US think the people on the left are communists and socialists.  That’s what they think the extreme left is.  That’s because the Left got its character and definition from the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s when communism and socialism were significant political movements in the US.  Today, while there are people claiming to be socialists and communists, they represent an extreme minority for the Left here in the US.

Somehow people missed the fact that what we call the Left isn’t the Left any more.  It’s the Gray.  It’s a muddle.  It’s a sickening evil muddle that takes the worst characteristics of the old Left and the new Right to create a party whose extremists are impossible for a muddled mind like Maher to identify and difficult to unify under a single ideological umbrella.

Who are the extremists of our Left today? People like Maddow, Olbermann, Pelosi, and especially Barack Obama.

I am genuinely surprised at how destructive Obama has managed to be. I thought the Right would manage to stonewall those on the Left well enough to create a gridlock, but Obama has put the political Judo on these people and hammer through some real zingers.

Back to Maher.  He still thinks that extreme on the Left means socialist.  And he thinks that because there aren’t (m)any socialists that it proves that the Left is more sane and rational than the right.  He forgets that he’s measuring success here by adherents.  Without extremists, though, we can only conclude that a not-insignificant number of people he’s counting on the left are people who are there simply because they do not agree with the ideology of the Right.  Not agreeing with the opposition does not represent an ideological agreement.  And that’s where he messes up.

The lack of wingnuts on the Left means:

1) There aren’t very many people who genuinely agree with the ideology of the left.

OR

2) Maher doesn’t know what it means to be a wingnut of the Left.

Given the boisterous popularity of the Left, I think we can toss out option 1.  This means that there is SOMETHING to the Left that people are buying and they’re buying it with vim.

But we would not conclude that because there is a lack of perceived wingnuts — by the way, I have it on authority that the proper term for an extremist on the Left is “barking moonbat” and not “wingnut,” but for the sake of consistency with Maher I’ll keep using his term — on the Left that it means that the ideology of the Left is pure, rational, right, and proper.  That conclusion, Maher’s conclusion, would be a total non sequitur.

Rachel Maddow’s treatment of Rand Paul has been making the rounds on a number of blogs in the past day or so.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I have a hard time listening to Paul because his accent and his slow, trippy speech patterns are absolutely grating on my ears. (I did make it through for the sake of this post, though. I suffered just for you!)

Paul has made is very clear that he thinks racism is wrong and that the government should not be permitted to discriminate against people. No one misunderstands that. What he keeps trying to dodge is being forced to say that he believes private citizens should have the right to discriminate if they please. Rachel Maddow rightfully confronts him on his attempt to skirt and obscure this fact saying, “But isn’t being for civil rights but against the Civil Rights Act a little like saying you’re against cholesterol but for fried cheese?”
But even so, Paul kept dodging around the point of the question. Paul does eventually make a semi-clear statement about his view, but falls back into obfuscation about two seconds later. Maddow absolutely dominated him in this discussion and he came off looking like a total ass.

He absolutely should have given a clear, succinct statement that he does think private people should be permitted to discriminate. He’s a Libertarian like his father, so even though lots of people have expressed shock over this viewpoint, it’s not actually as unusual as Rachel Maddow seems to think.

Anyway, today, he’s turned around with this:

Aside from him stating clearly that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act, I think it’s particularly telling that he now states that he does think the government should intervene in situations like civil rights. He fudges and says he’s for that only in “extreme” situations, but what on earth does that mean?

More importantly, exactly what are Rand Paul’s principles now? It used to seem like he was a unwavering defender of private property rights even into “extreme” situations like the institutional racism of Jim Crow South. But his most recent statement sounds more like he’s a pragmatic defender of “small” government. What standards is this man using to make decisions?

I can’t say that this is typical of Libertarians, but it’s pretty typical of politicians. I’m mostly surprised that he was so inept at dealing with the situation and that he’s buckled so fast.

I wonder what Ron Paul has said on this topic.

LA Times: L.A. council bans most official travel to Arizona

The Los Angeles City Council, protesting Arizona’s tough crackdown on illegal immigration, voted Wednesday to ban most city travel to Arizona and future contracts with companies in that state.

[...]

The council also called on the city attorney’s office to review all of the city’s $58 million in existing contracts with Arizona companies to determine which can be canceled.

The resolution, which now heads to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, would still allow city officials to travel to Arizona under “special circumstances” that are in the city’s interests. Also, existing contracts with Arizona firms would be exempt from the ban if canceling them would lead to “significant additional cost” to the city.

So, this law in Arizona is mean, wrong, and offensive.  Unlike many, I am less concerned about the way it will undoubtedly lead to racial profiling than the way that it endorses and demands the continued violation of all individuals’ rights in the state.

But if that weren’t bad enough, the city of LA has taken it upon itself to comment officially on the legislation of a completely separate government.  I imagine Tokyo (not the country of Japan) passing a law about how much they don’t like some law passed in the Czech Republic and so they won’t do business there.

Also, the immigration law is something that the state of Arizona did.  I assume, perhaps I’m wrong, that the extreme majority contracts in question aren’t with the state of Arizona, but with businesses based there.  So, LA has decided because the state did something, they’ll punish these businesses.  What if those businesses are very pro-immigrant and opposed to the law? Doesn’t matter.  The fact that they’re a minority in the voting populace of Arizona warrants punishment by LA.

Not only does this activity remind me of how bloated and mutated government powers at all levels are in the US, I’m also reminded of how idiotic people who hold public office must be.

The only thing that I find interesting to really ponder in this mess is what it means for state and municipal sovereignty.  But even those thoughts aren’t interesting enough to describe at length here when I can just rant about how idiotic LA is.

I happened across this survey on Free Colorado in which candidate John Hargis gave a lot of wrong answers and it made me think about how frequently people mis-identify my political leanings.  So, I thought I would give it a shot!

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.
I’m not and given the current level of philosophical and moral corruption in our political environment, I wouldn’t.

ECONOMIC ISSUES
* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to “stimulate” the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

No, absolutely not.

Mr. Hargis also proposes not to have the government stimulate things, but he proposes what he considers a practical compromise in light of the fact that the stimulus happens.

Just because of my personality, I would not propose a compromise at all.  If anything, I would suggest more aggressive, socialistic solutions which would ultimately exacerbate the problem just because I don’t like half measures and I want people to get what they deserve.

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

No, I believe it is the role of the government to protect individual rights from the initiation of force and nothing else. Should the government take money from its citizens to fund projects like this, it would be no different than ConEd or any other utility company breaking into my house in order to steal money to build a new power station.

Mr. Hargis gives some practical justification for why he opposes this and the justifications he provides are ones easily argued against. That’s what you get for being pragmatic.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights be kept completely intact? If not, how should it be altered?

I’m opposed to involuntary taxation.

Again, I would not likely propose any sort of pragmatic justification for opposing it unless accompanied by suitable principled arguments. Any suggestions I provide to those supporting it would probably be designed to usher in policies of such widespread economic destruction that subsequent policies would be directed toward vacating the state for a generation while the earth heals itself. Get me?

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

Lower. Surely now I don’t have to explain why.

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

Repealed. It’s economically destructive and a violation of property rights.

Note: Mr. Hargis supports increasing it annually along with inflation and cost of living calculations.

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

No.

Mr. Hargis supports it in the form of scholarships.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

Antitrust laws should be repealed as they represent the criminalization of free, fair, and just trade among consenting parties.

Mr. Hargis’ answer is a strange non-sequitur that seems to endorse these laws.

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?

It should be repealed completely as it represents another violation of property and economic rights.

Mr. Hargis supports the act even if he proposes alterations.

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

What do you believe is meant by the “separation of church and state,” and do you endorse it?

It means that the government will not refer to the mystic or supernatural in creating or enforcing the laws and will give no deference or special consideration to entities based on their view of those things. It means government by reason and, yes, I support it.

Mr. Hargis is a theist, however, and says, “our law’s [sic] were designed around God, representatives must have faith in God to honor the oath of office.”  This is pure poppycock.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

No.

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

No.

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

No. I’m against tax-funded schools, but even in public schools students can pray any time they please as long as it doesn’t disrupt class or their work. I see no reason to take time from the school day when teachers are supposed to be teaching children to practice rational thought in order to entertain irrational thought.

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

No.

Mr. Hargis allows for it based on his incorrect understanding of the separation of church and state.

* Do you support gay marriage?

Yes.

Mr. Hargis does not.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

Mr. Hargis supports separate but equal legislation for homosexuals.

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

Yes. There is no evidence that homosexual parents are unable to raise healthy, happy, well-developed children.

Mr. Hargis chooses to believe otherwise.

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

Always.  I actually agree with Mr. Hargis here.  A parent is responsible for the child’s welfare and medical care until the child is an adult.

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

No.

Mr. Hargis thinks so.

* Do you endorse the “personhood” measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

No.

Mr. Hargis gives a puzzling answer here. He says, “Life begins at inception,” which is very strange.  The question of when life begins isn’t really relevant to my views on abortion, but they seem to be for him. I just can’t really tell how. I can only assume he means “conception.”

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

Yes. Abortion should be completely and totally legal in all cases where that is the mother’s wish.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

Yes.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman’s life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

Yes.

Mr. Hargis’ responses to this series of questions disgusts me.

* Should elective abortion be legal?

Yes.

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

No.  Notably, Mr. Hargis seems to oppose the death penalty here in all situations and characterizes criminal punishments as “revenge.” I think his characterization of criminal punishment is simplistic and wrong and I support the death penalty.

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

Yes.

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

Yes.

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

Unequivocally, yes.

Mr. Hargis provides a qualified yes to this.

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?

No. See above for my rationale.

Mr. Hargis is also opposed, but, again, gives a pragmatic rationale.

IMMIGRATION

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest-worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?

No. The immigration policy of the US is inhumane and should be overhauled to allow anyone who wishes to enter. The only exceptions would be violent criminals and people who might infect the population with some horrible plague. And if those allowed to enter want to work and someone hires them, fine.

* Should federal or state tax-funded benefits (depending on which office you seek), including K-12 education, be extended only to U.S. citizens, to legal immigrants and guest workers, or to everyone in the U.S. including illegal immigrants?

I’m against those tax-funded benefits, so I can’t really answer this question.

BUT assuming no one listens to me, I would propose that we do extend those benefits to anyone who asks just so we could more quickly bankrupt the state or country who has these foolish policies.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

Eminent domain should be revoked from the recognized powers of the state.  So, to answer your question: it should be restricted 100%.

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

No.

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

It should be repealed.

BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

It should be completely repealed.

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

No. Government activity should be confined simply to protecting the licensed owners of a given frequency from infringement from others, just as it would protect property owners from trespassers.

* Should the FTC’s rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

Yes.

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

I don’t support tax-subsidized colleges and I think handgun owners should be permitted to carry their weapons wherever they please as long as they have permission from the property owner.  (Given that the state claims to own the property of those colleges and allows people to carry handguns, it perplexes me that it restricts carrying of handguns to large swaths of state property.)

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

I’m not familiar with the restrictions on gun ownership. It’s likely that I think they should be repealed.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

No.

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?

No.

OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

They should be completely repealed.

Based on his responses, I think Mr. Hargis is a terrible candidate for office.

I’m presently embroiled in a very, very stupid comment “debate” with this fellow over my post about John Kerry wanting to lift the ban on gay blood.

See, he cited me as an example of an “honest homosexual” because I pointed out that there are higher rates of infection among homosexual men for certain diseases, which makes accepting gay blood somewhat more risky than straight blood.  I don’t actually know anyone who denies this simple fact of reality, but his citation seems to imply that there are gangs of gay people out there denying this.

The problem is that my post goes on to discuss the proper use of statistics regarding the way risk is assessed for donations made to our blood supply and challenges the notion that the government — not me — should have a say over what risk I’m willing to accept for blood that is given to me.

His argument, though, is that the government should regulate our blood supply and that there is no reason to accept the increased risks associated with increasing our population of possible donors by allowing homosexuals to donate blood.

My problems with his arguments are:

1. I do not think the government should regulate our supply of blood, but…
2. We constantly hear calls for additional blood donations, so increasing our population of donors would be a beneficial thing.

There is one more argument that I haven’t made, but that I think many people would make and that is: The increase in risk associated with allowing homosexuals to donate blood is minimal and should be accepted.  I will address this in a moment.

What is stupid about the discussion over in his comments, aside from the mind-boggling rationalism, invective, and general ignorance about even the most basic concepts and facts around this issue, is that although I have not stated my current beliefs regarding whether or not our government-controlled blood supply should include gay blood, John and his readers continually assume that I am for allowing homosexuals to donate blood even though I’ve not said anything of the kind.  All I’ve done is pointed out that their arguments against it are not valid.

It’s astonishing to me that this basic logic is so far beyond their grasp.

But for the sake of anyone’s interest, I’m writing this post to address the question of whether or not I think we should accept gay blood into our blood supply?  Put another way, do I accept the claim that “the increase in risk associated with allowing homosexuals to donate blood is minimal and should be accepted.”

Here’s my very anti-climactic answer to this question: I have no opinion of this at all because I have no knowledge upon which to base an informed conclusion.

Unlike John and his readers’ apparent position, I don’t have anything against gay blood as such.  I know that all blood donations are tested for a number of pathogens, but I do not know the exact nature of those tests nor of the testing procedures used nor of the quality control measures also applied in order to yet still assure the safety of our blood supply.  I have to conclude that whatever systems and processes are currently used are very successful as I rarely hear about tainted blood, but I have no direct insight into any facts which might reveal the truth of that.  Further, without all of these facts, I have no idea whether or not accepting gay blood would represent any change in risk associated with our blood supply, let alone whether it’s a little, a lot, or even a reduction in risk there.  It does seem to me and I think it’s arguable that if there is an increase in risk, it is very, very small, but I’m not willing to bet my health on my analysis of a topic about which I am not an expert. In a free market, I would look to my doctor’s insight into that.

I simply do not know and therefore do not have a particular opinion on the matter.

I will say that given the fact that our government does control our blood supply, I am not strongly inclined to donate blood even if they did allow it.  Although, I’ve heard that there may be health benefits associated with blood donation, so I might reconsider should such an opportunity arise.

Update: Part in bold above added.

I realize there are people who never tire of bossing other people around and minding other people’s business, but I am of the opinion that such people should be kept far from me or any other sane person if not simply flogged and set on fire.  And yet, YET, they continue to be elected to public office.

The Center for Consumer Freedom: New York Considers Legislation to Ban Salt in Restaurants

Not content with just trying to tax soft drinks, New York’s nanny-state politicians are also considering legislation to prohibit the use of salt in the preparation of restaurant food. Assemblyman Felix Ortiz introduced this absurdist bill on March 5. Ortiz is one of New York’s more strident food cops, having already introduced strict restaurant menu labeling proposals in the past. He is also following in the steps of fellow food nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg who went so far as to compare salt to carcinogenic asbestos.

The Blue Owl likes when I tell you he sent me something, so please take note that this story was sent to me by the Blue Owl.

Take note: this bill isn’t simply about allowing restaurants to put salt on the table, but prohibits the use of salt in the preparation of food. There is absolutely no way that this bill can pass.

Salt is a critical element in the preparation of innumerable recipes.  It’s used EVERYWHERE.  When I make ice-cream, I even use salt.  It helps with the chemistry of the custards.  It is a natural preservative and it’s one of the ways a number of people get iodine in their diet. (Iodine is essential to thyroid health.) Salt can, in some cases, be used to reduce cooking time. I imagine some things simply cannot be made without salt.

Even though there’s no way this can pass (today) it’s outrageous to me that anyone would even propose it. Aside from being absurd, it’s such a clear invasion of our personal rights that anyone claiming to support our rights as such must be guilty of rationalization on a spectacular scale.  It’s preposterous, fantastic, ridiculous, outrageous, and ludicrous.  And yet, here Mr. Felix Ortiz is suggesting it to us with a straight face.