The Fear of Individualism : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education: One of America’s most important girls to the world was the political philosophy of individualism. The central tenet of this idea is that every human being is important, especially from the point of view of law and politics, as a sovereign individual, not living by the permission of the government or some master or lord. That is the basic idea underpinning not only the democratic process, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the various prohibitions addressed to the government concerning how to treat the citizenry, but the free market economic system as well.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
The Fear of Individualism : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
Good article, so true. If America doesn't stand for the individual, who will?
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Liberals: Will you give absolute power to the next Right Wing President?
My comments relative to this story from the Atlantic
The Obama Surveillance Revelations Are Pushing Liberals Over the Edge "There have been concerns before about Obama's record on civil liberties and the security state, but people are genuinely shocked by the extent of this."Stand for ideals, not a man. Men are fallible. Bush, Obama, etc. Hold their feet to the fire equally. I'll say one thing for a smaller-gov libertarian approach: There would just be less men/women to be corrupt, by sheer numbers. Less administrators, hopefully less corruption, and easier to see what they are doing. And I would ask every committed and passionate progressive, liberal, or democrat this: Would you really, in your heart of hearts, want Bush, Nixon, Cheney or some future right-wing president to have his hands on information that could be used to blackmail or thwart any citizen, any congressman, any judge, know every connection to liberal causes, know every donor, know exactly how fast your grassroots groups are growing, etc. It's TOO MUCH POWER, for either party, any president. George Washington had all the power to rule our country handed to him by the generals he just led, and he turned it down. He warned us against such power. Be your own Washington, and demand your liberal friends be strong as well. Recording every touch point of every American is not for our country, not for the land of the free. To accept this, would be to commit national suicide.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Proliferating scandals expose truth about Obama -- chicagotribune.com
I've said versions of this line in my head for 5 years. I hope many read this article:
"Obama doesn't bother me. I disagree with his politics, but that's not what's galling. What's appalling was the pack mentality of journalists — and I don't need polls to tell me that most are liberals — who were so eager to wag their tails at his approach."
Proliferating scandals expose truth about Obama -- chicagotribune.com
I understand an expect there to be bad men in politics. That will never stop. What is unforgivable and frightening, is the media abdicating it's responsibility to support a political ideology. To the extent they continue doing so, more record growth for new media voices like Beck, Breitbart, and others.
"Obama doesn't bother me. I disagree with his politics, but that's not what's galling. What's appalling was the pack mentality of journalists — and I don't need polls to tell me that most are liberals — who were so eager to wag their tails at his approach."
Proliferating scandals expose truth about Obama -- chicagotribune.com
I understand an expect there to be bad men in politics. That will never stop. What is unforgivable and frightening, is the media abdicating it's responsibility to support a political ideology. To the extent they continue doing so, more record growth for new media voices like Beck, Breitbart, and others.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Open Letter to Politifact Editors
Dear Politifact,
I know it’s hard to remain unbiased, we all care about issues differently, but I had assumed Politifact was doing a good job of it. Then I saw your justification for doubling down on this issue:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/10/mitt-romney/romney-campaign-says-women-were-hit-hard-job-losse/
I guess I should have been looking closer at your other analysis, because I thought you did a piss poor job on this one. The credibility of your work is diminished after having read your justifications, and that sentiment will likely last a long time. I will certainly share my concerns among my networks. We are all looking for some honest, factual analysis, and you blew it.
I don’t have the time to break it all down, but I will show you 4 simple examples:
You are checking on a very precise, measurable fact. Is the number 92.3%, or is it not? Is it close, or not?
You state, “So timing was important. And if you count all those jobs lost beginning in 2007, women account for just 39.7 percent of the total.”
But Obama wasn’t in office in 2007. This statement does not negate the 92.3% fact for the time Obama WAS in office. It is your attempt to say “Well, even if the fact is true, there are other facts that happened just before then that fit our agenda better, so let’s point those out.” If you want an opinion column, or to provide political analysis, go write that somewhere else. If you put ‘FACT’ in your name, just stick to the facts. What happened in 2007 doesn’t change the number in 2009 one decimal. It provides context, but that’s not the purpose of fact-checking. If you want to be a political operative, seeking to provide “the other side of the story”, so be it, but put that crap in a disclaimer at the top of your page.
You tag your final analysis with the statement “Mostly False: Men lost more jobs earlier”. Earlier? Who gives a flip, that's not the point in question! If someone says “America is an integrated country”, are you going to say “That’s mostly false, because earlier, they weren’t integrated.” Stop pretending to be fact checkers, just admit you are “checking on what we think a politician really meant, even if they didn’t say it, because we are the best journalists and know what they are implying, and we know the stupid citizenry can’t figure out on their own so we have to supply them context beyond the parameters of the fact in question”.
Second example:
You quote Betsey Stevenson saying “"in every recession men’s job loss occurs first and most”. Mitt’s team was not talking about “EVERY RECESSION”. They weren’t even talking about his recession. They were talking about a precise number under a specific President.
Your attempts to respond to a fact, by talking about historical trends, and data outside of the years in question, is maddening, very disappointing.
Third example, you wrote:
"To the extent there have been excessive job losses among women, a lot of it has to do with the fact that there has been an enormous reduction in state and local government employment," Bartlett said.”
No one asked “why” there are job losses. That’s not he issue at question. You're not writing for a Newsweek cover story, or a Sunday talk show. Is the statement of 92.3% true, or not? Stop trying to avoid a discussion of facts, with quote after quote of context, commentary, and root-cause theories.
Fourth example:
“Bartlett added that many of those government jobs were eliminated in states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures.” down to.. "You could hardly blame Obama for that," Appelbaum said.”
The tweets you start the column off give a number, and say “under Obama”. They did not say it was his policies, that he personally fired people, what happened six months prior, etc, etc. You are trying so hard to avoid a true fact-check, that the more I see how you approach this issue, the more I wonder if you’ve ever had any credibility in your PolitiFact section. Do you realize how biased you are, or are you blind to your own character flaws?
I didn’t see a single thing, even though you had two swipes at it, that would justify the ‘False’ rating for that quote about 92.3%. I gave you plenty of my time tonight, and you did not deliver.
I guess I should have been looking closer at your other analysis, because I thought you did a piss poor job on this one. The credibility of your work is diminished after having read your justifications, and that sentiment will likely last a long time. I will certainly share my concerns among my networks. We are all looking for some honest, factual analysis, and you blew it.
I don’t have the time to break it all down, but I will show you 4 simple examples:
You are checking on a very precise, measurable fact. Is the number 92.3%, or is it not? Is it close, or not?
You state, “So timing was important. And if you count all those jobs lost beginning in 2007, women account for just 39.7 percent of the total.”
But Obama wasn’t in office in 2007. This statement does not negate the 92.3% fact for the time Obama WAS in office. It is your attempt to say “Well, even if the fact is true, there are other facts that happened just before then that fit our agenda better, so let’s point those out.” If you want an opinion column, or to provide political analysis, go write that somewhere else. If you put ‘FACT’ in your name, just stick to the facts. What happened in 2007 doesn’t change the number in 2009 one decimal. It provides context, but that’s not the purpose of fact-checking. If you want to be a political operative, seeking to provide “the other side of the story”, so be it, but put that crap in a disclaimer at the top of your page.
You tag your final analysis with the statement “Mostly False: Men lost more jobs earlier”. Earlier? Who gives a flip, that's not the point in question! If someone says “America is an integrated country”, are you going to say “That’s mostly false, because earlier, they weren’t integrated.” Stop pretending to be fact checkers, just admit you are “checking on what we think a politician really meant, even if they didn’t say it, because we are the best journalists and know what they are implying, and we know the stupid citizenry can’t figure out on their own so we have to supply them context beyond the parameters of the fact in question”.
Second example:
You quote Betsey Stevenson saying “"in every recession men’s job loss occurs first and most”. Mitt’s team was not talking about “EVERY RECESSION”. They weren’t even talking about his recession. They were talking about a precise number under a specific President.
Your attempts to respond to a fact, by talking about historical trends, and data outside of the years in question, is maddening, very disappointing.
Third example, you wrote:
"To the extent there have been excessive job losses among women, a lot of it has to do with the fact that there has been an enormous reduction in state and local government employment," Bartlett said.”
No one asked “why” there are job losses. That’s not he issue at question. You're not writing for a Newsweek cover story, or a Sunday talk show. Is the statement of 92.3% true, or not? Stop trying to avoid a discussion of facts, with quote after quote of context, commentary, and root-cause theories.
Fourth example:
“Bartlett added that many of those government jobs were eliminated in states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures.” down to.. "You could hardly blame Obama for that," Appelbaum said.”
The tweets you start the column off give a number, and say “under Obama”. They did not say it was his policies, that he personally fired people, what happened six months prior, etc, etc. You are trying so hard to avoid a true fact-check, that the more I see how you approach this issue, the more I wonder if you’ve ever had any credibility in your PolitiFact section. Do you realize how biased you are, or are you blind to your own character flaws?
I didn’t see a single thing, even though you had two swipes at it, that would justify the ‘False’ rating for that quote about 92.3%. I gave you plenty of my time tonight, and you did not deliver.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Share Bastiat with a Friend, Today
Take a moment to think of three people or networks you have that could use a reminder to read through Bastiat's The Law, view a good Milton Friedman video such as The Pencil, or walk through the Bar Stool Economics metaphor again. This links can help:
The Law, by Bastiat
"Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property. But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder. "Milton Friedman on: "Lesson of the Pencil" Should be required viewing and discussion for every student in 10th grade and again in 12th grade. Bar Stool Economics explained:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)