Obama Proof – Health Care Email

Email received 23 Mar 2010 @ 1539.

It’s a shame that so many people think of our President as a master orator. It’s a shame that more people don’t read his speeches. It’s a shame that his intelligence is vastly overestimated. It’s a shame he attaches his name to such a flawed document as this one below.

Mr. Obama, in the interest of bipartisanship, I will gladly take a job as your proofreader because it is obvious neither you nor your staff at OfA have a basic grasp of simple sentence construction.

V/R

Andrew Schwartz

(Click on the image for better resolution.)

PROTUS

Fortunately for him, Obamas are heard and not read...

Obama on Health Care Reform: This Time It’s Personal

Email from Barack Obama invoking his dead mother to demonize insurance companies.

 Funny, he doesn’t mention he was teaching Constitutional Law at the time and had plenty of law contacts to handle this for her… If he really wanted to.

 

To the scrupulous and proactive, the Market Revolution would have very much worked in favor of their individual endeavors. A wise observer of the inclinations of man and the warnings of history would have seen that the expansion of credit is not infinitely elastic. To the reckless speculators and emotional opportunists the Market Revolution may have brought short-term gains, but those who foolishly believed that the expansion of money is the same as the expansion of wealth would eventually realize a costly education in the cycles of business; the optimist alternately reviles and reveres the pessimist.

For a typical New England farm family, the distant sight of urban expansion and industrialism must have been both concerning and exciting. Surely they watched with a grave anticipation as nascent suburbs would begin crawling toward the agrarian areas, but they also knew that an expansion in population would raise demand for their inelastic commodity. In the short term and long term, a rural farmer would have benefitted more from the Market Revolution and the expansion of urban consolidation.

In the short term they could adjust prices of their lagging supply to meet the growing demand of opulent consumers. In the long term the city’s population, despite their economic conditions, would always need to import food to their cobblestone courtyards and brownstone buildings. The agrarian is more immune to the fluctuations of capitalism than are the commercial centers. Rothbard points out that “farm employment is not a markedly cyclical phenomenon. Furthermore, many farm households were self-sufficient, and carried on only local barter trade, or entered the monetary nexus occasionally.”[1] The advantage of being a farmer is that his economic master is nature—the production and yield of his goods and the sustenance of his existence are determined only by his skill and the weather, not the fickle desires of the consumer. This is also the disadvantage.

(more…)

 

The Black Market of Incandescense

Hold on to your incandescent light bulbs! By 2012, all 100-watt “traditional” light bulbs will be phased out, and by 2014 all 60-watters must be kaput. The replacements will be the more energy-efficient and “eco-friendly” compact fluorescent light bulbs, currently at a store near you.

 

 

I put the words “eco-friendly” in sardonic quotations because of a recent incident in my own house. While I was away, my wife called informing me that one of our cats, Ivan, had knocked over our lamp. This nefarious and rambunctious act not only broke the glass shade surrounding the bulb, but the bulb itself. I asked her what kind of bulb it was, to which she responded that it was a new, environmentally conscious, energy saving, animal-and-nature-friendly, anti-global warming, stick-it-to-the-coal-company enabling, compact fluorescent bulb! (My words, not hers.)

Herein lies the problem: while these bulbs last about 3 years—according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE)—they are infinitely more dangerous than a traditional bulb. As anyone who has broken a light bulb knows, all you must do is get a broom, watch your feet, sweep and throw away; repeat as necessary. However, this is NOT the case for the CFLs. The instructions for proper disposal on the Environmental Protection Agency’s website are atrociously complicated, not to mention potentially hazardous.

According to the EPA, here is the proper method of cleaning this “improved” technology in luminescence:

Step 1: Air out the room. Shut off the air conditioning or heater, Open all windows, and evacuate all pets and people. Don’t let ANYONE walk through the area on their way out.

Step 2: Clean-up. After leaving the house for at least 15 minutes, scoop up glass pieces and powder using cardboard and place the fragments in a hermetically sealed container (just pick them up if it is broken on a carpeted surface…). Use duct tape to pick up the remaining fine pieces. Wipe the affected areas with paper towels, and place them in the same hermetically sealed container. If any clothing, bedding has come in contact with the powder from the bulb, dispose of it in the prescribed manner (step 3). You may keep the clothes you wore to clean it up, provided you were careful enough not to make contact with the affected area. (It does not say if you must buy a new carpet; however, one can infer that it would be a good idea.)

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

A Crisis Too Good to Waste

It is rude to say “I told you so.” No one wants to hear it, and most of the time it does no good. It also reinforces one’s own selfishness, their need to feel like they should be heard. However, just two days ago, I stated my beliefs about President-elect Obama’s agenda concerning global warming. Apparently, the Wall Street Journal has shown my opining was justified.

 

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” is what Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, has said concerning the global economic flu. Now the Obama administration plans to use this opportunity to strengthen government involvement in the private sector with the ultimate goal of climate change, the Wall Street Journal reported.

 

Some other quotes from the article:

 

“We are in the midst of a massive reorganization right now in autos but also other areas as well — finance, information technology. All of this flows into…the new green energy economy we are living in, albeit in an embryonic stage.” -Rep. David Bonier, Obama Economic Advisor

 

“We’re backing into industrial policy in an emergency to correct massive market failures,” -Jared Bernstein, Obama Economic Team

 

The bottom line is that Obama will move toward regulating every aspect of the free market, all in the name of a “green” economy, viz., global unity. The massive market failures that Mr. Bernstein refers to were caused by government intervention in the first place, so why would Obama think that more intervention will solve it? Apparently, investors are skeptical of this as well, as the Dow has dropped over 21% since his election, the largest two-week drop in post-election history.

 

Why has America moved so far away from the founding fathers’ intent of our democratic-Republic? Why have we allowed the government on its regulatory pedestal, when the delegates at the Constitutional Convention (at least the ones whose arguments won) clearly wanted the people to regulate the government, not the other way around? Why have we allowed frivolous legislation that is clearly intended to do nothing but establish more power in the federal government?

 

Obama and his idealistic supporters want more government involvement due to their ultimate idealistic goal of Global Unity. The politicized international economic situation and alleged warming-globe crisis have given them a crisis too good to waste.

The Sinfulness of Man and Capitalism

Do not be misled by the title. I do not believe that capitalism is sinful. I do believe that people are sinful, however.

Take a recent article by Reuters, which cites the exploitation of “Obama-mania” for example. Tickets for Obama’s inauguration ceremony are being sold for as high as $10,000, and people are buying them. Georgetown residents are renting their apartments out for as much as a $25,000 stay during the festivities, and people are renting them. There will certainly be vendors swarming the Capitol building selling Official Obama paraphernalia of all types at exorbitant prices, and people will assuredly buy them, even if it is an Official Obama 8-Track Player.

Anyone who has been involved with official government ceremonies knows that it is illegal to charge money to attend these events, but the average American does not know that. This situation has enabled profiteers and opportunists to exploit the ignorance of citizens and violate their altruistic expectations. I would hate to be the person who paid $10,000 for a non-existent ticket to a free ceremony. It would be enough to make me lose faith in humanity. While I know that this is not President-elect Obama’s fault, this is perfectly illustrative of an idealized society. A Utopia is a grand idea, but it would never work. The sinfulness of man will always find a way to exploit altruism in order to gain advantage. (Likewise, the sinfulness of man will always find a way to resist or defy rules in order to prevent a loss of liberty.)

The residents of Georgetown, on the other hand, are not violating any rules or laws and have every right to rent their private property to anyone who is willing to pay. While their preposterous prices are certainly exploitative, it is a different form of exploitation. Theirs is based on supply and demand, while the ticket sellers’ are based on emotional euphoria and a presumed general ignorance. Washington, D.C. hotels have largely sold out for the event and residents are merely providing an alternative. The ticket sellers do not advertise that these tickets can be obtained freely to those who are willing to wait. In other words, personal gain at the expense of another’s unneeded personal loss philosophically and morally defines a transgression.

As for the vendors, their example is a perfect illustration of the difference in individual conscience. One vendor may provide a variety of items that are of poor quality and intended to deceive the client of their value. Others may provide a charitable antithesis, items that provide a gain to the client at the loss of the vendor. (The vendor’s gain will be the assumed knowledge that he is furthering his cause.)

People should not be prohibited from taking advantage of gullibility in a capitalistic society. After all, that is how we acquired the territory in the Louisiana Purchase and the Alaska Purchase. However, since the fall of Adam and Eve, the desires and fears of Man have always been exploited for the purpose of another’s gain or prevention of loss. What differentiates Capitalism and Socialism (or Equalitarianism, to be politically correct)is this: Capitalism exploits desires in order to further the opportunity for gain at personal sacrifice sui juris; Socialism exploits desires in order to glorify personal sacrifice and limit the opportunity for gain.

Those who recognize the deficiencies of man have an obligation to exploit it in one way or another. Those who are exploiting expensive tickets to a free event are those who will benefit in a Utopian society at the exclusive disadvantage to others. Those who are exploiting their property to a willing, informed client are those who will benefit in a capitalistic society at a potential advantage to others. Again, I know President-elect Obama is not responsible for these ticket-sellers, but in order to promote a beneficial, opportunistic change for all, he must advocate Capitalism, not Utopianism.

Markets Sink as Outlook Darkens

Notably absent from many of the mainstream papers is the possibility that the markets are reacting to an inevitable unfriendly Obama presidency.

With countless variables in market volatility, it is impossible to assume that this is the primary reason for the Dow’s downhill race, but savvy investors are sure to look ahead at his capital gains tax (a promise he is sure to keep).

 

The market will eventually reach equilibrium, but investors will be much more cautious with their investments. Short sellers and volume will decrease, but that is not necessarily a bad thing in the long run. 

Obama has never demonstrated any first-hand knowledge on how to improve the markets, so we will be forced to trust that he will rely on his economic advisors. One can assume there will be more government involvement though…

Change we need? Absolutely not!