Random Numbers

Brian Epps returns to blogging….maybe?

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Why Bill is right and Glenn is wrong.

Posted by Brian Epps on February 1, 2012

Mitt Romney inserted his foot, heel and toes, into his mouth and bit down hard today:
/><

Glenn Reynolds, bending over backwards in an attempt to be fair, said this:

Frankly, I think he’s got a point. People whose livelihood comes from the government — whether the very poor, or the government employees — are doing fine. It’s people who depend on the actual economy who are hurting.

Bill Quick was -er- quick to respond:

Sorry, but only somebody who doesn’t know anybody whose family has been living on the government dole for two or three generations could make such a stunningly ignorant statement about the “very poor.” They are not “doing fine.”

In this case I think Bill is right and Glenn is wrong.  The very poor have to spend more, as a percentage of their income, on food and transportation than those better off.  When one considers the fact that gas and food prices have risen dramatically in the last three years with no end in sight,  I’d say that there is reason to be concerned about the very poor.

While income inequality has dropped in recent years in dollars, in terms of actual buying power, the poor have had their incomes slashed by Obama’s inflation tax on necessities.  Even if one wants to get out of the hole and off the dole, the path to self-reliance has had caltrops tossed on it with the increase in minimum wage and the current policies that discourage hiring, especially on the low-wage, low-skill level most of the very poor are qualified for.

Sorry, Glenn.  The very poor people on the dole have to live in the same economy as the rest of us, and they are getting more and more trapped by an economy that lowers their effective income and keeps them from working.

Romney thinks the poor are doing fine because of a safety net?   That’s only true in a world where the poor don’t eat, drive, or try to find work so they can stop being poor.

Advertisements

Posted in 2012, Economics, Mitt Romney, Politics | 4 Comments »

I see a commercial coming

Posted by Brian Epps on January 27, 2012

After watching both Romney and Santorum deliberately distort Gingrich’s prize-based space proposal in order to attack a strawman, I got this idea for a commercial and rattled it off to Winning the Future PAC:

(Picture of Burt Rutan and Spaceship One) Burt Rutan won the Ansari X-prize. A big payoff for being the first non-government sponsored man to reach space.

What would Mitt Romney say to Rutan?

(Video from Romney in debate) You’re fired!

(Pictures of Space-X vehicles and people working on rockets)Space-X is building and launching systems for commercial satellite and manned launch vehicles much cheaper than NASA can build and launch.

They stand to make billions.

What would Romney say to Space-X founder and CEO Elon Musk?

(Video from Romney in debate) You’re fired!

If you want to build a profitable, self-sustaining American presence in space and build America’s future, what would Romney say to you?

(Video from Romney in debate) You’re fired!

Mitt Romney’s America. No vision, No future.

(Video from Romney in debate) You’re fired!

I hope they read suggestions.  That would be a killer commercial.

 

Update:  Thanks for the Instalanche, Glen.

Posted in 2012, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Politics | 3 Comments »

The Comfortable vs. The Restless

Posted by Brian Epps on January 22, 2012

(I am hoping that I will be able to post more on this blog.  We will see what we will see.)

It seems the 2012 GOP race is coming down to Romney or Gingrich.  Santorum is a nice guy, but his squeaker in Iowa is as worthless as Robertson’s 1992 win.  Paul?  Don’t go there, please.

So what is left is the Comfortable Candidate and the Restless Candidate.

The Comfortable Candidate is the scion of a GOP power-broker family, the son of a previous candidate for the GOP nod.  He went to all the bests schools and had a very stable youth.  He is the man from whom great things are always expected.  His personal life is picturesque.  He is the man who has spent his whole political life avoiding risk.  When he does something or says something he later regrets, he hopes we will ignore it and acts like he never said it, even to the point of re-editing his own book to remove the offensive passages and calling anyone who points it out a liar.  He has tried hard to make the people he thinks he needs to win comfortable.  He seeks to avoid giving offense.

The Restless Candidate is the son of a teenage mother who was adopted by his stepfather.  He went to public schools and had to earn his way to and through college.  He made his own fortune in spite of his underclass background.  He spent his youth in several states and even in Europe as a military brat.  His personal life is a mess.  His political life is filled with taking on the comfortable and risking all to achieve his goals.  When he does something or says something he regrets, he owns up to it and explains why he was wrong.  He does not suffer fools gladly.

The Restless Candidate wants to diminish or dismantle the welfare state.  The Comfortable Candidate wants to run it.

The Restless Candidate wants to kick sacred cows and overturn tables.  The comfortable Candidate wants to refine the milk production and get his cut.

The Restless Candidate will leave businesses at the mercy of their customers and competitors.  The Comfortable Candidate will protect them from both.

The Restless Candidate believes in confronting our country’s adversaries and having the military to back it up.  The Comfortable Candidate wants to cut a deal.

The Restless Candidate wants to reform entitlements so that they fade away.  The Comfortable candidate will shy away from the third rail and kick the can further down the road.

If elected, the Restless President will be in the news all the time with pundits outraged that he could do/say/propose such a thing.  He will challenge their premises and seek to bypass the press and take his case straight to the people.

If elected, the Comfortable President will also face a perpetually hostile press, but he will do whatever he can to mollify them.

If elected, the Restless President will go after the budget with an axe.  The Comfortable President will use a butter knife.

 

The primaries have only just begun.  The most populace state so far has chosen the Restless Candidate, the least has chosen the Comfortable Candidate.  The Iowa Caucus is a meaningless sideshow in the current primary system, so they don’t really count.

When you go to the polls you should ask yourself,”Am I comfortable or restless?”

Posted in 2012, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Politics | Leave a Comment »

Palin Hate Explained

Posted by Brian Epps on January 15, 2011

In a brief comment:

 

She has a clear conservative vision, she’s passionate, a good communicator, and for a lot on the left, if you don’t share their liberal vision, that feels like hate to them. They also assume you hate them because you want to tear down their vision, which to them means you want to tear THEM down. Which you don’t. To sum up, they hate her because she disagrees with them.

Another angle. She’s an attractive, conservative, Christian woman who’s successful. Her family is truly the most important thing in her life. She seemed to go into public service not at all for his own aggrandizement, but to create a climate where people can work hard, follow their own dreams, and be left alone. Every bit of this is like nails on a chalkboard to them. Sarah’s ways make no sense to them. They don’t understand how she makes it work, or what sustains her as a person. To them it’s like she’s flying without the assistance of wires. It baffles them. They figure, she must have some selfish motive in all this, but she’s keeping it to herself, and her public personnae is a big fake job. They are convinced there’s a selfish, hateful person inside Sarah. They want to tear her down and reveal that person inside to the rest of the world.

Paul-Cincy on January 15, 2011 at 2:02 PM

 

 

Posted in 2012, Media, Politics, Sarah Palin | 1 Comment »

The Gleeful Left

Posted by Brian Epps on January 11, 2011

The left is happy this week.

On Saturday, a lone man with a history of mental health issues opened fire in a Tuscon Safeway parking lot.  His target was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.  Giffords survived, but 6 others, including Federal Judge John Roll and n year old Christina Greene.

The only word that can describe the reaction by Kos and the media left is… gleeful.
These sick bastards are happy as hell that a nine year old girl and a federal judge were killed because they think it gives them something they can use to tarnish their political opponents and elevate themselves.  Now they are gleefully dancing on the corpses and trying to call a lynch mob on Palin and the Tea Partiers (calling them the Tea Party implies an organization not in evidence) while piosly declaring their own holiness.

Posted in Media, Politics | 1 Comment »

The Four Factors and Why Palin Can Win.

Posted by Brian Epps on December 9, 2010

Based on my observations, there are four factors to winning office in presidential politics.
Foundational:

  • 1: This is who I am.
  • 2: This is what I believe.

Political:

  • 3: This is what I want to do.
  • 4: Come join me. (The only mandatory factor)

In order to win, a political figure needs at least one of the first three factors to be compelling, with factor 4 being mandatory in that no one will vote for someone they don’t want to join with politically.

Obama, as it has been revealed, pulled a bait-and-switch with factors 1 and 2 to get enough people to want to pull the lever for him (factor 4).  He was not really very specific about 3 and the press avoided reporting the times he was.  Unfortunately for him, a false narrative always collapses, and it seems to be doing so early and in public view.

Factors 1 and 2 are tough for any conservative to get across, since few in the intelligentsia – especially the press – are willing to believe or honestly report on a conservative.  There, too, a false narrative is used to paint a distorted picture, but betting on a false narrative over a long period is a suckers bet.  It happens from time to time, but needs to be unchallenged to work.

Palin has had a false narrative running against her from the day she accepted McCain’s offer.  The press will continue to use that false narrative (dumb, inexperienced, unqualified) no matter what she does, so her only option is to bypass the press.

Palin’s TLC show is giving Americans a close look at factor 1. She has also published books covering factors 1 (Going Rogue) and 2 (America by Heart).  I expect her earliest campaign to be philosophical as well, explaining again what she believes.  Her op-eds (and her likely next book) cover factors 2 and 3.  Any campaign she runs will use all three to try to gain factor 4.

As for myself, I support Palin so far because:

  • 1: I think I know who she is, and I like her.  If something convinces me that she is not who she presents herself to be, this can change.
  • 2: I share most of her beliefs.  If something convinces me she is being disingenuous in what she says she believes, this can change.
  • 3: I think what she wants as far as policy are good, so far as she has expressed policy preferences.  Should she express a policy preference I disagree with, this can change.
  • And so…
  • 4: I will join her.  This can change.

If I am right, Palin will win 2012 in a landslide.

Posted in 2012, Philosophy, Politics, Sarah Palin | Leave a Comment »

Question for the MSM: Why Shoud We Trust You?

Posted by Brian Epps on October 31, 2010

We have seen repeated cases of “news” being contrived and created by the media.

We have seen NBC plant igniters in a truck to make it burn in order to report that the truck is “unsafe”.

We have seen ABC send people into Food Lion and misbehave in order to report that misbehavior.

We have seen reporters playing “Gotcha!” games with Republicans while letting unforced errors by Democrats slide.
We have seen complete fabrications like “Valley of Death“.
We have seen obvious forgeries be used as the central evidence in reports in order to influence an election.
We have seen, or rather not seen, the covering up and refusal to report on lefty violence against those who disagree.
We have seen reporters making claims from “anonymous sources” that no one can confirm and all involved deny.

Now we have seen reporters actively conspiring – and I use the word advisedly – to contrive negative coverage of one candidate in a Senate race.

And this is just a sampling the stuff that has been CAUGHT!  How many more lies and contrived reports are there out there?

Why should we trust a single word the media says?

 

UPDATE:  The active conspiring has been confirmed.

Posted in Media, Politics | 4 Comments »

Hmmmmm…..

Posted by Brian Epps on October 21, 2010

I thought Palin was a birdbrain who couldn’t think on her feet:

 

Seems rather quick to me.  Could it be that the pundits are stck on a contrived narrative?

 

NAAAAAAHH.

 

H/T C4P

Posted in Humor, Politics | Leave a Comment »

Big and Small

Posted by Brian Epps on October 1, 2010

“If only the government wouldn’t try so hard to help us, we might all be a lot better off.”

That is the final sentence in this post by Phil Liberatore at Big Government.  It is also the most fundamental principal to remember about the effect of government trying to think small.

Small?  Yes, small

It is a paradoxical truth, to borrow a phrase, that the smaller the things government tries to do, the bigger,  more unwieldy, and more ineffective it gets..

Governments can do big thing pretty well.  Winning a war, a moon shot, a national highway system, all these things actually benefit from there being a large, central authority coordinating the individual parts into a cohesive whole.  But try to turn that around and you get disaster.  When you try to coordinate central systems to do a whole lot of individual things with individual goals and results, you get individual tragedies.

Education?  The more centralized it gets, the worse it performs. The DOE was established in the 70’s, creating an incentive to produce larger, more centralized school districts with literally millions of students under their sway, has this improved education?  It seems that the largest school systems are the ones graduating ignorant savages and keeping child molesters on the payroll.  A small  school system with a couple of thousand students has a big problem if one single teacher is not getting the job done.    A large system is far more capable of absorbing failure and passing the buck.

Welfare?  A large centralized system is so full of holes that abuse is rampant and multi-generational poverty is actually encouraged to keep the central planners in their cushy little chairs. If we were to judge solely on results, we would have to conclude that the nationalized welfare system was specifically created by George Wallace to keep blacks” in their place”.  No matter how compassionate the systems creators and administrators may be, the end result is a soulless machine that pigeonholes everyone in it and punishes them harshly for leaving their pigeonhole.

Heath Care?  Take a look at what centralization of heath care results in.  People getting free breast implants for their teenage daughters while cancer patients, who would almost certainly recover with treatment, are kept on waiting lists until they are untreatable.   Surgeons in the UK routinely stop at the pub for a pint at lunch before going in and cutting up another in their overloaded queues of patients.  Those queues are overloaded because so few people of intelligence want to be a surgeon in a system that treats them like dirt.  The fact that the system treats doctors poorly means only those who are willing to tolerate being treated poorly will work in it, ending up with substandard doctors who drink before cutting.

For the patients it gets worse.  The lack of doctors and overloaded queues means treatment is slow in coming ans substandard when it arrives.  To add insult to injury, as the system gets more overloaded, it tries to limit it’s load by denying more drugs, treatments, and procedures, especially in the eerily prophetic “last months of life” (that would not be your last months if you got the proper treatment in many cases).

“Now, wait a minute,” you say.  “Those things aren’t small!”

Your individual education, welfare, and health care are big things to you, but the key word is individual.  You are just one of hundreds of millions of people in this country.  Compared to all of them at once you are quite small.  As long as someone in a central office can produce a nice chart, he doesn’t give a fart in hell about you.

You are smaller than the chart.

Posted in Economics, Philosophy, Politics | Leave a Comment »