About Me

Name:Nerdus Maximus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Democrats pass reform law that requires lobbyists to cut their meat for them

An ABC Nightly news report detailed how a law crafted and passed by Democrats that "intended" to reduce the influence of lobbyists at political conventions actually resulted in the lobbyist having to cut their meat for them. The law specified that the lobbyists couldn't serve food that is eaten with a knife and fork, but finger and spoon foods are OK. The lobbyists (predictably) still serve filet mignon, but have it cut into pieces and served on fancy spoons. Like a very wise federal employee once told me, "In politics money is like water, it will find a way in."

Th bigger outrage in the "reform" bill forces a charade that the entertainment events thrown by the lobbyists have to ostensibly benefit charities. The one ABC highlighted was a poker party hosted by lobbyists for the "gaming industry".

Sidebar, Your Honor!
What I am about to say should not be construed to mean that I have become less of a rabid capitalist with libertarian leanings. The fact that I am such and still say what I am about to say should be testimony as to how repugnant I find the people and activities mentioned.
Thank You

There ought to be a law against the existence of an industry that transfers the social security checks of blue-haired grandmothers into pockets of Trumpish depth! Perhaps the charity that benefits from this poker party should be Gamblers Anonymous.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How can you tell that a Democrat was telling the truth?

The old saw that you can tell a Democrat is lying because his lips are moving isn't entirely true. While I haven't found a way to tell when a Dem is telling the truth on the fly, sometimes you can after the fact. A clear case is illustrated in a Washington Post story detailing how the McCain campaign is using a rare truth telling incident by Joe "The Plagiarizer" Biden when he was talking trash about Obama when he was running against his now running mate during the primaries. I wouldn't be surprised if it is later found that he was only repeating something Hillary said first!

The mystery to me is how Obama, running as a Washington outsider and reformer, could pick a running mate who hasn't had a job other than U.S. Senator since the early seventies. Coincidentally, the Seventies is also the decade in which Biden had his most recent original thought. That isn't a problem, though, as so many other people have ideas that can be "borrowed".


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another way that smoking could be hazardous to your health.

While taking a nice healthy walk as a break from work I noticed a man who found a way to make his smoke break even more hazardous to his health. His hand, with lit cigarette, was leaning up against a chain link fence erected to prevent things from bumping into a large and very rusty natural gas pipe. Perhaps he was an Astrophysicist trying to re-enact the Big Bang, but he was definitely not a rocket scientist.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How much is that blue one in the window?

I was driving past a car lot today and couldn't help noticing that all the small cars were in the front row. They had signs in their windshields proclaiming things like, "Great mileage!" and "Economical!". The huge SUVs were all at the very back of the lot. It was hard to read the signs in their windshields at that distance, but I'm fairly sure they said, "Free to a good home."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Of Rights and Checkpoints

A number of liberal groups are up in arms because the Metro Police are running traffic checkpoints in an area of Southeast DC known as "Trinidad" because there have been twenty-two murders in the area already this year. The contention is that this violates the constitutional rights of the people stopped. There are a few things these groups have forgotten.


The first thing is that the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" implies that there is an hierarchy of these three broad groups of rights. The state, with due process, does have the right to revoke the liberty of an individual if that individual violates the rights of others. Twenty-two people in this neighborhood have had their right to life (That phrase alone can cause a heart attack in some liberals that might violate their right to life, but it is OK since they don't believe in it for others.) denied without due process. The right to live is a necessary precondition for any other right to have meaning. The state revokes people's right to liberty by imprisoning them for such things as fraud that do far less to the rights of other citizens than does murder. A traffic checkpoint doesn't seem like that big a loss of liberty to prevent the loss of life.


Another forgotten thing is that driving is not a right, but a privilege. Few people object to traffic checkpoints aimed at catching drunk drivers so that they will not deny others their right to life through vehicular homicide. This makes sense because life is a right and driving is not. It is also hard to see how the police checkpoints violate anyone's rights any more than airport security does. Airport screeners not only diminish the traveler's liberty by forcing them to go through a checkpoint and prove that they have a right to do what they are doing, but they also perform very invasive searches without a hint of a warrant. There is little liberal outrage at this because the liberals might be on the next highjacked plane, but most of them will never venture within half a mile of Trinidad in Southeast DC. Perhaps I should be more charitable and say that the lack of outrage is because it is clear that air travel is not a right and that the minor loss of liberty is a reasonable trade off for the protection of life that is achieved.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Haiku of the Modern American Woman

Hannah, a precious toddler with curly blonde hair and huge blue eyes who is a regular in our church nursery, gave a delightful visual presentation of the modern American woman this Sunday. Her ensemble was a pink polka dot dress made perfectly poufy with crinolines. Her choice of toys was a construction hard hat. The perfect picture of the modern American woman.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Warming: The Cause and Cure

It has become clear that areas like the Northwest that have a high percentage of people who believe in global warming are experiencing record high temperatures while areas with fewer global warming believers are experiencing record low temperatures. This proves that the cause of global warming is man made. Global warming is caused by belief in global warming.
Fortunately, the global warming believers have the cure entirely within their power. All they need to do to stop the impending catastrophe and prevent certain doom is kidnap their fellow global warming cultists and deprogram them so that they no longer believe in global warming. When the last global warming believer disappears, so does global warming.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Donor Intent and Sex Scandals - An Understandable Mistake.

There have been some questions as to whether Eliot Spitzer, and now apparently his replacement, may have used campaign funds to finance trysts with volunteer or professional sex partners. This is a fully understandable confusion of donor intent on the part of the politician. After all, there is only one letter difference between a donor intending to support his election and his e(r)ection.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Electoral Math and Choosing a Political Party

While there are many factors one might consider when choosing a political party, the conventional wisdom is that people "vote their pocketbooks". This being the case, let's look at the economic logic of the Republican and Democratic parties.

The first thing to remember is that, in order to gain power by winning elections (which is the primary goal of political parties), it is wildly to a party's advantage to have more people in demographic groups that tend to vote for your party. The foundational formula of electoral math is More Likely Voters = Good.

Now let's look at the reputed economic standing of people who vote for each party. Rich people, so we are told, vote Republican. This is convenient as both Republican and rich start with "r", making it easier to remember. So it stands to reason, since rich people vote Republican and a party with more voters is more successful, that the Republican party would be motivated to make more people rich. Democrats, on the other hand, are the party favored by the poor. We will refer to them as "destitute" because both Democratic and destitute start with "d", making it easier to remember. Now, what would the Democratic party be motivated to do if its electoral success depends on there being large numbers of destitute people? (Remember your electoral math:
More Likely Voters = Good) Why, of course, it is clearly in the best interests of the Democratic party to have as many destitute people as possible.

I hope this lesson in electoral math helps when you read, hear or see a report that indicates either that the Republican party wants to keep people poor or that the Democratic party wants to make people rich. Either claim flies in the face of basic electoral math  and is therefor highly suspect at best.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What the PowerBall Drawing Teaches Us About Government

Every lottery operator knows that the availability of a big jackpot draws money like a cow patty draws flies. People are willing to spend more on lottery tickets if the potential payoff is higher.

What does this tell us about the size of government and its effect on drawing money into elections and lobbying? It would seem that people would be willing to spend more on tickets if the potential prize was bigger. It would then follow that people would be less willing to spend money on elections and lobbying if the potential payoff was smaller. This is why being as small as possible increases the likelihood that a government will be a good government.

John Stossell has a very good article on the same theme with more exploration of why big governments are prone to  being influenced by small minorities (AKA Special Interests)



Nerdus

RSS

Links within Townhall have not always worked well. If the one above doesn't, paste the URL below into your browser directly.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2008/03/05/influence-peddling

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama isn't lying! He is speaking hopefully.

Those mean people at National Review are accusing Barak Obama of lying. They should realize that he is speaking hopefully - saying different things about the same topic to different people and hoping they don't compare notes!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberals Really Are Smart

Sometimes it doesn't seem like it because their intelligence is "seated" in a different part of their anatomy.
Tags: culture  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Democrat Goes to Church

A Democrat who was not in the habit of doing so decided to try going to church one Sunday. As it happened the church was having a prophecy conference. The Democrat heard vivid descriptions of how various disasters during the Tribulation would kill three quarters of the earth's population.

The next day one of the Democrat's friends asked if he had learned anything in church. "Yes.",he replied, "Bush is going to cause something called 'The Tribulation'."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'll say he was confused!

Norman Hsu's spokes-scheister now says that he wasn't trying to run, but got confused on his way to the courthouse for the hearing.

http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_261234907.html


I'll say he was confused. Anyone who would pay $100+ for a sleeper car ticket to get across town on a local commuter train is unbelievably confused. Did I say "unbelievably"? I meant "incredibly". No that also implies that he is lying and it just isn't PC to imply that someone with a history of felony fraud convictions is lying.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Constitutional Ammendment for Beautiful Sunsets

One of the reasons that we have too many laws is that we have a constitutionally mandated branch of government that exists to make laws. If Congress doesn’t make laws it has no accomplishments to show to constituents and the incumbents are unlikely to be returned to office. It is much like the “publish or perish” situation in academia, but with one very serious difference. When a professor writes a pointless article or book just to get published the maximum damage that is likely to be done is some time wasted by other bored academics debating what was said or some hapless college students being forced to pretend that they read it. When a pointless law is passed just so Congress can say it is doing something it does far more damage. After over two hundred years of passing laws, most of the good ideas for laws have been used long ago. So what’s a country to do?

I propose a constitutional amendment that would sunset laws after a period of time determined by the size of the majority by which they were passed. All laws passed by a simple majority would sunset after three years. A 60% majority would result in a five year sunset and a 70% majority would create a ten year law. Only laws passed by an 85% majority would become permanent, and the percentage required to repeal them would go down every five years until any law more than twenty years old could be repealed by a 60% supermajority.

The result of enacting this amendment will be that Congress will be able to continually justify that it is doing something by passing the same laws over and over again. The number of stupid laws would be reduced because they would sunset after a reasonable period of time and Congress would be so busy re-passing truly necessary laws that they won’t have as much time to make stupid laws.

It is a good idea in any human organization to review old rules and make sure they make sense. Why don’t we do this for the laws of the United States?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »