EU: Where the criminals are in charge
April 24th, 2008 by joby
Heh:
This is the way the European Union works. The Justice department for 450 million people is now to be run by a convicted criminal.
Watch the video it is quite funny.
Archive for the 'Politics' Category
“We’re from the Government and we’re here to help” part II
April 19th, 2008 by joby
Reason highlights how governments around the world starve their populations by trying to “help”:
According to the UN FAO there are 200 million underfed people in Africa, yet average tariffs on agricultural goods between Sub-Saharan African countries are 34%.
Nigeria has actually banned imports of various staples at different times, including wheat, rice, maize and vegetable oil.
Average fertilizer use in poorer countries is 107kg per hectare. In Africa it is only 8kg (yes, eight). Tariffs on fertilizer imports are a major reason for this low use-rate.
The removal of subsidies to biofuels (including requirements to include a proportion of such fuel in petrol and diesel - such as those being implemented in the EU) would also reduce food prices and must be a priority for rich countries.
Some countries have recently imposed tariffs and bans on exports of foods. While such trade restrictions temporarily reduce local prices, they increase prices in importing countries, result in reciprocal bans, and reduce the incentives to produce those foods in the next season - leading to reduced global supplies.
Just remember the hundreds of millions that have died in Communist Nations because of their agricultural/political policies.
Scalia Slapdown
April 19th, 2008 by joby
The opinions issued by the Supreme Court can be very good reading — especially when they dissent among themselves. The Volokh Conspiracy highlights Scalia’s slapdown of Justice Stevens in Baze v. Rees:
But actually none of this really matters. As Justice STEVENS explains, “ ‘objective evidence, though of great importance, [does] not wholly determine the controversy, for the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.’ ” Ante, at 14 (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 312, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002); emphasis added; some internal quotation marks omitted). “I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty” is unconstitutional. Ante, at 17 (emphasis added).
Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat. In the face of Justice Stevens’ experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress-who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment-is dismissed as “the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process.” Ante, at 8. The experience of social scientists whose studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. Ante, at 10, n. 13. The experience of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as stemming from a “thirst for vengeance.” Ante, at 11. It is Justice Stevens’ experience that reigns over all.
I take no position on the desirability of the death penalty, except to say that its value is eminently debatable and the subject of deeply, indeed passionately, held views-which means, to me, that it is preeminently not a matter to be resolved here. And especially not when it is explicitly permitted by the Constitution.
Oooohh Burn…
Worst Ex-President Ever: Carter
April 15th, 2008 by joby
Back in the 80’s when Jimmy Carter spent his time building houses for the poor and eradicating diseases, I had some respect for the man and what he was trying to do, but since then he has gone off the deep end embracing every evil dictator/murderer he can find in an attempt to become the ultimate peacemaker. Just some highlights off the top of my head:
1) Slobodan Milosevic (1994), Carter inserted himself into the ongoing Bosnian war.
2) Kim Jong-il (1994): Carter brokered a deal over North Korea’s nuclear ambitions without the approval or support of the Clinton administration — a deal the North Korean’s shamelessly violated.
3) Hugo Chavez (2003): Carter (and his organization) gave his stamp of legitimacy on the recall election against Chavez — despite some extremely strong evidence of government interference and independent exit polls showing the opposition winning by 20 percent.
4) Omar al-Bashar (2007): While touring Sudan, Carter criticized the West for labeling the genocide in Darfur as a genocide, because it wasn’t helpful in reaching a peaceful settlement.
And now, Carter adds terrorists to the list of murderers that he’s willing to embrace and pay homage to. Today he embraced a leading Hamas figure and layed a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat. Nice.
The Truth Points to Itself
April 11th, 2008 by joby
It’s a bad idea to invoke Youtube unless you’re right.
Angry White Man
January 8th, 2008 by joby
If you have any positive associations with Ron Paul (or if you despise him and want greater justification) you should read The New Republics article on him: Angry White Man:
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (”What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” one newsletter complained in 1990. “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”) In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.” Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.
And there is more … much more.
While there is no evidence that Paul wrote these words they were published in newsletters that bore his name for more than a decade. So he either supports (or at least tolerates) these views, or he is so horrifically negligent that he shouldn’t be trusted with any responsibility (so a back bencher in the House of Representatives might be a great location for him). I will NEVER vote for Paul.
More Clinton Spin
January 3rd, 2008 by joby
Today Former President Clinton spins:
I didn’t win a [primary] race [in 1992] until I got to Georgia.
Nice spin there Bill. The Iowa caucus was uncontested because Iowa Senator Tom Harkin was in the race and there was little chance he’d lose. And in New Hampshire, Paul Tsongas — a former Senator from neighboring Massachusetts — won handily. Bill got his “comeback kid” nickname by getting second place in this primary. So there wasn’t a race for Bill to win in the first two states, while Hillary has had a massive political machine and large leads in both states — including paying off the campaign debts of Tom Vilsack, the Democratic Governor, so that he would drop out of the race and endorse her. If Hillary loses in the first two states, it is because she is a horrible candidate who lost despite having every advantage that Bill didn’t have.
It is a silly place.
January 2nd, 2008 by joby
I really can’t agree more with the Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen on the ridiculousness of the Democrat’s caucus in Iowa:
In “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” King Arthur and his knights come across Camelot, and at least initially, couldn’t be more pleased. After thinking it over, and considering exactly what goes on inside Camelot, Arthur concludes, “On second thought, let’s not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.”
I’ve come to think of the Iowa caucuses in the same light. Before the nominating process begins in earnest, Iowa has a certain Midwestern charm, filled with voters who appreciate their role in picking the next president. Like Camelot, it’s something to look forward to. But as we finally come upon Jan. 3, and get a look at what’s involved, it’s pretty obvious that the Iowa caucuses are much too silly….
Voting by absentee ballot is prohibited. There are no secret ballots, a bedrock democratic principle. The notion of “one-person, one-vote” does not really apply (the NYT noted that votes are weighted according to a precinct’s past level of participation)…
And just to add insult to injury, no one is allowed to know exactly how many Iowans actually voted for the different candidates — the Iowa Democratic Party gets the numbers, but keeps them private. (The results that designate the “winner” only reflect the share of state delegates each candidate has won.) As Greenfield noted, it means “a candidate who turned out more total supporters than anyone else, across the state, could wind up in second or third place — and no one will know.”
This process should not be tolerated. The Democrat’s caucus in Iowa violates every principle of modern democratic elections the DNC should decertify the process and everyone should ignore Iowa’s Democratic caucus until they institute reforms as the Republicans have.
Personalized Healthcare — Socialist Style
January 1st, 2008 by joby
When my healthcare provider (Group Health Cooperative) advertises “personalized healthcare” they are referring to alternate or specialized services that they provide to meet the unique needs of their clients — such as acupuncture and guided imagery therapy. The underlying concept is that everyone is not the same and by providing a menu of options you can help more people.
But when the UK’s National Health Service refers to “personalized healthcare” they are discussing unique conditions that they will apply to their clients before providing services.
Patients could be required to stop smoking, take exercise or lose weight before they can be treated on the National Health Service, Gordon Brown has suggested.
In a New Year message to NHS staff, the Prime Minister indicates people may have to fulfil new “responsibilities” in order to establish their entitlement to care.
So to get the healthcare that they pay for with their taxes, Brits will have to obey government mandates on diet, weight, exercise, drinking, smoking, etc. How creepy is that! It isn’t to far from:
I’m sorry ma’am, but to be screened for breast cancer you’ll need to lose 10 pounds, eat at least 5 servings of vegetables (and we’ll test your stool to verify this), and exercise at least 60 minutes per week (with a gov’t approved monitoring device). Once you have met the requirements for one month, I’ll schedule an appointment — but you should be aware that there is usually a 6 month wait for the mammogram and then there is a 4-5 month wait until a radiologist reviews the image.
And remember John Edwards wants to introduce these kinds of restrictions (starting with mandatory physical and mental “preventative” care that would have to be reported to the IRS).