Saw this article on Drudge:
Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.
Pretty good read that illustrates the difference between America and the rest of the world. I’m grateful that the Constitution prevents our government from telling us what we can’t say, what not to think and what not to do. God forbid if that ever happens we’ll still have our guns to take back our country. Always remember that the Constitution does not grant us revocable privileges; our rights are there to protect us from the government.
The article ends with a good quote from Mark Steyn:
“What we’re learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins,” Steyn added. “Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”
Tagged with: constitution, first amendment, free speech, government
Posted under: Political Stuff
Back in college I made a speech about America’s obsession with race and why we aren’t allowed to simply identify ourselves as American. The details of the speech escape me, but I feel the same now as I did then. Fill out a form with a question about ethnic origin and you’ll probably be presented with the following options (taken from the CDC):
- White
- Black or African American
- Latino
- Asian
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
- American Indian or Alaska Native
The CDC has a reason to want to know ethnic background, but what about employment applications or practically every other form we have to fill out. The definition of each group is a little strange too. White is defined as everyone originating from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. This must be a double standard developed by bureaucrats in a politically correct stupor that allows “whites” to be identified by their skin color, but everyone else is off limits (Black is acceptable since it is tied to cultural identity). Why can’t we just combine those last four groups into “Brown”? Would that be any less racist than pigeonholing someone as white?
My skin happens to be white, but I don’t trace my origins to Europe. That identification ended when my ancestors came to America. I’m not even sure who my ancestors were that came over here or where they came from (The Blarg knows though). The only country and origin I identify with is America.
This ultimately comes down to recognizing that American itself is a valid race/ethnicity. Wasn’t America suppose to be a huge melting pot of race, ethnicity and culture? Wouldn’t the product of that mixture be a new, unique American ethnicity that its participants could identify with? My skin might be white, but I’m an American damnit and don’t try to label me any other way.
Tagged with: ethnicity, government, rant, skin color
Posted under: Political Stuff
Not only is there nothing Bernanke can do to prevent further meltdown in housing and erosion of the economy, but if there was he wouldn’t know what to do. From this AP article:
One of the suggestions Bernanke made was for mortgage and other financial companies to reduce the amount of the loan to provide relief to a struggling owner. “Principal reductions that restore some equity for the homeowner may be a relatively more effective means of avoiding delinquency and foreclosure,” Bernanke said.
With low or negative equity in their home, a stressed borrower has less ability — because there is no home equity to tap — and less financial incentive to try to remain in the home, he said.
You end up with low or negative equity two ways: you bought a house and then took a home equity loan based on the new appraised price or you were unlucky and bought an overvalued home before prices walked off the cliff. If home prices never went down low equity wouldn’t be a problem, but they are and they’re going down hard. As prices go down people start to owe more than the house is actually worth, still not a problem. The problem comes from not being able to afford the monthly payments on the home which means the borrower should have never gotten the loan in the first place!
So why does Bernanke want people to have equity in their homes? So they can tap it like an ATM and spend it on fancy cars and boats, pumping much needed money into the economy. But that money isn’t real and is being conjured from the perceived value of a big wooden box we call a house. Haven’t we learned anything from the past 4 years? Lenders have started returning to their senses and are requiring down payments and income documentation. Borrowers are realizing their overpriced McMansions aren’t worth holding onto and are walking away. Prices are falling, construction is slowing and inventories are going up. So where will things end up? Right where the market determines they should be. I think we’ll see the return of affordable single family homes in late 2009-2010.
Tagged with: economy, government
Posted under: Money Stuff
Cell phone users tie up traffic: study
I hate bad journalism and when journalists write about anything remotely scientific they sound like friggin idiots. Case in point this remarkably dumb article trying to summarize a remarkably dumb study. The attempt to present statistics supporting the conclusion that “Cell phone users tie up traffic” is laughable:
“In medium- and high-density traffic, drivers were about 20 percent less likely to change lanes. They also spent about 25 to 50 seconds longer following slow-moving vehicles before changing to an open lane. And they drove about 2 mph (3.2 kph) slower than the undistracted drivers and took 15 to 19 seconds longer to complete the 9.2 mile trip.”
Here we are presented with 4 statements that in no way support the idea being presented by the study. Drivers changing lanes less causes an increase in traffic? Spent 25 to 50 second behind slower vehicles? Drove 2 mph slower which increases a 9.2 mile trip by 15 to 19 seconds? If I did my third grade math correctly and assumed an “undistracted” speed of 65mph, that results in a increase of 27 seconds. Assuming a target of 55mph that number jumps to 38 seconds. The use of the word “about” when presenting quantifiable facts is just plain sloppy. Funny how statistics don’t make sense without standard deviations.
Here’s a bright idea, maybe the slower moving vehicles are causing more problems than the people on the cellphones. In my observations of traffic patterns lane changes, merging, and slower moving vehicles have the greatest effect on highway speeds. 605 South approaching the 5 crawls to a stop every single day for no good reason other than people having to merge. It also seems impossible for mentally deficient California drivers to maintain their speed when approaching the “time left to destination” signs. I’m just flabbergasted about people’s inability to maintain a constant speed and drive in a straight line. Am I expecting too much from people or is it small portion of the populace ruining it for everyone else?
Our own ban on hand held cell phone use here in California goes into effect later this year in the hopes of reducing accidents. Too bad that’s a bunch of you know what. Here’s a real study with real statistical analysis and a much larger sample: The Impact of Driver Cell Phone Use on Accidents. And a quote from its conclusion:
“Our models predict no statistically significant reduction in accidents from bans on usage of cell phones while driving. Our estimates of the reduction in accidents from a ban on cell phone use while driving are both lower and less certain than some previous studies indicate.”
Cell phone bans are just another example of government wasting our money and meddling where they don’t belong.
Tagged with: cars, cell phone, government, traffic
Posted under: Political Stuff
Everyone is talking about gas prices, but why, I don’t see anything out of the ordinary happening. Supply is down and demand is at record levels. Pull out your remedial economics thinking cap and figure out what that means, you’re right HIGHER PRICES! People who simply believe gas prices are high because the evil oil companies are gouging us and taking food off our plate are narrowminded and ignorant. Here’s a list off the top of my head of things that could push up the price of gas:
- Increase of price of crude oil (which is not set by oil companies, thank the commodities market and OPEC for that)
- Decreased refining capacity
- Cost of transporting gasoline to stations (those big trucks run on gas too don’t they)
- Current supply interruptions, Nigeria, who supplys the US ~13% of our oil is completely shutdown because of political turmoil
- Futures market is being bid up, caused by anxiety of future supply interruptions
- Switch over from winter to summer blends (know how gas prices go up at the time leading into summer, they have to use a different cleaner burning formula, during transition it kills the productivity of refineries)
- People aren’t changing their lifestyles and driving less
- People are still buying big cars (~25% of cars sold last year had a large V8 engine)
- The government has increased excise taxes on gasoline over the past few decades, not reduced them.
That’s just off the top of my head using information gained from reading and listening to the radio.
I don’t see much changing. Hybrids aren’t an attractive alternative yet (unless you mind paying $5000 over sticker which would take a decade to make up with the savings on gas) and their isn’t enough ethanol being produced to make a dent (3.4 billion gallons of ethanol produced a year compared to the 131.4 billion gallons of gasoline used per year in the US).
So what do I think? Let the market go where it will and keep the government out of it. If people are willing to pay over a dollar for a 12 oz bottle of water then they have no room to complain about gas.
Tagged with: cars, economy, government, taxes
Posted under: Political Stuff
Britian’s Taxes hit all-time high
There’s usually a big rift when it comes to the issue of government providing services to citizens. The socialist would say to provide healthcare and other services to everyone for free. The capitalist might say let the private sector handle those services and prices for it will settle where people are willing to pay for it.
The biggest problem I have with socialism is that nothing in life is free. If you want to give free healthcare to one person, someone else has to pay for it. In Britain, everyone is struggling under that burden and it is reflected in their taxation.
"a basic rate taxpayer pays £48.50 in tax on every £100 earned. Among higher rate taxpayers the figure is £57.10". 50% tax rate. Would you put up with that to provide healthcare for everyone?
Tagged with: government, taxes
Posted under: Political Stuff
