(Don't) Be the Change you Want to See in the World

In an interview with PJ Media's Michelle Fields, Robert Kennedy, Jr. gave us some insight into the hypocrisy and quest for power that the left has. He said, "It's much more important to change your politician than it is to change your light bulb or your cell phone or your automobile."

Robert Kennedy, Jr., and those who agree with his politics believe the only way to better ourselves is to give other people power over us and pass laws that everyone must live by. He's asked whether he would set an example by giving up his cell phone or his car, and he basically argued that he's not going to do it alone, what we need to do is pass a law that will outlaw it nationally.

This is analogous to the left being unwilling to voluntarily pay higher taxes. They want everyone to pay higher taxes; if it were the law they'd happily abide it, but until then, they won't pay a dime more.

The next quote reinforces this idea, but I want to be careful, it seems to be an incomplete thought in the video, so it will be easy to claim I took it out of context. If it didn't fit so well with the rest of his rant, though, I wouldn't include it.

"...We don't care what kind of car you use, but we're going to make a law that says you can't make a car in this country unless it gets 40 mpg or you can't make a car unless it's an electric car."

The ellipses stand in for "If [the Koch brothers] were to say to us." But he never finished the hypothetical. I believe the above quote captures what Kennedy believes. Watch the video for yourself. This quote is around the 2:40 mark.

Demagoguing the Supreme Court

There's really a lot to say about this term's Supreme Court decisions. Much of it has already been said. One thing that's probably been said elsewhere, but I guess I just realized in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision was just how political politics is.

I read many times (never from the Left) just how narrow the decision was. That it only applied to a few "contraceptives," and that the majority of them were still required and offered by employers. Many, who are capable of nuance, talked about how these contraceptives were not banned, but that the employers cannot be legally compelled to offer them.

What I realized was that many of those on the Left understand these issues, and know they're being demagogues. They're doing it, cynically, just to drum up the "war on women" angle. Here's a good rundown of the facts vs. demagoguery.

It shouldn't be surprising that the politicians exploit the voters' ignorance (it happens on our side, too, let's admit). I guess it really hit me when I read an article about how the Obama administration knows that the "fact" that women make 77% of what men make is not true, but they repeat it just to gain media (if I could find a link, I'd put it here). Again, the blame should lie squarely on the media. It's their job to expose this cynicism. If the politicians are too slippery to admit what they're doing, the media should be reporting the truth.

It Doesn't Add Up

Several moons ago, I came across this story about how Americans watched much more TV than any other country. It seemed wrong to me, so I bookmarked it thinking I'd try to figure it out later. Here's the chart from the site.

Notice it's viewing hours/household/day in 2011.

Apparently, others wrote about it.

Today, I came across this chart through Wonkblog.

Now, this chart is for 2012 and is per person not household and the US still leads all countries, but not by such a high margin.

Digging a little deeper, I compared the figures for countries in both charts.

Country	OECD	Statista
United States	8.5	4.9
Italy	4.2	4.3
Canada	4.1	4.0
United Kingdom	4	4.0
Poland	4	4.1
Spain	4	4.1
Germany	3.5	3.7
France	3.4	3.8
Ireland	3.2	3.4
Australia	3.2	3.1
Sweden	2.6	2.7

What's very interesting to me, is that even though the OECD is by household and Statista is by person, the figures are almost exactly the same (except for the US). That would be true if all those countries had 1 person/household on average, but unfortunately, that's not the case. The Quartz article linked above cites a few figures. US - 2.57, Australia - 2.52, UK - 2,12, Sweden - 1.99.

My guess is that the OECD figures used the US by household figure and the other countries' by person figure.

I write this post to point out that we must maintain healthy skepticism about what is reported to us, and that there are many among us, who use this information without checking it. Many people like to point out as many flaws with America as possible, and this is one strategy they use.

More Info:

The WSJ reports that the time use survey showed in 2012 that US Americans watched 2:50/person/day (170 minutes), even lower than Statista said. I don't know Statista's methodology, but I would imagine it's more accurate for comparison, since I would guess it's methods are the same across countries. Perhaps they count TV through internet while the time use survey does not, for example.

Neilsen also has it's own estimates.

Cyndi Lauper Just Wants to Have Fun (at Your Expense)

What the Left doesn't want you to know, is that they're fighting liberty and choice. They believe in a single choice and that's abortion. That's the only choice people should be free to make without any government meddling. That's what they don't discuss when they talk about the Hobby Lobby case, and here's another example.

Eminent scholar Cyndi Lauper has decided that the Supreme Court decision is discriminatory and it's a rejection of women's rights. As has been said over and over, the Supreme Court hasn't banned these contraceptives, all it has said is that employers cannot be forced to provide them. Of course, Lauper never mentions the other side. In her view, women deserve subsidized contraception. The rest of the society is obligated to pay for them, and if the rest of society doesn't want to be forced to purchase something, then they are anti-women.

This is how the Left works:

1. Split the country into groups
2. Pass laws that give the groups special treatment or things for free
3. When Republicans or Liberty-minded people object to paying for these things, accuse them of racism or sexism.

At all costs, don't allow people and firms to make their own decisions.

Obama's Foreign Policy Grading on a Curve

James Carroll believes, against public opinion, and even the prevailing media opinion, that President Obama is succeeding in foreign policy. His case? Syria is rid of chemical weapons. Well, bravo. Back before the re-election (before even Benghazi), I believed that Obama's foreign policy was poor and Romney should have gone after it. The fact of the matter was there wasn't a single ally that we had a better relationship with than when he took over (many saw relations decline), and the headway we'd made with our enemies had amounted to nothing.

He had arguably two accomplishments--capturing Bin Laden, which isn't really foreign policy and getting rid of Qaddafi. Libya hasn't worked out since.

Now, in his second term, things are more obvious. Few would argue that his foreign policy, if he has a coherent plan, has been successful.

Let's be clear, the fact that Syria no longer has chemical weapons is a success. It's a very good thing. Let's not forget, though, that Obama and Kerry sort of bungled their way into it. Also, concentrating on the chemical weapons allowed a civil war where more than 160,000 people have died to continue. It's not exactly a huge win here.

Free Speech Zones

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court invalidating a Massachusetts restriction on free speech, many leftists have complained the Supreme Court's buffer zone is larger than the Massachusetts's unconstitutional one. What they do, though, is include part of the court complex as a buffer zone. The plaza in front of the building is considered part of the court, just as a parking lot would be part of an abortion clinic, and therefore no one would be entitled to stand on private property to protest. So, actually, the buffer zone in front of the Supreme Court, if you used the same logic applied to private property, is zero feet.

This is a little complicated since the Supreme Court is itself public property. But ask yourself if demonstrations should be allowed in the court itself. The answer is clearly no. After that, you just have to decide what's considered part of the court. If the court were private property, the plaza outside would certainly be considered part of the complex. This WSJ article touches on the logic, but doesn't explain it clearly enough in my opinion.

My Employer Denies Me so Much

It pains me that this must even be reiterated, but the Left has put a lot of effort into confusing people about the Hobby Lobby issue. Hobby Lobby didn't want to provide certain forms of contraception (it still provided the majority of those provided by the FDA). The Left, however, wants everyone to believe that Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court have banned these forms of contraception for their employees.

Megan McArdle says it well when she explains that when your employer doesn't buy something for you--cars, homes, etc.--they're not denying you anything. Read the editorial.

Abstinence = Blood Transfusion

How is birth control different from blood transfusions and vaccines? It’s not.

Whoever wrote the secondary headline to this article is either incredibly obtuse or is trying harder to sensationalize news than inform people.

Sandra Fluke, who gained notoriety a few years ago for trying to convince Congress that the rest of society should pay to ensure that sexually active women can remain sexually active without consequence. Actually, she gained notoriety when Rush Limbaugh called her a nasty word for prostitute. Now, she's attempting to extend that fame so she can provide more for the few at the expense of the many (ie she wants to be an elected Democrat).

Why is birth control—an uncontroversial form of care used by an astonishing number of women—different from blood transfusions and vaccines, which many individuals have religious objections to? The fact is, it’s not.

Well, I guess it was Sandra Fluke.  Uhh, yes it is. I almost feel foolish explaining, but the primary difference is that the latter two are necessary procedures to heal or prevent illness that patients have little control over. Birth control, though, is used to nullify the consequences of an action people choose to take even when they know the consequences.

Sally Kohn Wrong in So Many Ways

In her Daily Beast article, Sally Kohn makes a number of fallacious and irrelevant arguments. Such as

For the Court to even get to its ruling that the contraception mandate "substantially burdens" the exercise of religion, it has to believe this bunk science.

Well, no it doesn't. If religious people believe something, even if it's untrue, that's their belief. The court wasn't trying to decide whether these were, in fact, abortifacients, only if the beliefs of the employers gave them the right to deny providing them.

Moreover, in a free and secular society, birth control is about medicine and science and personal health, not religion.

Birth control may be about these things, but it is also about religion, since it's an important part of many people's belief system. Also, the left continues to try to make this about birth control, but it's more about whether birth control has to be provided, not whether it's available.

If you think going to the mall is like going to church, that makes sense. To everyone else, it's nuts.

Logical Fallacy Alert. It looks as a combination black or white fallacy and straw man.

Keep reading, there are even more fallacies, such as "Let's all pray to the corporate gods who control our elections that someday we have a Supreme Court that values the American people more than big business."

I love how the Left imbues the Supreme Court with such power. They want the Court to decide everything on a moral basis. She, of course, doesn't debate the law at all. What does that matter? The Supreme Court has given power to corporations! That's just wrong!

Scary...

"There’s more at stake here than due process. It’s public safety."
--Jim Pasco, Executive Director of the country's largest police union:

It's frightening, but not altogether surprising that some among the police believe that public safety trumps due process.

source: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cops-see-reason-concern-landmark-cellphone-ruling-n140771

Overreacting to the Supreme Court

I'm trying to go through the recent Affirmative Action case opinions, so I can summarize. Surprisingly, I'm leaning more toward the dissent than I expected, but I haven't finished reading it yet.

For those who haven't read much detail, as Kennedy said, the decision was not about affirmative action, it's more complex than that. Basically the question is whether banning affirmative action at the state level, powers were taken from the schools' trustees and it became more difficult for minorities to enact advantageous (or outlaw disadvantageous) policies.

Anyway, in this article, The Nation's Patricia Williams is, predictably, upset. Here's what I take issue with.

The bottom line? What is expressly permissible as a matter of the US Constitution is now forbidden in Michigan. Not only that, it has removed affirmative action in Michigan from the democratic process.

First, there is a long list of things permissible by the US Constitution that are forbidden by states. Basically, all state legislation does is restrict your freedoms that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you have. States say you can't drive faster than 65 mph, where does it say that in the Constitution? States won't allow you to drink, that's something that is "permissible as a matter of the US Constitution."

Not only that, but even easier to contest, it hasn't been removed from the democratic process. If anything, it's more a part of the democratic process. It was voted in by a majority of Michigan voters. Before the vote, it was decided by trustees appointed by the governor. Used to be, direct elections were considered more democratic. I guess Patricia would like to repeal the 17th Amendment and let her legislature (or possibly the trustees to Michigan's schools) choose the US Senators.

Finally, she says

But consider another scenario. You have one place to fill and two applicants—a white kid from Grosse Pointe, and a black kid who has risen from the ashes of Detroit’s segregated, postindustrial dystopia to achieve the same scores. Put on the blindfold! We don’t see color here. According to Section 26, it’s unlawful to weigh the black kid’s distinct experiences because that would constitute either an act of discrimination against the majority white population or a grant of preferential treatment for minorities.

No Conservative I know believes a kid's experiences shouldn't be weighed, just not the color of his skin. I believe it wrong to assume that because someone's black, they've had a harder time than every white person. Granted, in most circumstances, that's true, but not everyone. Experiences should be weighed, not skin color.

Reproductive Rights?

The Left has been extraordinary at coming up with positive sounding names for their causes--affirmative action, pro-choice, social security, the affordable care act.

In this Rolling Stone article, Lauren Rankin discusses some of the "attacks on reproductive rights."

First off, I don't think we should call issues dealing with abortion reproductive rights. These people are fighting for the right to not reproduce. Who believes that when I assert my gun rights, I'm talking about my right to not own a gun? It's a bizarre manipulation.

Of course, she never presents the other side of the argument, but I'm most interested in issue 4-"Louisiana bill would keep brain-dead pregnant women on life support against family's wishes."

"This bill essentially turns brain-dead pregnant women into incubators against their will, compounding the trauma that their families are likely experiencing."

Well, I don't dispute that the women would essentially be incubators, but I'm not sure it's against their will. I doubt most women say what they would want to happen if they faced this decision. Rankin goes on to say that in Louisiana, the law would not "[supersede] pregnant women's 'do not resuscitate' orders..., [it] would still override the family's wishes." Well, then whose rights are being attacked? These clearly aren't reproductive rights. These are the family's control over someone else's rights. What if the woman wanted her baby to come to term? Oh, well, says Rankin, the family's rights to abort allow the fetus to die naturally supersede anything else. It seems that Rankin thinks that not only the mother has the right to abort, but the family does, too.

The Art of Not Answering

I'm sure I'm biased, but it seems that Democrats are better at this than Republicans. I'm confident that it's the most important asset of a Press Secretary, though.

Here's Jay Carney deftly dodging. 

Really read his response, though. Major Garret points out that the US has acted (however weakly), yet Russia continues moving forward on Ukraine.

Carney has two responses: "The US can't force action simply by saying stop, and we will continue along the same path we are on." The first is a typical Obama tactic--the straw man argument. The second is devoid of information.

A Perfect Storm

I'm really tired of the over-use of the phrase A Perfect Storm, but this is just ridiculous! The Snowden revelation was not a perfect storm at all. He understood and took advantage of flaws within the system. A perfect storm is when rare events all happen at once. Clapper is just trying to hide the CIA's errors in the matter.

A Coup at the CBO?

The CBO has recently released three conservative-leaning conclusions. This from the same organization that predicts jobs saved from stimulus based on economic models based on Keynesian principles.

Obamacare reduces incentives to work for subsidized beneficiaries
Minimum Wage costs jobs
Premium Support could offer same benefits for lower costs to taxpayers (and potentially consumers)

I wonder what's going on over there.