According to David Axelrod [via] these recent scandals are because the government is simply too big for President Obama to keep track of. What’s typical of these TranZi regulators is they think the solution to that is to make the government bigger. Of course, the term “think” is probably generous as “make the government bigger” is more a spinal reflex kind of activity.
In a related vein, we have a pundit lamenting the impotency of our current government but as someone else points out the government seems to be able to do things when it wants. That is, when the rewards are political power and money for the apparatchiks and politicians. If it’s a better life for the citizens, well, not so much. This is also correlated with the size of the government and how that size makes it sclerotic, thereby motivating it members to give up on good government and work only good PR and personal enrichment.
Yet the regulators look as this and say “more of that will make things better for the citizens!”. Why such people are not mocked openly and ignored, I cannot understand.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has hit on a truly brilliant1 political strategy — focus on jobs instead of all these “scandal” distractions. How insightful! One of those marks of genius when afterwards you just say “why didn’t anyone think of this before”?
1 For someone of Pelosi’s intellectual capacity.
I bet there are a lot of journolists crying themselves to sleep tonight because there’s no indication their phones were tapped. “Why doesn’t he want to know about my phone calls?”
I can tell you that what’s become clearly apparent is a culture throughout the federal government — not just the IRS, but the Department of Justice, the State Department, etc. We’ve seen that now through three different incidents that basically use the government as an instrument of political activity that target your political opponents to make life difficult for people that are saying things you don’t like, to make life difficult for whistleblowers that are saying things about the State Department that you don’t like. And I believe that all that comes from the top of any organization. So, I think that’s where the questions are increasingly leading, and it’s embarrassing for the country. These are things you typically see in the third world, from unestablished republics and other places. You don’t see that here, and I think that’s what’s really troubling about the recent string of events. … I don’t think that that kind of environment can flourish unless there’s created a space or an environment where it’s encouraged. … It’s a general culture of a willingness to use the instruments of governments to put what you consider to be your political opponents in a bad position.
This is how you set up a neo-feudalist society, where the peasants (taxpayers) tithe whatever the lords (political ruling class) demands and the favor of a lord is needed to get ahead or avoid punishment. Anyone who makes life difficult for an appartchik lordling can be squashed by this kind of selective enforcement of regulations. You can’t justify this by making the false dichotomy that the alternative to selective, politically motivated enforcement is no enforcement at all. If you can’t enforce the law as the law, as it is written, then it would be better to not have it or its enforcement at all.
There’s some brouhaha about top executives as ABC, CBS, and CNN having spouses working in the White House some of them in the national security area.
I honestly don’t think this influences the coverage. I think this is a symptom of the close relationship between Old Media, the MAL, and the leadership of the Democratic Party. Old Media covers for the latter two, and especially its saint, President Obama, because that’s who they are.They’re just different branches of effectively the same class / tribe / social strata. They intermarry for the same reason. The key point is that all of this is the fact there is no longer any adversarial relationship between Old Media and our ruling class MAL, not even social distinction (as there was when journalists were “reporters” and not celebrities in their own right). To expect objectivity or acting against class interests from Old Media is simply foolish and the American Street needs to realize that.
This one is mordantly amusing in a clueless lack of introspection kind of way — Rep. Schakowsky: ‘Our Survival as a Species is Dependent on Women Taking Charge’ right before introducing the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Yeah, that’s how to survive as a species, cancel the progeny.
Speaking functional equivalent, how is Secretary of HHS Sebelius asking for money to implement a Congressionally denied policy well regulated? Or more signficantly, asking for money for this from the businesses she regulates not essentially fascism?
Apparently the Newseum, a major (if not the primary) museum about journalism, is set to honor the memory of two Hamas propaganda operatives. Let all witness that this is what modern journalism thinks is proper and even exemplary as journalistic trade craft.
Hot Air make an important point about the IRS scandal and our modern politics — that when something bad happens that is putatively caused by conservatives / Tea Partiers, all that is necessary to show a casual connection is tone. If conservatives set the wrong tone then they’re responsible for the consequences. But what made those IRS appartchiks think picking targets based on political views was a reasonable thing to do? What tone lead to that? The demonization of those targets by the MAL and its fellow travelers in Old Media?
Apparently Naziism is obviously slavery for the citizens. This does bring up the question, if that is so, is not a strongly regulated economy also slavery? Both control the day to day lives of the citizens, forcing them to do as the appartchiks want rather than as the citizens want, with frequently arbitrary and excessive punishment for infractions. What, procedurally, is the fundamental difference? I must confess I don’t see it.
My personal opinion is that it is quite wrong and a redefinition of the word “slavery” to apply to Nazi Germany in general. Certainly there were slaves, those sent off to the work camps, but it is my view simply inapplicable to the state of the general German population.
P.S. When I first read the comment I thought Eagar was talking specifically about the untermensch sent to the camps, while others had quite different views or didn’t understand it at all. I do appreciate being shown what is mean to have a professional writer to deliver clean, direct text that is understandable to readers.
P.S. How can anyone read this and not embrace being taxed and regulated?
P.P.S. Let’s not overlook the exceptionally invasive questions IRS asked in many of these cases in direct violation of IRS policy. Gosh, those regulations really worked, didn’t they?
The Hill has published a claim that the Romney campaign actively avoided airing an advertisement about Benghazi and the utter failure of the Obama Administration. This is precisely why the GOP is the stupid party — they hold back for frankly no rational reason in attacking their opponents on substantive issues like this. I think one reason for this is for fear of a bad reaction from Old Media. If the GOP could actually understand that Old Media is basically a TranZi propaganda machine that is never going to be supportive or even fair to the GOP then the GOP would be far more likely to campaign on actual issues.
It is one of the things that most encourages me about the well regulated economy are little stories like there where the regulators clearly have not the slightest conception of how things actually work. As anyone who understands even a little bit of the Internet knows, those files are now globally distributed and accessible to anyone with moderate effort. Short of banning 3D printers there’s no way for a government to stop it. Doing this just undermines a little more the public confidence in our ruling class. I would bet money the State Department congratulated themselves when Defense Distributed complied immediately with the request, rather than grasping the compliance was just another insider joke because I guarantee Defense Distributed knows the files are still out there and accessible.
You can see the same thing with gun control. New York state de facto banned pistols with a 7 round magazine limit yet failed to realize this until the legislation was signed in to law. It is hard for me to consider such blatant and easily detected flaws making it in to legislation as well regulated. And even then, if state governors are willing to break the law when even regulation isn’t enough, why should I trust them at all? Even more so when they admit it’s all about control and removing choice from those who are not the enlightened vanguard.
Senate committee defeats amendment for border security before amnesty for illegal immigrants. Let me be blunt - if we don’t control the border, why in the world does it matter what else is in our immigration policy? Every other nation on the planet secures its borders, what makes it so immoral for us to do the same? I understand with a TranZi would oppose border control, but it’s stunning that GOP Senators would, even though it’s not a popular stance.
What drives my objection to large scale immigration isn’t really the immigrants but out own oikophobes who do all they can to prevent assimilation. We can see how this worked out in Boston, where the bombers had no American friends and despised the USA even while living off American largesse. Why shouldn’t immigrants acquire that attitude if we will pay them while telling them how lucky we are they are here? Or telling them it can be racist to be pro-American or that our own national history is unimportant or our dominant religions are extremism.
Just because the Modern American Left glorifies domestic terrorists doesn’t mean they are in anyway encouraging it. Just rewarding it, which is completely different.
Via ‘Joanne Jacobs”:http://www.joannejacobs.com/2013/05/is-online-learning-for-steerage/ is this lament about online classes. The key paragraph
We can therefore anticipate the formation of three distinct groups of students. Well-off students will attend the few colleges and universities that are wealthy enough to eschew standardization and automation. They alone will have real relationships with great faculty. A second, less wealthy group of students will use online courses for their general education and attend “authentic” institutions for a short while. For poorer students, online learning could well become the main course. They will attend institutions that, strictly speaking, grant post-high school credentials to the coach class.
My immediate response is “how is that different from the current situation?”. I attended a top school and excelled at my studies but basically had zero interaction with professors outside the classroom, despite the fact that my father knew several of them personally. Even in graduate school I interacted essentially only with my thesis advisors and one or two other professors. None of my fellow undergraduates or graduate students that I knew had a different experience. When I was a teaching assistant, on the other side so to speak, I didn’t interact with undergraduates. I’m not even sure when or how that would be expected to happen. I had office hours and hung out in the computer lab a lot but I never had students drop by for a chat, only for course related issues.
So what, really, will be lost with the rise of online course work? My undergraduate work could have been done with a video conferencing system just as well. I think people who write articles like this fail to grasp how rare their own experience was.
Hot Air headline —
Yes. Next question.
Governor Cuomo of New York is busy spending disaster relief money on advertising to try and convince
suckers business owners that New York State is a good state for business. Cuomo will not, of course, actually change any facts on the ground to achieve that but simply run some money in to his friends’ businesses to convince others. But hey, at least he’s not a private sector person taking money from hurricane victims (by, say, rising prices on scare goods), because that, my friends, would be wrong.
Plenty of pundits think this round of hearing on the deaths in Benghazi will damage HIllary Clinton but my prediction is the opposite — a little sound and fury and then it will disappear again. While there is leakage Old Media still has enough influence to prevent stories damaging to their political idols from achieving wide spread awareness, regardless of how damaging the facts are.
After all, if a reporter made a big deal of something that reflected badly on the Obama Administration, those people might yell at him and that would just be too much to bear even for our brave and fearless journalists.
Some really cool pictures from Saturn, of the eye at the center of the north polar hexagon. Sadly, the hexagon looks a lot more like a cloud formation than a massive alien technological artifact.
Hot Air brings us the story of a school in Houston which had scheduled gun safety classes for the children, until some unspecified authority told the principal that it was unacceptable for the school to have any association with the NRA, the sponsor of the gun safety class. The school claims it was unaware, despite the principal appearing on a local news channel with an NRA representative and answering a question specifically about whether NRA involvement was a problem (answer then: “no”).
The official claim is the school
didn’t want to participate in an event that folks could perceive as them taking a position one way or another on the gun control debate or any other debate the NRA is involved in
But if you label an organization as so toxic that no association is permissible, even for the safety of the children, you’ve already taken a side.
Some may recommend reading the daily newspaper to be informed but my experience is that people who do that tend to be noticeably less informed about reality. My view is that this is because modern journalism has a status obsessed monoculture that exceeds even that of academia so they are not only ignorantly parochial in thought but almost unable to even imagine others could think differently.
Let’s take just some recent examples. There is no need to dig back years (e.g. Walter Duranty) because this kind of thing is a never ending stream.
A New York Times article about a gun related accident which makes no sense to any one who actually knows how a fire arm works, despite the layers of fact checkers and editors. Just more monkey fishing. But there’s no pattern here.
Global warmening. Heh.
It’s hardly unexpected that the American Street’s trust in Old Media is at an historic low except to those in Old Media who from their published columns are utterly mystified by this. If any other industry with that kind of public image problem were a failing industry, Old Media would automatically assign the blame for the decline on the industry for so ill serving its customers. But self introspection is quite the lost art among the journalistic set.
UPDATE: Someone else has compiled a far more definitive list than mine, which was mainly just things I had open in my browser tabs.
1 One of the obvious questions about non-TranZis buying newspapers is how to deal with that staff monoculture. Business graveyards are filled with managers who tried to work against an existing culture and failed. But if half the staff would voluntarily downsize you would actually have a chance, especially since it is very likely to be the most hard core who leave. Improve the culture and control staff size — win win.