Politcally Correct Bigoteers

The most obvious thing about progressives - or the Regressive Left - is that they are bigots - bigoteers* in fact.  They start by separating everyone into groups based on color, sexual orientation, and occasionally religious affiliation (although only with Jews and Muslims).   Once the groups are defined they proceed to label any members of those groups who do not fit the progressive stereotype as heretics and proceed to hurl racial and sexual epithets at them.

Once they've put the heretics in place - they proceed to organize the groups into a hierarchy of victimhood - based primarily on which group will give them the most to scream and rant about.

It's fairly easy to see what progressives think of themselves by what they project onto others.  They are nothing more than every vile thing they accuse everyone else of being. Women who refused to fall into line with the feminist agenda are misogynists, blacks who fail the litmus test of "blackness" are puppets, tools, or have internalized racism.  Progressives are in fact world class Bigots. 

When progressives speak about your words being violence - to them it is violence, you are attacking their whole identity, you are in a word invalidating their entire existence.

I believe this will come down to an armed conflict before we're done - everything you see is an echo of Bolshevik revolution - the rage, the politics, the unwillingness to recognize reality where it deviates from their ideology.  They are well past the point where they can tolerate reality destroying everything they've built their lives around.

*Bigoteer is a term I'm trying out as a replacement for Social Justice Warrior - there is a problem with SJW even though it's used as a derogative, people who lack experience with the term and have not been attacked by the PC fascists fail to see what's wrong with Social Justice.  I think the term Bigoteer was first coined by Tim Ferriss, I know my first exposure to the term was watching the Rubin Report interview with Tim.  I happen to agree - the SJW term is too positive to fit with the bigoted fascism that is the Regressive Left. 

John Kerry - Antisemite

John Kerry - Antisemitism Incarnate

As the self anointed Political Elite shatters against the shards of their broken bubble, the deep seated evil that lurks inside each and every one of the Regressive Left is showing.

I wasn't sure Obama was a racist until now - oh I knew he hated America and Western Culture - the Country and Culture that gave him everything he has.  I new he wanted to destroy America, and I thought that was enough to explain his constant eight years of race-baiting. But he has shown his most vile self these last weeks of his administration with his attack on Israel.

Kerry, one of the many Regressive operatives in the administration never struck me as anything other than an incompetent tool - be he too is a world class racist - if that's the right word.  I'm never quite sure whether Jews are considered, or I suppose more importantly consider themselves as a separate race - but the idea seems common enough. So - Kerry is a racist. There is no other way to describe that horror of a speech.  Even the most fringe elements of the Alt-Right can't compete. 

If I had to chose between this evil multicultural, global, totalitarian state build on the hatred of identity politics or the White Nationalist of the right end of the Alt-Right - well that's easy. The Alt-Right isn't proposing genocide (aside from a few unstable nut jobs). But the entire Regressive Left sure seems to be.

The Political Establishment Have Lost Their Minds

The left has been in temper tantrum mode since the election. They're incapable of self-reflection.  They're completely lacking any sign of self awareness.  Constant predictions of the end of the world - which may very well happen but in my view is less likely with Trump than Hillary - abound.

And now at least one Republican in congress has taken the final step - so overwhelmed by their loss of the office of President to an outsider, they want to nuke the world. Sure he's talking about massive sanctions - how do you suppose Putin will handle that - like Obama - draw an imaginary red line?  Lecture us? Wag is finger at us?   No.  But that's what this idiot is thinking - Putin wouldn't dare.  I think he would dare - I suspect he believes we lack the conviction to actually carry through.

Wait you say - he's only talking about Russia.  Yeah, just Russia. The Russians have no chance in hell of winning a conventional war with the US - Russia and China combined have no chance of winning that war.

As of 2014 Russia had 845,730 tons afloat, China only 708,086. The United States has 3,415,893 tons. Granted Russia has more actual vessels but in the age of air superiority that's hardly an advantage. If you start adding in our allies the difference grows pretty quickly.

So what about that Air Superiority?  The US has 3,318 combat aircraft including the most advance aircraft flying. Russia - 1,900 and China 1,500.

Lacking the ability to win a conventional war Russia is left with the Last Possible Option as the ONLY option - nuclear war.   And guess what?

NOBODY wins that one.


Edit - 12-30-2016
Well, Putin seems to be less of a hot head than I thought - his response was basically - yeah what ever, looking forward to Trump.

I suppose that makes sense given the sanctions were not nearly as bad as the hype made them out to be.  And they'll only be in effect for about 30 days.  These morons just make me so angry - 30 days left and they have to insult and provoke as many people they don't like as they can manage.  These actions are just petty sabotage because they lost.

The Futility of Apologizing to the Left for anything

Everyone makes mistakes.  Sometimes it's simple forgetfulness, sometimes it a misunderstanding, sometimes we're just oblivious to the effects of our actions because we are momentarily self-absorbed.  In each of those cases, an apology is warranted.

The problem is... when you apologize to a leftist it's often demanded, never accepted and always taken as a sign of weakness.  Why? Because that's how they think - if you get caught insulting someone - you don't apologize - you double down and make the insult worse. If you get caught in a lie; you don't apologize, you double down and tell a bigger lie.  So, when you, the rational person, apologize whether demanded or not, you are signaling weakness and they will attack. Every time.  Without fail.

This is true of all Bigoteers, whether they're a simple useful idiot university student, a community organizer, an academician, or an elitist such as you find in D.C. or Hollywood.

They're not actually interested in your apology - they're interested in using you to make a point - 'we have the power, you don't'  And they do it all the while claiming victim status.

You can apologize to a Christian, or a libertarian, a conservative, or even a classic liberal, and it will probably be accepted in good faith Just don't waste your breath on the Bigoteers of the world.

I resemble that post

I'm not sure who wrote this but....

From Ace of Spades HQ

• I was born white, which now, whether I like it or not, makes me a racist. 
• I am a fiscal and moral conservative, which by today’s standards, makes me a fascist.
• I am heterosexual, which according to gay folks, now makes me a homophobe.
• I am non-union, which makes me a traitor to the working class and an ally of big business.
• I am a Christian, which now labels me as an infidel.
• I believe in the 2nd Amendment, which now makes me a member of the vast gun lobby.
• I am retired, which makes me useless.
• I think and I reason, therefore I doubt much that the main stream media tells me, which must make me a reactionary.
• I am proud of my heritage and our inclusive American culture, which makes me a xenophobe.
• I value my safety and that of my family and I appreciate the police and the legal system, which makes me a right-wing extremist.
• I believe in hard work, fair play, and fair compensation according to each individual's merits, which today makes me an anti-socialist.
• I (and most of the folks I know), acquired a fair education without student loans (it’s called work) and no debt at graduation, which makes me some kind of an odd underachiever.
• I believe in the defense and protection of the homeland for and by all citizens, which now makes me a militant.

Now, a sick old woman is calling me and my friends a basket of deplorables.

Please help me come to terms with the new me…because I‘m just not sure who I am anymore! I would like to thank all my friends for sticking with me through these abrupt, new found changes in my life and my thinking! .....I just can’t imagine or understand what happened to me so quickly!
Funny…it’s all just taken place over the last 7 1/2 years!
As if all this B.S. wasn’t enough to deal with….now I'm not sure which public restroom to use.

Merry Cristmas one and all.

Christmas has always been a favorite time of year for me.  I'm a winter person.  If I had to choose between winter in the Rockies or the most beautiful sandy beach in the tropics - well, that's not even a choice for me - winter all the way.

I love Christmas; the music, the lights, the decorations and the spirit of the season.  I even enjoy being around people more - although I don't go to malls - too crazy shopaholic for me.

This has been a more difficult year for me. Some of the poor decisions I've made over the years have come home to roost. It wasn't unexpected and I've no one to blame but myself.

I am looking forward to next year as I get my hind end in gear and try to fix what I broke, or let break.  I'm not too worried, but I know it's going to be a lot of work. I look forward to the feeling of accomplishment that will come with each task I complete.

God Bless.

STAR WARS Rogue One

What can I say about Rogue One... Rumors abounded that it would be yet another Leftist propaganda piece eschewing plot and story for a "message".  I'm happy to say those rumors were unfounded. The story was front and center - there are still individuals who will fight tyranny and sacrifice all they have in the name of Liberty.

This is the prequel that Episodes 1-3 could never hope to be. Oh, the acting in 1-3 from likes of Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, and Liam Neeson was better than average, but they were surrounded by so much mediocrity that it didn't help.  The acting in Rogue One was fine - not stellar but more that good enough. The story was excellent, and yet, it lacked a little something, that little bit that made me want to really care about the protagonist Jyn Erso. 

Jones did a fine job, but the director played up her lack concern for the fate of the republic in the early scenes a bit too much. She was perhaps a bit too cynical, too jaded; especially given her history with the empire. I would have expected a bit more willingness early on rather than finding her purpose only at the end. Then again, that might just be me. 

Rogue One has significantly more complex characters than the other Star Wars movies. It would have been nice to see a bit more character development. I think both Jyn and Cassan deserved more time to explore, but that time was spent dazzling us with somewhat overenthusiastic CGI. It's not surprising since Hollywood is a consumer of media and message.  They managed to avoid the message and hold on to the story, but they couldn't pass up the flash.

Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang were excellent as comic relief. But in truth, Alan Tudyk stole the show as the sarcastic K-250.  Diego Luna was very believable playing the part of the jaded rebel, too long in the trenches, having done things he knew would haunt him forever.  He added quite a bit to the darker flavor of the story.

Rogue One is well worth seeing - Heck -it's worth the agony of seeing in the theater with all the annoyances that come with that venue. 

Let the Exodus Begin

I wish I'd kept a list - although I'm sure the information is easily available - of all the people who claimed they would leave the country if Trump got elected.  

Let the Exodus Begin.

Stephanopoulos, Amy Schumer, Jon Stewart, Chelsea Handler, Neve Campbell, Lena Dunham, Al Sharpton (like anyone would take him), Spike Lee (bye bye Spike).  Samuel L. Jackson - good then I won't have to listen to you rant anymore.  Cher - who? Barbra Streisand - you know, I like her movies, and she as a wonderful voice but... See Ya Babs.  Whoopi Goldberg - well she's been slipping in my opinion for the last 20 years so...  Miley Cyrus - thank god, the sooner the better. Ruth Bader Ginsburg - oh Hell Yes, have a nice trip see you again - never. 


I'm sure there a lots more that I won't miss at all.  There's probably a few that made that promise that I might be surprised at and someone disappointed... 

Sadly - I don't expect any of those people to actually follow though on their claim.

Clearly it's both

After looking over the redacted Friday on a 3 day weekend FBI dump concerning Hillary - USA today concludes that:

....Clinton is either criminal, criminally incompetent or both.

Clearly - it's both.

So Henry, why are conservative women so pretty?

It's a good question - And Henry provides a somewhat long-winded answer.  Ultimately, I think his wife is correct.  Conservative women are more attractive because they don't feel bad about being women.

There is a corollary to this question: Why are liberal women not attractive - oh sure there are the liberal Hollywood types who I honestly suspect are "liberal" because not being one is bad for your career. But in general?   The progressive take on women is that they are simultaneously identical to men, but should hate men. Better than men, but victims.  Empowered, and yet subjects of the patriarchy (men). And, nothing but a social construct.  Worse, they must by necessity believe 100 impossible things each and every day.

  Trying to wrap your head around that would likely make anyone hate themselves.  It's tough to be attractive when you hate yourself.

Science Today - 90 Percent Pure Fail

From The Conversation "We need to talk about the bad science being funded"

A report on the issue, published in Nature this May, found that about 90% of some 1,576 researchers surveyed now believe there is a reproducibility crisis in science.

You may have noticed over the years that studies come out proclaiming one "truth" or another only to later be reversed by another study.  Then there's global warming - the behemoth of Poli-Sci.  Political Science.  The new and improved Science where one chooses the conclusion then designs the experiment and data to prove the conclusion.

Some scientists seem to have had enough and they're finally pointing out the scam.

It may be too little too late.  Our universities have become identity politics indoctrination centers were any disagreement with the narrative is trampled under the jackboots of the social justice warriors. Facts have become not just irrelevant on campus - they are the enemy.   How then, can science recover?   I guess we'll have to wait and see.

That's a good thing.... Right?

(h/t) Borepatch




Makes me wonder.... What's a perfect score? They never say what their choices are.

Things that don't surprise me

It's getting harder to surprise me.

For example - Facebook is still evil - and hypocritical - are you shocked?  No?  Me either.

Biden - Still and Idiot After All These Years

So VP Biden says:
(from Breitbart)

‘I Find It Hard to Believe’ Hillary Would Do Anything ‘Intentionally Wrong’

Why does he think everyone is incapable of thinking logically.

You don't circumvent government systems by accident - if she didn't intend to do anything wrong, and it wasn't an accident - then that leaves incompetence.

And he seems to think it's okay to have either a criminal or an incompetent for President.  Then again, he's worked for an incompetent moron who can't decide if he's a communist or a Muslim (they're mutually exclusive) -- It takes a special type of stupid to be a useful idiot for both the Communists and the Muslims.

How much more of an idiot does one need to be to work for a useful idiot?

If you believe in any part of the Constitution

It's time to get the hell out of California.

From Breitbart - Gunpocalypse


The ruling elite have - much like the modern University - tosses the idea of the individual, freedom, liberty and due process onto the bonfire of Progressivism. One more self-destructive act by a bunch of elitists who have completely lost connection with reality.

I've said it before - I'll say it again.   If you value your life, your liberty, your property - Get the Hell OUT of the People's Republik of Kalifornia

Better Late than Never?

I found this - shocking - seriously.  And almost nothing shocks me anymore.

OH, MY: MSNBC Rips Apart Hillary Clinton’s Response To The Benghazi Terror Attacks

I've watched as the level of CRAZY has been turned up to 11, then 12.  And now apparently 13.  

Fox News critical of a Dem?  Of Saint Satan Hillary  Gotta sy - never expected to see that happen.

Now, granted, it was the most pathetic comdenation of Benghazi that I've heard.  And it's taken them forever to get around to seeing it for the vile act it was. Even though they've been told, over, and over, and over....

Well what do you expect. 

You have to love these idiots

'Journalist' trys to by an AR-15 and get's denied.

NY Daily News employs a whiny toddler as a Journalist - how do we know this?  Becuase we have video of a 7 year-old girl who apparently finds shooting an AR-15 FUN


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/21/chicago-journalist-denied-ar-15/

A Touch of Sanity Returns to the World

A New Dawn is breaking: Brexit Wins EU Referendum  - Breitbart


Congratulations to a New Soverign Nation. (again)


I have to admit to being a bit surprised.  Frankly I didn't think there were enough rational thinkers left in Great Britian.

Orlando

The proper response to the orlando shooting is to go buy a gun, carry it with you and stop going to places that make ideal targets for Islamic Terrorists.

The improper response is to declare that the shooter didn't understand his own motivation - that this was clearly not about Islam being the religion of hate and violence - but was infact cause by a gun - that apparently would have made it's own way into that club if it handn't found someone to carry it there.

When a shooter tells you it's about Islam - that it's about ISIS then just maybe it's about Islam and Isis.

I wish I'd authored this

This is from the Foundation for Economic Education
Written by LW Reed



On ne saurait faire une omelette sans casser des oeufs.

Translation: “One can’t expect to make an omelet without breaking eggs.”

With those words in 1790, Maximilian Robespierre welcomed the horrific French Revolution that had begun the year before. A consummate statist who worked tirelessly to plan the lives of others, he would become the architect of the Revolution’s bloodiest phase—the Reign of Terror of 1793–94. Robespierre and his guillotine broke eggs by the thousands in a vain effort to impose a utopian society based on the seductive slogan “liberté, égalité, fraternité.”

But, alas, Robespierre never made a single omelet. Nor did any of the other thugs who held power in the decade after 1789. They left France in moral, political, and economic ruin, and ripe for the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte.

As with Robespierre, no omelets came from the egg-breaking efforts of Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini either.

The French experience is one example in a disturbingly familiar pattern. Call them what you will—leftists, utopian socialists, radical interventionists, collectivists, or statists—history is littered with their presumptuous plans for rearranging society to fit their vision of “the common good,” plans that always fail as they kill or impoverish other people in the process. If socialism ever earns a final epitaph, it will be this: “Here lies a contrivance engineered by know-it-alls and busybodies who broke eggs with abandon but never, ever created an omelet.”

Every collectivist experiment of the twentieth century was heralded as the Promised Land by statist philosophers. “I have seen the future and it works,” the intellectual Lincoln Steffens said after a visit to Uncle Joe Stalin’s Soviet Union. In the New Yorker in 1984, John Kenneth Galbraith argued that the Soviet Union was making great economic progress in part because the socialist system made “full use” of its manpower, in contrast to the less efficient capitalist West. But an authoritative 846-page study published in 1997, The Black Book of Communism, estimated that the communist ideology claimed 20 million lives in the “workers’ paradise.” Similarly, The Black Book documented the death tolls in other communist lands: 45 to 72 million in China, between 1.3 million and 2.3 million in Cambodia, 2 million in North Korea, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan, 1 million in Vietnam, 1 million in Eastern Europe, and 150,000 in Latin America.

Vast and Incompetent Bureaucracies

Additionally, all of those murderous regimes were economic basket cases; they squandered resources on the police and military, built vast and incompetent bureaucracies, and produced almost nothing for which there was a market beyond their borders. They didn’t make “full use” of anything except police power. In every single communist country the world over, the story has been the same: lots of broken eggs, no omelets. No exceptions.

F. A. Hayek explained this inevitable outcome in his seminal work, The Road to Serfdom, in 1944. All efforts to displace individual plans with central planning, he warned us, must end in disaster and dictatorship. No lofty vision can vindicate the use of the brute force necessary to attain it. “The principle that the end justifies the means,” wrote Hayek, “is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule.”

The worst crimes of the worst statists are often minimized or dismissed by their less radical intellectual brethren as the “excesses” of men and women who otherwise had good intentions. These apologists reject the iron fist and claim that the State can achieve their egalitarian and collectivist goals with a velvet glove.

But whether it is the Swedish “middle way,” Yugoslavian “worker socialism,” or British Fabianism, the result has been the same: broken eggs, but no omelets.

Have you ever noticed how statists are constantly “reforming” their own handiwork? Education reform. Health care reform. Welfare reform. Tax reform. The very fact that they’re always busy “reforming” is an implicit admission that they didn’t get it right the first 50 times.

The list is endless: Canadian health care, European welfarism, Argentine Peronism, African postcolonial socialism, Cuban communism, on and on ad infinitum. Nowhere in the world has the statist impulse produced an omelet. Everywhere—it yields the same: eggs beaten, fried, and scrambled. People worse off than before, impoverished and looking elsewhere for answers and escape. Economies ruined. Freedoms extinguished.

It is a telling conclusion that statists have no successful model to point to, no omelet they can hold up as the pièce de résistance of their cuisine. Not so for those of us who believe in freedom. Indeed, economists James Gwartney, Robert Lawson, and Walter Block in their survey, Economic Freedom of the World: 1975–1995, conclude that “No country with a persistently high economic freedom rating during the two decades failed to achieve a high level of income. In contrast, no country with a persistently low rating was able to achieve even middle income status. . . . The countries with the largest increases in economic freedom during the period achieved impressive growth rates.”

Perhaps no one explained the lesson of all this better than the French economist and statesman Frédéric Bastiat more than 150 years ago:

“And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.”


This column first appeared in the September 1999 Freeman.

The Unintended Consequences of the Minimum Wage.

A few days ago I posted about the economic benefits to minimum wage, which are few and not overly valuable. But a case can be made for some benefit in purely economic terms.   In general, minimum wage laws are created for political reasons – there is a claim of compassion but you shouldn’t be too quick to believe those.  Politicians don’t do things out of compassion, they do them to get re-elected.  Politicians work on the philosophy of delayed blame.  They’ll spend your future money to buy votes today on the theory that when the debt comes due, most voters will have forgotten who to blame.  Sadly, it works really well.

There are a number of downsides to minimum wage laws. Beyond the obvious distortion of the free market (see previous post), there is the tendency to increase them once they’re established. The dangers of what I’m seeing now, which is a trend toward a more than doubling of the Federal minimum wage in the wake of events in two of the most liberal states in the country.  Both New York and California went against all rational advice from economists and did the “Feel Good” thing anyway – assuming that voters will forget who just screwed them by the time the next election comes up.  For those people who manage to keep their jobs, it will be a big win.   For everyone else, not so much. This is going to be lengthy, and hardly exhaustive, but it should give you an idea of what kind of trouble we’re borrowing.

There is strong consensus amongst economists that raising the minimum wage results in few jobs for unskilled and inexperienced workers.  The only big holdout I know of is Paul Krugman, who lives in a world with unicorns.

If destroying entry level jobs were the only effect, it would be bad enough.  The hike from $10 to $15 per hour has resulted in UC Berkeley laying off 500 people.   That’s 500 people whose wage went from $10 to $0.  And believe me – the real minimum wage is $0.  Berkeley is just the beginning – the full effect of that increase won’t be seen for two to five years.  I expect to see more businesses flee California – which they’ve been doing in droves.   It is a business hostile environment. Between the constant assault of regulatory strangulation and now a 53.1% increase in unskilled labor costs – assuming there are no other hidden costs beyond the 6.2% FICA which means that $5/hour is really costing the employer $5.31.

Unfortunately, there is a trickle up of costs. Few employers that depend on minimum wage worker can afford to absorb a 53% hike to what is probably their biggest single expense.  They will have no choice but to raise prices – with that price increase comes a decrease in demand.  So, while prices are up – sales are down.  Since prices are unlike to go up any more than one needs to cover the actual costs in the first round, there will be a net loss in revenue. With that will be a net decrease in what the State collects for taxes.  Yes, that’s one of those little unintended consequences that is so easy to overlook. More so for a state that has a major budged shortfall, and a seriously underfunded public pension.

There may be some good news depending on what labor pool is used. If supermarkets are already paying $15/ hour (which seems unlikely) then the impact to food prices will only come from their suppliers – otherwise, the costs of eating at home will rise even further than the the cost of goods sold.  That will have some mitigating effect on the demand of dining out.  The nice thing about food is that overall, it has a relatively inelastic demand.

When those sales decrease, the demand for raw materials will fall.  Taking a restaurant as an example.  When the prices on the menu increase significantly, people will make the rational choice to eat out less.  So the restaurant sells less, and the minimum wage workers now get fewer tips – oops yet another unintended consequence. The company that supplies the food, and condiments will also lose business, lowing revenue and hence taxes.  If the restaurant sells liquor, those sales will also drop, which is bad because that’s a real profit center for restaurants. Oh, and the state loses even more tax income.

Now, if sales drop enough, a rational business owner will be forced to confront the decision of how to allocate his capital. In other words, struggle along or close up shop and find someplace else to do business.  When those shops close all the employees are now at the true minimum wage of 0$.  And the state now gets hit with an additional tax burden – unemployment compensation.

The suppliers lose even more business – potentially resulting in more layoffs.  Certainly less income and hence – less taxes paid.

You can expect to see capital replace labor in more places, since the relative cost of capital just went down. The nice thing about capital – it doesn’t show up late, rarely takes sick days, and complains about overtime, or not enough hours.

So, we’ve killed jobs for unskilled, inexperienced workers, we’ve put unskilled workers out of jobs, we’ve put skilled workers, and management out of work. We’ve decrease tax revenues and increase the tax burden. We’ve increase overall unemployment. And increased welfare spending. But at least some of those people are making a living wage now – except the prices on everything just went up so that $5 / hour feels a bit more like $1.75/ hour.   Feels pretty good doesn’t it.

At which point I will reiterate my advice – Capitalists – be compassionate, pay as much as you can afford, don’t price yourself out of existence, but if you wait, the government will do it for you. Workers – have a little compassion for all those people you seem so willing to throw under the bus,  $7 or $10 may not be a living wage, but neither is $0.


Well, you get the picture.   It’s too bad that people demanding these huge increases in the minimum wage don’t see it.  Nor apparently do the politicians.   And if you think they do, I would point you to the following:

How White Castle Will Adjust to a $15 Minimum Wage in New York

How High should the Minimum Wage Be? 

You know Marko Kloos right?   You do read science fiction right?  

If you like SciFi,  and you like action, and military, and military SciFi then you must know about Marko Kloos - Frontlines series.   Book 4 is a great read, which comes as no supprise.  Andrew Grayson is about as real as they come. Once again, Andrew is on the pointy end of the speer, but the enemy has changed, for the moment anyway.

Chains of Command at Amazon

















If you haven't read the other three - you probably should.



  Terms of Enlistment - book 1  at Amazon 



















Lines of Departure - book 2 at Amazon 



























Angles of Attack - book 3 at Amazon  

Minimum Wage - Good and Bad

I was writing a comment to Bayou Renaissance Man: Yes, this is the unacceptable face of capitalism

It's one of my regular daily stops, highly recommended.  This post concerns the issue of Minimum Wage - and mostly references this article by Fred  

So what happened was, as usual, I got long winded, and pedantic, and well - Me.  So I decided to post it here rather than clutter up Peter's comment section with my lengthy response. 

Speaking as an economist (well sort of - I only have a BA in Econ which is the next best thing to useless).

Economics makes a lot of assumptions - it has to, without those simplifying assumptions we're lost.  We've learned to deal with how regulation affects the free market to some extent. There are a lot of assumptions about the free market that are, well...not quite accurate in real life. Often people who are advocates of Free Market Capitalism (of which I am one).  Don't really think though what those assumptions are and what they mean. 

I've studied the effects of minimum wage quite a bit.  In general, it's possible to pick a minimum wage which is supportable by the general economy. What that minimum does is force business owners into meeting the price of the labor market at large.  If you've got the only jobs in a small town, without minimum wage, you get to take advantage of people who have no mobility. With perfect mobility, the workers can simply pick up and move to a place that's paying the market wage.  But we don't have perfect mobility, we have in many cases captive labor markets.  Less so today than in the years before anyone ever considered the notion of a minimum wage.  But, still, it's an issue, although not a large one.  

Another assumption is near perfect information.  The assumption that an individual will "magically" figure out what the market is paying for the labor of which they are capable.  That doesn't happen either, although I can't decide if it's because may people lie about how much they make, or because everyone knows what the minimum wage is. Or, is it that people hate talking about it. Still - without that minimum, how would an unskilled person know how much was fair?  There's the assumption that if you accept the deal then you think it's fair - which is also not completely accurate. If you need to eat, and this is the only job in town, then you either take it or starve - unless you and everyone else happens to know that you can walk to the next town and do better.   If you don't know that, then you have a problem.   

There are a lot of assumptions.  The unskilled labor market may fit a few of them; and can probably deal with a few more, but certainly not all of them. Even with the help of the internet and it’s not quite ubiquitous ubiquity and its perfectly imperfect information.  

So, a minimum wage solves some issues avoided by a number of free market assumptions. It does this by establishing the labor market price via regulation - no it's not the most efficient method in a perfect world but we don't live in a perfect world.   But, if you do the work to figure out what the labor market can bear - the going rates for labor and you set the minimum wage to that amount (And for God's sake, not at the federal level) give or take a little bit, then it has minimal effect on the efficient allocation of resources.   Hardly ideal, but in a world that his far from ideal, it's maybe the most compassionate way to solve the problem. 

Where things go wrong is when Politicians get involved and "Decide" what the market price should be.  They're not doing the research to determine what it should be, they're just Feeling It -or more likely feeling what it will do for the re-election campaign.    That's when we get stupid ideas like $15 an hour in places that can't support it.   Maybe San Francisco can support it (although anecdotal information indicates that it can’t) Settle really can't - $12 maybe... Perhaps Manhattan can - we'll see. Can Fresno?  Or Bakersfield?   Or Danube, NY with its population of 1039, and a median household income of $31,815?   I'm betting - NO.  

Then there is the question of weather a minimum wage job is supposed to be a "Living Wage".  I would argue that it's not.   If it is, then there are NO entry level jobs for the completely unskilled and inexperienced - To support a "living minimum wage" we raise prices on everything - a lot - and all of a sudden your "Living Wage" isn't - again.  It's complicated - seriously complicated; people hate complicated - but it's what we've got and simple solutions are often worse than doing nothing (not always but often).  

So, I don't really have a problem with a minimum wage that is a reasonable attempt at nailing the fair market value of unskilled labor - it's more than a high-school kid at his first ever job might be worth, but not enough for a person to feed a family - and yeah you might need roommates to make it livable.  Therein lies the incentive to move beyond the minimum wage - to move up, to get out of poverty.   We can probably legislate everyone out of poverty - but in the process we'll legislate a larger number of people into "damn near" poverty.    How will that help? 

I don't like blaming everything on Capitalism, that's too easy.  I also don't like the typical Capitalist response of a Free Market assures Fairness - it doesn't - and it's too easy.   More government is pretty much the WRONG answer to any question - it just replaces Capitalism with Cronyism and that is MUCH worse.   

So is it Fair? No. Why?  Fair is a stupid useless word that's why. There is no "Fair".  Capitalists - if you want less government - be as compassionate as you can afford to be.  And workers - unless you're looking forward to a life of a dollar over the poverty line - stop asking the government to solve all your problems. 

And if all of the #NEVERWHOEVER people stick to their guns and don't vote for that Asshat (which ever one that might be) then we'll get someone who will push for and get a Federal $15 minimum wage - then we're screwed, well and truly screwed.

If you think Science is Broken now....

This is a scary fascinating aricle on the problems with science as we do it today.


You might not notice that he's just ripped all the defenses used by The Science is Settled™ people.  The same people who have now decided that those of us who are actually skeptical should be in prison, or the nearest Gulag for re-education.


(On a side note - I'm beginning to wonder if George Orwell did us any favors by writing his dire warning of things to come - 1984)

I might be wrong - it seems that more people use it as a Lifestyle Guide than as the warning he'd intended. 

Get out. Get out now!

California is now exploring ways to steal another 3-5% of your money. 

Why?  Well because you're too stupid to manage for yourself, and the Social Security System funds are out of their reach.  So you need to give money to the state to manage for you. This would be in addition to the Social Security Ponzi scheme, which doesn't actually work in your favor. This is the same state that has a massively underfunded state pension system by the way.

No - Really.  Why? 
Their bankrupt public sector pensions, woefully underfunded due to the need to buy votes.  Access to private sector funds would help pay that off - how they're going to pay off the private sector once they've stolen the funds?   Well, they'll just get the tax payers to bail them out.   Yep, you'll get put put in 3-5% and later you'll get to pay more taxes to pay for that money they took from you earlier and gave to state employees.

So if you think opting out of this - which employees can do (at the moment) but employer can't, get over it.  They're going to take your money one way or another.

Do yourself a favor - if your a conservative get out, get out while you can still afford it.   If, on the other hand, your a democrat or progressive - please stay there.  I'm not sure we can stand another wave of the California Liberal Plague.

Totalitarian Science

More calls for the punishment or imprisonment of people who disagree.  From the Providence Journal - Michael E. Kraft puts his bid in for the Stalin's Hero of the People award for demanding punishment for those who WrongThink about Climate Science.

The Narrative is strong with this one. 

The sad lack of science is the real problem. The problems with the "data" are almost too many to enumerate.  For example, I can make a case for both Global Warming and Global Cooling very easily by simply picking my starting point - which is invariably arbitrary.   Ground measurement stations suffer from urban island heat distortions in many cases. Normalization of disparate sources is highly prone to error - Especially the ideological kind - where corrections always lean in the direction of supporting the theory.




We don't have a good method of studying warming of the ocean, which has a much higher heat capacity than the dry surface.   Greenland ice is melting, quite possibly because of local geothermal activity, since records indicate that the polar ice mass is actually increasing

The "Theory" has two parts - greenhouse gas effect on temperature (fairly wide consensus) and the 3-5x positive feedback loop in the environment (which as near as I can is a primarily caused by the ubiquitous element Becauseium

If there can be a consensus in science -it should be that we haven't actually done any real science, and maybe we should.

Fake Rape Culture - Meet the Real Thing.

The rape culture narrative took a beating with the outing of the Rolling Stone Rape Hoax.  To make matters worse - UVA and seven other hoaxes were exposed.  It's unsurprising because the data were never data, it was nothing but a bunch of crazy feminists pushing their agenda of "Men are the source of All EVIL"  Even USA today agrees - the data just doesn't support the theory - at least after being introduced to the idea of fact checking which they apparently skipped for this article.

So, let's talk about Europe.  There is an actual rape epidemic going on in Europe - even the NY Times has given up trying to hide it.  Yet, the rape culture narrative has become silent.  The feminists have always held this weird doublethink idea that Western Culture (created by Evil White MEN) is the epicenter of Rape Culture and Sexism and at the same time, remained completely silent on the documented and systemic abuse, rape and murder of women in Islamic countries.

Why?  Multiculturalism trumps Feminism. The new god - Diversity - is more powerful than the old godess - Feminism. Neither have any value to Western Culture. Not because we have rampant racism, or rape culture, or rampant sexism - we don't. But, because Western Culture has been at the forefront of eliminating those things - which is why Western Culture is the Enemy.  Western Culture is the proof that the Regressive-Progressive narrative is crap.  Self serving crap.  Dangerous, harmful, abusive crap.

The Regressive-Progressives are beginning to eat their own.  The facade is falling and the truth is coming out.  Their diversity is only skin deep. Their patriarchy doesn't exist.  And their multiculturalism kills.  They actively agitate for the elimination of free speech because truth is anathema to their narrative.

The Boss becomes the boob

So the Boss loses his balls and caves to the Regressive left insanity.  From the Daily Beast: 

Springsteen Nixes NC Show Over Anti-LGBT Law

Seriously - men in the women's bathroom is a bad idea - even if they're transgender - maybe if they've completed the full conversion and no longer have man parts. But that's not what's happening with these stupid laws.  You simply have to say - I Feel Like A Woman.   Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with that.

I suppose I'll have to return the favor and Nix any future purchases of the Boss's music.  Oh well.



 

A matter of perspective

The high school kids around where I live, when they here me talk about politics usually end up asking what the difference is between Socialism and anything else, or why I refer to socialist as fascists.

It's not hard, it simply a matter of perspective.  The primary difference between the four most common totalitarian philosophies is fairly simple.  Who is the perceived owner of the means of production.

Communists - Make no bones about it - the state owns it all.  This described the Soviet Union quite well. It also described China until they saw what happened to the Soviet Union. After which they "embraced" capitalism.   They don't actually embrace capitalism, they are using it as a tool to build a military prior to resuming their state economy in a more world wide fashion. Oh and they're happy to build the bank accounts of the party elites in the process.

Socialists - Give the impression that private individuals own some of the means of production, and the state owns others.  The fact that they regularly eliminate that ownership with a bullet should indicate who really owns the property.   Just try not paying your (lease) taxes and you'll understand right away. Off to the deep dark hole you go, were you'll either work to death, starve to death or maybe they'll be nice and just shoot you after you've been forgotten.

Democratic Socialists - They try not to openly own any means of production - again just try not paying your lease (taxes) and you'll see just how secure your ownership really is - you'll find your business has a new owner and you have a new residence - a deep dark hole somewhere.

Fascists are somewhere between Socialists and Democratic socialists but rather than tossing you in a deep dark hole, the just put a hole in your head when you disagree.

So, the only real difference is what sort of public face they put on their totalitarian economy, and perhaps how quick they are to pull the trigger to make their point.

Media and Trump / Anti-Trump Cruz / Anti-Curz

I'm finding it difficult to even read many of my favorite blog/media sites. The distain and contempt normally reserved for the Progressive/Regressive Left seems to have become the common vernacular when discussing their least favorite Republican.   And it seems to not matter overly much - Ted or Donald. 

I'm more that a bit disappointed at many of these nominally Libertarian sights.   Geez people, get a grip. They both have problems and they both have good points and they're both better than the alternative.

Despite Ted's not so long history as a Republican outsider, he is more of an insider than Trump.  Trump on the other hand has yet to display a coherent plan for anything besides immigration (although that alone might be enough)   I'm not fond of his constant assault on free trade, although an assault on Regulation would be welcome. 

Both have changed their positions on a number of items - which smacks a bit of "fingering the wind" but compared to the Hill-Troll or the smiling commie, I suppose I can overlook that.

Just please, if you're going to beat each others camp up - stick to policy and lay off their supporters. 

Oh for the love of...

Raised Hands Violate University Safe-Space Policy

Just do the world a favor - decide that breathing is a violation and kill yourselves.

Emory, Bill Maher and me

I so rarely agree with Bill Maher, until recently.  Why all of a sudden does he seem to be one of the two liberals who are not certifiable, the other being Dave Rubin.  Granted, we only seem to agree on the threat of Islam, and this, but it's a start.


From (well everywhere but this specifically from Inquisitr

As the Inquisitr previously reported, pro-Donald Trump chalk messages so frightened and upset the college students that they claimed they were in pain and needed counseling because their safe space had been violated. The Donald Trump Emory University chalk drawings on sidewalks and stairs did not include any foul language, political rhetoric, or crude images. They simply bore the Republican presidential front runner’s name or urged the young adults, “Vote Trump,” and said “Trump 2016.”

Bills Response:

“Let’s talk about the liberal bubble… and I’m always criticizing what goes on on college campuses. There was a doozy this week at Emory University. Oh my gosh. You know what happened at Emory? Somebody wrote pro-Trump messages on the sidewalk in chalk. And, I swear to God, the kids went apesh*t… One student said, ‘I legitimately feared for my life. I thought we were having a KKK rally on campus.’ Here’s another one: ‘I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe, but this man — Trump — is being supported by students on campus.’ As is their right in a democracy. ‘And our administration shows by their silence they support it as well. I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school.’ I so badly want to dropkick these kids into a place where there is actual pain and suffering. What happened in this country?”

Emphasis is mine.  Dropkick away Bill. 

Part of me really wants to just punch the next asshole who points to “Trump2016” written in chalk and calls it violence, right in the nose. “No asshole, that’s violence – see the difference!”

Wake the F*** Up

Campus Reform

I love this site  CampusReform.org  Well, that's not quite right,  I find the site to be sort of depressing in a very insightful and informative way.    Do you know anyone getting ready to head off to college?  Parents with kids that they're about to turn over to the worlds most expensive indoctrination centers?

Make sure they take a look - it might save them a lot of money, and keep their kids from being committed to a mental health facility.

From the Weekly Roundup.

Emory student gov. approves ‘emergency funds’ for students ‘triggered’ by Trump chalkingsSo, if Trump is elected president, should we just go ahead and have the student body committed to a psychiatric institution?

Why wait? They're clearly going to need years of therapy and deprogramming before they become functional members of society. 

Normally I'd say - Ouch! That had to hurt

Normally I'd say - Ouch! That had to hurt, but in the case of Obama who seems to be both shameless and monumentally lacking in self awareness - well he probably just doesn't get that he's been rejected by his own ideology.

Cuban State Media: ‘Negro’ Obama ‘Incited Rebellion and Disorder’

Logic?

Trump maybe?

The one thing that keeps me thinking Trump might be a reasonable alternative is his ability to stifle the mainstream media.   He just doesn't care about what they think, or what they say.   Which is the ONLY way to deal with the relentless river of abuse they heap on anyone who challenges the Progressive Narrative.

You can't use logic because they dismiss facts as irrelevant.  The Progressive mechanism for coping with the never ending cognitive dissonance created by the huge difference between their world view and reality is to simply ignore reality.   They dismiss it without a second thought because thinking about it causes actual pain.   Watch some videos of Progressives talking about Trump's hate, and intolerance. They are a fascinating study in what psychologist call projection.

Destined to repeat it

One of Edmund Burke's most paraphrased quotes,  has a long history and I'm sure you've heard some variant of it:  

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."  

Variations on this quote have been attributed to any number of people, but most notably George Santayana who wrote In his 1905 book The Life of Reason. 

 “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

It's been attributed to Churchill who apparently never said it - he was significantly more verbose:

"Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong - these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history."

The meaning is the same regardless.  I also happen to think it is hopelessly optimistic, and wrong.  We've studied history; we have it written down, at least as much as can be ascertained from the victors who always write the history with themselves as the hero. 

There are two problems. First, I think it is not an inability to remember or know history. It is the failure to recognize it in a different context.  Second,  if we do recognize it, there is a flaw in human nature that makes us believe that somehow it will be different this time around.   And - it usually is different. It's almost always worse.

Death by Regulation

I've said it for years, regulation is strangling our economy and our lives.   It's obvious to me and I don't even study the numbers of new regulations created every year.   Regulation is nothing more than a law enacted by a bureaucrat who does not hold an elected office.   Now the constitution is pretty clear about Congress and its ability to make laws, but bureaucratic regulations - not so much because there is NO support in the constitution for bureaucrats to make laws or anything that behaves like a law.  Changing the name doesn't make it legal.  

Based on this article Over at WUWT  (What's Up With That?):

Washington’s despotic lawlessness 

Now this heavy handed approach to rule by regulation pretty much started with one of our early attempts at Socialism in 1933 - Roosevelt's New Deal. That's when congress started to really abdicate their responsibility, and to violate their oaths to "Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America".   They did that by delegating law-making powers to agencies of the executive branch.   Then they doubled down with the passage of the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act.

Not until recently, has the Executive Order been used as a tool to bypass Congress.  The first of what we consider executive orders was issued by George Washington and was at the time called either a letter or memorandum.  Obama is  using them to create Law, where congress won't give him the law he wants.

As long as this continues - we will NEVER fix anything. 

Opportunities and Statements

One thing about conflict - it always creates opportunities. Often we view those opportunities as less than ethical - war profiteering comes to mine, even though it's standard practice here in the good old USA.  What I have in mind would only be considered unethical by some very unethical people - college administrators.

I believe there is a market for a few colleges in virtually every state that would cater to students who are more interested in education than activism.  Students that can see the PC, SJW, Feminist, BLM crowd for exactly what they are - even if they can't quite put a name to it (I can - Useful Idiots to the  Cultural Marxism attack on Western Civilization).  I think it's time to make a statement.  Give those who actually want some value for all that money they're spending on education some place to go where they'll get it.

If I were running a school -- it would likely be a predominately a STEM school, but I'd require economics, philosophy, and history (not hxstory - actual history).  I might even require a course on just why Western Civilization, individual liberty and capitalism have done more good for the world than any other system ever devised.  There would be no Women's Studies department - there are plenty of schools that cater to that crap, we don't need any more of them. Anyway, right about now I'd be thinking that starting an advertising campaign that emphasizes education, not activism. Personal responsibility not learned helplessness, and free speech.

So about that free speech thing - I would allow students to bring any speaker they wanted to listen to, but I would not allow disruptive protest - if you don't like the speaker, don't go to the event.  Simple.  If you interrupt a speaker with the usual SJW bullshit protest - you're out, gone, expelled.  If you're not a student - then you're trespassing and I do my level best to have you arrested on those grounds.   If you come and you're polite (even if you disagree with every fiber of your being) then I really don't care if you're a student or not.

I'd advertise the indoor gun range and the outdoor long distance rifle range, and the combat 3-gun range. I'd state unequivocally that there will be no Space Spaces, Trauma Councils or any other idiocy that the perpetual victims demand.

I suspect I could fill up a college or two with kids who are sick and tired of being terrorized by Cultural Marxists.

Ethnicity

I get that the government and businesses like to know the ethnicity of everyone when they're compiling statistics.   It's occurred to me that this is actually a bad thing.  This thought came about when I was wasting time on a phone survey about - of all things - light bulbs.  I've got no idea why I did this one, when I usually just hang up on them.  Maybe I was bored.

Anyway, we got to the end and he asked how I would describe my ethnicity I told him Human.

"Cuban?"
"No, Human - Homosapien."
"Oh I'll just put it down as no answer"

Why?  Because it shouldn't matter.  Why the hell does it matter?



You know who it matters to?   Progressives, they're obsessed with it, race and sex.    The first doesn't matter at all, the second only maters if you're planning to have a sexual relationship with someone.  Beyond that - who the hell cares?  Progressives care - it's hard to rip society apart if you can't manufacture conflict.  And if there's one thing Cultrual Marxist are good at - it's manufacturing conflict.    Why?   Because the obvious answer is more laws, more controls, more government.  When your goal is: The Totalitarian State as God - this is how you achieve it.

PC - Feminism - LGBTQLMNOP - Diversity - perpetually offended, victim status, safe spaces  - All BULLSHIT.

Complete, unadulterated BS.  Perpetuated by a parasite class.  Most of whom are useful idiots to the cause and don't even know what that means.

The failure of the Rule of Law

There are any number of problems associated with the rapid influx of persons from cultures other than our own.   This article does a pretty admirable job of covering some of them.

The Weirdness of Illegal Immigration.   By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON MARCH 13, 2016
At PJ Media

I'm not fond of the term illegal immigration - they are not immigrants - they are invaders, criminals, - illegal aliens.  But they're not immigrants.   That is pretty much my only grip with this article - and that's a pretty petty gripe - give it a read.

An Excellent Question

(H/T Blues Blog)

The Dems don't ask, the Republicans don't ask, and the media don't ask.   The truth is:  They don't give a crap.  They're beyond being able to figure out why they should give a crap.    We The People are a necessary inconvenience to them. We provide the wealth they use the government to transfer from us to them.  We're the worker drones and they'd really rather we just shut the hell up and worked.

It's a bad place to be.  Trump will not fix any of the problems we have, because Trump is in the end all about Trump.  He's just closer to the rest of us, he still remembers why he should give a crap.  Will he?  I suppose when it's in his best interest, but otherwise?  Probably not.

Is there a good answer?  No, there's an okay answer - Cruz.  In the end, it probably won't matter, we're so far gone it's sort of irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure she didn't mean it that way

In reporting on the "unreal" surge in sexual assaults by refugees in Sweden, several young women were interviewed for comment.  I found Lovi's comment sort of interesting:

Others said the situation had already got 'out of hand', and admitted they were 'terrified' to go outside after dark. Lovis Jonsson, 16, said: 'It is terrible that women are the ones who are targeted. I feel afraid and exposed. I will never go out by myself after dark after the police warnings.'

Emphasis is mine - Yes, it's terrible that women are targeted - it should be men instead?  I'm almost sure that she means: It's terrible that the people we stupidly invited into our country are attacking us.   But after listening to so many feminists in the US, I really can't be sure. 

Full article here  @  Zero Hedge. 


I have to admire the PC of one young woman who thought perhaps blaming the refugees was premature. She's right, but one has to be willing to entertain the idea that these refugees are possible or probable source of the problem and many aren't.  Since the increase is timed with the influx of refugees, and the victims report "foreign" attackers (calling them middle eastern is just so not PC) and is unprecedented; logic suggests that refugees are the likely source of the problem.

To Trump or not to Trump

I'm not a fan of the Donald.  I understand the appeal to the average conservative (R) voter. They've been screwed over by their own party so many times they've hit a wall.  They're done, they've reached the point where the differences are irreconcilable. They want to see the establishment flushed down the drain.  Can't say I blame them.

Normally I vote my conscience - I don't buy into the big lie told by both the Republican and Democratic parties - that any vote for a third party is a wasted vote.  How can voting your beliefs be a waste?   Is the goal of our political system really to pick the Lesser of Two Evils?   Doesn't matter which one you pick - it's still EVIL.   And no, I'm not saying Donald is evil, but I don't think he's being even remotely honest with the voters either.  Hillary is evil, no doubt in my mind about that.  Bernie is far and away the most honest and sincere of the three candidates, but there's no way I'd vote for a socialist. His policies will kill the economy so fast it'll make your head spin.

Then again - I believe we're looking at WW III in the making -  Russia is stirring up the refugee's in Europe (or so I believe). They've given the best anti-aircraft weapons the Russians have to offer to Iran - which puts both the US and Israel in peril. China is moving in strength in the South China Sea and we have obligations to Japan, Okinawa, and Tiawan.   The Russians are also pushing in Europe. If we go one direction - the other will likely explode.  Obama has crippled our military so there's no chance of covering both plus the middle east. We're overextended, we have one of the weakest presidents in history, and Europe is under invasion by invitation.

The isolationist side of me says - screw 'em - Europe invited the Islamic hoards in, they can deal with it on their own - except they won't.  Unless that suppressed tendency of Germans to go from zero to Jackboot in the blink of an eye kicks in.   No this time it won't be little Germany and little Japan - it will be huge Russia, and huge China.  And our college students need safe spaces because someone expressed a thought.

I don't think we have a chance in hell of fixing things.  But Cruz might maybe hold things off long enough for the world economy to collapse - taking us with it.  But would you rather have a world economic collapse - or WW III and world economic collapse?  If China and Europe fail, taking Russia and America with them, we might escape  WW III.  If we go first - maybe we avoid it at least until China has gobbled up Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and everything else down to the Indian Ocean. While Russia snags Europe - once they're done, we're the obvious next target - then it's just a matter of splitting up the rest of the world.

So, I'm hoping Cruz get's the nomination, in which case I'll vote for him because we won't survive Hillary or Bernie. Or I'll hold my nose and vote for Trump - because there's no chance a libertarian will win, and we're at the point where the options on the left scare me enough to vote against them rather than for someone else.    And I really HATE being in this place.

Crony Capitalism and Socialism

This is really just me thinking 'out loud' as it were, as I try to work out where we're really going.

Is there a difference between Crony Capitalism and Socialism? Yes, the system we have in the United States today is a someone confusing mix of socialism, crony capitalism, and capitalism.  There is very little in the way of an actual free market, except for the underground economy, which has been mostly barter, but may eventually move to a more efficient crypto-currency.  Government bailouts are the beginnings of a socialist economy, as are government mandates.  Regulations, while not actually socialist tend to push the economy in that direction, but are often used by corporations for their own benefit. They are also used by bureaucrats to enhance their empires. It's critical to understand that a government employee is a walking, talking socialist, even if they think socialism is a bad idea. Their jobs exist only because of government. There is no means of production because regulations do not create production, they discourage it - we have a State owned, State run monopoly on the creation of regulatory obstruction of economic growth. At least when a business is nationalized, there may still be a chance of some production (how ever inefficient), with regulators there is none.

Looking at crony capitalism, which is what most people are talking about when they complain about the failure of capitalism, we can see that it leads in two possible directions. If it continues, not only unchecked by supported by the government, then eventually we will achieve a full blown Corporate Oligarchy, where a few huge multinationals will actually control multiple governments. We're getting closer to this every year. But the government is growing so fast that it is holding the line.  The competing trend is toward full blown socialism. This trend is supported by larger and large central government, more and more regulations, and the spawning of new government bureaucracies.  If the central government grows faster than the corporations - which seems most likely at this point, eventually they will, through a series of laws, regulations and bailouts, own the means of production bringing about full blown socialism.  If successfully checked by the big multinational corporations, usually by employing capital flight, regulatory capture, and vote buying, and thereby reducing the ability of a single government to restrict behavior and capture taxes, this battle may continue for a long time. At least until the clash as destroyed the economy, which I think is the most likely result.

Crony capitalism starts through four mechanisms:

• Cronyism is the directing of favors such as, contracts, jobs, etc., directed by a politician or government bureaucrat.  Usually in return for immediate benefits, such as real estate, travel and actions, insider information for stock trades, or even cash. Sometimes, the benefit comes in the form of private sector jobs that pay significantly more than the job is worth.  This is relationship building between the public and private sectors, the backroom dealing making.
• Direct funding such as Solyndra or the bailout of AIG, which are essentially a direct transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to corporations.  The funding is provided under any number of excuses, but it's almost always either favors to friends, an attempt to buy votes, or as payment for votes already received.  Too big to fail is a perfect example of this. 
• Regulatory Capture is typically done through the efforts of lobbing by a corporation. The lobbyist suggests, or in some cases actually writes a bill for a congressman.  The bill will create some direct benefit for the corporation, typically a subsidy or by creating a barrier to entry, and thus allowing the corporation to achieve higher profit margins before the competition becomes viable.  Over time, regulations and laws are created that block competition, create tax benefits, and establish economic rents such as the corn subsidies tied to ethanol production. 
• False information. In this case, corporations will create fear of some future failure and demand that the government step in to prevent it. Net Neutrality fits this fairly well.  This sets the stage for regulatory capture. 

All four methods may result in what's called the revolving door, where government employees are given jobs when they leave the public sector, and private sector employees gain positions, sometimes as the heads of government departments, and even cabinet positions.  This process continues as long as it benefits the parties involved and continues to siphon money from tax payers and transfers it to the players.

Socialism comes in two parts, culture and economy.  Direct economic socialism has failed every time it's been tried, but those failures never seem to stop others from trying.  Most likely it's either because of the short term lust for power, not caring what happens beyond the lifetime of those in power, or it's a factor of extreme arrogance and the belief that somehow they will manage to succeed where everyone else has failed. If the agent of socialism is a believer, then they either do not understand the basic impossibility of the task, or their arrogance exceeds their intellect and allows them to believe that "I will figure out how to make it work."  Most believers simply have failed to think through the consequences of the policies they "feel" good about. Minimum wage hikes, rent control, welfare programs, public schools, etc.   Especially popular are programs that allow the believer to disassociate themselves from consequence. Abortion, the feminist battle to destroy the traditional  family, the glorification of the single mother as some sort of hero.  These are all documented tactics of Social Marxism to destabilize a country and allow the growth of communism.

Corporate Oligarchy eventually leads to serfdom to the corporation - or private ownership of slave labor.   Socialism (and Communism) is nothing more than self imposed serfdom.  In the case of Socialism, society votes itself into chains, while in the case of communism, chains are affixed by government thugs with guns - Suicide or Murder - either way - you're dead.