This is jdgalt's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following jdgalt's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
jdgalt
Recent Activity
The scary part isn't that leftists don't bother to do the math. The scary part is that their media give a pass to blatant liars on the assumption they didn't do the math either. And these people have the nerve to call us anti-science. Pot. Kettle. Black.
I have a campaign idea. Let's make millions of individualized versions of this sign appear in store windows between now and November. IT TOOK ME (x) [YEARS|MONTHS], (y) NIT-PICKY PERMITS, AND $(z) BEFORE I COULD EVEN OPEN THIS BUSINESS, ALL THANKS TO GOVERNMENT "HELP." BUT I GOT IT DONE ANYWAY! THANKS FOR NOTHING, BIG GOVERNMENT! I release this wording to the public domain, to pre-empt anyone who would claim ownership of it.
Even before these unspeakable cowards came up with the idea of "SWATting" people for sport, America's local police have been getting and earning a bad reputation, much of it because most of them have forgotten that they work for us, the public, and prefer to (1) needlessly militarize, (2) shoot first and think later, and (3) use force far in excess of what situations call for (and I'm not talking only about SWAT teams here). We need to speak out against this in our own cities and states. Every podunk town does not need a SWAT team, tanks and APCs, or even riot equipment. If they have them you can rest assured that they'll use them to terrorize the public, not to protect and serve us. Even tasers and pepper spray don't belong in the hands of officers who think they have business using them when there isn't any danger, just because somebody argues with their commands. We also need to roll back officers' legal immunity from both prosecution and lawsuits if they misuse the power we have entrusted them with. Because if they're not answerable to the people, we're worse off than if we didn't have police around. (Yes, I know, given the accusations the 911 callers made in the "SWATting" cases, the raids seemed justified at the time -- but that pause for thought still would have avoided most of the damage.) At any rate, I hope the police departments involved will now feel the need to redeem their reputations by finding the caller or callers and putting them away for good.
1 reply
The result of allowing these disparate impact cases to proceed is that employers are wary to use any objective criteria in job hiring decisions for fear of a disparate impact lawsuit. The more common result I see is that employers simply clam up about the reasons for their (non-)hiring decisions. I'm over 40 and hear all the time that I'm "overqualified" for jobs, so you would think I'd have an easy case, but how can I prove a darn thing? Ultimately, a sensible system will either abandon all laws against any type of discrimination -- regardless of the merits -- because they're just plain futile; or it will set up a list of the *allowed* reasons not to hire someone, and put the burden on the employer to prove that one of them applies. (Don't laugh! German labor law already follows this approach, and so do rent control laws in most major cities in the US.)
This sounds to me more like a professional advice-giver trying to protect his work product. How would you, as an attorney, feel if one of your clients started passing along your advice to lots of other people (assuming it was somehow applicable to all those people, as financial advice often is)? I don't see how you can say this is wrong without rejecting all copyright.
Toggle Commented Mar 21, 2010 on The Hot News Doctrine Rides Again at CL&P Blog
The fact that so few Americans believe that the stimulus saved any jobs suggests a profound failure of communication on the part of the Administration, not to mention financial journalists and public-intellectual economists. That's rather insulting to the American people, isn't it? Aside from some of the well-documented dubious claims of job creation by states that received stimulus money, you're completely ignoring the very likely possibility that that money would have created more jobs if left in the hands of the taxpayers it came from.
1 reply
We are not at war. The terrorists are merely criminals, and few in number, and our police and intelligence services are more than adequate to deal with the threat they pose, which is small. The terrorists' agenda can be inferred from their actions. It is: (1) Gain ongoing publicity for their demands; (2) Hamper or destroy commerce, especially new technologies and commerce between Western countries and the Middle East; and (3) Hamper or destroy the openness of Western society, especially its cornerstone which is the presumption of innocence. We can thwart (1) by having media refuse to report the names or agendas of terrorists. (Credit for this idea belongs to science fiction author Dean Ing, who predicted the problem in his 1970 book "Soft Targets".) To thwart (2), I suggest a range of measures both technical and legal. On the technical side I would suggest that defense be one of the design criteria for new facilities, especially those that will be used in kinds of commerce that terrorists have attacked before. (Besides international trade centers, I'm thinking of abortion clinics, animal testing labs, operations growing genetically modified food crops, and the makers and sellers of sport utility vehicles.) On the legal side I would expand "hate crime" laws to protect all of these; or better yet, simply have the courts become willing to let juries make reasonable inferences of intent-to-bully (thus allowing the terrorists to be charged with coercion) when one of these businesses is attacked. But goal (3) is by far the worst kind of damage the terrorists can do to our country, and it can only be thwarted if we insist on treating them as criminals and the situation as a few large but isolated crimes -- NOT some kind of ongoing emergency, and definitely not a war. Historically, when this kind of "emergency" is successfully parlayed into a permanent expansion of government power, the result has always been dictatorship. We must not go there. I want our constitutional form of government back.
1 reply
The "job" of every government official (or employee) begins with following the Constitution. That means no harassing people if you don't have cause to believe they're a threat. Yon was right on all counts. Besides, 9/11 could never have happened if a few of the regular passengers had been armed. Thus even the earlier level of passenger screening hurts safety more than it helps. And as long as we have to put up with Gestapo to fly, the terrorists have won. This is supposed to be America, not a police state.
There are other good reasons to avoid GEICO, and they'll probably still be true after this issue goes away. When you sign up for GEICO, the company buys your local police a radar gun to ensure they go heavily after "speeders", rather than enforcing laws that actually affect other people's safety. The company also lobbies heavily for nanny-statist driving laws. Nationwide and Mercury Insurance also do these things, so they should be avoided too.
Toggle Commented Aug 16, 2009 on Boycott GEICO at Atlas Shrugs