The economy and Dean (was More prediction fodder...)
jamesr at best.com
Tue Sep 9 17:01:51 PDT 2003
Russell Turpin wrote:
> There are a few other things I care
> about. The judges who are appointed
> to the federal bench. International
> relations. Education and research. Yes,
> the economy is important. But it's not
> the only thing that is important. I
> would very much like the Supreme Court
> to avoid suffering another Scalia or
Federal elections are like choosing the method I would like to be murdered by.
The Federal government shouldn't be involved in education, and it certainly
hasn't been made any worse by the current administration than it already was.
The single biggest good that could be done would be to brutally cull that whole
institution from top to bottom. Lacking that, vouchers would be a good idea as
it potentially could generate the same result.
Most government research grants are largely wasteful. It primarily functions to
perpetuate MORE research grants, and I would just as soon see most of it dry up
so that money hopefully only gets spent on critical research. DARPA does a lot
of interesting and useful research, but their research projects often get
crushed by Congress for reasons having nothing to do with their efficacy or
value. All of which illustrates that Congress can't be trusted to fund research
or make determinations of its value.
In truth, I would rather suffer constitutional constructionists like Scalia and
Thomas than the fuzzy-headed idiots at the other end of the spectrum. The most
important thing the Supreme Court needs to do right now is to hack away at the
abuse of the commerce clause and to defer more authority to the individual
States (or the people) like the way it should be. I fear that a Democrat
administration would try and appoint more of the people that they have in the
lower courts that they control -- morons who think vague social feel-good
notions outweigh rights, standards, and procedures enumerated in the Federal and
State constitutions. I can understand strict constructionism even if I take
issue with it, but the other extreme is a vastly more dangerous form of
foolishness and far more unpredictable in its results and application.
Both the Democrats and Republicans are dangerous, but there are many aspects of
the current Democrat power structure that makes them fundamentally far more
dangerous in the long-term by any reasonable calculus that I can come up with.
I focus on economics because if the economics are good, many of my issues with
the Republicans will be effectively resolved for all practical purposes no
matter who is in power at any point in time.
Economics is the ultimate power to the people. The more resources individuals
control, the more power they have relative to the government no matter what the
current rules are, and moderately decent rules usually go hand in hand with good
economic fundamentals anyway. Hence why I am adamantly against the Democrat
platform of "nationalizing", "regulating", or otherwise meddling in anything and
everything and most social replacement programs in general -- it is slavery in a
shiny Madison Avenue package that has "Freedom!" in big letters on the wrapper.
Fuck that. I'll take my choices and my chances. (Same goes for Republicans,
but the Democrats are inordinately enamored with government slavery relatively
Give me a Democrat candidate who isn't selling even more slavery as their
platform of choice and I might give them some consideration. The Dems don't even
seem to be trying any more. I only bother to vote for a candidate if their
fascist tendencies are less than the current baseline, but these days I don't
vote much because the options from both sides are progressively worse.
We need a new political party, not the same retread shit that the current ones
are propping up, and "reinventing" an existing party keeps the same fringe
interest baggage that corrupted it in the first place. As far as the current
political parties of note are concerned, I'm permanently disenfranchised.
> Sometimes, one has to lick the yellow
> dog to get rid of the wolf.
At this point I would rather have Bush than Dean, and not because I particularly
like Bush. As is typical, I might not even vote; I rarely bother to make the
choice between the lesser of even more evil, though I occasionally vote against
the truly vile (like Bustamante in California). Dean "not being Bush" is hardly
a compelling argument. And there is always the "devil you know" argument...
Rant, rant, rant.
jamesr at best.com
More information about the FoRK