Staying Low for some mo’…

I’ll not be around if everything goes as planned this week. I hope folks can find their way back when I return.

In the meantime….HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA

My gift suggestion?

Advertisements

40 Comments

  1. PanAm says:

    Happy Birthday America, yes, Alfie, and many more!

  2. hippieprof says:

    Alfie – a happy 4th to you!

    In Psychology we have identified a phenomenon called the “feature negative effect” – which refers to the difficulty we can have identifying elements that are missing from a picture.

    So – what might be missing from your “Let’s all pull together” poster?

    😉

    (just playing around)

    — hp

  3. Alfie says:

    Its a victim of circa hood hp. happy and safe 4th to all

  4. Tex Taylor says:

    😈 I just frequented the Hippie’s blog which makes an interesting read and saw that he was still typing over the bong. 😈

    If you words rank propagandist bothers you, I do apologize (seriously) – I just can’t think of a better descriptor. Like the alcohol who denies there’s a problem even when the delirium tremens makes it difficult to tip the cup, or a main liner with needle tracks denying use, that is what I read on your blog.

    However, Hippie – something I should clear something up with you. You have a couple of qualities that make you more enjoyable to carry on dialogue with than most libs.

    You do seem to be likable, have a sense of humor, and I’m sure you probably do believe what you post. There’s a difference between propagandist and bald-faced liar. I believe you suffer from a common malady – academia group think leading to bias. Therefore, I could call you neighbor and live in peace, perhaps even tip a beer while grabbing a laugh.

    You do a much better job in your responses than say Rutherford and actually make the attempt to explain your positions. However, I think Rutherford probably one of the more talented libbie writers I read so I will continue to read you both.

    Both of you represent what I consider really bad policy and opinion well. 🙂

    Happy 4th of July who all of you who blog and allow me to post on your site without censor. Wave of the hand to you and your loved ones.

  5. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “So – what might be missing from your “Let’s all pull together” poster?”

    Stars for Hawaii and Alaska.

  6. graychin says:

    “So – what might be missing from your “Let’s all pull together” poster?”

    Persons of the female persuasion?

    Anyone whose ancestors didn’t come from Northern Europe?

    People who insist that Barack Obama is a Muslim, born in Kenya, and bent on destroying the United States?

  7. hippieprof says:

    If you words rank propagandist bothers you, I do apologize (seriously) – I just can’t think of a better descriptor.

    What bugs me about “propagandist” is that it reeks of insincerity and intentional misdirection. Goebbels, perhaps the most famous propagandist of all time – was a known proponent of the “Big Lie” as propaganda technique, for example.

    In that sense I am most certainly not a propagandist. I believe what I am saying (to the extent that I believe anything – I am a skeptic at heart). On foreign policy and economic issues, I actually see and understand and give some credence to opposing views – I still believe my views best, but I am not absolute in my beliefs. On social issues, I admittedly am more absolute.

  8. Tex Taylor says:

    Hippie,

    I do believe you most definitely misdirect, though I don’t question you are sincere in your beliefs you post. You’re nothing in not ingrained in academic dogma and PuffHO talking points. I find many of your conclusions bordering on fraudulent. But I don’t question your sincerity in those beliefs. I just find your reasons for reaching your conclusions somewhat immature, and incredibly shallow. Academia is really only a means to an end and a terribly sheltered environment. It’s the social issues where I find you most amoral and bankrupt.

    But I would never insinuate you’re some pompous ass either. You’re likable, for one. 🙂

  9. So – what might be missing from your “Let’s all pull together” poster?

    Democrats?

    I guess it was the artist’s fault for painting it while the “Hate America First” caucus was meeting.

  10. graychin says:

    Actually I think that the artist was doing his best Norman Rockwell imitation. And the picture was clearly drawn before 1959, while there were still only 48 stars in the flag.

    BIC, that “hate America” line is lying propaganda, and I say that with all due respect to a recent post by the Hippie Professor. You know damn well that no one who reads this blog hates America.

    And neither do Democrats, you lying propagandist.

  11. Tex Taylor says:

    BiW,

    I agree with you that many progressive Dimocrats do hate America – it is a well documented fact which I have provided proof many times. I believe Obama and his wife are two of them, but I don’t believe for a second Hippie is one.

    Graychin simply hates Christians, especially Evangelical ones. It colors everything about him and molds his opinions towards Obama. Like Obama, Graychin is attempting as sycophant to help Obama transform and remold America into a form of 1960s type revolution.

  12. Alfie says:

    The earlier use of this image here at in2thefray
    As I said to HP earlier the image is a victim of circa-hood.
    As I stated in the earlier thread (2007) it is a historical image that I liked due to the whole blue collar,white collar and military types pulling together.

  13. BIC, that “hate America” line is lying propaganda,

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just like the current occupant of the Oval Office, you love this country so much, you cannot wait to fundamentally change it.

  14. graychin says:

    Do you love your children enough to want to influence them to change when they fall short of the mark? Sometimes that change has to be fundamental.

    That’s how I feel about America. She isn’t perfect in my eyes. If she is perfect in your eyes, then you are wearing those rose-colored glasses again.

  15. hippieprof says:

    BiW said: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just like the current occupant of the Oval Office, you love this country so much, you cannot wait to fundamentally change it.

    Well, I can’t call anyone a lying propagandist for a year so unless I want to be taken as a serious hypocrite.

    😉

    I must admit – I have never quite understood this attitude – the idea that the only way to love America is to leave it unchanged. I would agree with Graychin – sometimes the deepest expression of love is found in identifying and working to change the defects in the loved one.

  16. I must admit – I have never quite understood this attitude – the idea that the only way to love America is to leave it unchanged. I would agree with Graychin – sometimes the deepest expression of love is found in identifying and working to change the defects in the loved one.

    The fact that America doesn’t mirror the socialist utopias that can be found elsewhere in the world does not constitute a defect. It was never meant to be a nation where Government infiltrates even the minute aspects of daily life, and purports to meet the daily needs of its subjects from cradle to grave, and those who have no desire to make their own way do not have the right to force such a scheme on the rest of us. Self-determination is at the heart of the founding of this country, and is antithetical to what the left would have us live under in a country where they would purport to institute a panapoly of “rights” that would impose the equality of mediocrity, making everyone equal by holding the ambitious and the innovative back and saddling them with the burden of providing for those who lack those attributes. A government imposed equality that perverts the notion of equality of diginty and potential in the eyes of a benevolent creator, by making manifest an equality of condition, unless you are of the political class, which is more equal than its subjects. Such a condition does nothing to improve or advance society, and accomplishes little other than to chain man to the aims and objectives of the state.

  17. hippieprof says:

    The fact that America doesn’t mirror the socialist utopias that can be found elsewhere in the world does not constitute a defect.

    Perhaps if I was wanting the US to be a socialist utopia this would be a reasonable criticism. Likewise, if your President wanted socialism, this might stick. But, neither of those is the case.

    Yes – I would prefer a somewhat larger government than you do, but – and I don’t know how many times I will have to say it – simply having a larger government is not the same thing as socialism.

    Small government is great – but we also know from experience that unsavory individuals emerge and exploit the system when the government gets too small. I don’t want socialism – but I do want to see reasonable regulations that protect us from exploitation.

  18. Likewise, if your President wanted socialism, this might stick. But, neither of those is the case.

    No, he just gave us government ownership of 2/3 of the auto industry, and wants a single payer health care system. No, no. The government takeover, de facto or de jure of private industry is not at all socialist. Not when he calls it something else.

    I don’t want socialism – but I do want to see reasonable regulations that protect us from exploitation.

    We long ago departed the realm of reasonable regulations. That ship sailed well before the government decided how much water I could use in flushing my toilet, what kind of lightbulbs I can use in my own home, or how I may use and develop my land.

  19. Tex Taylor says:

    Clearly, Obama and his sycophants do want socialism – at least the breed of failed pseudo socialism of Western Europe. High taxes, huge government intervention and regulation, highly-regulated market economies with large amounts of government intervention running the industry. This has been Obama’s pattern since he took the helm and it has failed miserably. It is simply incompatible with free enterprise.

    To deny otherwise is folly. Like I said last week, even National Socialists of Germany, Merkel included, are questioning our spending habits and so is Communist China and Russia – Obama’s way is sheer madness. I don’t know how many examples of Portugal, Spain, Greece, and Italy to name but a few are examples of what not to do. And Obama does it anyway.

    I believe I have our adversaries figured out BiC.

    This is the world Hippie comes, so he has no skin in the game. Academia has yet to really be affected, but I am predicting it will – and the fall will be hard and long overdue. Graychin I must assume has little risk affiliated with big government, and is cut clearly cut from the cloth of the ACLU loons – hostile toward religion and business. His money is safe, rest assured. Curator is a state employee, so he would be a benefactor of larger and more intrusive government.

    There is some truth to follow the money. If I could find words to describe any of them, it would be irreligious and self-serving.

  20. hippieprof says:

    We long ago departed the realm of reasonable regulations. That ship sailed well before the government decided how much water I could use in flushing my toilet….

    BiW, that is just a crappy example….

    (rim shot)

    But – seriously. Fresh water is a dwindling commodity – we are running through it faster than it is being replenished. Toilet flushes use a lot of fresh water. This seems like a reasonable thing for the government to regulate.

    Sadly, people think in the short term. We want to use brighter incandescent bulbs because damnit they are brighter – and we frankly don’t stop to worry that we already have serious energy problem. People don’t conserve on their own, so sadly the government has to take the long view and force us to conserve.

    If people acted responsibly on their own we wouldn’t need any laws at all, would we? But, they don’t so we do.

  21. But – seriously. Fresh water is a dwindling commodity – we are running through it faster than it is being replenished. Toilet flushes use a lot of fresh water. This seems like a reasonable thing for the government to regulate.

    Bullshit. Fresh water is not a dwindling commodity for much of the United States, and the impact of requiring lo-flush toilets, which then must be flushed twice are negligible, and do not represent wise or desirable regulations. You want to regulate where the wastewater goes, and how it is treated? I’m fine with that, as it is a legitimate public health interest, as anyone who has had typhus, cholera, or e coli will tell you. How much water you use to flush it away? Nope.

    We want to use brighter incandescent bulbs because damnit they are brighter – and we frankly don’t stop to worry that we already have serious energy problem.

    I think that you are conflating issues. If there is a “serious energy problem”, it is due in no small part to enviroloons who want to block oil exploration and development, domestic refining capacity, coal fire plants, and the development of nuclear energy.

    If conservation of the enviroment is your concern, you should be standing on your tip toes on top of you soap box and crying at the top of your lungs about the level of mercury contained in those twisty little bulbs, and the steps you’d have to go through (according to regulations) in order to properly clean one up it you dropped and broke just one of them.

    People don’t conserve on their own, so sadly the government has to take the long view and force us to conserve.

    Not its proper role or function.

    If people acted responsibly on their own we wouldn’t need any laws at all, would we? But, they don’t so we do.

    Where is the responsibility in forcing the use of alternate illumination, which contains an alarming amount of a known toxin in a single unit, when in many places there is not even a recycling unit set up to receive and dispose of them safely, causing people who didn’t want them in the first place to toss them out in their trash, where they will end up polluting landfills and causing underground plumes of pollution?

  22. Tex Taylor says:

    Hippie,

    Fresh water is not a concern in most parts of the country – the far bigger problem is the crumbling sewer system, which I assume nobody ever planned for. 🙄

    One of the dumbest things our government ever implemented, and the dumb ideas are legend, is reducing the size of a tank on a toilet – trust, me I know as I installed two new ones last year, and in one case replacing the “new” 1.6 gallon with an “old” 3.5 gallon tank.

    In mandating the reduction of the size of the gravity tank from 3 – 3.5 to 1.6, what government did was guarantee multiple flushes – thereby not only frustrating owners, but actually increasing the usage amount. I know, we had one for a while, and after unplugging them numerous times due to insufficient water and gravity, with my wife outraged that a toilet wouldn’t flush properly especially with guests, replaced with a bigger tank (if you can find them; I was lucky).

  23. graychin says:

    Our 1.6 gallon toilets work just fine, Tex – with one flush!

    Either you didn’t do your research on toilets before you bought, or you’re full of shit.

    Or both! 😀

  24. graychin says:

    The fact that America doesn’t mirror the socialist utopias that can be found elsewhere in the world does not constitute a defect.

    “Socialist utopias”? Where are those? There aren’t any.

    BIC, this “socialism” whining is really tiresome. Do you enjoy your government-run police protection? Fire protection? Drinking water? Streets and highways? Regulation of who may marry and who may not?

    All those things are SOCIALISM! (Except the part about marriage – I threw that in just to bring “good” Big Brother government to mind.

    America is far from a purely capitalist society, and I don’t believe that there is a credible government anywhere on the planet that is purely socialist. (North Korea?) If you enjoy all the socialism that I mentioned above, then you can stop this nonsense of shouting “SOCIALISM” at every initiative, since you now agree that not all “socialism” is undesirable.

    Capitalism and socialism exist on a spectrum, not as extreme choices. Neither extreme works very well. Some things SHOULD be socialized, like former mayor James Inhofe (yes, THAT one) socialized Tulsa’s trash service during the 1970’s.

    So argue if you must about whether we will have MORE socialism or not, and whether or not that would be a bad thing and why. But screaming “SOCIALISM” constantly is just ignorant.

  25. Tex Taylor says:

    Either you didn’t do your research on toilets before you bought, or you’re full of shit. Or both!

    You’ve already proven you don’t mind living with shit, or living in shit. Your meaningless life is shit – quilting and blogging; what a life. The explanation for your household and adopted town, reeking of shit, is easy. 🙂

    Besides, I doubt you do flush.

  26. Tex Taylor says:

    BIC, this “socialism” whining is really tiresome. Do you enjoy your government-run police protection? Fire protection? Drinking water? Streets and highways?

    All local. Want to try again? And being we pay almost a dime on the dollar for sales tax, twice as high as forty years ago on the dollar, property taxes have been increasing at 5% per year for many in Tulsa, sewer rates have increased 30% recently, the roads a disaster, public school system gangland, and accounting for our burgeoning crime rate, even then I would say we don’t get much bang for our buck.

    You’re right BiC. These fatuous clowns hum Imagine every morning, dreaming for their socialist utopia of the 60s – a wet dream of heaven on earth that is both unattainable and unsustainable. Like Obama is quickly proving, the result is quickly becoming hell on earth.

    I would care to wager one reason you moved to Jay, OK, was to substantially lower your personal tax burden Graychin. And I’ll wager serious money you’re a far shot from paying your “fair share.”

  27. Do you enjoy your government-run police protection? Fire protection? Drinking water? Streets and highways?

    Purchase an indexed copy of The Federalist Papers and read on all references to “general welfare”. (hint: it isn’t what you think)

    All those things are SOCIALISM!

    No, they aren’t.

    so·cial·ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
    –noun
    1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
    2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
    3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

    You confuse the proper functions of government with government control/ownership of production and distribution as it is practiced in good little collectivist states. The Constitution provides the example of one of your examples being a specifically enumerated power…road building, and nothing prevents states, smaller subdivisions, and the people themselves from deciding to have police to enforce the laws, fire fighters to put out fires, and determining that local government can provide services such as trash collection, water purification, and wastewater treatment. You might actually read and consider the Ninth and Tenth Amendments when you try to construct such an argument. These are services necessary to preserve polity, and can be justified in law and practice as such.

    There is no such justifcation for “Too Big To Fail”, stripping secured crditors of the guarantees of the law, and sanctioning government involvment in healthcare, both in determining that the taxpayer must not only purchase the care that government deems fit, and that care only, but that he must also subsedize the provision of this “affordable” care to others, at rates that private, for profit companies cannot match as they possess neither the government’s hold on the public’s wallet, nor the power to borrow as necessary to “provide” the coverage without concern or consideration of the true cost of the product.

  28. Alfie says:

    Do you love your children enough to want to influence them to change when they fall short of the mark? Sometimes that change has to be fundamental.
    No. Failure builds character.

  29. hippieprof says:

    BiW said (regarding government involvement in conservation efforts): Not its proper role or function.

    At the risk of sounding like a cliche’ I will respond “If not the government, then who?”

    I am going to begin with the assumption that conservation and preservation of our environment is a good thing. Even Tex has come out in support of conservation. If we can’t agree on this point, there isn’t much use in the rest of the debate.

    So – conservation is a good thing – but we have ample evidence that people and businesses will not conserve on their own. We know from experience, for example, that businesses will go on polluting until rivers catch fire. Economic theory predicts this as well. Pollution control is costly – making eco-friendly products more expensive to produce. Consumers always love a bargain, and will be happy to consume the cheaper (yet environmentally dangerous) product.

    But you know this. In the absence of regulation business will keep polluting and consumers will keep reinforcing them for it.

    Obviously, I think the government needs to step in and regulate. You claim it is not their proper role and function.

    I assume you are basing your claim on the Constitution – simply because I have seen you do so before. The Constitution does not give congress the power of protecting the environment – so congress shouldn’t be in that business – or I assume you will say something like that.

    Here is one of the places I believe our Constitution is truly flawed. I suspect the framers did not anticipate the threat pollution could become – they did not foresee a situation in which rivers would catch fire. Had they foreseen such a situation, I suspect that would have written “protect the environment” right there in the Constitution.

    I suspect you will mention that the Constitution can be amended. Sadly, the amendment process is such a high hurdle it simply won’t happen – not with corporations (who profit by polluting) lobbying against it – and now able to pour unlimited amounts of money into the campaigns of their pet congresspeople.

    So – you say that conservation efforts and environmental protection are not the proper role and function of the government? I say that points to a serious problem with our Constitution.

  30. hippieprof says:

    No. Failure builds character.

    Assuming they are not dead…..

  31. Elric66 says:

    “If not the government, then who?”

    Anyone that doesnt destroy everything it touches.

    “I say that points to a serious problem with our Constitution.”

    Then amend it moron

  32. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “Then amend it moron”

    Elric, try and keep up.

    “I suspect you will mention that the Constitution can be amended….”

  33. Elric66 says:

    I am keeping up. Just letting Professor Bong know that if he cant get his marxist programs in by the way of amending the Constitution then quit whining. But then his marxist overlords will just bypass it anyway. Just like Chicago is doing as we speak in regards to guns.

    “Sadly, the amendment process is such a high hurdle it simply won’t happen.”

    Its not suppose to be easy you stupid drone.

  34. hippieprof says:

    Elric said: Just letting Professor Bong know that if he cant get his marxist programs in by the way of amending the Constitution then quit whining.

    I am going to forgo my usual policy of ignoring the Elric-Drone and attempt to engage it in intelligent conversation.

    So, Elric-Drone – I suppose this means you prefer the free market method, where we pollute and pollute and pollute until rivers catch on fire.

    If this is not what you prefer, please provide some information about how you plan to keep it from happening in the absence of regulation.

  35. Elric66 says:

    “I suppose this means you prefer the free market method, where we pollute and pollute and pollute until rivers catch on fire.”

    Sounds like the Gulf thanks to al-Thuggy

    “If this is not what you prefer, please provide some information about how you plan to keep it from happening in the absence of regulation.”

    I prefer as little regulation as possible and keep it to the states, not to the marxist goons in DC.

    But I know you prefer the Federal government control everything like the good little drone that you are.

    BTW Your marxist leader just filed suit with AZ over their law. At least the dumbass conceded the law isnt racist. Feel proud?

  36. Here is one of the places I believe our Constitution is truly flawed. I suspect the framers did not anticipate the threat pollution could become – they did not foresee a situation in which rivers would catch fire. Had they foreseen such a situation, I suspect that would have written “protect the environment” right there in the Constitution.

    You are conflating two separate issues again.
    The clean up and prevention of pollution are arguably proper roles of local government, as they could fall under the policing powers of government. I can stipulate that because pollution from one emission source can pollute across state lines (you are thinking of the Cuyahoga River, I am thinking of ballast water exchanges in the Great Lakes), there is a role for the federal government to play, and to use your example, the Clean Water Act Made phenominal progress, as did the alphabet soup progheny (RCRA, MTCA, CLERCLA and others).

    However, when you start talking about imposing conservation, there are many complications, not least among them, the pollutants and toxins used in conservation-friendly products, like the mercury in compact flourescents, the bleaches and acids used in recycling paper, the increased energy costs in producing recycled papers, the increased use of rare earth metals in hybrid car batteries, and the additional clean up issues that arise when they are in accidents, or it is time to dispose of them. If it were cheap, easy, and non-polluting, people would do it of their own accord. Think of the popularity of “green” cleaning products, or how the Prius is the ecotard status symbol (look at me! I care about the planet so much that I’ll drive a care that looks like a shoe, and I’ll be condescending about it, too!) I don’t see how the government can or should promote “conservation” with products and processes that are not environment freindly, and impose greater costs on people doing their daily business. If you can’t look at it and question it, then maybe you should.

    http://greenyes.grrn.org/2002/11/msg00062.html

  37. graychin says:

    1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
    2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

    Thank you for that. Most people who scream “socialism” think it means whatever they don’t like.

    You confuse the proper functions of government with government control/ownership of production and distribution…

    I do? Who decides what is a “proper” function of government? You?

    Why is providing water and electricity a “proper government function,” but regulating huge financial enterprises the collapse of which could bring down the whole economy NOT a proper governmental function?

    Hospitals owned and run by government abound in the United States. I’ll bet there is one in your home town. Socialism?

    Who is to say where the line should be drawn between “proper” and “improper” government functions? I mentioned earlier how Tulsa’s former mayor, James Inhofe (yes THAT one) “socialized” Tulsa’s trash service, forcing a government takeover of what had previously been entirely handled by private enterprise. Was that “improper”? He is one of the loudest voices against “socialism” today.

  38. I do? Who decides what is a “proper” function of government? You?

    I don’t have to. It is a question considered by many men, who had the foresight to commit their musings to posterity. Locke, Montesque, Coke, Hobbes, Rutherford, and Blackstone to name a few. Their views informed others, such as Thomas Paine, who stated:

    “Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.”

    “Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz., freedom and security.”

    Paine was a contemporary of the Founders, who set forth the role of national government thusly:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    And then the Framers politely set forth a specific description for the Federal government in Art. I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

    “Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

    Why is providing water and electricity a “proper government function,”

    The people, being us, can chose to empower local governments to perform those functions. And the government doesn’t do that everywhere. My electricity comes from a local co-op. My water is delivered by a private, local company, and my refuse managment is done by a private company that has been granted the franchise by my local government.

    but regulating huge financial enterprises the collapse of which could bring down the whole economy NOT a proper governmental function?

    1. Regulation is not the same thing as ownership. Industry is regulated. Financial services are regulated. Taking over a large publically traded company after repeatedly infusing it with taxpayer money, screwing secured creditors, and giving an interest in ownership to a group that shares a large portion of blame for the endeavor’s failure in the first place is not regulation.

    2. Deciding which entities get saved with taxpayer dollars and which ones don’t (which just happened to conincide with campaign donations to the party currently making these decisions) is NOT regulation, nor is deciding the fate of these companies at all. Having these decisions made by people who see fit to proclaim who does and does not “make enough money” is madness.

    3. Bankruptcy rules were not followed; that is part of many people’s objections to what occurred.

    4. The financial “reform” package just pushed through the Senate does NOTHING to address the single largest factor in the latest crash…the ongoing, consequence-free taxpayer subsidization of Fannie and Freddie, which still remain outside the scrutiny of the Democractic Kakocrasy, despite the fact that they continue to be bailed out with BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars at a time, and spending billions on GM and Chrysler so they can continue to be strangled by legacy costs and the inefficiency that is a direct result of union labor, all while subsedized by the taxpayer is neither responsible or intelligent.

    Hospitals owned and run by government abound in the United States. I’ll bet there is one in your home town. Socialism?

    Actually, no, there isn’t. We have several hospitals here…Tacoma General/Mary Bridge, Good Samaritan, Saint Joseph’s, and Allenmore, all of which are privately owned. Western State is owned by the state, which operates it for the care of the insane. Society is not served by having the insane wandering around in public, and having a place for those who a menace to themselves and others meets the obligation to provide security for society.

    I mentioned earlier how Tulsa’s former mayor, James Inhofe (yes THAT one) “socialized” Tulsa’s trash service, forcing a government takeover of what had previously been entirely handled by private enterprise. Was that “improper”? He is one of the loudest voices against “socialism” today.

    I don’t condone the taking of private property as a general proposition.

    With regard to your claim, it appears that it isn’t entirely true…

    From the City of Tulsa website:

    “The City of Tulsa has two different service areas within the City limits of Tulsa. The Northwest Quadrant (west of Yale, north of I-244) is serviced by the City of Tulsa, and has once-a-week cart service. The rest of the city is serviced by Tulsa Refuse, Inc., a conglomerate of trash haulers, and receives twice-a-week service.”

    So I guess first of all, I’d ask you why this is. Did the people in that area petition the local government to have it provide the service? Was that Northwest Quadrant not being adequately served by the private company? Were they having trouble servicing the area? While I cannot condone it based on what you have presented, I don’t know all the facts. Can you provide me with a link to some news stories on the subject?

  39. I guess Chin doesn’t want to discuss this further…

Comments are closed.