Article

2005-02-13 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2005-02-13 00:44|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 There's a lot to chew on here. Much of it rings true on the first pass as it delves into the twisted miasma that is "New New Left" liberal politics. The roots in the War on Poverty and the devolution into a political whore "promoting no more than its own self-interest" is so accurate that I had to read the passage twice to be sure the author wasn't pulling the punch somewhere. Nope. Nailed it.

Good read, tipper - Thx!

Posted by .com 2005-02-13 2:47:05 AM|| 2005-02-13 2:47:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 excellent article. I was going to quote...but too much good stuff to choose from.

Posted by 2b 2005-02-13 2:52:34 AM|| 2005-02-13 2:52:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Here is Oz we had a strikingly similar result at the last election Labor won every inner urban electorate and the Liberals (Howard) won almost all of the suburban and rural electorates. However the analysis indicated the reason was Labor was the party of the urban singles and the Liberals the party of the married suburbanites. Their relative perspectives could be summarized as the singles are idealists but don't have to deal with real issues, while the marrieds are concerned with bread and butter pratical problems - schools, jobs, mortgages, etc. Not that I think the article's analysis is wrong but I think there is more to it.

Posted by phil_b 2005-02-13 3:11:49 AM|| 2005-02-13 3:11:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 It's 3:AM and I STILL can't sleep, but I've poured myself a very stiff one, which is beginning to kick in, and I've been looking out the window and pondering this article.

And...(remember, the drink is kicking in) what I'm left with is the thought of a "company dinner". The kind where the group goes out. Someone from the group, chooses one of the better restaurants, (proving their own sophistication and taste) and it begins.

Now, mind you, if you went out to dinner with just yourself and your spouse at this same restaurant, the total bill might be $70.00. But get your HELOC checks out, cause you are going to need them.

There are certain people in this world, who given this situation, will think to themselves, "I know we are going to spit this bill in an even fashion, so I'm going to order the steak and lobster with the creme brule". But what these people never seem to realize is that, ultimately their own purchase will be in the final total that they must split. So as they order more wine and more hors d' oeuveres, it never, ever, seems to occur to these idiots that, even though they are evenly splitting the total, that the "split" will ultimately cost them at least another $30-40 bucks. In their mind, it's just going to cost them less than it would if they ordered all of these same items on their own. But it doesn't cross their mind that are still paying to have their cake and eat it too.

Anyway....that's what this whole "tax eaters" story reminds me of. People who don't grasp that if you order the fine wine and the creme brule, you are going to pay more for it in the end.

Posted by 2b 2005-02-13 3:34:11 AM|| 2005-02-13 3:34:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 The insurance scam artist's mentality.

Posted by .com 2005-02-13 3:44:02 AM|| 2005-02-13 3:44:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 oh..and I forgot. These same people...they are the ones who ...when the final staggering bill comes to the table ..think to themselves, "hey, I didn't eat the mushroom canapes nor did I have a final nightcap, so....I shouldn't have to pay the full amount".

So what do they do? They don't put in their full share. So ultimately, the person who really "eats it" is the waitress...who might best be described as "someone other than me".

Posted by 2b 2005-02-13 3:48:08 AM|| 2005-02-13 3:48:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 thanks .com! 5 words that summed up my 5,000.

Posted by 2b 2005-02-13 3:49:00 AM|| 2005-02-13 3:49:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Heh, sorry - your description elicited a memory which led to that - one of my pet peeves. Right up there with folks who believe they have a right to win the lottery. Very Arab.

Posted by .com 2005-02-13 3:53:17 AM|| 2005-02-13 3:53:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 There aren't enough hipsters to win an election anywhere outside of Berkeley. This is how they lure in the proles (gov't do-nothing wage slaves).

Posted by someone 2005-02-13 4:06:22 AM|| 2005-02-13 4:06:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Interesting piece and, sadly, all too true. As a frequent visitor to San Francisco I'm always amazed at the blocks and blocks of gleaming palatial state, local, & federal government buildings surrounded primarily by decaying private businesses that cannot afford to exist in anything like the state the government creates for itself and the multitude of ragged people sleeping on the street whom those in the palaces are charged with helping. The same exists, to a lesser degree, in many urban areas in the US but somehow no contrast is quite so stark as that here. If this is allowed to persist it will eventually lead to Marx's predicted final victory for collectivism over capitalism.

Sadly it seems that even the unsightly bulk and ominously creaking weight of federal, state, & local budget deficits isn't awakening the citizenry in anything like the numbers necessary to thwart this behemoth. Random factoids from other sources: in the past 20 years the growth in state and local spending has more than tripled, far outpacing the growth in runaway federal spending; in the previous (2000) presidential election, just over 50% of eligible voters were dependent in some way on federal, state, or local governmental payments for their livelihood or well-being. It appears that that proverbial horse has fled the proverbial barn. *sigh*

In the roughly 20 years since I received my very aptly-named BS I've gone from employee, to contractor, to owner, to employer, to contractee, to outsourcer, to unabashedly setting up outsourcing operations with capital supplied by foreign governments. Sadly the America I loved died before I entered its workforce; it was killed by those mentioned in the article linked above and their ilk.

Years ago I realized, with great sadness, that there would come a day when I would, with assets safely tucked away in foreign jurisdictions, stand on the shores of this once-great nation and bid her a final farewell as she sinks slowly into the swamps of collectivist rule. Iâm heartened that others see the dangers even if they donât explicitly identify the endgame but I fear that the die has been cast and the course of this nation irretrievably set. Ah, what could have been â¦ and once was!

Posted by AzCat 2005-02-13 4:26:24 AM|| 2005-02-13 4:26:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Historically over 90% of workers were farmers and most of the others worked in manufacturing. As farm productivity increased, workers moved into manufacturing or service jobs. (Thus increasing the power of private sector unions.) With increased productivity in manufacturing labor moved into the service industry (including expanded public service).

Private industry is more aggressive at pursuing automation (or at outsourcing labor intensive operations to other countries). Thus over time public service jobs tend to increase as a fraction of the total work force.

The next wave of automation is occurring in service industry jobs. Fewer people are needed to push paper. Labor has moved from farming to manufacturing to service. Where will labor move next? (Personal services, entertainment, defense, knowledge?)

Changing labor patterns should be considered when reading this article.

AzCat: âmultitude of ragged people sleeping on the street whom those in the palaces are charged with helpingâ

I suspect that many of those âragged peopleâ are mentally ill. Their presence on the street is likely due to misguided efforts to get mentally ill patients out of hospitals and into ânormalâ life. Their prominence on the streets of SF is likely due to mild climate, historically generous public services, and a lack of aggressive police. (The public restrooms in my local community are locked at night to discourage the homeless from camping on the local beach. Even so, there are a few obviously insane people wandering about.)

Posted by Anonymous5032 2005-02-13 12:09:18 PM|| 2005-02-13 12:09:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Hark, what's that I hear? Methinks that perhaps itâs the mellow sound of a liberal entirely missing the point? Why yes, I do believe it is precisely that!

For a small fraction of what is spent building, maintaining, and staffing palatial digs for our local ~~royalty~~ public sector, we could, for example, build a shiny new home for each and every homeless person in the Bay Area. Yet somehow there's always money for more state/local employees, newer & more ostentatious public sector office space, more regulators to turn the screws on the private sector (you might remember them, the ones who actually PAY the bills for all of this), yet there never seems to be enough money left at the end of the day to actually help anyone.

That last bit is odd, particularly here in Northern California where even Howard Dean is considered to be more than a bit too conservative. The laudable but severely misguided utopian dream of 60s leftists ends not in a paradise of equality and high quality governmental services for all but in a bureaucratic circle-jerk of Soviet proportions, one that will consume all wealth, then stagnate and die.

But there is, of course, a solution: simply raise taxes! Said tax money will of course be spent building, maintaining, and staffing even more palatial digs for our local public sector and in the end there wonât quite be enough left to actually help anyone so â¦. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Itâs extremely sad that this nation is going to have to actually experience the economic depression and rampant third-world style poverty that this cycle is going to cause before it even begins to come it its collective senses. Oh well, by the time that happens Iâll be on a nice white sandy beach somewhere sipping mai tais while the political left is here wondering why thereâs no one left to tax.

I guess Iâm just not very community-minded.

Posted by AzCat 2005-02-13 3:31:55 PM|| 2005-02-13 3:31:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I don't happen to be very community minded either, especially since I choose to live in one of the bluest of the blue.
My main gripe is with the Teacher and Police unions in these parts. In my neck of the woods where property taxes of between $8,000 to $12,000 are common, it is not unusual to have newly tenured 3rd grade teachers making $80,000 and 4th year patrolmen making close to $70,000.
Lone voices in the wilderness like mine who go to town council meetings and complain about this sort of thing during the public portions of the meetings are looked at like you have 3 heads. My parting shot to them every other Wednesday night is - Had I known then what I know now, I too would have choosen to suck at the public teat.

Posted by JerseyMike 2005-02-13 4:07:47 PM|| 2005-02-13 4:07:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Azcat, Iâve seen this rhetorical tactic used by the LLL. Link an extravagance to a visible problem and then conclude that the first causes the second and the people involved are bad. E.g., Americans spend more money on dog food than on saving starving children in Africa so the US is bad. In your case, it is âpalacesâ and âragged peopleâ. The technique is the same. I donât like it when the LLL does it and I donât like it when I read it on Rantburg.

SF spends a lot of money on government buildings.

SF has a problem with street people.

Tying the two together creates a false connection. Excessive rhetoric such as calling office buildings âpalacesâ appeals to the readerâs emotions to strengthen the false connection.

From what Iâve read the problem with street people isnât supplying housing to the homeless. The problem is that many of the homeless are mentally ill and are incapable of maintaining an independent household.

I would guess that SF spends so much on buildings because SF fancies itself as a beautiful, distinctive city. (I wouldnât choose to spend my tax dollars that way but then I donât choose to live in SF.)

I would guess that SF spends so much on the homeless that people drift from other communities to live on public handouts in SF. I think it is unlikely that a lack of public funds is keeping people on the street in SF. Thus I believe it is unlikely that money spent on buildings is significantly contributing to people living on the streets.

Posted by Anonymous5032 2005-02-13 6:35:19 PM|| 2005-02-13 6:35:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 That's odd, I've seen many LLLs use your tactic as well: utterly ignore the big picture; focus instead on a minute example of a much larger trend/problem; criticize the example; conclude that the trend/problem therefore does not exist (or at least give such impression in oneâs discussion of said example).

If I had time to write a novel on the topic I could cite literally hundreds (and I'll wager with a bit of thought, thousands) of other examples of the stagnation & malaise heaped on our once-fine nation by our overstuffed public bureaucracies.

Sadly I donât have that sort of free time so I chose one example that is stark, striking, and extremely visible. Bash it all you like but that doesnât in the slightest change the fact that government is a staggering burden for our society and the trend is towards a rapidly worsening situation.

Posted by AzCat 2005-02-13 9:33:00 PM|| 2005-02-13 9:33:00 PM|| Front Page Top

03:45 NUKE ISZRA
03:40 NUKE ISZRA
03:35 NUKE ISZRA
03:31 NUKE ISZRA
03:24 NUKE ISZRA
23:55 Snump Huperesing6112
23:46 Bomb-a-rama
23:39 Asedwich
23:34 DMFD
23:33 Barbara Skolaut
23:31 OldSpook
23:27 Pappy
23:17 Robert Crawford
23:16 Robert Crawford
23:13 OldSpook
22:49 trailing wife
22:46 Molson Ale
22:42 BH
22:41 Bourke Hinckenlooper
22:34 trailing wife
22:34 RWV
22:33 markb
22:33 eLarson
22:33 Mrs. Davis