Muda69

To help with with NightHawk's righteous indignation/rage at taxpayer money not being used to fund Special Olympics, Inc.: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/special-olympics-budget-controversy-behind-the-numbers-at-nonprofit-group/ I'm sure that 10% could have easily been covered by the generosity of the private sector, why hasn't NightHawk mailed a check himself? And why does government have to be involved in this organization at all?

So it makes sense, in regards to fighting global warming, to compel counties with population densities under a certain threshold to allow the construction of industrial wind farms? *yawn* Didn't you and I have a similar discussion about this in a different thread not to long ago? You trotted out statistics about wind speed averages.

Tell us NightHawk, why can't the private sector fund an activity of such great value as the Special Olympics? If it costs such a paltry sum why are you not volunteering to pitch in? #NightHawk 2020 ~ government spending is automatically the answer to ALL altruistic endeavors, the private sector just sucks.

https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/03/26/college-students-arent-learning-much-as-taxpayer-subsidies-rise/ Colleges have spent much of the increased tuition they now charge students on vast armies of college bureaucrats and administrators. Professors have benefited far less. By 2011, there were already more college administrators than faculty at California State University. The University of California, which claimed to have cut administrative spending “to the bone,” was busy creating new positions for politically-correct bureaucrats even as it raised student fees and tuition to record levels. As the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald noted in 2011: Some colleges have raised spending on administrators by more than 600% in recent years. "Free" government money absolutely corrupts, and corrupts absolutely.

But what do you do about the NIMBY syndrome towards wind farms at the county level? Tippecanoe, Hamilton, and to an extent Clinton have all told wind power companies to basically take a hike and don't come back. And those are the counties I am aware of. I'm sure there are more.

I haven't encountered anyone at the national level in the past 30 years with a uni-party designation that I believed deserved my vote. When that person comes along I'll let you know.

Yep, more evidence to vote for a third party candidate instead of the uni-party. Or not vote at all.

How about reducing the overall power and scope of the federal government?

Electoral College: Why We Must Decentralize Democracy: https://mises.org/wire/electoral-college-why-we-must-decentralize-democracy To assume, however, that the same situation is achievable at the scale of the French republic with nearly 30 million is a blunder of impressive size. The reasons for this are well explained by Acton: Thus, Acton understood the protection of freedom lies in division, decentralization, and the liberation of minorities. For Rousseau, however, his latent federalism was no match for the idea of a national will of the people. Any idea of Swiss-style federalism collapsed under the fervor for a single national legislature that could impose the wishes of all the "French nation" to every corner of the Republic's jurisdiction. After all, why divide up the democratic mass if "the people" as a whole are never wrong? "Rousseau's most advanced point was the doctrine that the people are infallible," Acton wrote. "Jurieu had taught that they can do no wrong: Rousseau added that they are positively in the right." Unfortunately, this ideal has never lost its appeal to many, and it continues to plague American politics with the idea that a "will of the people" can be realized in large scale elections across populations of tens of millions. After all, the abandonment of locally-based democracy is not just a problem at the federal level. The state of California today has more people than all of France during the revolution. New York, Texas, and Florida are not far behind. All of these states are controlled by unitary governments lacking provisions that temper democracy and protect minorities. Such a state of affairs would be unrecognizable to the Americans of the nineteenth century. By their standards, the US has become a country of mega-states, mass democracy, and enormous republics that Rousseau might have looked on with approval. On the other hand, the best solution lies in a peaceful embrace of division, secession, decentralization, and disunity. Unfortunately, the electoral college controversy suggests the US is moving in exactly the opposite direction. As a result, division and disunity will still likely come, but in a much more violent way than what might have been.

Democratic Dystopias: http://reason.com/archives/2019/03/29/democratic-dystopias But the Democratic side of the uni-party won't resist the temptation. If you can't beat 'em then join 'em.

http://reason.com/reasontv/2018/04/11/mark-zuckerberg-vs-silicon-valleys-richa Agreed. But of course smart tycoons like Mr. Zuckerberg will use government regulations to protect itself from competition., which I'm sure is what all the supporters of government regulation really support.

*yawn*, nice try at hyperbole. You really believe this is what will happen with taxpayer money not funding Special Olympics, NightHawk? And it looks like Mr. Trump is now your hero, right? hhttps://www.apnews.com/9e4bf2732b0744a98192c923ac19f38e I guess there is nothing altruistic the private sector can do anymore on it's own, it all has to be funded on the back of taxpayers.

On an actual topic concerning Mr. Trump: As Mueller Finds No Collusion, Did Press Overhype Russiagate? Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston: https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/25/as_mueller_finds_no_collusion_did An interesting exchange between Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Johnston.

Currently how are such laws enforced? Does a complaint have to be filed by an individual who believe they were discriminated against due to their race/sex/religion? https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/01/aa/420483/ Private businesses valuing diversity in their workforces doesn't bother me, Wabash. I have said as much in previous posts. What bothers me are the laws that basically mandate it.

No, because exactly what personal trait did Bob exhibit which was the catalyst for a discriminatory act? Unluckiness in coin flips? Can that be scientifically and objectively be observed and measured? So how can the hypothetical white guy train for or gain via experience this positive attribute of "diversity" that the other candidate seems to have, seemingly only through the accident of birth? And I thought that racial discrimination can go both ways, but systemic racism can only flow from the majority race to the minority race? I fail to see the practical, real world difference in your bold statement. I have no inherent issue with diversity in the work place. If candidate A has superior qualifications over candidate B and also happens to be a member of a racial minority, more power to them. It is the fact that we can have hiring decisions apparently being made due solely on race or gender due to government fiat. I agree that a diverse workforce can bring certain advantages, but private employers should be free to make such decisions as they see fit without the specter of government intervention hanging over their heads.

So the white male candidate is being discriminated against because he can't bring "diversity" to the workforce. Got it. And because this "diversity" is mandated by law we once again have government picking the winners and losers. Frankly I would prefer an actual coin toss in order to choose the candidate in this scenario rather than government fiat.

Pete Buttigieg: Tortured Libertarian: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/pete-buttigieg-tortured-libertarian/

What a sad story. Unfortunately these men may never be able to adjust to life back on the outside. "Forty years I been asking permission to piss. I can't squeeze a drop without say-so." - Ellis Boyd 'Red' Redding

Oh yes, due to this individual's race and gender she was a big "plus" to the diversity metrics of Bank "A+B". So if she was up against an equally qualified white married male from Bank "B" for the same position who do you think Bank "A+B" would choose?

So what you are saying in your lawyer-like speak is that there isn't current legislation which requires private companies to interview a certain percentage of racial minority individuals for an open position. And for the record I would be considered a member of a racial and gender minority in the department/group I currently work in. As an aside this current conversation reminds me of a incident back when I was working at my first job out of college. I had been working at a Detroit area bank, call it bank "A" for about three years when said bank "merged" with another larger Detroit area bank, call it bank "B". Current employees of bank "A" had the option to basically re-interview for their current position if they still wanted a job with the new bank "A+B". After this interview process was explained to us a co-worker said to me "They will have to take me, regardless of how I interview, because I'm black, I'm a women, and I'm a single parent." Yay for affirmative action and the entitlement mindset it can create.

Found this kind of humorous: Bunch of Gays Went Down to Georgia —apologies to Charlie Daniels and "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" Bunch of gays went down to Georgia, they were lookin’ for a Chick-Fil-A They’d got all bent ’cause its President liked marriage the old-fashioned way. They drove right up to the window, under their collars they were hot And they said to the girl takin’ orders there, “We don’t like the chicken in your pot. “Now girlie, you may not know it but we’re a bunch of militants, “And while we insist on our own liberty, we don’t like Dan Cathy’s stance. “So we’re gonna have a kiss-in here just to show our contempt for you “‘Cause nobody nowhere nohow can criticize what gay folks do.” The girl spoke back right smart at them, and didn’t damn their eyes, But said, “I think you’ll change your mind when you try our waffle fries.” Chick-Fil-A, fire up the grill and spread that chicken spice See if you can make militant gays learn how to act real nice; Everybody has free speech, that’s how this country’s made Maybe you’ll sweeten their dispositions with a glass of lemonade. The gays all piled out of their car and locked in an embrace A couple guys with tattoos started in to gnaw each other’s face But no-one paid them any mind, although they acted rude They practically were trampled by folks looking to buy food. They writhed and gripped hard as they could, but it was no big deal 'Cause Chick-Fil-A was swamped with people clamoring for a meal They yelled, “Gimme a spicy sandwich, do “Gimme a drink, waffle fries too “Whether you’re for gay marriage or not “We don’t care for kiss-ins or boycotts.” The militants were angry ’cause they knew that they’d been beat They were about to get into their car and drive off in defeat They knew they’d really lost when one of them came back outside, Saying, “Hey, guys, you know this sandwich? It’s the best I’ve ever tried.” They yelled, “Gimme a spicy sandwich, do “Gimme a drink, waffle fries too “Whether you’re for gay marriage or not “We don’t care for kiss-ins or boycotts.”

So the interview process is part of the term "in employment"? If so then I propose a hypothetical. Let's say a private company openly solicits resumes for an open position. They receive 10 resumes, and based on the non-racially identifiable info on the resume decide to interview 6 individuals. During the interviews it is discovered that 5 of the candidates are white, 1 is non-white. Is this a large enough percentage of a racial minority to making a hiring decision, or should the company have to then solicit more resumes until the required number of non-white candidates are successfully interviewed?

Socialism for Thee, But Not for Me: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/socialism-for-thee-but-not-for-me/ Yep, most socialist believe that only government force can get them a "better deal".

https://mises.org/wire/objective-journalism-has-always-been-myth "Since the real effect of most laws are subtle and hidden," Lippmann contends, "they cannot be understood by filtering local experiences through local states of mind. They can be known only by controlled reporting and objective analysis." But how is this "objective analysis" to be achieved? The answer for Lippman lies in making journalism more scientific, and in making facts "fixed, objectified, measured, [and] named." It is not a coincidence, of course, that Lippmann is writing this in the early 1920s. This was the late Progressive Era, and as such it was the age of "scientific motherhood" and an endless society-wide drive to convince Americans to hand over all important decisions to "experts." Consequently, mothers were to abandon control to parenting "experts," parents were to hand over their prerogatives of educating children "experts," and the economy was to be controlled by "experts" in public policy. Journalism historian Richard Streckfuss notes that Lippmann was jumping on the same bandwagon: Lippmann's influence on the profession's aspirations has never really waned. To this day, the Lippmann model leads to continued efforts at greater opbjectivity inluding the promotion of methods like "precision journalism," popularized by Philip Meyer. Meyer notes that journalists often stray from the Lippmannian ideal, largely due to the difficulty of collecting information. Meyer believes the solution to this This ideal remains quite popular among journalists. They continue to fancy themselves as experts at providing objective and balanced information on critical pieces of information and as the only ones who can be trusted with providing an unbiased viewpoint. Not Even Scientists Are Objective This philosophy, however, is faulty even at its most basic foundation. Lippmann, as a proponent of scientific objectivity was himself embracing a fanciful idea of scientific inquiry and objectivity. This view that the physical sciences were above bias was almost universal in Lippmann's day. But in recent decades, numerous cracks have shown up in the facade of scientific objectivity among even physical scientists. Thanks to the research in the fields of the "sociology of science" and the "economics of science," there is increasing documentation illustrating what should have been obvious all along — namely that scientists are not immune to the effects of their own personal biases. ... On the other hand, scientists have a better claim to objectivity than journalists. In many fields, scientists are constrained by whether or not their scientific knowledge is actually useful. Prescription drugs either work or they don't. New building materials and new chemical solutions either work or their don't. Many physical scientists are thus limited in how they might indulge their biases by the successful application of their discoveries and conclusions. Journalism, of course, has no such check on its own work, and thus we see the fundamental flaw in Lippmann's attempt at making journalism "scientific." There's no practical measure of whether or not a news story has been communicated scientifically or not. Journalists Increasingly Admitting Objectivity Is Unattainable Thanks to journalism's profound and obvious hostility to the Trump administration, it has become increasingly difficult for the media to continue to claim it enbraces as Lippmann model of dispassionate scientific inquiry. This departure from the scientific ideal has become so clear in the last decade, in fact, that even mainstream journalists have started to openly discuss it. For example, in 2015, Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone authored an op-ed in The New York Times titled "'Objective Journalism' Is an Illusion." Taibbi was writing on the occasion of the retirement of John Stewart from The Daily Show and contended that part of Stewart's popularity could be explained by the fact Stewart did not pretend to be an objective journalist. Unlike most journalists who hide behind a facade of objectivity, Stewart was upfront about his biases. Although many journalists are still in denial about this, the overwhelming majority of those who consume media are well aware that biases are rampant, from all directions. Thus Taibbi concludes: Trying to hide one's bias is thus only courting suspicion from readers. Others have departed from the ideal of objective journalism as a means of defending the mass media's lopsided hostility to the Trump administration. This is partly why Rob Wijnberg at The Correspondent concludesthat "'not taking a position' means being not only a mouthpiece for power but a conduit for lies." Wijnberg abandons the ideal of objective journalism because, for him, that means going too easy on the forces of evil. It's better to emphatically oppose the bad guys (i.e., Donald Trump) rather than be limited some some arcane ideal of scientific reporting. Whatever the agendas of Taibbi and Wijnberg might be, they're more honest about the realities of journalism than the powerful talking heads at CNN or Foxnews who would have us believe objectivity is possible in journalism.Regardless of one's political leaning, variations on the slogan "We Report. You Decide" have always been based on fantasy. ... Thus has it always been. This isn't to say that no journalists have tried to be objective. Many have. And many have thought they have achieved objectivity. But the realities of framing and agenda-setting mean that even those who attempt objectivity are bound to fail. Indeed, the real scandal here may not be the fact that many journalists continue to indulge their entrenched ideological biases while claiming to be objective. Perhaps the real problem, all along, has the been the fact that so many Americans have been so gullible as to even entertain the notion that the information they receive through the news media is objective or free of bias. Nowadays, it's extremely difficult to believe there was ever really a time that Americans watched the networks' evening news and went away thinking "golly gee whiz! I guess I now have an even-handed purely factual re-telling of the world's events!" In the age of Walter Cronkite, it's possible some people thought that way. Hopefully, those days are over. An interesting perspective from Mr. McMaken.