novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts tagged corruption

The big gov’t action figures always win:

Get one of the figures here – as soon as they figure out how to bypass the regulation to build them.

In the meantime, read these ten examples of the power of the ‘Kronies’ (yep! Republicans are guilty too)

Also here is an article showing that companies that cater to the rich are are doing quite well while those that cater to middle class are struggling:

In Manhattan, the upscale clothing retailer Barneys will replace the bankrupt discounter Loehmann’s, whose Chelsea store closes in a few weeks. Across the country, Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants are struggling, while fine-dining chains like Capital Grille are thriving. And at General Electric, the increase in demand for high-end dishwashers and refrigerators dwarfs sales growth of mass-market models.

Luxury auto dealers are likewise doing well, while others struggle.

Yet the biggest movers weren’t mass-market pickups or SUVs, but luxury vehicle brands from Cadillac to Lamborghini, many of which set sales records and sold every vehicle they could build or import last year — and only see more to come in 2014.

At this point the top 20% account for 61% of personal consumption expenditures – with the top 5% responsible for more than half of that. We are sadly headed toward being a society where most people either do not work or do not make much money with most of the consumption being on the higher end. While there is certainly nothing wrong with high end consumption, an entire economy based on zero-sum status competition games rather than genuine innovation does not bode well.

Unless there are drastic changes to the crony economy 15-20 years from now, few will be able to afford to live in a neighborhood with low crime, good schools and relatively high social trust.

Oh, our political elite are leading us down a very prosperous road indeed! [/sarcasm]

Fiscal conservatives unite! Slavery is working 12 months a year and seeing the fruits of that labor taken by someone else. As such a slave derives no personal benefit from his labor. The average American works 5.5 months are year without personal benefit. Therefore we are halfway there to becoming slaves for the government.

Take back your money. Take back your power. You get the government you deserve. Stop sitting on you behinds and watching American Idol. Stop being politically idle, get out there. Get out on the web, get out to your town-halls, and city halls. Find out what your politicians are up to, and give your local, state and federal politicians hell. It’s your money there are wasting. That means it is your time they are wasting. That means it is your lives they are wasting.

One of the most salient reasons for the scientific community to look elsewhere while climate science goes off the deep end with half truths is the way that science has evolved. I’m not talking about science in the labs of business, but “pure” science (though that modifier is perverse in the present day).

When someone investigated pure science years ago, it was because they were already successful in some other endeavor; science was essentially a hobby for the rich. Over the years though, as universities became more and more a part of the world, those who had no means became scientists, and investigated theories as professors and others and published papers. The problem with this is that those that were doing the research obtained grants to do the research. Now it has become a source of income and support. What does that do to corrupt “pure” science? It used to be that the scientist had no income based on what the scientist found.

Skip forward to today. On what does the vast majority of climate science depend, and thus the jobs of hundreds of climate scientists? At the very least, their livelihood depends on there being something that will encourage those that make grants to pay for the science. So what climate scientist would publish a paper that essentially says climate science is useless, because mankind as a whole has a minimal impact on climate and can do little to nothing about it? Only one who has no need for a job (which is now the exception rather than the rule).

The situation is worse than just a single scientist becoming more interested in making a living than the truth. When there are many scientists in the same boat, even if a scientist comes to his senses on a subject, he dare not challenge the established line. If he does he will likely be ridiculed and ostracized for his being out of step with the majority of the scientific community.

When science became a paid profession outside of the business world, it became of necessity corrupt. Those that are involved in the pursuit have a vested interest in seeing the outcome be worthy of publication and continued investment. Pure science is no longer pure, but is corrupted by the pursuit of money. That isn’t bad when a business is pursuing profit; at least when a business is pursuing profit, everyone knows to take what they say with a rather large grain of salt. The problem with science in academia is the hidden nature of the profit.

I heard an advertisement on the radio recently … for what I do not know, but it mentioned the Democans and the Repulicrats. Both of them fitting monikers for the parties that used to have principles. It used to be that Democrats were all about the little guy, well at least that is what they purported to be, and would not compromise on issues to the little guy. The Republicans used to be idologically conservative and would not compromise either moral or fiscal conservativism — the party started over the idea of slavery being wrong, and it only recently backed off there are real morals that need to be encouraged within society.

Both parties are lost and wayward at this point. Democrats have long since abandoned the Southern  core of their party in favor of the coastal extremes. The Republican have long since abandoned the ideology of morals are more important than victories. The only thing either party considers is how to get “their people” elected, and who cares about any issue.

I do.

I think a lot of people actually care about issues as well, and neither party serves those people any more. Neither party seems to care about the people they know they feel have no option but to vote for them. I haven’t voted for a presidential candidate in a very long time. I probably did vote for Reagan, and considering the victory of the cold war, I think that was probably a good thing. He stood for things that I could stand behind. I have not voted for a president since.

It is a tragic thing that the parties think winning is more important than ideology. Power more important than principle. Both have adulterated their historic positions in order to either obtain or to keep power. Some of the reason is that we have a government that supports essentially just two parties. The way the government works, we could not have five or six parties that have to form coillisions in order to govern.

The few minor parties that are out there have zero power. The libertarians are a joke, the green party an after thought. Those that support them throw away their votes. The Repulicrats and the Democans depend on that fact, and that people want their vote to count — so they can push what neither “core” group wants, and still win elections.

I’m not sure that anything can change that. It certainly isn’t what the Republicrats or the Democans want … they want power, and they certainly don’t want that power structure to change to limit their power. Yet I have to believe that is what our founding fathers intended (including the “gentleman/statesman” as the model for elected official, which is no longer the case.)

To get back to that kind of model, a radical thing would have to occur … the constitution would have to be changed so that nobody could make a living from being a politician … and that nobody that did not have to make a living could remain in politics for more than say, ten years (you don’t want the independantly wealthy to be able to just stay in politics even if they don’t need to make a living).

Reagan thought term limits were a bad idea at the end of his second term … but I would propose that term limits for *every* politician should be enforced, and that a politician could not serve a total of more than 20 years (though no more than 12 years in any office). It would totally change Washington … a lot more than what Obama will change Washington. If working as an elected official had no better pay than the mean salary of the country, it would also make term limits have teeth. Public servant would mean just that: to serve the public for the public’s good, not because it was a good paying job.