What scoundrel took my flag?

It went missing Wednesday morning.  Probably some communist. And they took the pole too!

Election Results – We hate PG&E, except we hate government supplied electricity more.

The referendum to require a vote of the people before government can take over electric power generation failed to get enough votes to pass.  It seems like an odd result to me.  People voted to deny themselves the right to vote on something.

Probably PG&E could have run a better campaign.  It was about more than just politicians spending money.  In addition it was about the collective right to steal or “take” property from the PG&E owners (millions of shareholders throughout the state).

What may have won the day was this feeling that “corporations are greedy evil bastards!” and “they are always ripping us off!”  Fair enough.

It reminds me of the campaign against the railroad companies in the late 19th century.  Then the complaint then was about how “unfair” it was that some railroad routes were shorter and cost more than some longer routes.  It was an obvious rip off!  (Or so they thought, the actual reason was economics).  So, after the public demanded action, the government took over the pricing and raised the prices of all the cheaper routes.  Now things were “fair” and everyone was “happy!”

So the question is, if PG&E are greedy bastards, then what is SSJID or other government entities?   They are men, not angels, just as politically greedy as any corporate board.  So, in effect the voters decided that greedy men serve you better if they have guns and can extract money from you by force. (Through taxation.)

Look at the results of the election, by county below left.  And the map of PG&E “territory.” (There are some small govt utilities in that “service area though)

In the dark counties, the voters rejected prop 16, i.e. they hate greedy PG&E.  Notice anything odd?  These are generally the counties served by PG&E!  At first glance, sure, it makes sense, PG&E must be terrible, they would know, right? 

But on the other hand, look who approved prop 16.  They hate the government power worse. 

Is it just a case of “the grass is greener?”  That’s for you to decide.  But if public power was all it’s cracked up to be I would have expected people served by government power to not hate it so much.  It seems like they wish they could be served by PG&E!

Note particularly, the high level of hatred of government power in Orange and Riverside counties.  (Just about 60%).  Also, why did San Joaquin approve the measure and demand a vote on the matter?  Could it be that we’re tired of the propaganda from SSJID? (15% less than what?)  What about Stanislaus county, also rejecting public power.  That is the place where SSJID is telling us “they are so happy they got rid of PG&E!”  Well it doesn’t seem so from the election results.  The warning is clear; people with government power are telling us “don’t do it, it’s worse than PG&E if you can believe that!”

Election Results - June 8, 2010, Statewide Direct Primary - California Secretary of State

Technorati Tags: Proposition 16,PG&E,SSJID

A mile under the sea

After 35 years?

Check out the lawyer in this video. He sounds more cynical than me!

Editorial - Rand Paul and the Limits of Libertarianism - NYTimes.com

Or, as the New York Times tells us, “the importance of enlightened government.”

Rand Paul’s comments are a great chance to expose the propaganda of “the conventional wisdom.” The CW is this unstated cannon of general principles that just about everyone in the press lives, frames their world, and is so indoctrinated by, they can’t even see their own bias. Like the fish that’s covered in water its whole life, “the fish doesn’t know it’s wet.”

And this editorial hits them all. Or at least the big ones. Lets look at them; one at a time!

Where are these philosopher kings of an enlightened government? How do we find these people? Even if they existed, how would they be elected? If mankind is greedy and evil, then why would you want to put other greedy and evil men over your life to rule it?

How was it possible for “neighborhood associations” to discriminate based on race? Who upheld those contracts as valid? The courts, a part of the government. Based on laws.

Who fixed the “lunch counters” that refused to seat blacks? Was it the government or public shunning? The NYT editorial laughs at you if you thought “public shunning.” Did you notice that? But guess what; read history, it was public shunning, and not any court orders that ended the now famous Woolworths lunch counter discrimination. (This was in the ‘50’s and the “civil rights act of 1964” was almost a decade later.) But the government takes credit for “giving you civil rights!”

How has “liberty” been shown to be ineffective at promoting a “civil” society? (Set aside for a minute if being “civil” is more important than being “free.”) What do they mean the “freedom of a few to discriminate meant generations of less freedom for large groups…?” Not in a free market! Only in a powerful, top-down government can “a few” control “many.” In a free market, there’s very little a few persons can do.

The next example -- we should be so thankful the government ended slavery and something they call “Jim Crow.” (Usually they are called “Jim Crow Laws” but that would have been too obvious.) Let me get this straight. We should be thankful that the government that enabled slavery saw fit to stop enslaving us? And if the government that enforced separatist, “Jim Crow” laws has seen fit to stop doing that, we should be grateful?

Slavery could never have existed but for government support. Neither could “Jim Crow” laws. Or separate (but equal) schools, or even water fountains, which were chiefly in government buildings. I’ve read reports of frontier towns in Kansas territory that educated all their children “white” and “negro” in a one room school house. But the state officials commanded them to build two separate schools! The townsfolk didn’t see any need and thought the school was perfectly fine. (History Channel) But that was the point, the state couldn’t allow whites to “accept” negro children in their school! What would that lead to? Equality and everyone just “getting along?”

Who is the editor to say “neither (slavery nor Jim Crow) would be eliminated by a free market?” These were both created by the government, of course the free market would have ended both sooner than they were but for government action. (See Milton Friedman).

Next are the two big doozies. The two big lies we’ve been taught by the government schools since we were children. And in the press all the time, and most of us believe:

1. The government rescued the economy from the Great Depression! Oh god does anyone still believe this? I know we’ve heard this our whole lives, but there’s a large body of scholarship that says exactly the opposite. The “Great Depression” was a blip or hiccup in the economy until both Hoover and FDR “tried to fix” it. Everything they did made things worse. Hoover made it worse, he was voted out of office and FDR came in and did more of what Hoover was doing, making things even worse than they were. The result was more than a decade of poverty.

2. The government promoted safety and equality in the workplace. John Stossel goes over this better than I can. The result of free enterprise was that the workplace was getting safer and safer. When the government finally stepped in and formed “OSHA” the safety record continued about the same as it was before (getting better all the time). But the government stepped in front of the parade and took credit for the “improved workplace safety.” As is common. (See Stossel.)

So far as promoting equality? See the congressional hearing in the 1930’s regarding the new laws to protect and enable the labor union movement. The main reason the unions were asking for special protection from the government was to protect the white workers from competition from “negro labor.” And we should be “thankful” that the government grants us equality?

Editorial - Rand Paul and the Limits of Libertarianism - NYTimes.com

Harmer claims Emken "lobbied for Obama Care???"

The phone rang around 2:30 pm yesterday.  It was some guy calling himself "Harmer" and told me that Elizabeth Emken "lobbied for Obama Care" or Obama's health care plan.

Actually, I'd just talked to Emken a few times and each time the center of her campaign was the repeal of Obama-care.   In fact in the video a few weeks ago, there is a place where she is against the "Obama health care bill" but it got cut out because of noise and distractions.  (Someone was handing her clipboards to sign and we got distracted.) 

If anyone has any doubt I can find that part of the video for you, but it's really not needed.  The issue has been discussed a lot.  And what is in the video is a discussion of how she can be "against the Obama health care bill" when she had, in the past, asked for more research and treatment of autism.  Based on the answer it's obvious she's against the "health care" bill. 

That's the problem with these robo-call whisper rumor calls.  When you make a public statement the other side can respond to it.  But there's something insidious about these secret calls.  And who is this "Harmer" fellow?

Kagan's abortion stance has both sides guessing

I think it’s completely absurd that anyone can be appointed judge for life and we “don’t know” what she thinks of certain things.  Things that are important to a lot of people.

They should have me interview her.  I’d get it out of her!  Just see the previous video.

Kagan's abortion stance has both sides guessing - latimes.com