IT'S NOT YOUR JOB, MAN

Ms. X writes:  “As the Wall Street Journal noted in the last month of Bush’s term, the former president had the “worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.”… blah, blah, blah, Bush was a big meanie-head, blah, blah…. The Center for American Progress’ Joshua Picker explained, “… the country lost ground on Bush’s two terms.”  The National Journal… blah, blah, parsing Census data…. Blah, blah… data and info out there which backs up the Wall St. Journal’s assessment.”

To which I responded:

Ms. X,  do you approve the performance of GWB?  No?   Neither do I, at least not his fiscal leadership in the last half of his second term.  But if you think what he did was so reprehensible, THEN WHY THE BLOODY HELL DO YOU APPROVE THE SAME THEORIES CARRIED TO AN INSANE EXTREME BY THE RACIST, FASCIST, LYING, MEGALOMANIAC, TREASONOUS PIECE OF EXCREMENT WHO TOOK HIS PLACE?

The WSJ, and 99% of the rest of the news media are starting with a fallacy.  Have you ever heard of the GIGO principle?  It means “Garbage in, garbage out,” and is one of the fundamental rules in statistics and analysis.  They are starting with garbage in the form of the assumption that it is the role of the president in the American government to create jobs, at all.  The president is part of the executive branch.  Except for signing bills into law, his sole function is to enforce the law.  I have no doubt the bean-counting weasels at the WSJ have found an enormous body of evidence to show that Bush did a worse job than Obama.  Look at it this way:  if you were ordered to go east, and someone else were told to go north, and the WSJ printed proof that you did as lousier job of going west than the other person, it would have about the same significance. 

The president does have a very important role in leading the nation by example, encouragement, and teaching, but in the realm of creating jobs, his only role is to out of the damned way and let the American people work!  There is a word for the system of government in which one man or one office holds both the power to make law and the power to enforce it.  Three syllables, 7 letters, starts with a T and ends with y.   What the morons at the WSJ should be pointing out, instead, is how the progressive/fascist educational system has created a society of morons who ACTUALLY THINK THE PRESIDENT MAKES LAW! 
“Oh, knock it off with the hyperbole,” I can almost hear you say.  “There is no connection between creating jobs and enforcing the Law.”  (I know you are thinking that because all Leftists think the same thing at the same time. They are the most programmed, patterned, predictable set of quasi-sentient beings on Terra – which makes me ask why they instantly accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a brain dead Rush clone.)  Anyway, where was I…? Oh, yes.  The Law is a set of thou shalts and thou shalt nots, and the last word in the Law’s argument is always a loaded gun.  There’s nothing wrong with that, at all; it has to be that way.  However, the only way the president could direct the actions of others to carry out his plan of job creation is if he were able to compel them to follow instructions.  Otherwise, he’d say, “Joe the Plumber, you must pay more taxes,” and Joe would say, “Go piss up a rope,” and that would be that.  No, if you seriously mean to hold the president responsible for creating jobs, you must give him the authority to see to that Joe, if he persists in his refusal, gets to look down the barrel of a Lawman’s gun.

The instant you do that, you have thrown the Constitution and the entire history of individual rights in the toilet.

It is only valid to discuss the creation of jobs during a president’s tenure in the context of the effects of the laws he signed, and the leadership he provided.  (It is also important to remember when attempting to back-engineer causality from statistics, that the two are very often unrelated.  For example, during WWII, the American birth rate dropped.  One should be wary of assuming from this that FDR had a depressing effect on the collective libido of American women.  The fact that someone has used, “supply side economics,” and “…fostered  the weakest jobs and income growth…” in the same sentence is not defacto evidence of causality.)

 In the case of our current idiot, we may also look at the bullies and thugs he has set up, without congressional approval, to write rules that have the power of Law, i.e., of the bullet.  I do not hold Obama responsible for not creating jobs.  I hold him responsible for appealing to the welfare-state looter latent in so many of our countrymen, of inciting them with cries of racist victimhood, promising them the opportunity to destroy and loot the estates of anyone who has more than they, and finally, of encouraging the Congress that was elected under the same premises to send to his desk laws that fly in the face of all human dignity and decency.

Having accomplished THAT, he has sat smirking as millions of Americans have lost their jobs.  So, Ms. X, once you start from the correct premise, everything changes. Hopefully, you will chuck the Wall Street Journal into the toilet instead of the Constitution.

4 August, 2012
Rebsarge

VIGILANTE ECONOMICS

Today is national Chik-fil-A day.  I drove by my local store today, and there were several hundred people waiting to get in, counting a line of cars two blocks long and people standing in line half-way around the building.  I didn’t go today, but I’ve been twice the last week.  Now if we could get a turnout like this on election day!

This business worries me, though.  It started because the liberal media lied about an interview in a Christian magazine, in which a Christian businessman said he believed in upholding Christian principles as God had given him to understand them.  Wow.  Who saw that coming.  That interview did not have a syllable about same sex marriage.  This whole stinkin’ mess is a fabrication of the liberal media.  Talk about a variation on the tail wagging the dog!

We have one large and vocal faction that is fighting for their rights, again as God has given them to see them.  Some of the more militant members of this faction threatened to boycott a business, and elected officials threatened to invoke vigilante action against that business.  Oh, you don’t like the V word?  Well, what do you think it is when people act, totally outside the letter or spirit and without the sanction of the law?  The mayors of Chicago and Boston, both of openly questionable moral character, threatened the use of force to keep a legal business out of their cities.

Jeeze.  Do we have to go over this again?  Okay.  One more time.  When a government official says, “You can’t come in here,”  it’s just words.  When you try to go in there anyway, what does he do?  He either calls up his police, or, in the case of Emmanuel, especially, calls up a mob. The final recourse of all law is deadly force.  Resist it long enough, and sooner or later, someone will point a loaded gun at you.  This is not an aberration; it is a necessity, for without that final argument, the law would be a laughable waste of time.  That is, however, why we must be so terribly cautious with the law – what we forbid, what we require, and what we restrict.

Back to Chick-fil-A.  One group has threatened to destroy a business because of the religious convictions of its chairman.  Another group has shown support for that business by patronizing it in the tens of thousands, maybe millions, if considered nationwide.  Sooner or later, someone will realize that if THEY can destroy a business by boycotting, so can WE.  Oops.  I just let the cat out of the bag.  America is then faced with the specter of businesses prospering or failing based on the religion of their owners, rather than on the quality of their products.  It is perhaps the ultimate expression of multiculturalism, at least in economics.

If it comes down to that, based on demographics, alone, I don’t believe gay businesses would stand much of a chance, but that’s not the point.  Dammit, that’s not the point!  Every time a business fails, a dream fails.  People suffer, are put of work, have to move to find work, have to cut back on discretionary spending, lose health care options...  It’s a very long a depressing list.  I’m not saying it’s bad for businesses to fail; a free market guarantees that some will fail and others will take their place.  What I’m saying is that it is wrongheaded, and probably immoral, to cause that kind of suffering just of the heck of it.  If we were to wipe out all businesses that are owned by people who believe in what Dan Cathy called, “The Biblical definition of marriage,” what would happen to our country?  We’d be wrecked.  It would be the same if we were to eliminate all businesses that are owned by people who support same sex marriage.

And, what the heck, if we can get rid of all “those” businesses - whichever side of the deal you’re on - what’s next?  Let’s get rid of all the businesses owned by pro- or anti-gunners.  How about those owned by carnivores or vegans?  Human society becomes an endless war of attrition until there is only me and you left, and frankly, I’m thinking you’d look good on a grill with taters and onions.

 Once the principle is accepted of denying anyone the right to express an opinion, no matter what it is, or whether we agree or not, then everything we call civilization is out the window.  Don’t think you can have it all your way forever, either.  You may trust or even revere those in power now, and be willing to give them power over you because you don’t believe they’ll use it.  But what about ten years from now?  These people won’t be in power forever, and when the people you hate, loathe, and distrust come back to power, they will have the same authority as their predecessors.  Consider this stunner:  governments go on for long periods of time; they aren’t just for today.  You don’t put a hammer in Obama’s hand and then take it away when Romney is elected. Romney gets the same hammer you gave Obama.  Think I’m exaggerating?  Ask any conservative who thought the Patriot Act was a good idea when Bush was in office.

I’m very, very glad that so many people have shown support for an honorable business, and so visibly repudiated the hate and fascistic rage that has been directed at that business.  However, I urge all my countrymen to not put our names place of theirs on all that hate and fascistic rage.  Let’s pull this debate down out of the hormoneosphere and bring it into the house of reason.