Category: General

It’s a tax!

Whenever the government proposes a new tax on something “bad” to benefit something or some group defined as “good”, it’s just another tax. Don’t fall for it.

Soda taxes are the latest incarnation. Long considered a joke, Philadelphia managed to pass such a tax last year. Now they are poise to be decided on ballots around the country. The stated purpose of these taxes is to prevent obesity, but if that is the case then such taxes should be revenue neutral or the revenue should be dedicated to new obesity-prevention programs that are not currently funded. However, many generate revenue for the general fund, like in San Francisco, or are used to fund programs with existing funding (so that the original funding returns to the general fund to be spent on something else).

Here’s a bit of hypocrisy for you to mull: the stated goal of these taxes is to reduce sugary soda consumption – ostensibly for the public health benefits. This in theory will also reduce the tax collected over time. However, Philadelphia is expecting to fund pre-K education with revenue from this tax (a cost that is likely to rise each year) and claims that the tax revenue will only drop by ~ $20,000/year. Where do you think they will get the money to fund the pre-K system once the tax revenue drops? Also, if the tax revenues do not drop (much) then is their goal really the health benefits they claim, and if so hasn’t the tax failed?

It just seems to me to be a way to fund pre-K education on the backs of a small subset of the population (who likely can’t afford it). In any event, if it increases overall tax revenues then it’s just a tax. Think about that before you jump into the deep end of the pool.

Sorry, dude, but…

…it’s not your money.

From Fox news: Teen says he was fired from Jack-in-the-Box for serving free tacos to veteran

I believe in supporting our veterans – they have a tough job to do in keeping us safe. However, such support is voluntary and it is inappropriate for you to force someone else to support your cause. What if I took money out of your wallet to support my cause? How would you feel then? And it does not matter that your employer can afford such a donation, so don’t go down that route…

It would have been appropriate to petition your employer to provide such benefits to veterans, but it is not your right to unilaterally volunteer their support. In the end, you are nothing more than a thief. Get off of your soapbox and apologize to all involved.

Laws selectively enforced

The reverend Jeremy Lucas is alleged to have unlawfully transferred a firearm to another individual in Oregon state. However, since it was in the furtherance of a “liberal” goal (the destruction of the gun) it is unlikely he will be charged. If an otherwise law-abiding citizen had made the same mistake… well, you get the idea.

It is imperative that the law be applied equally to all. Otherwise, laws become the tools of those in power for targeting those with whom they disagree.

Washington state vs. environmentalists

The state of Washington has this one right: they want to shift taxes to help push carbon emissions in the desired direction. Kind of like pruning your yard to promote  desired growth, while simultaneously suppressing the undesired. However, the environmentalist groups seem to believe that they should instead increase taxes so as to fund their desired outcome – more government.

It is not the government’s responsibility to create “government” jobs. In addition, the carbon tax – if successful – will already drive jobs (at the expense of the carbon producers) into cleaner industries without government intrusion or support.

First, destroy the press…

Turkey shuts down 130 media outlets after failed military coup

“…In all, nearly 16,000 people have been detained for questioning over suspected links to the coup attempt, and about half have been arrested to face trial…”

“…Such detentions have raised concerns that people could be targeted simply for criticizing the government…”

Really? You think so? Nah… they wouldn’t do that,  would they?

One of my favorite blogs

One of my favorite blogs is Walter Olson’s Overlawyered at the Cato Institute. His commentaries on current legal issues are very informative, and written for normal people as well as lawyers. He frequently points out examples of government gone awry, or the effects of bad legislation. Very interesting blog; usually one of my first stops of the day.

Walter is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank in Washington, DC. The Cato web site can be found here.

Air Conditioners vs. ISIS

I am aware of the dangers of CFC’s and HFC’s. However, when I read this I assumed it was a diversion  – maybe another email scandal (they seem to be common these days….).

Kerry: Air conditioners as big a threat as ISIS

The trick is that there are rational means available to deal with HFC emissions (we can phase them out in favor of more environmentally-friendly refrigerants, like we did with CFCs). However, ISIS – that’s another story. Rational solutions might not be available…!

Ridiculous excuses abound…

North Miami shooting: Police officer identified who shot unarmed man

Already, the excuses are flying, and they border on the absurd.The most ridiculous excuse? Try this one:

“The officer, Rivera said, had been aiming for the patient beside Kinsey, whom he thought posed a danger.” [‘Rivera’ refers to John Rivera, president of the Dade County Police Benevolent Association]

Tell me, someone, please: why in the world would you need to shoot ANYONE sitting on the ground playing with a toy truck, let alone his handler who is laying on the ground with hands in the air? Continue reading “Ridiculous excuses abound…”

Discrimination OK if based on politics…?

I abhor this kind of obvious bias. It shows just how skewed the system has become. Here’s a CNN headline:

Queen upset Trump used ‘We Are the Champions’ – again

Queen’s problem? According to band member Brian May,  Trump didn’t get “permission” from the band to use their song. However, according to RNC Communications Director Sean Spencer they did license the rights to use it, just as anyone else wishing to honor copyright law would have had to do.

Ok – so don’t read anything into this next statement. It is meant to be provocative, and so will touch on a “hot-button” topic for many people. However, it’s not meant to express a personal viewpoint or opinion – it’s just meant to point out the hypocrisy of Queen making such a biased remark. In any event, here it goes:

Queen thinks that they should be allowed to discriminate against customers who want to use their services  (in this case, access to a music catalog) based solely on the customer’s political beliefs. How do you think this would go over if it ran the other way? Say, if someone wanted to not bake a wedding cake for a Queen member because of Queen’s beliefs (political or other)? Yeah, I though so…

We cannot tolerate discrimination of any kind – to do so invites discrimination of all kinds.  Queen is welcome to independently voice their opposition to a politician using their music, but to imply that someone should be denied use of their “product” due to their political leanings is no less egregious then denying  service due to sexual orientation, skin color, or religion.

Shame on you, Queen.