Abby Wisse Schachter: ‘The New Paternalism’

Source:The Washington Examiner- New York City Nanny, I mean Mayor (understandable mistake) Michael Bloomberg.

Source:The FreeState

“Paternalism is having a good run these days.

An MSNBC host promotes her network by declaring that “children don’t belong to their parents,” insisting that the community, and especially the government, has to be responsible for all kids. In a follow-up promo, Melissa Harris-Perry doubled down by declaring that all Americans, especially kids, have the “right to … healthcare, education, decent housing and quality food at all times.”

A Howard University student told Sen. Rand Paul after his speech there that he wants “a government that is going to help me.”

We’ve also been treated to a couple of academic heavyweights cheering for the nanny state. President Obama’s former regulation czar Cass Sunstein writes in the New Republic that government paternalism “is your friend.” And Bowdoin sociologist Sarah Conly argues in the New York Times that we should all be grateful for Mayor Bloomberg’s soda ban and various other forms of paternalism that we (ahem) enjoy.

This is all so shocking though because it comes from liberals and in reality, championing the state as nanny, father, mother, controller is about as illiberal and anti-democratic as it gets.

Sunstein argues that we should be grateful for government mandates on automobile emissions because the consumer is going to benefit “in the form of gas savings” over the life of the new car. Perhaps we should forgive the man in the ivory tower, but Sunstein is ignoring the obvious reason car buyers have rejected voluntary purchases of higher gas mileage, and lower emissions cars: They cost much, much more. Since the Obama administration wasn’t happy with the private market “nudge” consumers were getting to buy the more expensive, lower emissions cars it legislated a shove by making lower-emissions cars a requirement.

Sunstein also has the audacity to claim that smokers are “happier” to pay exorbitant taxes to feed their habit because “smokers tend to be less happy because they smoke. When they are taxed, they smoke less and might even quit, and they are better off as a result.” President Obama obviously ascribes to this nanny state logic since his new budget proposes a $0.94 increase in cigarette taxes to just under $2.

As George Mason University economist Donald Boudreaux points out in his review of Simpler, Sunstein’s new book on this topic, “the author assumes without much reflection” that these “nudges” can actually turn out to be unethical or even unconstitutional as a federal appeals court found in the case of FDA-approved warning labels that included grisly images of cancer-ridden lungs.

Conly argues that no one should be against Mayor Bloomberg’s soda ban because really, how can it be bad to prevent people from indulging in a 16-ounce syrupy beverage? After all, society as a whole ends up paying for that overindulgence in the form of higher health care demands and costs, so why not just force people to be healthier in the first place?

Conly says that objections to the soda ban are based on a “false” understanding: “We have a vision of ourselves as free, rational beings who are totally capable of making all the decisions we need to in order to create a good life. Give us complete liberty, and, barring natural disasters, we’ll end up where we want to be. It’s a nice vision, one that makes us feel proud of ourselves.”

Conly declares that social science, behavioral economics and psychology have all proven beyond doubt that this notion of our infallible ability to make good choices is wrong. She and Sunstein have both argued that due to various “scientifically” proven “biases” we are unable to make the best decision every time. And since individuals are lousy at choosing what is in our own self-interest–for our long-term health and well-being–we should therefore have some decisions taken out of our hands completely or given limited choices between government-approved options for the betterment of ourselves and society as a whole.

Aside from the skin-crawly nature of this type of argumentation, doesn’t it seem obvious how infantilizing and anti-democratic this all is? Sunstein and Conly, Harris and the Howard student are all saying that individual adults can’t operate their lives effectively or successfully because they may make poor decisions on occasion. Instead we are supposed to cede our right to make free choices? Is this the reason our founders established a representative democracy?

The answer to both is no, and here are the reasons why.

First, our nation was founded to be a liberal democracy, where our right to the “pursuit” of happiness is protected. Not achieving happiness, mind you, but the means to trying to achieve it. As Niall Ferguson just reminded us Margaret Thatcher defined the “British inheritance” as “a man’s right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant and not as master… They are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom all our other freedoms depend.” America’s “inheritance” is the same.

Second, we didn’t need science to tell us that humans make mistakes and don’t always choose what is best for themselves or others. But whoever supposes that government is any more efficient, effective or better able to discern what is in an individuals’ best interest? No reasonable paternalist could argue that government is completely reliable when it comes to objectively defining problems, without bias or special interests, deciding on the best course of action and then perfectly implementing those policy choices. Please.

Finally, government paternalism offends me as a parent. One of the biggest responsibilities my husband and I took on when we had our kids is to teach them moral, practical, and civic lessons. But at some point, we know we will have to trust that we’ve done as much as we can to inculcate those values, and we will trust our children with the freedom to decide on their own. We will let go, in other words. We don’t expect that our kids will have it easy or that they won’t face disappointments and suffer the pain of mistakes. But that is how they will learn and how they will grow to be adults.

The new paternalists are like parents of eternal toddlers; they never want to let go. Sunstein and company simply don’t trust that individuals can be left to decide what is best. They prefer to believe that they–and only they–have the keys to a “happy” life and that it is only government that can reliably deliver that happiness. Besides the debilitating dependency this has already inculcated (how many receiving food stamps and disability checks admit they are scared to give it up?), it has lower expectations for what it means to be a responsible member of society. When you lower expectations, you get lower outcomes.” 

From The Washington Examiner

Cal Thomas: ‘Back To The 50s’

Source:Cal Thomas- from his Facebook page.

Source:The FreeState

“Addressing a meeting of Planned Parenthood last Friday, President Obama accused pro-lifers of wanting to “turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century.”

Like any decade, the ’50s had its problems — racism, discrimination, sexism — but I’ll defend the ’50s on other grounds, if the president will defend the decade that followed. In the ’50s, for much of mainstream America drugs were something you bought at a pharmacy with a prescription; living together meant getting married first, then having babies; abortion was not legal; our culture wasn’t the enemy; metal detectors were instruments one took to the beach to find loose change and schools and the streets were mostly safe.

It’s “Ozzie and Harriet” vs. Woodstock.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell is on trial now in a Philadelphia courtroom indicted on charges that he performed late-term abortions and killed babies born alive during the procedures. Is this the 21 century the president prefers? It is actions like this — not the policies of the ’50s — that have weakened America and harmed the women the president claims to be defending.

How many women has the president talked to who lament their abortions and say they would have made another choice, if they had been shown alternatives? Does the president champion the rights of these women? According to FactCheck.org, as an Illinois state senator, Obama twice voted against the so-called “born-alive” bills that would have “defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a ‘born alive infant’ entitled to legal protection.” He opposed the bills, he said, “as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion.” He chose politics, not lives.

In his speech to Planned Parenthood, the president never mentioned the word “abortion,” preferring to talk instead about “women’s health.” Could it be because 40 years after the historic Roe v. Wade decision, public opinion on abortion has changed very little? For the most part, those who favor it, favor it; those who do not, do not.

The president and Planned Parenthood’s other defenders claim that if the organization were to be denied tax dollars, there would be fewer mammograms, cancer screenings and other services available, especially to poor women. Is this anything more than a distraction from Planned Parenthood’s real purpose — providing abortions?

According to analysis from the Chiaroscuro Foundation, a not-for-profit organization seeking to reduce the number of abortions in New York, Planned Parenthood “provides more abortions than any other organization in the United States, about one of every four U.S. abortions.”

“Planned Parenthood’s bottom line is numbers,” according to a 2011 op-ed for The Hill newspaper written by former clinic director Abby Johnson, “And, with abortion as its primary money-maker, that means implementing a quota. … I was directed to double the numbers of abortions our clinic performed in order to drive up revenue.”

Planned Parenthood spends a lot on electing liberal Democrats to office. It can afford to. According to its 2011-2012 annual report, the organization reported more than $1.2 billion in net assets and received a record $542 million in taxpayer funding. The pro-life Susan B. Anthony List has compiled the “Planned Parenthood. Read it. 

A 1962 hit song looked back on the stability of the ’50s and the values that shaped the decade. It was called “That’s Old Fashioned.” The Everly Brothers sang it. One of the verses goes…

From the Chicago Tribune 

“In conjunction with WORLD Magazine, Patrick Henry College presents its interview with Cal Thomas as a part of the Newsmaker Interview Series with Marvin Olasky, editor-in-chief at WORLD and Distinguished Chair of Journalism and Public Policy at PHC. 

For more information on Patrick Henry College, visit our website at:Patrick Henry College." 

Source:Patrick Henry College- interviewing columnist and author Cal Thomas.

From Patrick Henry College

Washington Times: 'An Addiction Democrats Can’t Kick'

Source:The Washington Times- with an editorial about the Democratic Party and tobacco.

Source:The FreeState 

"The backrooms of American politics are not so smoke-filled now, but hypocrisy hangs as thick as ever over Washington. President Obama, who has been a three-pack-a-day man for most of his life, declares smokers Public Enemy No. 1 in his latest budget. He wants a near-doubling of the federal tax on cigarettes, to $1.95 a pack, all to pay for a universal preschool program for 4-year-olds. It’s the Democratic schizophrenia on tobacco.

If liberals believed their own rhetoric, they would call for an outright ban on tobacco, not a Mike Bloombergian half-measure, such as ordering retailers to keep the packs out of sight. The would-be successor to New York City’s nanny-in-chief, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, called for raising the minimum age for buying tobacco from 18 to 21, as if this would prevent youngsters from lighting up.

In Maryland, a Democratic state senator from Baltimore County unsuccessfully sought earlier this year to fine drivers $50 if caught smoking with a passenger under the age of 8. If someone of tender age shouldn’t be subjected to secondhand smoke, why exclude 10- and 12-year-olds from protection? Indeed, why not ban smoking entirely? 

There’s a simple answer: Liberals and Democrats can’t call for a neo-Prohibition ban on cigarettes because they’re addicted to tobacco revenues. Taxes on tobacco finance too much of their social spending to allow such a drastic move. The precursor to Obamacare, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Children’s Health Insurance Program, enacted in 1997, was financed with a tripling of the tax on tobacco. Her opponents pointed out how this wouldn’t work, because the sales of tobacco would fall, and so would the tax revenues that the program was intended to depend on.

Economists know this as the price elasticity of demand, which shows the responsiveness, or “elasticity,” of the quantity of a good or service to a change in its price. It’s simple. As the price of a product goes up, the quantity of it sold goes down. The higher taxes raise the price of tobacco, sales decline, and so do the tax revenues." 

From The Washington Times 

What the Washington Times is arguing here is that on one hand leftist (instead of Liberal) Democrats are arguing that tobacco is so bad for you, that we need to essentially tax the hell out of it, to pay for their social programs. 

So on one hand Democrats are saying that tobacco is bad for you, but if you smoke, we'll take that money to pay for their social programs. And I agree with everything that The Times is saying here. I would just replace liberal with leftist or some other left-wing, because the nanny state and big government in general, is as illiberal (not liberal) a government philosophy, that one could possible dream up.

Tru-TV: Lizard Lick Towing: ‘No One Calls Amy A Bitch’

Source:True-TV- Amy Shirley vs. Bubba & Earl, LOL! 

Source:The Daily Post

“This guy puts his hands on the wrong woman!:Tru-TV." 

From Tru-TV

This might sound as obvious as: “If you don’t play with fire, you won’t get burned” but sometimes when you are either dealing with people who either forgot to get an education, or didn’t bother to get an education, or believe they don’t have to follow the same rules as everyone else, stating the obvious can be necessary. When you pay your bills, your property won’t get repoed.

Source:Tru-TV- Amy Shirley vs. Bubba & Earl, LOL! 

I don’t watch this show from very often. But it is pretty funny and sort of represents every single stereotype that Yankees and people who live in big cities and urban areas in general have of country folk (let’s say) Rednecks, even. 

The people who work at Lizard Lick Towing in North Carolina are fairly intelligent, at least the owners Ron and Amy Shirley. But a lot of the people they deal with who just got their vehicles and other property towed because they didn’t pay their bills on them look like, frankly stereotypical country, bumpkin, dipshit, hicks. Who believe they live under different rules as everyone else and don’t have to do such inconvenient things like paying their bills on their cars and trucks. And that is what you see in this scene.

Jack Hunter: 'Conservatism's Future: Young Americans For Liberty'

Source:The Southern Avenger- Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater, when he was running President in 1964.

Source:The FreeState 

"An editorial in the August 1960 edition of National Review described the conservative youth activists who agitated to get Barry Goldwater on the ballot with presidential nominee Richard Nixon:

Youth was everywhere at the Republican convention. Youth managed the various candidates’ booths. Youth waved the posters. Youth held the convention parade, and it was youth, primarily, that staged the Presidential demonstration Wednesday night … Lots of the young people had no ideological interest, they had come … well, because their family was Republican … But those who were serious, the ones who will be working hardest to guide the Republican Party in the future, were conservatives: and most of them Goldwater fans. They passed out 15,000 Goldwater buttons, handed out literature, rallied inside and outside the amphitheater. They greeted Richard Nixon at the airport with Goldwater signs, and did the same thing for President Eisenhower the next day. 

The editorial then noted: “They drove one Nixon aide into muttering in exasperation ‘Those damn Goldwater people are everywhere.’”

Youth might not show up in droves at the ballot box, but their activism and enthusiasm has long been a driving force behind the direction of both major parties. This has been particularly true of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

The youth activists who so passionately championed Goldwater in 1960 and 1964 were at the forefront of a conservative revolution that would eventually take over the GOP and deliver Ronald Reagan the White House. The old Republican guard, which preferred Nelson Rockefeller, would push back in ’60 and ’64, and the establishment fought hard against conservatives again in 1976 when Reagan challenged President Ford. But by 1980, the old Republican guard was simply no match for the long-building Reagan Revolution, something everyone concedes started with Goldwater.

And it all began with youth." 

From The Daily Caller

The Barry Goldwater conservative movement of the mid 1960s and even late 1960s launched Ron Reagan into office as President of the United States in 1980. But actually Congressional Republicans didn’t get the majority back in the House, or Senate in the mid and late 1960s, but made them a strong minority in both chambers. As well as Richard Nixon elected and reelected President of the United States in 1968 and 72, placed Ron Reagan in strong place to be the GOP frontrunner for President.

After losing in 1976, Ron Reagan became the Republican frontrunner in 1980. The way Gerry Ford governed as President of the United States in the mid 1970s, fiscally conservative, as well as respecting personal freedom and civil liberties, all of these things started with Barry Goldwater when he ran for President in 1964. And took sixteen years for it all to come together with a Republican president in 1980, a Republican Senate for the first time, since 1952 and a large Republican minority in the House of Representatives in 1980 as well. Where House Republicans led by Minority Leader Bob Michael, could work in coalition with right-wing Southern Democrats in the House, to pass and block legislation.

What happened with the Barry Goldwater conservative movement of the mid 1960s and what it finally led up to and what’s going on with the Ron Paul libertarian movement of today in the Republican Party, both have one thing in common: neither one was big enough to be a governing coalition in the United States, or even a leading coalition in the Republican Party, where they hold a lot of leadership positions. Back in the mid 1960s, America was still in the LBJ Great Society Progressive Era. Where Americans by in large wanted and liked big government taking care of them. And we are obviously pass that now. But Ron Paul’s problem in the Republican Party are the Neoconservatives and Religious-Right are still in charge of the Republican Party. 

But what they also have in common with the Goldwater Conservatives of the 1960s, is the old-guard is dying off and losing influence. While the Goldwater Conservatives were growing back then. And the Libertarian Republicans are growing today, as the Religious-Right and Neoconservatives are dying off and losing influence.

As then U.S. Senator Jim DeMint said back in 2012 before he became President of the right-wing populist Heritage Foundation political action group: “The Republican Party needs to become more Libertarian for them to be successful in the future.” But they do not have to embrace all of their positions, but they have to move in that direction on social issues. And get back to being a real fiscally conservative party. And stop nominating presidential candidates who run as fiscal Conservatives, but have records that suggest otherwise. Who run as Religious-Conservatives, but have records that also suggest otherwise. And get back to being a real Conservative-Libertarian-Federalist party again, that can compete and be successful all over America.

NFL Films: The Steel Curtain Steelers

Source:NFL Films- James Harrison's big hit against Indianapolis Colts QB Peyton Manning.

Source:The Daily Post 

"Pittsburgh Steelers - The Steel Curtain Pittsburgh Steelers Biggest Hits of All-time. Some of the best Chaos and Carnage created by the Steelers Some of the biggest hits in steelers history." 

From Sports Violence Studios

Source:NFL Films- Steelers WR Lynn Swann's, great catch against the Dallas Cowboys, in Super Bowl 10.

What made the Pittsburgh Steelers of the late 1970s even better than the Steelers of the mid 1970s, was the rule changes on offense in the NFL in 1978 that improved the blocking and opened up the running and passing games on offense. And opened up the passing game also with the illegal contact rule that allowed for WR’s to be able to get off of the line of scrimmage and run their patterns. 

Before the rule changes, the Steelers were a power run, ball control offense. That would rely on their Steel Curtain defense to set up great field position for them and get them takeaways. And when defenses tried to take their running game away by stacking the line of scrimmage, the Steelers also had deep threats in the passing game with WR’s John Stallworth and Lynn Swann and QB Terry Bradshaw. 

Bradshaw being one of the best deep passing QB’s of all-time, but with the rule changes on offense the Steelers had to find more ways to score and to be able to score more points. As we saw in Super Bowl 13 against the Dallas Cowboys and Super 14 against the Los Angeles Rams. The 1978 rule changes on offense in the NFL opened up the Steelers offense and made them a vertical passing and power running team, to go with their great defense.

Joey Teefizz: MISL 1985-1/13-Cleveland Force @ Pittsburgh Spirit: Highlights

Source:Joey Teefizz- John P. Dellacamera and John Sanders with the call of the game for the Pittsburgh Spirit.

Source:The Daily Post

"Great game in Pittsburgh between Force and Spirit, another tight finish between these two with excellent halftime interviews with Charlie Greene and Bernie James."

From Joey Teefizz

The Force-Spirit rivalry was one of the better rivalries in the MISL. And had the MISL knew anything about marketing then and now, they would’ve done a good job at marketing this rivalry especially in North Ohio and Western Pennsylvania, the areas that the Force and Spirit represented respectfully. 

Indoor soccer is a perfect sport for America and American sports fans, because it is so fast paced and up in down with the rules not really benefiting either the offense or defense. Which is how classic American sports fans like it. 

There is a lot more scoring in arena soccer or futsal than in soccer itself. But that is because the playing fields are smaller and the rules don’t favor either side. Unlike in soccer where the rules are designed to keep scoring down and as a result it is a more defensive game. But for whatever reasons arena soccer has never really caught on in America. Even though it is an American sport designed for American sports fans.