polecat news and views: 2024

Friday, December 20, 2024

Call me old-fashioned, but I've always believed that the government's job was to provide basic services like roads and infrastructure and otherwise stay out of the way so people could make their lives better. At the very least, I figured it was the government's job to not make things worse.

That's exactly why I left San Francisco 30 years ago when, as I liked to joke, the state had made it impossible even to take a leak without first filing a CalEPA environmental impact statement. In triplicate, of course. And with a hefty filing fee.

On January 1, life in San Francisco will get that much worse as the city prepares to lose as many as 14,000 parking spaces. When I moved to the city in 1992, the parking situation was so bad that I looked into monthly parking at a garage "just" seven blocks from my apartment but blanched at the $110 fee for a reserved space. I just checked, and that same garage now runs $415 — or $565 if you need it reserved.

San Francisco losing 14,000 parking spots is like pulling six of your teeth for no good reason. Sure, you can do it, and you'd still be able to eat — but WHY?

The "why" is a new law imposed by the assembly in Sacramento, making it illegal to park within 20 feet of a crosswalk. Statewide, California is expected to lose about 100,000 parking spaces, and it's an easy bet that the vast majority of those will be in the crowded cities where parking is already at a premium.

The details, courtesy of KCRA:

Here's the fun part: San Francisco will spend nearly $20,000 for every man, woman, and child next year but, according to reports, doesn't have enough money in the budget to paint the curbs red in the expanded no-parking zones. That's a lot of parking citations and... hey, more money!

The good news for San Francisco is that the bleeding seems to have stopped. After losing people during and after the stupid COVID lockdowns, the city returned to modest population growth in 2023 and '24. And when I say "modest," I mean "Dressed like a Victorian London schoolmarm on a winter's day." The city added 3,000 or so people (a 0.3%) increase in two years to a COVID-era population of about 807,000 in 2022.

But where are they going to park?

Believe it or not, I don't doubt that question was asked and answered in Sacramento as they were considering Assembly Bill 413 (AB 413). While pedestrian safety was the justification for the bill, making it more expensive and less convenient to own a car might have been the actual intent. (If I had to guess, much of the extra space will end up being used by the homeless and won't result in any extra pedestrian safety.)

California's busybodies want people walking, biking, scooting, or bussing — anything but driving their own cars to their own destinations on their own schedules. This is what Californians keep voting for and if they can't find a place to stick their cars, I know where they can stick their ballots.

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2024/12/16/heres-another-way-california-just-found-to-make-life-hell-n4935165?utm_source=thdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Very Respectfully, ‘White Privilege’ Is a Steaming Load of Crap

Very Respectfully, ‘White Privilege’ Is a Steaming Load of Crap

Scott Pinsker

Not too long ago, it was considered taboo to draw unnecessary attention to someone’s ethnicity, skin color, or racial identity. Black, white, brown — whatever: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made such a compelling argument about judging each other on the “content of our character” instead of the color of our flesh that he thoroughly discredited his opponents.

This was one of the less-publicized legacies of King: He made racism sound pretty stupid. (Of course, it is.)

Collectively, we judged Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by the content of his character and wished we could be more like him. Being a racist was just about the worst thing you could be!

So if you’re over the age of 40, you've had friends, teammates, acquaintances, dates, classmates, and colleagues of all kinds of different ethnicities. Most of the time, your conversations never pertained to skin color; it was irrelevant. It’s not that you were unaware of racial distinctions; after all, noting that white and black people look different doesn’t make you racist — it makes you minimally observant. But why bring it up?

Let’s face it, if the most interesting thing about someone is their ethnicity, they’re probably a boring person. And who wants to be friends with someone boring?

This MLK approach to race led to impressive results within an astonishingly short period of time: Just a few decades after “colored” restrooms, segregation, and other examples of actual systemic racism, America changed.

We even elected a black president!

America’s future, it seemed, was of racial harmony. Sure, racism (and bigotry, and meanness, and dishonesty, and evil) can never be 100% eliminated, but give society credit for making so much progress: The election of Barack Obama — by a landslide! — conclusively proved that in America, anyone could achieve anything.

All that mattered was how hard you worked, how big you dreamed, and how much you prayed.

But something strange happened during the Obama years: Instead of taking Americans to a post-race future, he deliberately reopened the scars of our forefathers, providing intellectual cover to the race-based bigotry of the radical Left.

And once the floodgates opened, people saw EVERYTHING through a racial prism.

The United States was no longer a land of hope and freedom where anyone of any skin color could rise to the highest office. It was a country built on the backs of slaves, where the systemic racism of white supremacy still reigned supreme.

That is why, even to this day, all white people have “white privilege.”

It’s a logical offshoot of critical race theory (CRT). CRT’s central conceit is that racism is the building block of American life — “it’s a feature, not a bug” — so therefore, the only way to end racism is to radically upend American laws, politics, culture, society, and freedoms.

If you’re white in America, you’re de facto guilty of white privilege. Period, end of story.

Politically, it’s a useful phrase for the radical Left, because it switches the burden of expectations: Before, you needed an actual, tangible example to tar-and-feather someone as racist. You needed to point to something they did or said. But with white privilege, that’s no longer necessary: If they’re white, they’re guilty.

It’s an insidious perversion of the English language because the examples given of white privilege mostly involve things that aren’t a “privilege” at all but how everyone ought to be treated: Not being blamed for things you didn’t do; not being judged for things you can’t control; not being victimized by law enforcement or financial institutions.

“The privilege is invisible to many white people because it seems reasonable that a person should be extended compassion as they move through the world,” we are piously told by the race regulators and CRT proponents. (Which is rather odd because if white privilege was as all-encompassing as they claimed, then certainly we’d be more cognizant of it, wouldn’t we?)

Of course, there’s another potential explanation why this “privilege” is so “invisible”: It doesn’t actually exist!

Hey, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, and the Abominable Snowman are “invisible,” too.

Not being hassled by the cops isn’t a “privilege” at all. It’s your God-given human right! And it belongs to all Americans — white, black, and anyone in between. That’s because the United States of America is the one country on Earth that recognizes that your rights aren’t derived from government, but from the Almighty.

But that’s the game they’re playing: They want to redefine a “right” as a “privilege.” After all, if the right doesn’t truly exist — if it’s just a “privilege” — then it can be taken away.

And then you can finally redesign society.

https://pjmedia.com/scott-pinsker/2024/12/16/very-respectfully-white-privilege-is-a-steaming-load-of-crap-n4935170?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

SHOCKER: Lovely German Christmas Markets Overrun by Foreign Invaders

SHOCKER: Lovely German Christmas Markets Overrun by Foreign Invaders

By Ward Clark

On my first visit to Germany in 1996-97, I was fortunate enough to 1) be stationed in Heidelberg, a lovely city largely untouched by the ravages of World War 2, and 2) be there during the holiday season. A great old Christmas tradition in Germany is the Christmas markets. These are great fun; the streets are lined with vendors selling everything from food and drink to Christmas ornaments and cuckoo clocks. My family and I wandered the Christmas market in Heidelberg, and one weekend drove to Nuremberg and took in the larger Christmas market there. That was one of the things I loved about Germany, along with the food, the beer, and the friendly people of Bavaria. I can get by in German if someone doesn't talk too fast, and so I have always enjoyed visiting there.

All of that may be changing, and not for the better. Now Germany's lovely Christmas markets are being taken over - by Syrian "refugees" shrieking "Allahu Akbar."

On Sunday, December 8th, 11,000 Syrian migrants entered the Christmas market in Essen, Germany, chanting “Allahu Akbar” and firing shots.
Since the beginning of the week, smartphone videos of the scene have proliferated on social media, sparking a number of angry and worried reactions to the scale of the demonstration, the behaviour of the participants, and the poor police response.
This latest gathering of Syrian migrants was known to and prepared for by the police. But the planned demonstration grew in size as the fall of Bashar al-Assad was confirmed, followed by his flight from Damascus, the Syrian capital. The numbers far exceeded advance estimates: with only 300 participants expected, ultimately, thousands of Syrians lined the streets of the city carrying flags.

Why? Why disrupt a bunch of German families who are partaking in a German tradition that shouldn't affect these "refugees" in one way or another?

The only answer to that is that this is a deliberate act of aggression. When you allow unchecked Third World immigration, you get unchecked Third World behavior, and that is precisely what is happening here.

In the videos circulating on social media, the contrast between the aggressiveness of the demonstrators and the festive, family atmosphere of the Christmas market is striking. Online, some have asked if the choice of location was random or deliberate. They see the targeting of the Christmas market as an offensive by the demonstrators against a symbol of Christian civilisation.

Translated, that X post reads:

Germany: The Christmas markets are besieged by Syrian Islamists. They are demonstrating where Christianity is celebrated. Random choice of location or deliberate demonstration of power?

The latter. There is nothing random about this. The Christmas markets are seen by the Syrians as an overt celebration of a Christian tradition - which it is - and therefore cannot be tolerated, and must be interfered with or broken up if possible. These are not tolerant people, these are not people who are accepting of dissenting views, especially where religion is concerned; they are viciously intolerant and unforgiving, and it's important to note that they were imported to Germany from lands with Bronze-Age sensibilities. As long as they are allowed to remain in Europe, these things will only get worse - not better.

Volk von Deutschland, watch closely. This is your future. Not just in Essen - but everywhere. Viel Glück für deine Zukunft.

Russian Media Claims to Know the Whereabouts of Deposed Syrian Dictator Bashar al-Assad

Now, there is a resolution before the EU to support deporting these people.

MEP Mary Khan of the right-wing German Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party will introduce a resolution in the European Parliament calling for EU funding and organisational assistance to help member states to repatriate Syrian migrants in light of the fall of the Assad regime.
In her motion for a resolution, seen by The European Conservative, Mary Khan emphasises that a significant amount of Syrians in Germany have named the Assad regime as their reason for seeking asylum in Europe, and now that the regime has collapsed, the EU should aid member states in returning these Syrian nationals once their right of residence has expired.

That makes a great deal of sense. And the EU will almost certainly reject it.

Most of the nations of Western Europe are committing suicide on the installment plan. All we can do is watch - and hopefully learn from Europe's mistakes.

https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024/12/15/shocker-lovely-german-christmas-markets-overrun-by-foreign-invaders-n2183252?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=15803c7fc8c68b6fd1f0a5e7f4b59fc49df45d48335d4339ad60f7b0a0c7404d&lctg=28668535?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=15803c7fc8c68b6fd1f0a5e7f4b59fc49df45d48335d4339ad60f7b0a0c7404d&lctg=28668535?utm_source=twdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Thursday, December 19, 2024

Alexis de Tocqueville and DEI

Alexis de Tocqueville and DEI

Mark Lewis

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File

“Americans are so enamored of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.” (Alexis de Tocqueville)

Alexis de Tocqueville was a French political philosopher who visited the United States in the 1830s with a view to discovering why the American experiment in republican democracy was becoming so successful. When the United States became independent (in effect, in 1783 after the Revolutionary War), and set up a republic, there was a lot of mocking, scoffing, and laughing in Europe. “What do those dumb Americans think they are doing? They’ll never be successful.” You see, the British had tried republicanism in the 1650s after they executed their king, and it had been a miserable failure in less than 10 years. Then, the French dismembered their king in the 1790s and established a “republic” with the same catastrophic results. What made the Americans think they could succeed where the more (politically) advanced English and French had failed?

Well, by the 1830s, it DID appear to be working in the United States and de Tocqueville wanted to find out why. He investigated and traveled and wrote the two-volume “Democracy in America,” which has become a classic. He had a lot of good things to say, and the quote at the beginning of this article is one of the more intriguing.

I find the quote interesting, especially since it was written in the first half of the 19th century. Americans have always believed in an equality of sorts—“all men are created equal,” endowed by their Creator with certain natural rights, “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.” But that equality had a strict definition. In early America, it was “equality of opportunity” (except for slaves, of course), not “equality of outcomes.” Did de Tocqueville have the vision to perceive what would happen in future America?

It has long been an axiom that, if people are free, they will not be equal, and if they are equal, they will not be free. We all have different talents, abilities, personalities, ambitions, intelligence levels, etc. etc., and they create great differences of results. My bank account will never match Elon Musk’s. I’ll never be able to throw a baseball like Nolan Ryan could, or quarterback a football team like Tom Brady. The only way Elon’s and my bank accounts will ever be equal is if his money is forcibly taken from him and given to me. That’s not freedom of opportunity, that is freedom of outcome, and the only way this “equality” can be attained is by force—unless he voluntarily gave me his money, which he hasn’t yet informed me he intends to do. If Elon is left “free,” his bank roll and mine will never be “equal.” I just don’t have his money-making abilities, though maybe I have some talent he does not have.

America started out with the ideal of freedom of opportunity which, they understood and accepted, would lead to inequality of outcomes. But de Tocqueville indicated that, in his opinion, Americans have such a great love of equality “they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.” Many Americans do not—and never have—believed that, of course, but...DEI? Isn’t this exactly what DEI is? “Let’s make sure that all races, genders, and sexual preferences have equal outcomes.” This is an outcomes-based, results approach, not a merit-based, freedom approach, and DEI has been roundly criticized for that very reason. But it is a cardinal principle of the current Democratic Party, who would rather have us all “equal in slavery” than “unequal in freedom.” It is one of the greatest battles being fought in America in our age.

Lyndon B. Johnson perhaps put the Democratic Party on the road to DEI with the following statement he made in a speech at Howard University in 1965: “We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.” “Equality as a result.” This became the revolution that has, in many ways, torn America apart in the last two generations. Johnson himself was the man who signed into law the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 which gave all Americans equality before the law; ten years prior, the Supreme Court had declared school segregation unconstitutional, though it persisted for many years afterwards.

But notice Johnson’s words: we do not just seek “legal equality”—that’s equality of opportunity. Everybody equal before the law, the same right to pursue their own happiness in accordance with the laws of God. It took America nearly two centuries to get to “legal equality,” but we finally did. It isn’t practiced perfectly, and it never will be by imperfect human beings. But that IS the law in America today.

However, Johnson said that’s not good enough. We seek “equality of result.” Ok, Elon, give me a call and I’ll tell you my bank account number and you can start shoveling it in...

People who are dependent upon government for their sustenance or upward movement in society are slaves to government. That’s part of what de Tocqueville is talking about. Minorities and women are protected by the same laws today as all Americans are and thus have the same freedom of opportunity as everyone else. And millions of them have seized their opportunities and made great successes of their lives. And kudos to them.

But that doesn’t buy votes for the Democratic Party, which was the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and now DEI. And because many Americans would rather be equal in slavery than take the opportunities they now have...well, that’s why today’s Democratic Party exists. It’s about power and buying votes.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about it almost two centuries ago. It’s called “history.” We don’t know much.

https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2024/12/14/alexis-de-tocqueville-and-dei-n2649056?utm_source=thdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Trump’s Unique Opportunity to Solve the Social Security Crisis

Trump’s Unique Opportunity to Solve the Social Security Crisis

Jeff Davidson

Brandon Bell/Pool via AP

Annually, a think tank or an economist states that our Social Security funding will run dry by a certain year, unless we make stark changes. As such, Congress steals from other portions of the Federal budget to prop up the Social Security Administration.

Delaying the Inevitable

This approach to the dilemma is simply kicking the can down the road. Concurrently, no politician wants to make a move that will eternally anger voters. Yet, we know that when Franklin Roosevelt first launched the Social Security Administration, there were dozens of people in the workforce for every individual who was retiring. The ratio has fallen and now it's a little more than two workers supporting every retiree. In short, the situation is untenable.

Until now, no politician can introduce reform without risking his or her political career. National debt is $35 trillion and Social Security is the third rail of American politics. Paradoxically, age 62, in this day and age, is too early to begin paying people social security benefits: those who reach age 62 could live another 15 to 25 years or more.

So, how can we as a nation raise the age at which one first receives Social Security payments and do so in a fair manner? Donald Trump’s business wizards, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy could concoct a solution. First, determine at what age benefits should commence, perhaps 68 or 72. Regardless of what age is chosen, a relatively simple approach is available.

For those in the workforce at, perhaps, age 28 or younger, offer them, say, $3,000 right now if they will agree to delay their first social security payment until age 72 or so. For those 38 and younger offer them $5,000. For those 48 and younger, offer them $7,000. Acceptance of the plan would be totally voluntary: each taxpayer gets to choose.

Thus, induce as many tax payers as possible to agree to a later starting age by rewarding them in the present. The net present value of offering such rewards would be to the Federal government's financial advantage. If 50 million taxpayers buy in at average of $5k per person, that translates to $250 billion. Such payments would lower the overall monetary outlay, long-term, by a significant amount, while generating enthusiasm among those who have opted for this cash bonus.

Those who are close to retirement, perhaps age 59 to 62, would also be offered some type of significant incentive to delay the age at which they would first begin receiving benefits.

One can manipulate the figures, but the principle remains the same. By incentivizing people to voluntarily delay the age of initial benefits, the entire system can be revamped to not bankrupt the U.S. or anger voters on either side of the aisle. To the contrary, such a plan would contribute to a more sound national economic future as we go forward.

Handle With Care

Some will argue that the cash bonus offered to delay such initial payments for 30 to 50 years, will need to be handled delicately. True. The amount offered will have to be just enough to induce a majority of potential recipients of the value of collecting the cash now.

Others might argue that offering such instant bonuses will put a strain on our already over-stretched budget and add to our accumulating national debt. However, if those who are closest to the current age of first reception, age 62, can be induced in to delay the age at which they file for benefits, then the program’s administrators, bureaucrats throughout the federal government, and the American populace can all breath a sigh of relief. Those taxpayers who are near the current age of first reception will help to engender the economic slack that the program so fervently needs.

The younger cohorts, under 28, 38, and 48 will attain a vital psychological benefit: they will know that the program will be intact when it is time for them to retire. Surveys over the past several years have revealed that today's younger taxpayers are skeptical that the Social Security program will be in force when they reach advanced ages. With this new approach to the program, with its appropriate incentives, their fears can be allayed.

https://townhall.com/columnists/jeffdavidson/2024/12/15/trumps-unique-opportunity-to-solve-the-social-security-crisis-n2649072?utm_source=thdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Obamacare is the missing word as Democrats rage against healthcare system

Obamacare is the missing word as

Democrats rage against

healthcare system

ByW. James Antle III

The Democratic response to the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson raises questions about the scope and significance of the federal healthcare reform legislation they passed without any Republican votes under former President Barack Obama.

President Joe Biden, then the vice president, famously called the enactment of the Affordable Care Act a “big f***ing deal” at the 2010 signing ceremony. But when he sought the Democratic presidential nomination himself 10 years later, he was the only top-tier candidate running on Obamacare rather than other more government-centric healthcare plans.

Biden won the nomination, defeating several proponents of Medicare for All, including Vice President Kamala Harris. But most Democrats were speaking as if Obamacare had never passed roughly a decade later, even as they defended the law from Republican repeal attempts. “The reality is right now, we don’t have a healthcare system,” Tulsi Gabbard, then a Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate, said in 2019. “Nobody can defend the dysfunctionality of the current system,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) concurred at the time.

Democrats have sounded a similar note since Thompson’s slaying. “The visceral response from people across this country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the healthcare system,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told HuffPost when asked about jubilant social media posts celebrating his death. Some have expressed sympathy for shooting suspect Luigi Mangione.

DEMOCRATS SEARCH FOR ANSWERS AS BARACK OBAMA’S INFLUENCE WANES

“The outpouring afterward has not surprised me,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) told ABC News. “Look, I as a congressperson had UnitedHealthcare deny a prescription for a nasal $100 pump spray, and I couldn’t get them to reverse this. So imagine what ordinary people are dealing with the biggest denial comes when it’s cancer treatment. I mean, people are getting denied on cancer treatment.”

“I think this collective American experience, which is so twisted to have in the wealthiest nation in the world, all of that pain that people have experienced is being concentrated on this event,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) told a reporter in response to Thompson’s death. She later added, “I think for anyone who is confused or shocked or appalled, they need to understand that people interpret and feel and experience denied claims as an act of violence against them.”

“My view is very simple: Why can’t we have a rule that if a doctor prescribes something and if Medicare — traditional Medicare — is going to cover it, then private insurance companies should be forced to cover it?” Khanna said on ABC. “I mean, it’s absurd in this country what’s going on.”

Warren, Khanna, and Ocasio-Cortez all stressed that they did not believe violence was justified.

But Obamacare has been the law of the land for nearly 15 years and progressives still view the healthcare system as highly unjust. Many, perhaps most, elected Democrats now prefer expanding Medicare to Obamacare’s approach of mandating, subsidizing, and regulating private health insurance as a way to expand coverage. Earlier versions of the legislation also included a government-run public option that was stripped out in the Senate. Medicaid expansion was another key component of Obamacare.

The progressive fallout over the slain healthcare CEO comes just weeks after a presidential election in which Harris abandoned her past advocacy of Medicare for All, of which she was once a Senate co-sponsor, and a plan she proposed during her unsuccessful 2019 campaign for the Democratic nomination. The latter was similar to what Khanna described above.

“We will allow private insurers to offer Medicare plans as part of this system that adhere to strict Medicare requirements on costs and benefits,” Harris said at the time. “Medicare will set the rules of the road for these plans, including price and quality, and private insurance companies will play by those rules, not the other way around.” This year, she wanted to avoid criticism that she would take away private health insurance.

Voters generally criticize the high costs and unequal access in the current healthcare system while tending to give high marks to their own coverage. They respond poorly to policy changes that disrupt their existing healthcare arrangement, which is why Obamacare was initially unpopular and the Clinton administration’s healthcare plan failed to pass. Both bills cost Democrats control of the House of Representatives, 16 years apart from each other.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Obamacare rebounded when Republican attempts to repeal it began to be disruptive of existing coverage arrangements. Republicans also never coalesced around an Obamacare replacement plan. Republicans largely abandoned Obamacare repeal during President-elect Donald Trump’s first term, though they did successfully gut one of its least popular provisions, the individual mandate. Trump admitted he had only a “concept of a plan” to improve healthcare in his debate with Harris.

Nevertheless, problems in the healthcare system have persisted. The most liberal Democrats prefer solutions to the left of Obamacare, which borrowed concepts from Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare plan when he was the commonwealth’s Republican governor. Many of them are also extremely angry at health insurance companies, as recent events indicate.

polecat news and views