Monday morning links

Welfare State: It is not altruism to enable the self destructive. It is not altruism to do for others what they can do for themselves, if they never accomplish anything useful or productive. In fact, it is not just myopic; it is venal to rob them of the opportunity to progress and mature.
That said, while I am appalled at what the Welfare State did to the black family, I find citing Ben Franklin just a little too facile and deceptive. In BF’s generation, America was still wide open and agricultural (80%+ of the population); there was more opportunity to be self-sustaining for those amongst us who are less gifted in abstract, verbal, & mathematical skills. Assistant Village Idiot has posted on the tragic dilemma that is “Baltimore” and the reality that there is no magic bullet to fix this. And of course, speaking of mokitas, whether you agree, or not, it is quite impossible to have a fact based, main stream, dialogue.

#2 Exasperated on 2015-05-11 07:39 (Reply)

Oh boy! Another article critiquing British philosophers and their attack on Well-to-do- parents' privilege.

How soon until we're treated to another of Donnie's tirades, claiming nobody read the underlying source materials (except him, of course!).

Hey, Donnie! Tell us again how SMRT you are.

#3 Earl T on 2015-05-11 08:56 (Reply)

I still don't understand why they don't just price the water based on supply and demand. The increasing price would cause a natural conservation, and force many businesses which need it to not only pay their share - but search out new resources.

#4 Bulldog on 2015-05-11 09:10 (Reply)

California drought: Court rules tiered water rates violate state constitution

In a ruling with major implications for California's water conservation efforts during the historic drought, a state appeals court on Monday ruled that a tiered water rate structure used by the city of San Juan Capistrano to encourage saving was unconstitutional.

The Orange County city used a rate structure that charged customers who used small amounts of water a lower rate than customers who used larger amounts.

But the 4th District Court of Appeal struck down San Juan Capistrano's fee plan, saying it violated voter-approved Proposition 218, which prohibits government agencies from charging more for a service than it costs to provide it.

http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_27954116/california-drought-court-rules-tiered-water-rates-violate

#4.1 feeblemind on 2015-05-11 09:29 (Reply)

In one of the sections in yesterday's Chronicle was an article indicating that Crystal Geyser, the bottled water company, purchased a larger bottling plant within the last year and is going to start tapping into California's groundwater supplies for their business. It turns out that there is no law or regulatory agency that has a say regarding the use of groundwater. Crystal Geyser can do as they please, thus depleting the water supply even further. It is estimated that the Hetch Hetchy reservoir, which serves San Francisco with all of our drinking water, is about three years away from going dry. Then stuff's gonna get scary.

#4.1.1 kellym on 2015-05-11 12:18 (Reply)

Again, if this was priced to supply and demand, Crystal Geyser wouldn't be "depleting" anything.

#4.1.1.1 Bulldog on 2015-05-11 13:00 (Reply)

"Time for the welfare state to stand trial"

In the 60's the Democrats made a political decision to create a welfare state which would make a large segment of the population dependent on government largesse and they would thus become permenent Democrat voters. No matter the cost to the country ($18 trillion and counting), no matter the cost to the peole who are on welfare, all that mattered was that the Democrats created a situation that would assure them majority political power. But Welfare is so harmful to the country that more independent voters rebelled and the effectiveness of welfare as a lock on power has been reduced. The NEW Democrat plan is to flood the country with immigrants legal and illegal who will be able to identify the Democrats as their benefactors and will become the new Democrat base. Again no matter that it cripples the country, takes jobs from Americans, increases welfare costs and creates a situation where one group most vote to take by force of law what others have to keep the "free stuff" flowing. The Democrats are eager to flood the country with illegals and the Republicans feel their only option is to jump on this bandwagon and flood America with immigrants so they too can get those new voters. Many of these immigrants do not want to be Americans, do not want to assimilate but they do want the "free stuff". Instead of the great melting pot American is becoming a dysfuntional conglomerate of self segregating minorties each selling their vote for the right to loot the treasury and all the while our traitor politicians are fighting to be the enablers in the destruction of this once great country. Most Americans remain simply unaware of the massive effort to reduce America to a third world country and may not wake up to what is going on until it is too late. Meanwhile just pay your higher taxes every year so we can keep the gravy train running.

#5 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-05-11 10:02 (Reply)

Russia and America: Stumbling to War

This is a long and very interesting article about Russia, the thinking of Putin and his inner circle, the Ukraine and our counter moves.

I would encourage all MF readers interested in geopolitics to have a look at it.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russia-america-stumbling-war-12662

#6 feeblemind on 2015-05-11 12:29 (Reply)

The Word “But” Simply Doesn’t Apply
(quoting the Professor Mondo blog:)

QUOTE:

It doesn’t matter that they’re Illinois Nazis. It doesn’t matter that they’re NAMBLA. It doesn’t matter that they’re people who want to tear down the puppy orphanage and replace it with a baby-punching factory. If all they’re doing is expressing a viewpoint, there is no justification for stopping them that couldn’t eventually be used against anyone.

there's so much wrong here, badly reasoned, ignorant BS.

all this blather about the 1st (14th) amendment. "there is no justification" because the constitution raises a high barrier when the government restricts speech content (which it can, and does). BO'R is not the government. the 1A does not protect you from BO'R's opinion, unless he slanders you. if he says you should exercise discretion when taunting rabid dogs, regardless of whether or not he's right, this is not a first amendment issue, whether or not your hobby is rabies.

You can invoke 1A issues if he argues that the public authorities should, on any 1A protected forum, restrict Gellar, or restrict Gellar but not islams.

#7 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-11 12:37 (Reply)

If you follow that argument, it turns back on your own statement. No one is preventing O'Reilly from speaking either. They are merely saying that the distinction he and others are making is in error, and are trying to undermine any traction the idea of limiting speech might get in law. I don't know about Bill, he might be just saying "this isn't wise." But there are certainly others who say "This should not be only discouraged, but forbidden."

Cf Sweden

#7.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2015-05-11 15:24 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The First Amendment, she said, isn’t meant to protect popular speech; it’s meant to protect “the most outrageous, offensive, incendiary speech.”

The 1A is meant to protect outrageous speech from government control, and that isn't being proposed by BO'R and I'm certain Kelly knows this and is counting on public ignorance as a debate tactic. BO'R is an idiot for not destroying this argument out of hand.

IF B'OR or anyone else argues for gov't restriction on Geller's projects, then the story is different, slightly, because its anyone's right 1A to petition the government for laws that would not pass 1A muster. But BO'R is not even doing that much, and if he had, Kelly would be scoring points.

If the government passes content restrictive laws limiting the trashing of islam, then that's a completely different issue. But there are so many protections built into first amendment law that banning islam bashing is just not possible, Sweden notwithstanding.

I'll admit that for the libtards and some parts of the conservative movement, a ban on attacking islam features in their respective wet dreams. the tards want this fantasy, the conservatives want to think this fantasy is a real possibility because if They ban radical islams, sure as shi'ite They'll come after the Four Square Methodits next.

#7.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-11 16:06 (Reply)

I’m More Hateful Than Pamela Geller

Bandwagoneer 1/c David French, you are truly more hateful than Geller. But I am more hateful than you, because I want all islams deported back to the sands.

Where's my hateful award from the National Review? Where's my honorable mention in respected blog aggregators?

and for the record, your Christian God does not hate jihadies, so do not take our holy book to justify your inferior hatred.

#8 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-11 12:58 (Reply)

Feds to regulate soap.

Wow. I was just thinking about this this morning.
what don't they regulate? my state has a dept overseeing the safety of stuffed animals.

And not just the feds. Got wind that our local council wants to regulate our lawns, driveways and esp space around our businesses.
They seem to think everything should look like better homes and gardens
And if they suceed and lose tax revenue by putting us lut of business--they will just raise the local services tax on the residents. Large % of them elderly.
Oh they are also requiring inspections and fees for septic. Solutions in search of problems. And revenue.

#9 fjord on 2015-05-11 14:39 (Reply)

Diversity in cities is admired for producing good restaurants and sighs of self-satisfaction as one drives home.

#10 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2015-05-11 15:29 (Reply)

From the Salon article:

"This is not a battle we have chosen; the battle has chosen us. It’s time to fight back, and hard."

As has been often said, it takes two to make peace, but only one to make war. And the bad guys get a vote.

#11 RonF on 2015-05-11 19:15 (Reply)

They get the FIRST vote.

#11.1 Sam L. on 2015-05-11 20:52 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Monday, May 11. 2015

Monday morning links