We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Alan Smithee who wrote (753691)12/7/2021 6:52:53 PM
From: sm1th
   of 763043
Brandon’s not gonna make it to the finish line.

Harris would be worse

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Hank Scorpio who wrote (753685)12/7/2021 7:06:40 PM
From: kckip
3 Recommendations   of 763043
Agree in principle, but the "I told you so's" will fall on deaf ears until/unless we find a way to counter the Left, RINO's, especially the MSM Pravda (edit: I left out big TECH and Social Media - my bad), and the "Never Trumpers". Audits complete and others ongoing - The fraud was quantified and there for everyone to see and yet nothing is going to be done about it.....

Interesting article.

MARCH 5, 2021
Consider the culture wars that have been going on for 60 years or more. It is vital to understand that they are a war of aggression by the Left against regular Americans and our beliefs and practices. Consider, also, that they came about not from cultural change but through political imposition. The Left did not wait for the culture to change. They went right at politics.

Politics is downstream from culture. You have heard it plenty of times. Andrew Breitbart coined it, and many conservatives have adopted it as a truism, almost as gospel.

But is it true? Sure, it’s true. It makes perfect sense. The country’s political views grow from a cultural soil that has been prepared. Brown v. Board of Education on school segregation would never have been widely accepted if activists, lawyers, journalists, and many others had not prepared the ground for 58 years following the disastrous Plessy decision.

“Politics is downstream from culture” has become the coin of the conservative realm.

This week, Catholic entrepreneur Kari Beckman announced a bold vision for a Catholic community outside Tyler, Texas. She said, “Right now, we have a lot of people who want to ‘fix’ politics, and that’s noble. But, unfortunately, that’s way down the river. Before that, [this new community] will help people to embrace right thinking, and from that, right philosophy.” See, politics is downstream from culture.

But is it true? Is it always true? I argue that it’s not always true, and believing it’s always true is harmful to our culture and our politics.

Consider the culture wars that have been going on for 60 years or more. It is vital to understand that they are a war of aggression by the Left against regular Americans and our beliefs and practices. Consider, also, that they came about not from cultural change but through political imposition. The Left did not wait for the culture to change. They went right at politics.

School prayer is a good place to start. Engle v. Vitale was a case brought by a group of parents in Nassau County, New York, who were unhappy with what was known as the Regent’s prayer that kids recited in local schools. The prayer was a product of serious consideration and reflection by a group of ministers, priests, and rabbis. Quite remarkably for our times, it was endorsed by the New York Association of Secondary School Principals, the New York School Boards Association, and the New York Association of Judges of Children’s Courts.

The prayer read, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.”

A New York State judge—not a fan of school prayer—took the case and ruled in favor of the prayer. Two more levels of New York State judges ruled in favor of the prayer. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court and had been approved by 11 of 13 judges. The Supreme Court struck down school prayer by a 6-1 decision.

What happened afterward? The outrage was immediate, widespread, and intense. Every governor in the country, except for New York’s, condemned the decision. Newspapers all over the country condemned it. It was then that bumper stickers began appearing that called for the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.

There was no widespread cultural call to end school prayer. The culture very much supported school prayer. Overturning it was the work of a few parents and six justices of the Supreme Court. Politics led; culture followed.

Three years later, the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that married couples have the constitutional right to contraceptives. It is true that Margaret Sanger and others, including pharmaceutical companies, ran campaigns in favor of “birth control.” Even so, by the 1950s, thirty states still prohibited the sale of contraceptives.

Contraceptives, most especially the “rubbers” found in gas station men’s rooms, were looked down upon by middle-class society. A mark of the phoniness of the Griswold decision is that Griswold herself was not an everyday citizen inconvenienced by the law; she was an activist who ran a Planned Parenthood clinic. Advocates worked on two tracks, culture and politics, and they eventually won through politics.

The same story can be told about Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton that imposed abortion on the country. There was not a groundswell of the culture calling for abortion. It was imposed through political means. Culture followed.

Was there a great cultural change concerning sodomy prior to the Lawrence v. Texas decision making it a constitutional right? No. Politics led; culture followed.

And then came Obergefell. We know for a fact that thirty-two states had already voted in favor of man-woman marriage, putting it either in state law or constitutions. Polls showed overwhelmingly that Americans were not prepared for same-sex marriage. And the voting booths of thirty-two states confirmed that. The culture was not calling for same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court imposed it. Politics imposed it. Culture followed.

Understand, there is nothing wrong with working on the culture. Nothing wrong with advancing the good, the true, and the beautiful. But working on these things does not and should not preclude working on politics. As we tend to say in Washington, D.C., it is not either-or, it is both/and.

The problem with “politics is downstream from culture” is that it may instill a kind of stasis in people: Well, I am raising my kids, and after all, we have that reading group that meets every month. Isn’t this how we change the culture? Isn’t this how we change politics way down the river? And all the while, right down the street, they are teaching sodomy to children.

Sure, learn swing dancing. Go to your reading group. But also, pound on the door of the local school board. Politics cannot wait for culture. Andrew Breitbart would agree.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: kckip who wrote (753693)12/7/2021 8:01:09 PM
From: isopatch
9 Recommendations   of 763043


<Elon Musk is calling for a collapse in multiple area of the economy if things don't change soon He addressed President Joe Biden's Infrastructure plan saying it needed to be deleted, as government spending was out of control and eventually something bad would happen. Tesla doesn't need any subsidies from the government and thinks that oil and gas subsidies should disappear as well.>

Excellent points we can all agree on. He also needs to make cars that don't blow up, catch fire or crash when the auto pilot fails


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Thomas M.12/7/2021 8:34:53 PM
7 Recommendations   of 763043
DOJ is now telling the court that Trump could not and did not incite Jan 6. Also that the Capitol Police acted unlawfully on Jan 6:


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: TimF12/7/2021 9:28:09 PM
2 Recommendations   of 763043
Tax Policy
by Steve Landsburg
on October 25, 2021
in Bad Reasoning and Current Events

I thought the whole rationale for taxing capital gains in the first place was that we want to discourage inefficiently frequent trading.

If you buy that rationale, then the last thing you want to do is tax unrealized gains. If you don’t buy that rationale, then why tax any gains?

Unless, of course, you’re more into thuggery than rationales….

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: isopatch12/7/2021 11:47:00 PM
5 Recommendations   of 763043
More good news. <Comrade Down: Saule Omarova Withdraws Nomination for Comptroller of the Currency

By Cristina Laila

Published December 7, 2021 at 3:39pm

A couple weeks ago it was reported five Senate Democrats told the White House they will not support Saule Omarova, the Communist chosen by Biden to head the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Without support from these five Democrats, Omarova’s nomination is DOA – Comrade down.

On Tuesday, Saule Omarova withdrew from consideration for the position of comptroller of the currency.

Joe Biden accepted her request to withdraw.>

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Joachim K12/8/2021 1:04:00 AM
5 Recommendations   of 763043
Václav Klaus: I Propose a “Covid Blue Book”

December 7, 2021

As usual, Former Czech President Václav Klaus is steadfast in his support for human rights and individual liberty: he has come out publicly on the side of “vaccine hesitants”.

Many thanks to Xanthippa for translating this op-ed by Mr. Klaus from the popular Czech news site

Commentary: Let’s establish blue Covid books — Vaclav Klaus

by Václav Klaus

I know that by using the word experiment, I will anger a lot of people, but today’s battle against the virus SARS-CoV-2 with the help of inadequately tested vaccines is an experiment. This is — and it is not being denied by so-called experts — a fact. These vaccines were, as a knee-jerk reaction to the evolution of the spread of Covid, approved for preliminary and “experimental” use. Last year, that was the official position.

We are dealing with serious things, and the debate about them ought to be rational and fair. Our country (just as other countries in the West) is split in half. Some people let themselves be vaccinated without any resistance, perhaps because they truly are afraid and believe the huge propaganda — incomparable to anything in the past — regarding this particular vaccine. They aren’t even bothered by things all of a sudden being different than what they had been promised. And now it has been shown that:

that a single shot is not enough (and it is becoming clear that we will be dealing with repeated vaccinations, just as with the normal flue);that the length of the vaccines’ effectiveness is shorter than was originally declared;that the vaccines do not protect against becoming ill with Covid, but, perhaps prevent its worse course;that even a vaccinated person can spread the virus, etc., etc.Other people had no great illusions about the vaccines, but got vaccinated so they would have ‘their paper’, so they could enjoy the privileges of the vaccinated. The proportion of those who truly believed, and those who merely accept it, cannot be exactly known, but it definitely is not 10:1. More likely, it is 5:5. That is not what those who blindly defend the vaccines want to hear.

On the other side are equally rational-minded people. They are fighting against the vaccine because they don’t believe it, because they fear the side effects, because they see the falsehood in the eyes of renowned promoters of the vaccines who are in business and in medicine. However, some of them are rejecting the forced vaccinations on principle, due to its limiting human rights and freedoms. We do not know exactly the proportion of these, either. I belong to this last group. I am demonizing the vaccines less (even though I do not believe in them). I am protesting more against someone forcing me to be vaccinated, but mainly I have a different level of aversion to risk (which is a well-defined economic concept). I am willing to risk more.

There is no solution. These two groups of people are, in many respects, clearly delineated and separated. More (and less stupid) propaganda about the vaccines will not change this. To let oneself be vaccinated or not be vaccinated, that is problematic dilemma, for which it is typical to have arguments for and against (even though Mr. Kubek might not realize this). It could be true that vaccinations help in the aggregate (the economist in me calls it macro-view), but is no less unarguably true that vaccines do not help everyone. For some it is unsuitable and dangerous.

That is something that the authoritarian defenders of the vaccinations do not accept. To the point of numbness, they tell us the advantages of the vaccines and lately, they are even moving towards considerations of mandatory vaccinations. But that is a blanket argument, which is missing ‘micro’ considerations.

Let’s try it from the other side. I propose we tackle it from the opposite direction — not to convince about the advantages of the benefits of the vaccines, but to clearly define for whom and under what circumstances the vaccines are inappropriate. This a non-zero number of people. Let me help my point with an analogy — a law mandated basic military service, but alongside it there also existed a blue book. Messrs. Vojtechs, Kubkas, Smejkals: stop talking about mandatory vaccinations and instead start a serious debate about “Covid Blue Book”. There we can register all the warnings, all alternative concepts and hypotheses, all the risks and concerns. Those risks, and serious ones at that, are really not just a few. It is easy to talk about the benefits; to define specific risks is much more difficult. It is not sufficient just to look at the overview, from the ‘macro-view’, that the vaccines help (even though just partially).

Before any attempt at political approval for mandatory vaccinations, let’s define the conditions of this singular “blue book”. Should a citizen not strongly demand this of our politicians and their medical experts? If I were to organize demonstrations, it would be with this focus.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: i-node12/8/2021 1:29:11 AM
2 Recommendations   of 763043

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Thomas M. who wrote (753695)12/8/2021 9:15:16 AM
From: skinowski
   of 763043
Sounds like the defendant in question tried to make his behavior “legitimate” because President Trump “authorized” it. (This person carried a baseball bat and a pepper spray and had altercations with the police).

Of course, a President cannot “authorize” actions that are against the law. If the defendant thought he could, he was wrong. What’s shocking is that his lawyers either didn’t know that either, or denied their client proper advice. Very strange.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: TimF12/8/2021 9:24:38 AM
2 Recommendations   of 763043
Brickbats: Soviet Edition Scott Shackford and Peter Bagge | From the December 2021 issue
(Illustrations: Peter Bagge)

Soviet culture officials in the late 1940s attempted to downplay the accomplishments of Europe and America by renaming imported foods to make them seem Russian and by claiming credit for various innovations. Camembert was renamed zakusochnyi ("snack cheese") to disguise its French origins. A newspaper declared that the Palace of Versailles was a knockoff of palaces built by Peter the Great. Soviet encyclopedias incorrectly attributed the first successful airplane flight not to the Wright brothers but to Russian inventor Alexander Mozhaysky.
Illustrations: Peter Bagge

Following World War II, Josef Stalin approved the expansion of car production for individual purchase. But with only 6,000 produced in 1946 and 10,000 produced in 1947, there weren't enough to go around. Trade unions organized waiting lists that stretched as long as 6 years.

In 1970, a Soviet criminologist determined that—due to widespread scarcity of housing, consumer goods, and materials needed for manufacturing—corrupt economic practices like bribery and embezzlement accounted for one-quarter of all crimes in the Soviet Union.

To deal with agricultural shortcomings, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev promoted the expansion of corn as a crop well-suited to feeding both people and livestock. From 1954 to 1955, the amount of corn the country grew boomed from 4.3 million to 18 million hectares. It reached 37 million hectares by 1962. But while the country focused on increasing the amount of corn it grew, it did not emphasize efficient or sustainable farming or give much consideration to appropriate growing conditions. In 1962, a cool, rainy spring and summer killed off 70–80 percent of the plantings.

Illustrations: Peter Bagge

In 1966, the Soviet Union mandated that all companies begin spending 1 percent of their revenue on advertising, despite the absence of market competition or even goods to promote. From 1967 to 1991, the country's only advertising agency produced ads for minced chicken, hot air showers, cars, and more than 6,000 other products, many of which did not actually exist, would never be produced, and Russian citizens could not buy.

Humorous game show KVN, which featured teams of competing college students, launched on Soviet television in 1961. Part quiz show, part improvisational comedy, it quickly became a national craze. But as the Soviet political climate grew more repressive in the late 1960s and early 1970s, censors grew hostile to the show's humor. It was canceled in 1972 despite its popularity. It returned to the airwaves in 1986 and is still on today.

Illustrations: Peter Bagge

Under Khrushchev, a "thaw" allowed state-funded Soviet artists to experiment in styles other than the utopian propaganda of Socialist Realism. But at an art exhibition in Moscow in 1962, Khrushchev condemned and insulted the experimental and abstract artwork that his policies had led to. He suggested that several of the artists were "pederasts" and "parasites" and threatened them with imprisonment. Though he didn't follow through on his threats, the thaw faded and adherence to Socialist Realism was once again enforced.

In 1985, not long after taking charge of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev began a campaign to try to reduce alcoholism. He prohibited alcohol sales before 2 p.m. and shut down distilleries and vineyards in republics such as Moldavia (now Moldova) and Georgia. Like America's attempts at prohibition, the efforts resulted in spikes in organized crime and black markets. The state also lost revenue, enough to cause budget deficits, and Gorbachev abandoned the campaign in 1987.

Sources: "Seventeen Moments in Soviet History" archive, Michigan State University; "Soviet Spiel: Why the U.S.S.R. Produced Ads for Non-existing Products," Rakesh Krishnan Simha, Russia Beyond; "Political Corruption in the U.S.S.R," J.M. Cramer, Western Political Quarterly, Volume 30, Issue

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10