Abolish the City Crane Inspectors?

No sooner than I finished writing that the people would never stand for a free market in medicine, I read this article talking about the collapse of a crane in NY City.

Nowadays, every rainstorm, draught, tornada, warm day, cold day, or drowning polar bear is blamed on global warming.  And every injury or death is blamed on the lack of regulations:

“If the crane did indeed meet all city safety regulations, what went wrong?”

In case that went by too quickly, let me try to analyze it.  You see, safety is caused by inspectors.  Lack of safety is caused by lack of inspectors, QED.

But we had inspectors, so it’s not possible to even conceive of how the crane crashed!

Anyone who’s rational can see the logical error here.  That is about 1% of the population.

Abolish the FDA?

I’m putting this one into the Blind Elephants bucket.  The author starts out on solid ground:

“Incentives matter in all areas of human endeavor…”

“There is no open marketplace for medical technology…”

He’s right.  But then he segues into another line of reasoning:

“The majority cannot make the leap to see an unregulated marketplace…”

The problem isn’t “making the leap.”  The problem is that people are deeply suspicious and envious of those who succeed in business.  Can you name one recent movie about a good businessman?  How about an evil one?

People believe that drug companies would sell deadly poisons, or at best carelessly make mistakes that would kill people, chasing “the almightly dollar.”  If it has to do with money, people feel it’s evil.

Comments like this one are illustrative:

“Every time there is a disaster involving a drug, device, biologic, etc., the American public asks the FDA to do more…”

He’s right.  The public wouldn’t stand for a free market in drugs and medical devices.  They would clamor for what we have now, or something even more restrictive.  So long as they view the profit motive as the root of all evil, they always will.

Exploitation

I think “exploitation” has a funny defintion as it is actually used today:

exploitation. n. When someone accepts terms that you would not.

Coyote today captured this today with a perfect anecdote.  The money quote is:

“All of my jobs in Arizona are included in their count of “bad jobs.”  And you know what?  We have a waiting list of over 200 names of people who would take another of these jobs tomorrow if I had one to offer.”

The error is intrinsicism.  A job is neither good nor bad in and of itself.  Each has to decide for himself what job (or anything else) is good or bad.

For God’s Sake, Don’t Call Them Scholars!

JammieWearingFool posted today about the “Manhattanization of mecca”.  Yeah, right.  As if this islamic pest-hole could ever be 1% of what NY is, even now in its decline!

Anyways, he noted the folowing irony:

Next week Mecca – which is strictly off limits to non-Muslims – will host a three-day conference on the importance of dialogue with other religions. The event, to be opened by King Abdullah, will feature scholars and academics from the Islamic world. [emphasis in original]

For God’s sake, man, don’t call them “scholars” and “academics”!  They are not.  They are witch doctors.

Bisphenol-A Phobia

Gus Van Horn notes that BPA is perfectly safe, but people prefer to ignore science in favor of their fears.

It’s ironic, then, that Forbes published an article this month on a company that is capitalizing on this fear with BPA-free baby product (which, of course, cost a lot more than regular baby products).  Forbes didn’t bother to mention that BPA is safe.  They celebrated this snake oil salesman as if that’s what capitalism is all about.

NY Times, Washington Post Push Racism

Just look at this disgusting marriage of self-loathing with overtly racist ideas.  The NY Times quotes the Post:

“The Post’s op-ed page is too male and too white.”

The Times’ own opinion:

“This lack of diversity is, frankly, a broader problem…”

And to think, I was trained that argumentum ad hominem was when you dismissed an argument because of who said it.  “That’s just a typical white opinion,” neatly avoids any actual need to address the point itself.

But there ya have it, folks.  Skin color uber alles.

How Now, Blind Elephant?

Senator Tom Coburn writes today in the Wall Street Journal that the Republican Party has lost many voters because it has stopped behaving like Republicans.  Simple enough (and true enough).  Today’s Republican Party is virtually indistinguishable from the Democratic Party of 30 years ago (with the exception of their pro-military view).

The first part of the article is pretty good.  It’s not the words, GOP, it’s the deeds!

But then we get to the money quote:

“Compassionate conservatism’s starting point had merit. The essential argument that Republicans should orient policy around how our ideas will affect the poor, the widow, the orphan…”

There you have it.  It’s OK to start with the poor, widows, and orphans.  Just don’t spend “too much” on them!

“…is indisputable – particularly for those who claim, as I do, to submit to an authority higher…”

So much for the idea that the GOP is about free markets.  It’s about how to implement the Christian God’s will on earth.

“Common sense and the Scriptures show that true giving and compassion require sacrifice by the giver…”

So where is a regular guy to go?  One party’s leaders say that it’s about “deliverance from poverty” based on scripture.  The other is driven by hatred for America.

What if you don’t want scripture or multiculturalism rammed down your throat?

Isn’t this a false alternative??

Why Not Argue the Right Point?

Instapundit posted this today:

“NOT UNTIL RICH CELEBRITIES AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FLY COMMERCIAL…” — Glenn Reynolds

Why not say it simpler:

“Global warming is a myth to justify government power grabs.” — Ragnar Danneskjold

Would carbon rationing really be any better if government bureaucrats were also subject to it?  If I’m starving, it doesn’t help me if you’re also starving (or if the government is rationing your food).

 

Update

I scrolled down on Instapundit’s site, and I see why not.  He seems to believe in global warming!

“CARBON TRADING: Not bad in principle…”

Actually, Mr. Reynolds, it’s horrible in principle and practice.  Global warming is a lie, a myth, created to cow people into accepting massive new government inrusions into their lives out of fear that the sky will fall.  Second, even if global warming was real, trading carbon permission slips would be a massive, fascist intrusion into our businesses and live.  How could the weather make people think that fascism is, after all, a good thing?  Third, it is the nature of these kinds of intrusions to be corrupt and perverted.  At the end of the day, trading carbon credits will be a massive wealth-transfer scheme.  It will take money out of the hands of everyone and put it into the hands of a group of people with the right kind of political pull.

Massive Loot-Grab

This week, Representative Maxine Waters dared to say what environmentalists, er., I mean progressive er I mean liberals er, well, they’re just communists, have been thinking for over 100 years.

Just take the loot by force!

Coyote today posted about this.  He only says:

“Maxine Waters thinks she would do a better job for consumers…”

I think it’s more subtle and more profound than that.  I think (aside from the obvious power-lust in such an outrageous statement) the logic goes more like this:

• Corporations are out to take a profit from ordinary working-class folks
• Ergo, corporations are evil incarnate
• Government is of, by, and for the American People
• Ergo, government is god
• The government must take over the evil corporations (starting with oil) immediately!

It’s a magic trick to turn evil into good.  I don’t say this facetiously (well, not entirely).  But I think this is approximately the thought process used by Waters and the entire political left.

They don’t have to think about doing a job, for consumers or otherwise.  They don’t have to think about efficiency, production, or losing money (i.e. consuming more than they produce).

Communism is based on faith.

Racism, Natch

This comment by Michelle Obama posted on LGF reminds of something I’ve been thinking about for a while:

“…as a black man … Barack can get shot going to the gas station…” [emphasis in original]

Is there any evidence to even suggest that there are gangs of white thugs who go around shooting black men?:  Of course not.  But shshshhh!

Barack himself noted that the beliefs espoused by his church and his minister “are not particularly controversial.”  I agree with this.  Today, it is accepted by most Americans that blacks have grievances against whites, in a vague, collective way.  And the damage can’t really be undone.  “Whitedom” owes “blackdom” a blank check that can never be paid off, for the damage that “it” did to “them” way back.

This is original sin, but that isn’t my point here.

My point is that Americans today take for granted the god-given right, no the duty, of every black man, woman, and child to resent whitedom.  But white people are not allowed to say this is absurd.  Whites are supposed to bow their heads down in shame and (unearned) guilt.

It’s as if people can’t tell the difference between these two positions:

1. black people should think and act as individuals, there is no “blackdom” (racial/tribal collective), justice is not collective (or “social”), there is no original sin, and it’s wrong to pass laws that treat black people more favorable than white people, or take from anyone to give, unearned, to anyone else
2. blacks are inferior and should be enslaved or killed

Are there any mainstream white people articulating position #1 publicly?

Most blacks refuse to admit there is a difference, and most whites are afraid to stand up and say it.

I don’t know how much farther down our present course we can go.