He links an article on this BS, which says: "The rumored details have always given progressives heartburn: civil immunity, no investigations, inadequate help for homeowners and a small penalty for the banks."
Imagine, if you will, what would happen if the penalty for armed robbery was that you had to give back some of the money you got, but that you would be thereafter immune from prosecution.
There would be lines of people waiting their turn to rob places.
So the big banks commit massive fraud during the housing bubble, and thereafter the only penalty they face is that they have to give some of the money to the federal government. For that, they get permanent immunity to prosecution and investigation and they keep most of their ill-gotten gains.
I guess it means that Obama's an honest politician: once he's bought, he stays bought.
Not that the GOP leadership is any better, as Vox Day notes.
* * *
Unions are no longer about helping workers get a fair shake. In fact, unions haven't been about that for a long time. No, unions are about political power and money, and have been for decades.
More corruption that needs to end.
* * *
It helps if you remember that public school is part of the state. Public schools are the major component of the government monopoly on education. Of course they're going to punish any student who doesn't share the statist view of the world. Why be surprised?
* * *
Iran is run by a bunch of psychos and our plans for dealing with Iran should reflect that.
* * *
Karl Denninger is registered as a Libertarian and he explains why. In the middle of this is an explanation of why "the War on Drugs" is a failure:
I looked up the so-called "shake and bake" method (online at that) and found several crude "recipes." I know enough about chemistry to immediately recognize that these forms of creating this drug are extremely dangerous, and if you attempt them you've got a good shot at ending up severely injured or dead from exactly the sort of explosion being discussed in the article, and what's worse is that the chemicals involved are strong acids and bases, which means chemical burns will be added to your injuries.Emphasis removed. You see, the law isn't enough to stop people from doing things, even things which are harmful to themselves in the long term, because the harm that results from those things isn't enough.
Given the prevalence of these incidents anyone thinking about doing this has to know about the risks. Yet they choose to undertake them anyway.
Compounding the problem is the fact that due to EMTALA (a Reagan-era law) hospitals must treat emergency patients irrespective of ability to pay. And these are emergency patients.
So we have several problems here. First, we made these drugs illegal. Then, we cracked down on the means that people used to produce them anyway, driving abusers of these drugs to more-dangerous means of producing what they were trying to obtain and radically increasing the street price. And finally, we wind up paying for it again several times over when the drug addict's lab literally blows up in his face, severely injuring him or her.
At the same time I can get shitfaced drunk all day long and that's perfectly legal, despite the fact that doing so is known to cause liver cancer. I can then force society to pay for the treatment. I can also smoke like a chimney, despite knowing that it is likely to cause heart disease, emphysema and lung cancer, and bill society to pay for the treatment. Or I can choose to have unprotected anal sex and again, if I contract HIV doing so force society to pay for my treatment once again.
If you don't see the problem here you're not paying attention.
Dominion over one's person is a two-edged sword. The meth addict isn't going to stop using meth. We know this because if the law was a deterrent or even the risk of outright massive disfigurement or painful death was, there wouldn't be people blowing themselves up in these makeshift labs.
But there are.
HIV is a nasty way to die. Were this a sufficient deterrent nobody would engage in unprotected anal sex. But people do.
Emphysema and lung cancer is a nasty way to die as well, as is liver cancer. Yet people still smoke and drink to excess, despite knowing these facts.
In the 1920s we attempted an experiment in America. We made liquor illegal in 1919 with the 18th Amendment and repealed it in 1933 with the 21st Amendment.
Why did the 18th Amendment fail?
That's rather simple: Despite being illegal, people did not stop drinking.
You'd think that yeah, okay, the prospect of lung cancer is scary enough to keep people from smoking--but nicotine is addictive and most people who smoke don't give a rat's ass about something that might happen and might not; and anyway you could just as easily get hit by a falling meterorite tomorrow, so WTF?
Our primary measure for "success" in "the War on Drugs" is street price. Did the street price of meth go up? Great! We're reducing the supply of drugs!
...yet people continue to buy the drugs and use them. The law ends up benefitting the people who make and/or import the drugs because they get a higher return on their investment; meanwhile there are plenty of drugs to go around and the addicts continue to get their junk.
The government has demonstrated that it cannot impede the flow of illegal drugs into this country, not enough to make a real difference. All its efforts have done is to make the suppliers richer.
So if you "shake and bake" meth, you run the risk of burns and worse--but if you're successful, man, you'll make hundreds of dollars on the product! Just for mixing a couple dollars' worth of chemicals in a jug and letting it sit for a few hours. Man! Screw that "work at McDonald's" bullshit! I ain't gonna wear that stupid little hat and ask "do you want fries with that" a million times a day when I can make $1,000 in an afternoon just by throwing a bunch of chemicals in a bottle and selling what comes out! I wonder if it's done yet? *boom*
* * *
* * *
Clearly the only thing we can do now is to enact a law which requires you to submit a photo ID and undergo a background check before you can buy highlighters and AA batteries:
How to make a stun gun from a highlighter and $1 worth of other components. Hit someone in the right spot with this and you'll kill him. This is TOO DANGEROUS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF ILLINOIS TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE!
* * *
The more that I look at the keyboard on my desk, the more I think I need to put it through the dishwasher or something. Man is it crummy!
Just what I need: something else on my "to do" list. I'm down to 2 days' worth of cat food, and I'm low on paper products, and so shopping is a necessity within the next couple of days. I have to go to the bank--bills are coming due, including the quarterly health insurance bill, which hasn't gotten any smaller. (Thanks Obama! Thanks Democrats!)
I'm in a bit of a funk.
...on the plus side, another item on my "to do" list is the online pre-interview screening test for Comcast. It's for a phone jockey job, but I am told such positions run about $14 an hour to start and it would keep me from having to dig further into my inheritance to support my continued existence. Why, I'd even be able to think about buying new tires for the Jeep and perhaps even get a new computer if I was--gasp!--working for a living.
I don't like the idea of answering phones for 8 hours a day, five days a week; and it's likely that I'd have to give up choir since (again, I'm told) that a new employee will probably start on the 3p-12a shift. I don't mind that, but if it's a choice between giving up Tuesday night Bible study and choir, choir loses. I like singing in the choir but I get more out of Bible study. So my availability (assuming I have a choice) will exclude Tuesdays and otherwise be wide open.
But I like the idea of earning an income better than continuing to spend my inheritance.
The commute shouldn't be too bad--Lombard, which is where I was going to college; it's about an hour's drive most of the time--and I'm pretty good at customer service. Besides, phone jockey isn't the only position they're hiring for, and if I can get an interview I might be able to end up doing some kind of technical work instead.
It could be worse! I could have to dig ditches--with my back. Yeah.
...Comcast is a pretty large company, so when Europe hits the shitter I don't think I'll be out of a job, at least not right away. It really depends on how hard the fallout of that hits the US. In the worst-case scenario it won't matter if I have a job or not, though.
* * *
For some reason, though, last night at Bible study I was on edge. The feeling persisted through anime and WoW, so I took half a Xanax before bed; and of course now I feel like a zombie. *sigh*