In the past two years or so since I last posted on this blog, I have become so disillusioned with the political process that I've effectively become desensitized to the stupidity and downright tyranny committed by nearly every politician nearly every second of the day. I used to get angry or sad when politicians committed these heinous acts, but now all I feel is numbness inside to the point it makes me feel sick. Occasionally, upon hearing of the latest tyrannical act by a politician, I'll feel an initial shock, but it doesn't last long anymore. I can feel a full range of emotions in my personal, social, and professional lives, but I've been nearly completely desensitized to politics and current events.
How much of a change is this for me? Well, there were points in my life where I was listening to 8-12 hours of talk radio a day. Now, I may go nearly a whole week without listening to more than a few minutes. Why is this? Because the hosts and callers are so quick to embrace a politician and praise him the second it looks like he's locked up a nomination. If they're so quick to jump on the bandwagon now, there's less than a 0% chance they'll hold his feet to the fire, ever. I'm not saying don't vote for the nominee, but don't make your support a cakewalk. And then there's the insufferable barrage of politicians and other political hacks on talk radio and other news sources talking about gross encroachments into personal liberty as simple policy and budget issues. ObamneyCare costs too much, it's bad for jobs, etc. When I hear talk like that, the numbness starts. For instance, when Bill Bolling issued his press release through his press secretary after the SCOTUS ruling, framing it it these terms, he solidified himself in this camp forever to me. Meanwhile, when Ken Cuccinelli sends a "Cuccinelli Compass" from himself, not as a press release through a press secretary, titled, "Today is a dark day for Liberty" framing the issue solely in liberty terms, I'm inspired to quickly make a significant contribution to his campaign for Governor of Virginia because he at least gives me a glimmer of hope until the next idiot political hack shoots his or her mouth off again.
I used to be incredibly idealist and feel a wide range of emotions related to politics, but when nearly everything is a policy issue, not a liberty issue, nearly every politician is a tyrant. The question is not if he or she will stab us in the back, but when. Yes, there are a few exceptions: Ken Cuccinelli, Bob Marshall, Michelle Bachmann, and Eugene Delgaudio come to mind, but seriously not that many more current politicians.
I frankly don't see how anything will ever get better when the majority of voters can't think for themselves most of the time and when they can, they've been so indoctrinated by 150 years of systematic liberal re-education, that they'll vote for someone because they have good hair and tell a good lie.
And those who profess to fight for liberty, more often than not are liars who don't know what liberty really is, or worse yet, want to use the force of government to impose their version of "liberty" on the masses.
There are good people out there, but until the conversation really moves into a discussion of liberty restraining government, not false "liberty" or "equality" being forced upon individuals using the government's monopoly on coercive force, I don't see my faith in the political process returning anytime soon.
Desensitized and Disillusioned
Why Labor Unions Support Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
Disclaimer: Don’t Tread on Virginia does not support amnesty for illegal aliens or minimum wage laws. This article examines why skilled labor unions support these policies for their own interests at the expense of everyone else. Please do not stop reading this article prematurely assuming this article or website supports these policies. The purpose of this article is show that what’s good for unions is typically bad for America.
I've heard several talk radio hosts wonder why skilled labor unions support amnesty for illegal aliens. The hosts typically allege that it will cost the union members jobs. Many hosts write off the support for amnesty as support for liberal policies by the leadership regardless of the cost to rank-and-file members. I agree that this is a frequent occurrence in union political involvement. A key example is the union support for cap and trade when it hurts everyone, especially the industries with strong union presence such as mining and manufacturing. However, this is not the only factor concerning amnesty. In fact, there is an economically rational reason for skilled labor unions to support amnesty. This reason is bad for the economy as a whole and those not in skilled labor unions, but it can benefit skilled labor union rank-and-file members.
The reason why it may be economically rational for skilled labor unions to support amnesty for illegal aliens is quite similar to the reason why they support minimum wage increases. This article focuses on skilled labor unions because most unions are skilled labor unions and because advocating these policies will potentially benefit skilled laborers at the expense of unskilled laborers.
One of the main reasons employers hire illegal aliens is to sidestep the costs of burdensome labor and tax laws. If you pay an illegal alien under the table, you can sidestep minimum wage laws, tax laws, and other labor laws. Since the illegal alien is violating the law by being in the country illegally and working here illegally, you have a case of mutually assured destruction if the illegal alien reports the employer for violating labor laws or the employer reports the illegal alien to the INS. Thus, hiring an unskilled illegal alien can be far cheaper than hiring a legal unskilled employee. Hiring multiple unskilled illegal aliens can be cheaper than hiring one legal skilled employee (e.g., skilled labor union member) to do the same task.
Skilled labor is in competition with unskilled labor in many industries. For instance, say an unskilled laborer can make one widget per hour while a skilled laborer can make three of the same widgets in the same hour. The labor cost per widget is the same, ceteris paribus, if you paid the unskilled laborer $5 per hour and the skilled laborer $15 per hour. The labor cost is $5 per widget despite the skill-level of the employee, so it doesn’t matter whether you use skilled or unskilled labor.
But, suppose there is a minimum wage of $5 per hour for all employees. At this minimum wage, nothing changes because both skilled and unskilled laborers already make at least the minimum wage. Now, suppose the minimum wage is raised to $8 per hour. The labor cost for an unskilled laborer to produce one widget is now $8. However, the labor cost for a skilled laborer to produce one widget is still $5 since $15 per hour is still above the minimum wage. Skilled and unskilled labor are substitute goods, so ceteris paribus, the labor cost per widget would rise to $8 for skilled labor as well, for a skilled labor wage of $24 per hour. However, labor costs are not isolated from other costs, so we can’t consider them ceteris paribus. If $8 per widget for labor costs is too high for the employer, the unskilled laborers will be priced out of their jobs and replaced by cheaper skilled laborers in lieu of raising the wages of both types of laborers. A reduced supply of potential employees with acceptable labor costs (now only skilled laborers) will increase the wages of laborers overall and reduce the total quantity demanded of laborers. Wages of laborers will increase, but won’t skilled laborers lose jobs? Probably not, and since skilled laborers are taking the place of unskilled laborers, they’ll probably gain jobs. Remember, the total quantity demanded of labor will decrease, but the share of skilled labor in the total will skyrocket. Plus, in this example, the work of one skilled laborer can replace the work of three unskilled laborers, so you would expect higher cost but more productive (skilled) labor to replace lower cost but less productive (unskilled) labor, raising wages but lowering the number of laborers. Skilled laborers gain employment when a substitute good, unskilled labor, is priced out of the market.
That is why skilled labor union rank-and-file members benefit from minimum wage increases despite the fact that they typically make far more than the minimum wage. However, this raises unemployment for the economy as a whole, especially for unskilled laborers. What’s good for skilled labor unions is bad for the country.
Now, how does this tie into the main topic of this article, amnesty for illegal aliens? Most employed illegal aliens are unskilled laborers and many are either paid less than the minimum wage or their labor costs are otherwise less because paying them under the table allows employers to sidestep labor and tax laws.
Granting amnesty to illegal aliens takes away the threat of mutually assured destruction for the now legal aliens or citizens. They can now demand that their employer pays them the minimum wage over the table and follows all labor and tax laws since they no longer need to fear deportation from reporting their employer for violating labor and tax laws.
For the former illegal aliens, this is effectively a minimum wage increase for unskilled laborers, which will price many of them out of the market in favor of skilled laborers. This benefits rank-and-file members of skilled labor unions, again at the expense of unskilled laborers and the economy as a whole, especially the former illegal aliens. Additionally, former illegal aliens that are in fact skilled laborers will join skilled labor unions, increasing the declining memberships of private-sector skilled labor unions.
In summary, as is often the case, skilled labor unions benefit at the expense of unskilled laborers and the economy as a whole. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens means skilled labor union employment will increase while overall employment decreases. So, skilled labor union support for this policy is more than just liberal politics. Although, like most liberal policies, it favors one group at the expense of all other groups.
American Idol President to Appear on...American Idol?
This just in...
Barack Hussein Obama and his leading lady will appear in their most important roles yet...the roles they were destined to play...the American Idol president will appear on...American Idol!
He's been worshipped as an idol for years now by the left...now he's going to appear on the show the left uses to pick their idols...American Idol.
He was so great...he became an American Idol without ever appearing on American Idol...until now!
Leftist news agencies have proposed picking our presidents like American Idol...now the American Idol president...on American Idol!
Maybe he'll impress Simon...with a few verses of...Barack Hussein Obama...Mmm...Mmm...Mmm!
Though he'll probably just make a pitch for charity...while his own half-brother lives in a hut...on $12 a year!
The shallow celebrity president...showcased on America's showcase...for shallow celebrity worship!
Barack Hussein Obama...appearing on Idol Gives Back...though the idol won't give back our freedoms!
Barack Hussein Obama...further degrading the office of the presidency...Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 8:00 P.M. ET on FOX.
LoudounI.com Poll Incompetence: If the members of Loudoun's Board of Supervisors were all up for re-election today, who would you want voted out of office?
Sorry I haven't posted anything in a while, I've been dealing with some family issues.
I'm a little late on this topic, but I have some interesting insights on it. Recently, LoudounI.com had the following online poll:
If the members of Loudoun's Board of Supervisors were all up for re-election today, who would you want voted out of office?
Stevens Miller (D-Dulles), extreme leftist, was winning the poll (to be voted out of office). Then, a voting-bot was obviously put into use by the left-wingers to try to force Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling), conservative patriot to win the poll. I seriously doubt this was illegal since the bots were merely voting, not trying to cause a Denial of Service or gain access to server. Rather, it exposes incompetence in the management of the online poll because there are relatively simple ways to prevent this from happening if the webmaster put enough value in the poll to take the time to secure it.
The poll uses (it's still open) a simple HTML form that submits an HTTP POST request to transmit the vote and an ID for the poll itself, not the particular vote. It is very easy to generate an HTTP POST request from any computer or server, submit it to the poll server, and vote, over and over again automatically.
One way the webmaster could deter this without out too much server-side tracking is to include two hidden form fields, a timestamp and an encoded version of the timestamp that was hashed with another value by a function on the server. Each time someone loads the poll web page, the values would be different. When the poll is submitted, the timestamp and the encoded version can checked for tampering (the timestamp field in the submitted vote re-encoded by the server should equal the encoded version in the submitted vote). To detect machine submissions, use the timestamp to make sure the vote wasn't submitted faster than humanly possible.
No online poll can ever be considered accurate, but polls where the webmaster doesn't even attempt to deter vote-bots are totally worthless.
Until LoudounI.com, secures their online polls, their polls aren't worth the time to read the results.
UPDATE: I just saw this article: Editorial: Listening to You
This week’s poll took off, largely due to its asking readers to announce the support (or lack thereof) of the Board of Supervisors and its members. While we feel that these surveys are valuable in taking a “room temperature” of public sentiment, the polls are not intended as a scientific study. As with any online poll, there is certainly the possibility of multiple votes being cast by the same person.The red section above should read:
As with any online poll [ON OUR WEBSITE], there is certainly theIf you don't at least attempt to stop poll-bots, you're guaranteed to have them destroy the results of your poll whenever the two sides of an issue get fired up on a contentious issue.possibility[GUARANTEE] of multiple votes being cast by the same person.
