Thursday, September 28, 2017

I'm a raaaacist! (Wot?)

Since I'm a white male (gasp) I am by definition racist, at least per some people's definition. After thinking about this for awhile, I'm afraid I agree somewhat. I may well be racist by their definition, but not for the normally applied reasons.

Consider my dilemma: I supported Herman Cain for president (before his campaign imploded). The first time I sent money to a campaign was to Cain's. I supported Ben Carson for president. One of my favorite pundits has been economist Dr. Thomas Sowell. Another of my favorite pundits (and again an economist) is Prof. Walter Williams of George Mason University. I've bought books by Larry Elder and Justice Clarence Thomas. As a science-oriented child, I had George Washington Carver as one of my heroes. I could go on.

Why do I support and like these people? I liked Cain's energy and ideas. I have always been impressed with Dr. Carson. Sowell is brilliant. Dr. Sowell is excellent as a pundit and he and Prof. Williams are quite good at translating complex economic ideas into understandable, actionable tactics. Larry Elder is up my alley as a pundit. Justice Thomas seems a clear-headed, honorable man who is well placed on the Supreme Court. And stories of George Washington Carver's scholarship, research and humility (as depicted in the biographies I read) formed some of who I am today.

My problem? Nowhere in the above did I mention skin color. Since the people mentioned above made their way on their own merits (and some are known conservatives), they aren't obliged to the grievance racketeers. My support and appreciation of them is therefore prima facie evidence of my raaacism.

C'mon folks. It's about time we started celebrating people for who they are, not their pigmentation.

The NFL, knees and Democrat-driven monopoly

After a bit of reading, it appears we're all being played -- mostly by ESPN, the NFL, and the team owners.

Did you know that the NFL, due originally to Democrat support, was a nonprofit until 2015? Roger Godell was paid $44 million one year, the highest paid head of a nonprofit. Special-purpose legislation can be traced through a string of Democrats back to slimeball Senator (but I repeat myself) Huey Long, whose son, Russell Long almost literally inherited his father's seat -- passed first to his mother, then to him.

Sen. Russell Long sat on the legislation until the NFL commissioner assured him that New Orleans would get a franchise. Now the Saints have a stadium paid for by a billion in taxpayer money.

In case you didn't notice, most of the money comes from lower- and middle-class folks who buy tickets and cable TV, and pay property taxes.

Did you know that even if you don't watch football, you're still paying taxes to pay for their stadiums, which are financed via municipal bonds. And this doesn't even get into the property tax exemptions and tax rebating...

ESPN has a monopolistic contract with the NFL. The NFL has been allowed to eliminate competition (remember the AFL? USFL?) in an illegal trust.

Ultimately, the NFL will lean to the Democrat line because that's how they continue monopolistic behavior unabated, and get such sweet deals on stadiums.

So their overpaid players take a knee to protest continuing racism in the country. I consider "continuing racism" debatable, but that probably varies on your sensitivity to the subject. Even so, their choice. I would prefer they protest in a manner that doesn't instantly alienate half the country. Again, their choice, but that's OK with me--their protest alienates paying customers, lowers viewership, cuts gate and TV revenue, and shortens the continuance of anti-competitive monopolies as people like me follow the money.

They could, as an alternative, protest against the fatherless situation of children in the black community and the country. That would make much more of positive impact on the nation, and would only madden those shirking their duty as fathers.

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Austin subsidizes urban chickens

Filed under news of the ridiculous: The City of Austin will train you in chicken-keeping and subsidize your coop. Why? Since this comes under the purview of Austin Resource Recovery (aka recycling), this may be a substitute for the much-hated proposal to require Austin residents to compost food scraps, a stinky solution to a non-problem.

I admit to being curious as to whether any new positions were created in the city bureaucracy to start and expand the chicken programs. I await clarification from the head of Austin Resource Recovery's Department of Chicken-Keeping, or perhaps the head of city chicken advocacy. Will the program expand into goat-keeping as well?

Austin has been run by a plague of liberal do-gooders for ages, normally just working out 'better' ways to grab and spend citizens' money. Often this is just ironically pathetic -- for instance the more than $700 million bond package for mobility which actually reduces the number of lanes available in major streets. This time, though, the city has gone completely into self-mockery mode.

You really can't make this stuff up.