What Is the Left?

In reading a blog I like I ran across this comment. The person succinctly describes Leftism.

Let’s be a bit more honest. Leftwingers lie. You’re thinking that they’re like Conservatives and that they’re being straightforward about their motivations and drives, which they never are.
They hate themselves (and I mean that literally), humanity itself (they truly think less humans would be a good thing), their parents (Babyboomers were psychotic in this regard), their country (they believe everything about us is wrong), and their race, whatever that may be. They’re childish, infantile, lazy and want everything handed to them. When they see a successful person they’re filled with envy and want to figure out a way to bring that person down.

They just support anything that destroys everything life sustaining and positive.

So they literally support crime, yes, they’re literally pro-crime, pro-baby killing and pro-chaos. Who the hell else would watch BLM burning down a city and make excuses for it and support it altogether? I was horrified by the Kate Steinle verdict. Weren’t we all? Yet what was the Right’s reaction? No burning down of San Francisco. Just a federal case brought against the monster. In other words something constructive, not destructive. The Right builds, the Left just wants to tear down every institution the West has built.

You make a big mistake when you take them at their word. Their motivations are deeply dark.

Like they’re never pro-woman. They’re truly anti-man. They’re not builders, they’re destroyers. It’s a very dark philosophy. I know because like many a Conservative I’m actually a former liberal until I found out the truth about their motivations.

Another One at the Net

A poor misguided snowflake submitted a letter to the editor in the CA on net neutrality. The headline given on it was “Liberty and net neutrality for all.” So now, net neutrality = liberty? Hardly.

The writer’s screed drags in “of the people, by the people, for the people” quote and says (patriotic music here, please) “repealing net neutrality is in direct defiance of principles which are the very backbone of our country. Actions like this will only worsen the imbalance of power and widening class divide that is currently threatening our country. Americans need to be free to raise our voices! We should not be censored by those with a self serving agenda. Controlling what information its citizens have access to is a trait of totalitarian countries, not democratic ones. To those in power: if you love America and its people at all, save net neutrality.”

Except he has just made the argument for repealing net neutrality.

So many young people – I assume he is because of their love of all things tech, but don’t know that he is – have been brainwashed. They hear the term “neutrality” and assume it’s accurate and fair. They are too inexperienced to know that the liberals/democrats always name a bill or idea the exact opposite of what it is. (See Affordable Care Act)
The whole net neutrality thing is more complicated than what it appears on the surface.

Here’s a list of 7 reasons why net neutrality is idiotic, courtesy of the Daily Wire.

Net neutrality is the notion that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) shouldn’t be able to “slow down, speed up, or block data as it is routed from its content originator to end users” in order to favor particular sites. The net neutrality regulations put in place under the Obama administration involved subjecting the Internet to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, where it’s considered a public utility that is subject to the iron grip of the FCC.

The FCC is now trying to kill these regulations, and they are right do so. Here are seven reasons why.

1. The instances of ISPs slowing down or blocking data to favor certain sites over others are few and far between. Ian Tuttle notes at National Review that when the FCC first attempted net neutrality regulations in 2010, they were only able to “cite just four examples of anticompetitive behavior, all relatively minor.” Cell phone networks, which are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations, don’t engage in such anticompetitive behavior.

There’s a reason for this: such behavior doesn’t cut it in a free market. As Ben Shapiro wrote in 2014, “Consumers would dump those ISPs in favor of others” if those ISPs slowed down or blocked data as favoritism toward certain sites.

2. Under Title II, the Internet is subject to a bevy of regulations at the whim of the FCC. ISPs have to submit proposals for any “new technology or business model” to the FCC, which will severely hamper innovation.

3. The FCC can also subject ISPs to a slew of taxes under Title II. Per Tuttle, the FCC has the power to levy taxes against companies subject to Title II. Tuttle points out that “telecommunications companies are generally subject to higher state and municipal taxes than other businesses.”

4. The FCC also has the power to prevent ISPs from charging websites at rates they deem to be unfair and ends “paid priority.” This is bad economics, as Shapiro explained:

Netflix consumes a huge amount of peak traffic bandwidth. That costs ISPs money. Pornography sites consume a huge amount of bandwidth. That costs ISPs money. Were an ISP to push YouPorn to pay fees for its higher bandwidth, consumers of the ISP who did not use YouPorn would be the beneficiaries — they wouldn’t be subsidizing YouPorn. As Alexandra Petri of Washington Post writes, “To use one of those dreaded analogies, if you are constantly driving huge trucks, full of big deliveries of pornography, along a road, why shouldn’t you have to pay more for the road’s upkeep?”

Meanwhile, other ISPs could calculate that they want to absorb the costs of YouPorn in order to carry YouPorn, since YouPorn could refuse to pay the fees to the first ISP. That would be an advantage for the second ISP. In other words, market choices take place, and those can provide options to consumers. Net neutrality would ban such deals.

5. It’s a form of censorship. It’s obviously not the kind of blatant censorship that one would expect under totalitarian governments, but the FCC has a way of being subtle in how they control content, per Skorup:

Some Internet providers may initially fight or test the legal boundaries, but the FCC has ways of breaking defiant firms. The most alarming is that the agency is increasingly using license and transaction approvals to coerce various policies — like net-neutrality compliance, increasing the number of, say, public-affairs, Spanish-language, and children’s TV shows, and abandonment of editorial control of TV and radio channels — that it cannot, or will refuse to, enact via formal regulation. In the long run, Internet and technology companies, now FCC supplicants, will have to divert funds from new services and network design to fending off regulatory intrusions and negotiating with the Internet’s new zoning board.

In other words, with the FCC controlling the ISP market they can and will use their power to coerce them into providing content that’s more toward their liking.

6. It’s crony capitalism in favor of web giants like Facebook and Google. That’s why they support net neutrality, since it targets their competitors.

7. The better way to ensure net neutrality is to breathe more capitalism into the ISP market rather than government control. Instead, the FCC should be encouraging de-regulation in order bring in more competition, which is the real check against corporate abuse.

Everything the young person rails against in his letter is what net neutrality is all about.

When did education stop telling students to think for themselves?

Harold Ford Jr. Fired

This is just breaking and it’s from the HuffPost:

Former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford Jr. has been fired for misconduct by Morgan Stanley after facing a human resources investigation into allegations of misconduct, a company spokeswoman confirmed.

“He has been terminated for conduct inconsistent with our values and in violation of our policies,” a spokeswoman for Morgan Stanley told HuffPost in an email.

At least one woman, who is not a Morgan Stanley employee but interacted with Ford in a professional capacity, was interviewed by Morgan Stanley’s HR department as part of the investigation.

In two interviews with HuffPost, the woman alleged that Ford engaged in harassment, intimidation, and forcibly grabbed her one evening in Manhattan, leading her to seek aid from a building security guard. The incident took place several years ago when Ford and the woman were supposed to be meeting for professional reasons. Ford continued to contact her after the encounter until she wrote an email asking him to cease contact.

The email, which was reviewed by HuffPost, shows that the woman emailed Ford after he repeatedly asked her to drinks. She asked him not to contact her anymore, citing his inappropriate conduct the evening where he forcibly grabbed and harassed her. Ford replied to the email by apologizing and agreeing not to contact her.

HuffPost is not identifying the woman at her request but has reviewed emails that confirm her interactions with Ford and spoke to two people whom the woman confided in about the incident. One woman heard from Ford’s accuser the night of the incident and described her as “distraught, shocked, and frightened,” and said that she was concerned about any career ramifications should she report the incident.

Ford comes from a prominent political family in Tennessee. His father, Harold Ford Sr., held a congressional seat for 12 terms before retiring, leaving his son to run for the seat, a race which he won handily. Ford served in the House for nearly 10 years before deciding to run for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Republican Bill Frist. Ford lost that hotly contested 2006 race by fewer than three points to current Republican Sen. Bob Corker.

Since leaving Congress in 2007, Ford has worked for two financial services companies, first for Merrill Lynch and then Morgan Stanley, which he joined in 2011 as a managing director.

At the time Morgan Stanley announced the hire, The New York Times described Ford’s role as a rainmaker of sorts: “Mr. Ford will be responsible for ‘building business opportunities’ for clients, Morgan Stanley said. He will manage relationships with corporate directors, senior executives and institutional investors, as well as private clients.”

Ford also serves as a paid on-air political analyst for NBC/MSNBC and regularly appears on the MSNBC program “Morning Joe.”

Is anyone surprised that another Democrat was doing this? Only that he got caught.

If at First You Don’t Succeed…

The Progressives try, try again. That’s apparent after yesterday’s City Clowncil meeting (sorry to use that term, but I can never again see them as anything but a bunch of clowns bumbling and fumbling life for Memphians).

Here’s what they managed to do at yesterday’s meeting. They committed us to pre-K. That’s been a progressive dream for years. According to the advocates, pre-K will save us all. Mayor Strickland says “It can truly be a gamechanger.” How? How many kids will it entail? How will we get the money for it? Strickland wants to do it by increasing the hotel/motel tax to 5%. That’s the state maximum. Thank God for Republicans running our state or it would be outrageous.

Clowncil man Berlin Boyd finds pre-K to be more important than police. Tell that to your neighbors whacked over the head in their own driveways. “We have to do something,” he said. “We cannot sit on the sidelines and say our answer to Memphis’ problems is finding more money for police.”

The mothers of many pre-K black kids killed in drive bye shootings might disagree.

If you’ll recall, this issue of Pre-K and funding came up in the fall of 2013. Memphians voted down a tax increase to fund it. Here we are back at it again. Progressives never stop.

The Clowncil also endorsed an MLGW rate hike. For liberals, taxation is the solution for all problems. We’ve had a hike in the water rates last year, a gas rate hike in 2008 and an electric hike in 2004. We were told that cutting back energy use would save us money and save the planet. Looks like neither of those is now happening.

Then the Clowncil members would like to extend term limits for them and the mayor. Bill Morrison says it’s for our good. “I truly feel this is a step to serve our constituencies better.” Sure. There’s never enough time at the trough for liberals.

However, I’m not so sure Strickland will get another term. He has done a poor job all the way around in my opinion. We’ll see.

Instant Runoff Scam Returns

It’s a truism. If Democrats can’t or don’t win an election, they change the rules.

It doesn’t matter what our Constitution says or even what the voters think; they’ll find a way to circumvent rules to push their candidates to victory.

We are seeing that again lately with the renewed push for instant runoff elections. You may have noticed a flurry of stories lately in the CA talking about the virtues of instant runoff elections. That’s because the City Clowncil agenda today includes a vote on whether to have a referendum in next year’s election to repeal instant runoff elections.

The CA’s favorite liberal/progressive water carrier, David Waters, addresses the issue in a front page story today. It’s really an editorial that they decided to give front page billing because anymore news isn’t facts, just presentations of liberal propaganda.

Waters writes that we approved instant runoff elections in 2008. He says, “Theoretically, instant runoffs make it easier for challengers to unseat incumbents in multi-candidate district races.” Right there that gives you the motive for this push; Republicans currently are the incumbents and he wants to push them out.

Waters continues, “Instant runoffs aren’t perfect, but they do ensure that all winners are decided on election day rather that (sic) in a costly – and rarely attended – second runoff election weeks later.” Here’s the translation: our voters, Dems who don’t really pay attention to issues but we round up to vote Democrat for us, don’t follow through and come vote in a runoff election. That hurts Democrats and gives momentum to people who really care about issues who do turn out.

We can’t have that, can we?

His/their propaganda gets buttressed on the editorial page with a guest columnist’s “Instant runoff voting will be better for Memphis.” Guess who the guest is? Corey Strong, chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party. No bias there, eh?
He, too, gives away the store so to speak by writing, “instant runoff voting is a superior system of voting to our current system. Second, many of our elected officials are terrified of the types of changes that it will take to move Memphis into a progressive direction.”

Come again? IRV is superior because you say so? It’s superior because we are impeded now from becoming that progressive vision you want? Personally, progressive really means regressive to me in that we lose our freedoms.

The author goes on to suggest that runoff elections are racist. “We know how challenging it is to get poor and minority voters to the polls, especially for runoff election (sic) when turnout drops historically from 30% to about 5%. We know that a disproportionate number of runoff election voters are white and affluent.”

That’s evidently a crime against nature to him.

His other points are that IRV keeps elections from becoming nasty and that the system saves money (something Dems only care about when it’s useful). He disputes the opposition’s view that IRV gives you the least popular person as winner and that it’s too difficult to figure out (it is). He then contradicts his earlier point saying “we will always need to spend money on voter education no matter the system.”

Strong concludes, “Progressive cities and states across the country are moving to IRV. Former President Obama supported it in 2008. So did Arizona Senator John McCain.” Not a good talking point to conservatives that.

When this issue surfaced in November 2011, I addressed it. You can find out more about why IRV is bad here: http://midtownrepublican.com/archives/4874.
Don’t be fooled. It’s a scam.

Kelly Causing Problems for NBC

We already knew that insiders at NBC don’t much like Megyn Kelly. But neither do viewers either, it appears.

She has been talked about as a replacement for Matt Lauer on the Today show since she is now the highest paid broadcast “star” at the peacock network. Page Six at the New York Post reports

We’re told that Kelly isn’t a viable savior for NBC. She was hired by the network amid great fanfare for a reported $23 million a year, but she just had the worst November sweeps ratings of any in the history of the 9 a.m. hour of “Today” — across all demos.

The all-important quarterly measurements of viewers tend to be higher in November than in July, when fewer people are watching TV in general, so the news that Kelly’s numbers were lower in November than in July is particularly hair-raising for execs. Kelly took over in September.

Ouch! Looks like touting yourself as a great TV journalist, stepping over and using people plus trying to be something you’re not doesn’t work in the end. Poor MeAgain! What happens when her contract runs out?