Privileged, Hypocritical Liberals versus Non-privileged, Hypocritical Liberals

John Ransom
Posted: Jun 24, 2012 12:01 AM

Ericynot wrote: The sad truth is that government agencies at all levels overreach. Cops stop you, find that you're carrying $10,000 in cash, and seize it (along with your car) on suspicion that you're involved in the drug trade -- no charges or conviction necessary. Maybe you get your stuff back, maybe you don't. Say the wrong thing to the wrong person and they can lock you up indefinitely on suspicion of fomenting terrorism. Our Constitutional freedoms are under assault at all levels. The EPA can also mess with our stuff, but at least they've done some demonstrable good -- I still remember what the air in Denver looked like 45 years ago.- Going Green is Gauche on Robert Kennedy’s Private Ocean

Dear Comrade Eric,

The EPA has done some demonstrable good? But the police don’t?

Look, you assume that the only way to protect society from pollution is by creating a far-reaching bureaucracy of unelected officials who get to write regulations under authority granted them through Congress.

Here’s a thought: Why don’t we just stick with the idea of private property rights and individual rights, as it is contemplated under the constitution? If someone dumps toxic waste that damages my health, don’t I have the right to both civil and criminal penalties? If someone damages my property through their own mismanagement, don’t I have the right to compensation even without the EPA?

The point is that the EPA stopped being a fair arbiter between sections a long time ago.

They are just a bureaucracy run by special interests to serve the needs of the bureaucracy.

The same can be said about the Department of Education, Department of Energy, the Department of Defense.

We tolerate the Department of Defense because it serves a constitutional purpose. Like those other departments, it too is wasteful, self-serving and prone to fits of ossification. All bureaucracies are. And that’s why they should be dispensed with wherever possible.

The history of the last 40 years has taught us that the last way to solve any problem is by making it a priority under the federal government by creating it’s own department.   

Hoovervilles Follies wrote: Because adherence to a ridiculous ideology prompts extreme conservatives to deny or downplay the environmental issues that normal, well-informed people recognize, they have nothing constructive to offer in that arena. Instead, they are reduced to doing the sort of thing Ransom does in this column -- attempt to portray environmental activism as the province of privileged, hypocritical liberals. Robert Kennedy Jr. may well be wrong on the Cape wind power issue and there may even be some self-interest involved. But on much else relating to environmental sustainability, he is a dedicated, extremely knowledgeable, highly articulate champion. I seriously doubt that Mr. Ransom can say the same.- Going Green is Gauche on Robert Kennedy’s Private Ocean

Dear Comrade Hooverville,

I don’t portray all environmental activists as privileged, hypocritical liberals. I just portray those who are privileged, hypocritical liberals as privileged, hypocritical liberals.

And trust me- I’ve been doing this a long time- there plenty of privileged, hypocritical liberals to pick on, without dragging in the non-privileged, hypocritical liberals.

You might notice the picture I inserted in the column with the little Greenpeace raft in the foreground. Certainly they aren’t privileged, hypocritical liberals. They qualify in the non-privileged, hypocritical liberal category.

They also qualify as misguided liberals; liberals in violation of their occupancy rating for the size and type of craft they are on; and liberals who violate OSHA laws.

Actually, we should probably report the Greenpeace folks to OSHA. That raft looks like it’s not the safest of working conditions. And, I don’t see posted any of the mandatory wage and hour notices, and other employment notices that should be displayed prominently on the side of the raft where Greenpeace employees would likely notice it.

Now, you say that Robert Jr. has some self-interest involved? Self-interest? By a Kennedy? Who would have thought it?

Look, let me put it this way: Kennedys have a really bad habit of having navigation accidents that lead to fatalities.  If I were Robert Kennedy Jr. I’d be breaking into a cold sweat at the thought of navigation hazards like wind mills in Nantucket Sound too. Kennedys have problems driving across a bridge without ending up in the drink. Hic.

Libhater11 wrote: I want to see the teachers unions destroyed. My taxes are through the roof. Enough already. By far and away the worst, because they affect every one of us. - Hey Unions? Welcome to Politics. Watch That Bloody Nose

Dear Libhater,

I too look forward to a time when school districts are run without unions. I dream of a world without public employee unions.

Unions are the prime obstacle to education reforms that would have the U.S. leading the world once again in education.

Fortunately there are places where getting rid of teachers unions are seriously being contemplated.

In Douglas County, Colorado the board of education is renegotiating with the union now. One of the last sticking points is that the board wants to allow the teachers to be able to opt out of the union.

Personally, I hope that the board goes whole hog and just refuses to approve a contract with any union.

If you agree, send a note to their superintendent Elizabeth Fagan.

Robert1260 wrote: Romney and republican leaders not only bloodied union workers' noses in Wisconsin...Romney and republican leaders have and will continue to bloody and beat up on every American worker who makes a wage. You see, in the so called conservative mind, American workers make too much and corporate CEO's make too little. Romney recently criticized Obama for not knowing "when to ship jobs overseas" (Romney's own words). Guess he has a point. Obama really is against shipping jobs overseas. But Romney sure knows when to ship jobs every chance he gets. He's even proud of his record at Bain for doing just that. That's one cold dude. - Hey Unions? Welcome to Politics. Watch That Bloody Nose

Dear Comrade 1260,

I make a wage. I’m a Republican. Actually, I don’t seem to remember Mitt Romney ever beating me up. But I remember that time Obama couldn’t pass a budget. Yeah, I remember it because it’s happened a lot. I also remember that time that Obama said that the private sector is doing fine. I also remember that time he said that he told us the recovery is finally here! Yeah, because that’s happened a lot.

But do you know what I remember most.

I remember a time when Obama wasn’t president of the United States.

Good times, those.    


UseYourHead2012 wrote:  I appreciate this article. Far too often are articles based on "facts" and "reality." This no-nonsense no-factual basis article is what Real Americans (TM) really believe in. - Obama: "The Joke's on You"

Dear Comrade Head,

I appreciate this reply. Far too often comments from liberals grammar problems have. Liberals America ™ repeat like to words too often mouth full of foot.


Robert 206 wrote: My greatest fear is that Obama will drop Joe Biden as veep and put Hillary Clinton on the ticket. That will be "Curtains" for the GOP! - Obama: "The Joke's on You"

Dear Robert,

So you’re saying Obama has a chance.

Vegas is currently taking odds on a Obama-Clinton ticket in 2012. I think the tote board at Harrah’s is at somewhere between over-the-rainbow and ain’t-never-gonna-happen.

J352 wrote: For those interested in actual research, most studies examining this issue note that while the short-run effect of oil price increases on aggregate employment is negative, the long-run effect is negligible. There typically is also a general decrease in the real wages of all workers but an increase in the wages of skilled workers. A number of econometric analyses (tracking employment data and energy prices) come to this conclusion. Interestingly, I am at a loss of how Ransom can critique the president's energy policy while oil/gas prices are dropping - showing that US policy (action or in the argued case, inaction) seem to have a minimal effect on global oil prices. -Energy and Money Fuel Obama’s Plague

Dear Comrade 352,

Typical liberal who talks about “actual” research findings, but is too lazy to actually, you know, provide “actual” proof or citations.

Typical Liberal Part II: So like your fellow comrades you think that high gas prices are OK for the economy? Congratulations: You might have what it takes to be Obama’s go-to guy on energy.  

Typical Liberal Part III: I can critique Obama’s energy policy because it doesn’t produce actual energy despite having the greatest energy budget in the history of our Republic.

Your analysis is false in this: Falling prices aren’t proof that US policy has minimal effect on oil prices. It just means that demand is falling faster than our crappy policies can account for.

My criticism isn’t just of energy policy but of monetary policy too.

Loose money policies are providing liquidity that has been pushing energy prices- and often other prices- higher.

Elizabeth420 wrote: What this nation desperately needs is an admin that will finally get serious about fully harnessing our more-than-abundant energy resources, fossil fuels & otherwise, as long as entitlements &/or subsidies are not involved, then each source should be fully explored, extracted, processed, etc. Such policies would lead to an explosion in employment & a stabilization of our own economy, as the Billions that once went into the coffers of the ME oil cartel barons, were instead funneled into American businesses, employing American workers! -Energy and Money Fuel Obama’s Plague

Dear Elizabeth,

That’s exactly the type of thing this country needs.

While it’s estimated that Canada may have as much as 2 trillion barrels of oil in reserves, “the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the [US] has 4.3 trillion barrels of in-place oil shale resources centered in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, said Helen Hankins, Colorado director for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management” according to the Associated Press.

4.3 trillion barrels is 16 times the reserves of Saudi Arabia, or enough oil to supply the US for 600 years.

As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the green economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse. It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.

Oil from tar sands, reports the BBC on the Keystone decision, “is so plentiful that full-scale development would seriously delay the transition to low-carbon alternative fuels,” which is the holy grail of the left.  And along the way, the U.S. would create at least 10 million new U.S. jobs, keeping around $500 billion per year here at home. Over twenty years that would be an additional $12.5 trillion in GDP even at a modest 2 percent growth rate. At 4 percent the numbers are closer to $15.5 trillion.

Roy323 wrote: I have never heard that Harry S Truman was not legitimate. What was the "S" indicative of? Signature? ­- Nice Try Shrum, but Obama Ain't Truman, and this Ain't 1948

Let’s let David McCullough tell that story: “In the end they compromised with the letter S. It could be taken to stand for Solomon or Shipp, but actually stood for nothing, a practice not unknown among the Scotch-Irish, even for first names….Harry S. Truman he would be.”

Truth001 wrote: Ransom: "Why would something that didn’t work previously work now because you are using a smaller version of it?" I rest my case with the Bush tax cuts. Same concept same bad idea coming from Willard and his 20% tax cut. - Nice Try Shrum, but Obama Ain't Truman, and this Ain't 1948

Dear Comrade Pravda,

The Bush tax cuts worked. That’s why Obama has extended them more times than he has passed a budget. That’s why Bill Clinton has advocated for them. That’s why the CBO has warned against allowing the tax cuts to expire.

But I do agree that we have to get spending under control if we plan on cutting taxes. We should comprehensively reform both taxes and spending at the same time and balance the budget.

Fat chance you’ll agree to that Pravda.

DG wrote: "The buck stops here." .... Harry Truman. "The buck stops with GW Bush." ..... Barack Obama. Nice Try Shrum, but Obama Ain't Truman, and this Ain't 1948

Or how about this one: “Did someone say bucks?”- B. Obama

Or this: “The bucks never have to stop!”- B. Obama

Or this: “Stopping bucks? Are you crazy?” B. Obama

Or this: “Bucks for everyone! But more bucks for some and less bucks for others.”- B. Obama.

Or this one: “This president thing really bucks.” B. Obama

5Mentarios wrote: So, if I understand this correctly, you're saying that 1) Stimulation of the economy increases demand for gas which prompts OPEC to raise oil prices and 2) people quit their jobs or get laid off when gas prices increase. But....but....I thought the conservative position was that any increase in taxation or materials prices is simply passed on by the corporations (i.e, the "rich") to the consumers. So why the layoffs?

And I though OPEC set oil prices and they weren't subject to supply and demand?- Extra Legal Stimulus Means Extra Legal Taxes­

Dear Comrade 5,

Of course, no; you don’t understand what I am saying. Duh. You’re a liberal. You failed Real-World Econ 101.  

I’m saying that when you add liquidity, especially through banks, those dollars tend to chase up the price of things, including oil. Companies lay off workers because more GDP is devoted to buying energy and less can go to wages.

And yeah; the higher prices are passed on to the consumer- that’s why gas prices go up-  so the consumer has less money to buy things with, so more people get laid off.

And no; OPEC doesn’t set prices. If they did, prices would be at $110 per barrel at least instead of $78.

What OPEC does is set supply.

Read a book or something next time.

That’s it for this week,



"Like" me on Facebook and you'll get sneak peeks of columns and, as an added bonus, I will never raise your taxes. Send me email and I just might mention you on Sunday.