Rebane's Ruminations
March 2013
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

ObamaChange4America is being harmed beyond measure by its government.  It is no longer death by a thousand cuts – we have advanced to the slash and burn level of self destruction.  The Competitive Enterprise Institute in cooperation with the Weidenbaum Center has compiled these astounding stats from the feds’ own data.  Under the Obama administration –

–    $1.752T is the FY2012 cost of regulatory compliance inflicted on the country’s private sector.  This is more than one tenth of the country’s entire GDP.
–    In FY2012 Obama issued another $216B in regulatory costs.  This was actually an election year pullback which will be remedied in the remainder of his second term.
–    In FY2013 the feds will spend $59B in regulatory enforcement.
–    Regulatory agencies employ 283,600 people in full time staff positions.

And according to the WH Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (the outfit run by Cass Sunstein), during the Great Recession (aka Depression2) –

–    Obama’s administration issued five times more regulations during his first three years than Bush2 in his eight years.
–    The cost per regulation for Obama has been 3.5X the cost under President Clinton.

And this is only a small part of the whole trail of tears onto which Washington has marched the country.  It is hard to accept that this self-administered pain and suffering during a time of economic hardship is being inflicted by a pro-America government vs a regime with another agenda.  Perhaps we err as we hopefully continue to view it as iatrogenics.



[update] The Washington Post reported a WH leak about Obama’s 2013-14 operating strategy, and it does not involve making progress on any of the fiscal or regulatory issues.

“The goal is to flip the Republican-held House back to Democratic
control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda on gun
control, immigration, climate change and the economy during his final
two years in office, according to congressional Democrats, strategists
and others familiar with Obama’s thinking,”

The current MO of Obamunism (q.v.) is to ropadope the electorate into believing that Obama is sincere about solutions to things like deficits, debt limits, immigration reform, etc.  Instead the leak reveals that the administration’s strategy is to propose and counter with ‘solutions’ known to be unacceptable to Republicans from the gitgo, and instead spend their main energy demogauging about Republicans as the gridlock party.  The idea is to have the voters be so disgusted with the Republicans by 2014 as to bring both houses of Congress back into the Democrat fold.  With the then Pelosi2 regime in the House, Obama will use the remaining two years of his administration to push through a socialist agenda that promises to be the progressives’ dream on everything from the environment to gun control.  Stand by for ram.

[7mar13 update]  Back to gun control which may be the most serious iatrogenic initiative governments are again pursuing after Sandy Hook.  And I may be totally naive in ascribing the initiative to iatrogenics, for it may have nothing to do with unintended consequences given the other preparations now taking place.

Readers familiar with my take on guns and gun control, that are here a matter of record, recall that I have proclaimed for years that governments are the greatest killers of people in the world.  I have cited RJ Rummel’s research in Death by Government numerous times.  The book is dated in the sense that it does not include the horrendous toll wreaked by Red China during its Cultural Revolution.  That democide alone took over 100M lives.  Democide is the word for government killing its own civilians by policies other than suffering war casualties.  I received the link to this compelling video – ‘Gun Control Works’ – that highlights the democides of the 20th century.

 

Posted in , , ,

90 responses to “Government Iatrogenics (updated 7mar13)”

  1. Gregory Avatar

    Paul, what do you think the chances are that Obama still thinks that the people shouldn’t own guns, but just doesn’t want to say it out loud?
    Perhaps someone in the Washington press corps will ask him about it someday. Perhaps not.
    BTW, 1) I doubt I’m the one who razzed you about Romney quotes, and 2) it’s apropos now because Guns are on the front burner.

    Like

  2. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Seriously, to think that a second hand quote from a right wing blogger with a book to sell with no corroboration and sourced from the Blaze is a ‘fact’ is like believing in the tooth fairy because your mama told you so.

    Like

  3. Gregory Avatar

    The “right wing blogger with a book to sell” was a fellow staffer to Obama at the U of C law school, and if you listen to the audio, you have a first hand account of the conversation.
    Really, Frisch, can’t you do better than that? How’s that campaign to pass DiFi’s gun ban going? I remember when announced you were excited to go lobby for it.

    Like

  4. Gregory Avatar

    “And very definitely I would include airplanes as a legal place for as many legal guns as possible.”
    George, even if the law permitted it, that would be still be up to the pilot and the owners of the airplane. I doubt they would agree with you.

    Like

  5. George Rebane Avatar

    Gregory 827am – That wasn’t the question.

    Like

  6. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Ryan and Mickey,
    I am 100% support with Rand Paul on this filibuster.
    I would support an impeachment investigation of the President on his abuse of power in a number of areas. This is the very scenario why I opposed the Bush administration assault on our civil liberties and overreaching use of force so much. It set the precedent to obliterate the US Constitution without any legal consequences. Now we have D president doing much of the same thing and loyal D voters stay quiet and loyal R voters can’t speak to loudly because they would be hypocrites. It works both ways The Bush administration and R’s used the Clinton administrations policies on Iraq against the D’s during the lead up to the invasion in 2003. When our whole government representatives are complicit then we all suffer the consequences. The Clinton backed and even pushed sanctions on Iraq directly resulted in hundreds of thousands of children deaths in Iraq. The people of Iraq had little to do with Saddam rule. The Kurds tried at the urging of the HW Bush administration to rise up against the Saddam regime only to be abandoned and then suffered the consequences for such an act. HW Bush Ok’d the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Reagan took Iraq off the terror nation list in the 80’s and gave Saddam money, technology, wmd’s, military equipment and weaponry to fight the Iranians at the same time illegally selling Iran arms and replacement parts for the military armament build up from US backed Shah that was put in place by a US coup in 53′.
    The US military “Might Makes Right” philosophy has created great profit for private industry but did so with the blood and lives our military soldiers and the treasury of the USA.
    I am positive the reason we didn’t see any investigation into the Bush administration crimes from the Obama administration is due to the understanding his administration would guilty of the same crimes and the second whopper that many of those in the leadership of the D party would be found complicit in the lies leading up to the invasion.

    Like

  7. Gregory Avatar

    Poking around, I found the following quote on the uchicago.edu web site, on a page interviewing Lott regarding an older UChicago Press book, “More Guns, Less Crime”:
    “This sophisticated analysis yields a well-established conclusion that supports the wisdom of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution rather than of those who would limit the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry guns.… Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue.”—Milton Friedman
    Yes, just another right wing blogger with another book to sell. I’m sure Frisch expects the quote is accurate and muddying the water was the best he could do.

    Like

  8. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    What you essentially said in your Feb 5 responses was that if a country has the ability to be the aggressors it is a viable option. This is the reality but it is the antithesis of individual liberty, natural or legal rights. I understand it is the working paradigm but outside of when I was around 14 years old haven’t accepted it as the moral or correct paradigm. It appears you seem to be fine with it as long as you are on the aggressor side of the action. When violence is answered with violence it is a genocide pact or perpetual violence. When violence is answered with due process and legal consequences violence can be stopped. We should have treated 9/11 as act of vicious criminals and brought those behind the action physically and in supporting roles to the justice system. Al Qaeda was around 300 strong in 2001 and today there are cells all over the planet due to our immoral and criminal overreaction of holding nations and their people responsible for the actions of a small group.

    Like

  9. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 937am – Didn’t mean to say anything “essentially”. The ability to be an aggressor is a “viable option” for a country. It has been so forever, and will continue to be so. That is why countries develop weapons, field militaries, and sign hopeful treaties. Whether we believe in it or not, ‘might is right’ is the operating paradigm of nation-states. As one of countless examples which I could cite, notice that America is totally at ease with China’s and North Korea’s murdering of its own civilians by the millions. We neither complain nor prepare to invade, because it is not in our national interest and we don’t have the might to prevail. The situation is completely different when we see that our might is up to the task, then we can even fabricate reasons to make its use ‘right’. Nations never (seldom?) act on the basis of morals or higher principles, but only to further their interests. And even then they make mistakes. The rest is a charade for the mush-headed sheeple. (Please reread my 252pm.)

    Like

  10. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Greg,
    It has to be sophisticated if it is going to prove a falsehood. I am not sure why you guys keep debating gun violence at the level of the weapon. It has everything to do with the environment of the person who is in control of the gun. I am not a proponent of sweeping gun control laws but am a proponent for way more paper trails associated with gun ownership with registration and insurance requirements.
    I will play your game for one anecdotal example.
    Two drunk cousins are at a party arguing. They both own guns. One cousin has it in his on him illegally and pulls it out and threatens the other cousin. Calm bystanders break up the argument but the unarmed cousin who is hosting the party has guns in a case locked in the house. He is boiling and intoxicated as he sits in his house thinking about the incident. He gets his hand gun with a I think a 15 round clip. He goes back out to the party pissed and ready to shoot. He spots the other cousin and starts shooting. The target cousin runs for cover but in the process the shooting cousin is hitting other people. Eventually after four people are dead and two other people injured someone tackles the shooting cousin from behind. 9/11 is called.
    I remember this story when I was in High School of actually happening. I didn’t know the people involved. The exact story is probably something different but the general idea is close.
    If there are no guns in the house the shooting doesn’t occur. If the one cousin doesn’t threaten the other with a gun the shooting doesn’t occur. Knives could have been used but I have been plenty of big fights where knives were used and never was someone accidentally stabbed or cut that wasn’t in the direct confrontation. No I never used a knife in a fight, I mainly fought for fun to prove my testosterone and fighting skill levels were higher. I was young and dumb. The last two or three fights I got into knives and guns were pulled on me one on one. I think being unarmed saved lives or at least serious injuries for one if not both of us.
    I took a non violence vow around 20 years ago and haven’t touched another human being in anger since. I have defended myself a few times in bar situations and visiting my old stomping grounds in my 20’s and have demobolized a couple confrontations in my 30’s but nothing in at least 5 years or so. I am activist for non violence and anti war but am not a pacifist because I am not strong enough. Maybe if I keep working on my strength I could become a pacifist.
    More guns doesn’t make society any safer. What it does is makes the person in control of the gun feel safer.
    Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding.
    Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Like

  11. George Rebane Avatar

    If that is your only objective, peace is a simple matter to achieve. Just understand that you must submit to whatever demands are made of you, and you will have peace. However, peace must now and then be sacrificed if you instead want to secure your freedom, safety in your person, and your property.

    Like

  12. Gregory Avatar

    Golly, Ben, I’ve never taken a vow of non-violence and I’ve not been in a fight as an adult. Speak softly but carry a big stick.
    A few times when a belligerent yelled at me and said he’d kick some part of my anatomy I’ve calmly said something like, “You’ve just committed an assault, if you want to follow that with battery, that’s your choice” and they thought better of it. I can only guess they thought I might be a cop.
    I’m going to guess the cousins in your story, along with many of their fellow guests, had criminal records to begin with, and were just the sort of people that gun laws don’t effect in the first place.
    Ben, you think all should be forced to buy insurance in order to exercise an individual right secured by the Bill of Rights? Should that just be for the right you don’t want others to have?

    Like

  13. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    The way the US could not support the killing of the Chinese is by not doing business with them but we put profit over people. Maybe you can understand my opposition to our trade and manufacturing policies in oppressive nations if we keep it in this context. I believe in self determination not authoritarianism and we need to use all non violent tools to support the ideals of the US Constitution and the Declaration Of Independence. Forcing ideals at the end of a barrel of a gun isn’t the way, by example is the way. Despite the history of the US being oppressive of peoples rights the nation has always moved towards more democracy and more equality and that is what made America great. Unfortunately we have moved to a military empire strategy that makes our country great and what that actually does is makes America just another military empire that will collapse onto itself.

    Like

  14. Paul Emery Avatar

    Recent George quotes
    06 March 2013 at 07:13 PM
    “And very definitely I would include airplanes as a legal place for as many legal guns as possible.”
    06 March 2013 at 06:29 PM
    “I advocate the right of every adult American citizen, absent of any record of psychiatric or criminal debilitations, to be able to carry par force firearms with them at any time, concealed or unconcealed. ”
    George
    Does that mean anybody who passes some kind of background check has the right to strap on a couple of six guns unconcealed and board any airplane?
    Also how do you propose someone like Jeremy Goulet from possessing guns. He apparently had the right to do so under current law. In your view should this law be changed?
    ” There are new questions about how the gunman who killed two Santa Cruz police officers legally owned firearms.
    Jeremy Goulet had been arrested multiple times for sex-related crimes, including an arrest for rape in Hawaii. He also served time for misdemeanors in Oregon.
    But according to our media partner, the San Jose Mercury News, Goulet was still able to legally buy a gun. Federal law prohibits anyone from owning a gun who has been imprisoned for more than a year. Goulet served two one year sentences consecutively.
    His name also did not appear in two criminal databases because he was charged only with misdemeanors.
    Loran “Butch” Baker and Elizabeth Butler were gunned down Tuesday while they were interviewing Goulet as part of a sexual assault investigation…… ”
    http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=9013506

    Like

  15. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 1051am – Actually, it turns out that as we started doing more business with China, their murder rate dropped dramatically to where today it’s a trickle to what it used to be. The same has happened with other countries with which the US has been able to start a commercial relationship. And, of course, it’s gone the other way also. Hmmm, maybe we’re on to something here.
    Then there is Bastiat’s observation that if goods don’t cross borders, armies will.

    Like

  16. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1059am – Now you seem to have backed off effective background checks and their enforcement to “some kind of background check”, interesting. I stand by what I said – and how about upping it to three guns and large magazines if the airline’s carry on baggage rules accept it. Of course, in such situations, I suspect the airline will have the final say. But if it prohibits guns on its planes, then it must provide for the safe storage and return of such guns when the passengers disembark. But we’re getting a little far afield as you again search for your red herring.

    Like

  17. Gregory Avatar

    “Federal law prohibits anyone from owning a gun who has been imprisoned for more than a year”
    No, it forbids ownership by people who have been found guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than a year. Think felony.

    Like

  18. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Man George you are really scrambling over the last couple of days trying to justify your hypocrisy. China is always in the top violators of human rights on the planet. I find it odd you would take the word/ data from a oppressive Communist government on murder records.
    What a land of opportunity and prosperity
    http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/china

    Like

  19. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 222pm – Hypocracy?! Your copy has reduced itself primarily to accusations and name calling Ben. Is there any hope of a return to substance?

    Like

  20. Paul Emery Avatar

    So Gregory can you think of any way to keep legal guns out of the hands of people like Jeremy Goulet?

    Like

  21. Walt Avatar
    Walt

    Paul and Ben.. Hear the war drums from N. Korea? That’s what happens when you show weakness, and not doing anything when one is attacked. We have yet to retaliate for the last 911 attack in Libya. “O” is nutless in that respect.
    The ball is in your court. What should we do? Put that sawed off, snot nosed kid in his place? Or give him the spanking he needs?
    Remember. We are technically still at war with N.K. after all these years.
    If we invaded N.K. tomorrow, we would be well within the law. ( even international law and the rules of war)
    So…. what would you guys do? ( This should be fun to read…)

    Like

  22. Walt Avatar

    So Paul…. Can you think of a way to keep MJ out of the hands of our children?
    ( or any other drugs for that matter)

    Like

  23. Gregory Avatar

    Paul 4:19, if you can accept a police state there’s all sorts of things one can do to make sure you restrain potential criminals before they can do something bad.
    The Minority Report solution could do OK with the right people and the right mutants, but you need the right mutants to start:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minority_Report
    Outside of science fiction, less of a reliance on plea bargaining down below the felony level to reduce judicial workloads would be a rational step.

    Like

  24. George Rebane Avatar

    Walt 439pm – Excellent and timely question. I’m also interested in their answer and sincerely hope that they don’t send their cricket corps to respond to another tough one.

    Like

  25. Walt Avatar

    Where guns are concerned, the gun laws should be the same nation wide.
    Just like our driving laws are. No special this or that.
    The 2ND should not be allowed to be watered down at the state, county, or city level as it is today. That goes for the rest of the Bill of rights as well.
    And yes, if someone wanted to own a fully functional tank, or any other common weapon of war, he should have that right.( and are legal in many states already) As long as it’s used and fired in a safe manner. It’s not any different than you having to drive your car in a safe manner every day.( If you don’t,, you will KILL somebody)
    A car can be just as dangerous as a gun in the wrong hands.
    People plow head on into an oncoming cars all the time. But we don’t say much about that. The victims are just as dead.
    So add this to the list of “How will you” questions..

    Like

  26. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Walt,
    First off the US never declared war on North Korea. As for the threat North Korea put out into public this week, I would say Congress should take it serious and debate whether or not to take military action with a declaration of war. The US has all the justification to defend itself against such a strike.
    That being said North Korea has some valid grievances with the US and the last 60 years. Not that dropping a nuclear bomb on the US is justified but it is understandable for them to have such hatred towards the US and its foreign policies.

    Like

  27. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    As long as we owe China our left nuts and our first born, we won’t do anything about North Korea. China has us by the gonards and if China says don’t mess with Little Jung, our State Department says “Yes masta, yes bossman.”

    Like

  28. Walt Avatar

    Just what school of higher idiocy did you graduate from?
    Did they teach you that it was an “illegal war” too?
    You do realize we have troops on that DMZ? and they have been there for a VARY long time? You do know that U.S. BLOOD has been shed on that soil?
    Just what are you smoking? “we can defend ourselves against an attack”.. Really?
    I do believe we did that in the Gulf, and your bitching about that today.
    And judging by the rest of you looney tune comment, your an enemy sympathiser as well. There is NO justification for their “hatred” since we have been giving money and aid to them for YEARS. And if we stopped such aid, people like you would bitch about that as well.
    How about all that aid we still give China? We barrow from them at a price, just to give it back for free. Lib Thinking at it’s best.

    Like

  29. Paul Emery Avatar

    Neighborhood tanks, six guns on airplanes (unconcealed) How far do you go?

    Like

  30. Ryan Mount Avatar

    How long would I have to wait at the DMV for a tank permit? (Come to think of it, the driving test would be a literal blast.)
    That’s all I really care about as my spirit is easily defeated by bureaucracy.

    Like

  31. Paul Emery Avatar

    Good one Ryan

    Like

  32. Paul Emery Avatar

    Walt
    Continuing our conversation.
    In your view should a Jeremy Goulet be allowed to drive around with a machine gun mounted on the roof of his SUV?

    Like

  33. Gregory Avatar

    Even in a state that allows automatic weapons, Jeremy Goulet wouldn’t have passed the heavy duty background investigation, Paul, and all you’re doing here is a ridiculous reduction to the absurd that has no relationship to reality.

    Like

  34. Paul Emery Avatar

    Jeremy Goulet passed all requirements to own the guns he used to kill two police officers. Walt has expressed that there should be virtually no limits on possession of virtually any “par force” firearms so my question concerning
    Walts view is entirely appropriate.

    Like

  35. Paul Emery Avatar

    Oh yes
    “Minutes after Tuesday’s shootings, police broadcast to other officers that Goulet had three firearms legally registered to his name. That indicated that the guns were legally purchased in California, since Oregon has no firearms registration. Witnesses told Santa Cruz County sheriff’s deputies that he had sold two of the three handguns at some point. He used the remaining gun, a Sig Sauer .45-caliber semi-automatic handgun, to kill the officers.”
    http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_22701009/why-did-santa-cruz-shooter-so-sketchy-background

    Like

  36. George Rebane Avatar

    re Jeremy Goulet shootings – while you folks sort this one out, it pays to keep in mind that no set of gun regulations keeping them out of the hands of the bad guys or the mentally deficient will stop 100% of such shootings. Chasing down the Goulet shortcomings will lead to some pretty silly comments unless that reality is recognized. In your deliberations you may want to consider that Goulet was an outlier.

    Like

  37. Walt Avatar

    Step back and away from the bong,,,Paul,,,,… If a nut wants a gun, he will get one. Just go back down to your old stomping grounds of Berkeley and see for yourself. Every banger on those streets is probably packing, and dollars to donuts has a great rap sheet longer than your ponytail. Ask them where they got theirs.
    The heavy artillery is actually licenced through the Feds, and the paperwork and fees are mind boggling. That why only people with big money has’m.
    For 375 grad, a Walker Bulldog can be yours. ( Not legal in the state of Ca.) That’s what one went for last year.
    Big Sandy gun shoot is in a couple of weeks over in Az.
    If I went, I would probably sign over my house just to
    burn through it’s value in ammo by noon of the first day.

    Like

  38. Walt Avatar

    Just for the record.
    My Uncle was a cop, killed in the line of duty.
    He was killed with his own gun.
    But do you see me blaming the gun? I blame the
    piece of human filth that did the killing.

    Like

  39. Paul Emery Avatar

    Walt
    Do you think regulations restricting ownership of a Walker Bulldog should be lighted up to allow more people the ability to have one in their garage and use as a “par force” weapon if necessary?

    Like

  40. Walt Avatar

    What ever Paul, And to answer that loaded question, YES! And just for the sake of argument, lets say I have one out in the barn. As long as I do so in a safe manner, let the big dog bark once in a while. It sure would be a hit at the fair.
    Just think of cars that would be volunteered for use as target practice. That would beat cash for clunkers any day.
    We have loose cannons on the streets as we speak. Their called drunk or drugged drivers. We have laws for that too. Does that stop them?
    They are worse than a loaded gun, and kill more often. And correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t we had a lot more deaths by drunks in cars than with guns here locally? This place is as good as any to use as an example.
    And do you have any idea of how much one shell for that tank would be??
    So you can bet it wouldn’t be shooting vary often.
    And my neighborhood would not be in anymore danger than they are with the pop guns I have today.
    And name an incident in any of those states that allow possession. Any crimes committed with those heavy weapons in private hands? I haven’t heard of any,, have you?
    Or should those be outlawed under the reasoning of ” someone might”?
    That seems to be the usual line to pass another law.

    Like

Leave a comment