Hillary is no progressive…

…Indeed, she is quite backward, especially where it matters.

In a speech on Monday in Manhattan, Hillary addressed new startups like Uber and Lyft, which are very innovative and show what a free market can really do when left alone – and that will never do for the left.

Hillary: “Many Americans are making extra money renting out a spare room [not sure why she included this, as it’s nothing new] designing websites, selling products they design themselves at home, or even driving their own car.  This ‘on demand’ or so called ‘gig economy’ is creating exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation, but it’s also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.”

Translation?  There’s a need for regulations.

Isn’t it funny how “progressive” politicians are always trying to find solutions to problems that don’t exist?  And the only thing created is more problems.

First of all, no one intends enterprises like Uber and Lyft to be a full time job.  It’s more or less just some way to pick up some extra cash on your free time – and it’s great for all parties involved, especially for the consumer, who can avoid paying high taxi cab rates because of lower overheads.

But in some states, this is seen as “unfair.”  Even the Republican legislature  in Kansas voted to regulate such companies literally out of town, trying to put them on equal ground with the outdated taxi companies (so much for your free-market capitalism stance there, gentlemen).  Who is the ultimate loser?  The persons who could have become contractors for the company, and of course, the consumer.

Second of all, if we worry about employee protection, being as things like Uber and Lyft are entirely voluntary associations between the company and the contractor.  If the contractor does not like it, nothing obliges him to remain in that association.

Simple enough.  It seems like we’re just afraid of progress.  Awfully ironic for a real “progressive” that Hillary is seen as being.

After all, imagine if we had taken the same attitude towards the invention of the light bulb, of the radio, or of the television.  Someday our grandchildren will look back on these days and say, “goodness, how silly that some people back then tried to crush [insert new, innovative concept here]”


The results of the election in HD 85…

…came as no surprise (and no particular disappointment, being as I don’t live in HD 85) but still worth a look.

In Chip Carter, the victor, we have your typical candidate who is put up by the Chamber of Commerce presumably to serve their interests, and who is presented to the voter as a “Conservative Christian” who will “fight for the community” – whatever that is supposed to mean.  Indeed, this sort of candidate relies upon labels and quick catch phrases – this appeals strongly to the sort of voter who makes their determination the night before by “praying about it.”

And the Chamber will be able to get away with this folly because these sort of voters only seem to care about the social issues which are naturally inconsequential to the Chamber of Commerce.  The voters, who generally never care to inquire very far into things, are satisfied if a candidate proclaims that he will be a “conservative” and will “work to fix education.”  Print that up on those glossy over-sized postcards, make them practically rain from the sky in that district, and it seems you would be unstoppable.

My point of the article here, more or less, is that I find modern campaign methods EXTREMELY tacky (and not to mention, annoying.)  It does not amuse me; and personally I would refuse support to a candidate that seems to have endless money for such tacky marketing techniques: mailers, constant advertisements, telephone calls, etc., which only proclaim the vague sayings expressed by every bible-belt republican candidate and his dog.

Don’t hide behind overused phrases and labels.  Especially if your postcards say at the bottom, in very small print, “Paid for by the State Chamber of Oklahoma.”