Sometimes It Is Better To Remain Silent And Thought Ignorant Than To Speak Up And Remove All Doubt
A number of political class spoken missteps recently have reminded me of a favorite saying that goes something not unlike the following:
" Sometimes it is better to remain silent and thought ignorant than to speak up and remove all doubt. "
Politicians spiel the darndest things and outlive to surprise me with their lack of scholarship of how the world and how reality work:
- With regard to the recent Arizona immigration law, Attorney General Holder testified before the Senate recently, " Undeniable there is a unrealized for unyielding a law on its face and then no picnic a law as it is salutary. " No hot water here, as Attorney General of the entire United States, it is his job to make real that laws are proper in light of the Constitution and other state and Federal laws. But, he did not close his mouth fast enough. When queried by a Senator on whether he had actually construe the ten page Arizona law, he replied: " I have not had a chance to. I ' ve glanced at it. I have not scrutinize it. "
So, here is the top law subjection precursor in the country speech about filing suit against a sovereign state of the United States and he has not even read the law that he has a mess with! And, unlike Obama Care ' s 2, 000 + pages, the Arizona law is only ten pages long. As a lawyer, I would credit he could have read and implied the bill in less than a half hour. Accordingly, he looks violently ignorant on two counts. First, you would have thought he would have taken the short amount of time to study the bill before testifying about the bill, below bond, before Congress. Second, he does not gander unbiased in this matter since he has prejudged law that he has not even interpret.
- Consider the following repeat from Joanna Doven, a spokesperson for the current Pittsburgh mayor, as reported in the June, 2010 controversy of Actuation magazine, pertaining to urban farming: " Anytime you see something growing and expanding and there are no rules, you need to regulate it. " Jail bait acts as if government regulation is a good thing. The U. S. housing and banking industries are regulated by the Federal Housing Authority, Housing and Urban Development, Federal Manage Insurance Worry, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Senate banking and housing committees, Dwelling banking and housing committees, state level government regulatory agencies for banking and housing, the Federal Reserve Board, the Treasury Department, etc., and all this government regulation did was engender the housing market bubble, and then chronometer helplessly, as the housing and banking industries collapsed. Just as a side note, according to Fortune magazine ' s May 3, 2010 concern, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac minus a combined $94 billion in 2009. Guess regulation did not work in this case.
This is the corresponding government and the identical government employees that are regulating the overall economy and we see how weak they are doing there. Unemployment continues to hover around an obscene 10 %. This is the same government that regulates Social Security and Medicare, both of which are hurtling towards insolvency.
Also, in the June, 2010 belief of Instigation magazine was an article on the plight of Cleveland. One of the big problems, according to the article, is how solid it is to get a business permit and how hard it is to conduct business in the pink disc laden regulatory envirnment of Cleveland. As a execution, companies, jobs, and eventually people have fled the seat for of how difficult regulation made life.
Ms. Doven, near most in the political class, does not get it. We do not want incompetent bureaucrats running our lives and getting in our way. Let the market and the buyer / seller relationship regulate itself, regulating something whereas it is booming is just plain ignorant.
- Nancy Pelosi continues to testify to the sageness of the primary iterate with quotes of her own close the following: " A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. " Huh? This was reported in the June, 2010 concern of Reason magazine and referred to the health care reform bill that was passed without a single Republican vote in either the Apartment or the Senate. How ignorant is this invoice? Consider the example where I naturally abominate a distinguishing portrayal even though it has my favorite color, green, within the narrate. Bipartisan means that elements of both parties conforming the destined product, not just diagnostic components, e. g., the color green. Does tomboy foresee we are that ignorant?
- Dilatory advance year a Nigerian terrorist partly blew up an airliner as it was coming in for a gate at Detroit airport. The only reason he was not lucrative is for his underwear commonplace failed to detonate. In reaction to the conjuncture, the head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, boldly stated the the security equipment and motion for preventing horror attacks had worked. Let ' s see, the terrorist is one good disquiet away from downing a uninterrupted he is cruising in and the system worked? The only way that is not an ignorant statement is if the system is built to assume a off-target hullabaloo.
- In introducing President Obama at the high profile certified signing of the health care reform legislation, Vice President Biden did not dig that the microphone was still live when he mumbled an obscene word unbefitting his entity as he shook the President ' s hand. How immature, un - Presidential, how un - leaderlike is it to drop obscenities in a public mass, very ignorant.
- A constant international source of springtide quotes is just about anyone in the ruling political hierarchy of the Iranian government. Several months ago a ruling churchman avowed that the earthquake in Haiti was caused by women ' s promiscuity and skin exposure via revealing clothes. Iranian leric Kazem Sedighi has preached about " the slime of homosexuality, the slime of promiscuity " and how these behaviors effect natural disasters. He hedged his bets a little but not much, " We don ' t claim committing sin is the entire instigation [for the natural disasters] but it ' s one of the reasons. "
It is very, very unhappy that we acquiesce these types of people to have powerful positions in government. Unfortunately, it is partly impossible to remove them from office due to fallacious campaign finance laws, excessive Congressional earmarks, and the gerrymandering of Congressional districts. Inasmuch as, it is critical that we introduce the long term process to utensil term limits for all members of Congress. Hopefully, by removing incumbents structure office November, a first step in that direction would be accomplished. Only then can we get some more effective and sage hot water solvers involved with the nation ' s major issues. At the very original, could we at headmost get people into office that are smart enough to not speak and remove all doubt?
