I tried my best to explain the Chair fight. It’s kind of messed up how it all went down, but it has been brewing for some time. Rutherford preferred a political approach, but the “radical” faction of the party pinned him as part of a “cabal”(!) that was sneaky and sought nothing but power. The tactics I saw from the radicals, however, make them no better in my book.

I would also add that my third takeaway had more to do with challenging the typical notion by the Left that without government welfare programs, no one would help those in need. For all the faults of the American people, we are the most generous people in the world (this includes those in the 1% as well as the remaining 99%).

Before the government got into the social welfare business, there were private groups called mutual aid societies. Members paid in to the society, voted on bylaws, had codes of ethics they expected each member to live by (most stressed self reliance and required something from those receiving help), and received benefits in the event of sickness, job loss, death, or other hardship (depending on the society). These voluntary societies were eventually (for the most part) crowded out mostly by government welfare programs in the early 20th century (if the government is going to take care of me in times of trouble, why do I need to pay into this society?).

But what was the deal with picking the next Chairman? Was there any major difference in the direction one would take the party vs. the other? I’m not as plugged in as you with the goings on in the LP but from the outside looking in, I just don’t get the controversy.

Funny that you’d decry taxation in an article talking about how great these teachers and administrators of a taxpayer-funded school were.

Except, you know, he wasn’t. He was decrying forced wealth redistribution. This is not the same as taxation to pay for a government service.

And, of course, you ignore that it wasn’t the 1% helping this student, it was other people making relatively low salaries who found ways to help her.

Except, you know, he didn’t. Point 3 specifically refers to “regular people”. Now, unless the English language has been twisted beyond comprehension, it is in no way reasonable to assume that “regular people” = the 1%.

“Or…” must have been reading a different article or something…

And, of course, you ignore that it wasn’t the 1% helping this student, it was other people making relatively low salaries who found ways to help her. Ask all the employees who lost their jobs when Mitt Romney fired them as part of downsizing a newly-acquired company how wise it is to rely on the 1%’s charity. Relying on charity from the 1% (except in the remarkably rare cases like Bill Gates) is a fool’s errand.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2012/05/julias-circle-of-life.html

Within 24 hours of birth, Julia receives a vaccine against hepatitis B (a disease transmitted by contaminated needles and sexual intercourse) as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and mandated by most states. This vaccination is worse than worthless because infants cannot make antibodies until they are at least two months old. (That’s why no other vaccines are given to newborns.) It’s quite likely that this vaccination will increase the risk of acquiring hepatitis B later in life because vaccine antigens present while the immune system is developing are treated as “self” and will never trigger an immune response.

Ages 6-17: Julia goes to public schools that perform frequent standardized testing in order to qualify for funds from the federal and state governments. The huge list of covered topics on these standardized tests dominate curriculum development despite the fact that many of those topics are absurd or age-inappropriate. Teachers all teach to these tests to help the school get more funding and to qualify for pay increases. Julia’s public school education sucks, but it gives her the piece of paper that lets her go on to college.

Ages 18-22: Julia attends a college that is incredibly expensive because demand is high and the federal government subsidizes student loans. The curriculum has been dumbed-down to reduce failure rates. (Despite the dumbing-down, half of college students fail to get a bachelors degree.) Julia acquires another piece of paper while acquiring no useful skills and a little knowledge of Java programming. She did acquire $120,000 in debt.

Age 23: When she starts her job as a web designer, the combination of a glut of recent grads plus her lack of experience result in low pay. Social Security and Medicare deductions now total 20% of gross pay. Despite sharing a small apartment and taking a (government subsidized) bus to work, she can barely make ends meet. Even with reduced interest rates, the student loan payments suck down a big chunk of her take-home pay. She realizes that if she had dropped out of high school at 16 and gotten a job as a waitress, she would be much better off financially.

http://blog.sfgate.com/opinionshop/2012/04/27/will-california-end-its-death-penalty/

This is no the first time that this proposal has been voted on, but advocates hope that by massaging the wording, this version will be more popular. Still, it’s a long shot.