Miscellany: 3/31/13 Happy Easter!

Christ Risen by Peter Paul Rubens
Courtesy of artbible.info

Quote of the Day
Our heritage and ideals, our code and standards
-- the things we live by and teach our children -- 
are preserved or diminished by how 
freely we exchange ideas and feelings.
Walt Disney

Murchison, "What Texas Won't Teach": Thumbs UP!

I was browsing the paleoconservative website American Conservative  (think Pat Buchanan) when I stumbled across this post. At first I thought it might reflect on K-12 curriculum or textbook battles, but I was surprised to find out it involved one of my alma maters (the University of Texas at Austin) and in particular how American history is taught there.

To provide some background a key point of discussion is a study from the National Association for Scholars (NAS). Peter Wood  (president) describes the group's beginning and purpose:

NAS was founded [in New York] as the Campus Coalition for Democracy in the early 1980s—a gathering of mostly liberal academics alarmed by the rise of illiberal ideologies in their universities. Generally, they didn’t like racial preferences in admissions or hiring; they worried that the Modern Language Association was “abandoning” serious literature; and they were alarmed over the vociferous violations of academic freedom.

My interpretation of "illiberal ideologies" is an abuse of the free market of ideas; topics are promoted or restricted based on extrinsic factors; NAS is particularly focused on the academic freedom of students whom are intimidated by actual or perceived abuses of authority (grading power, threats of university sanction, ridicule in the classroom, etc) Conventionally NAS is considered a "conservative" organization, a characteristic it rejects: it thinks the integrity of academia inquiry is at stake, and professional standards are being unduly subordinated to ideology.

The researchers found that “78 percent of UT faculty members were high assigners of RCG readings.” [Nearly 90% of those obtaining their PhD's over the past 20 years assigned politically correct race, class or gender reading lists.]

A few illustrations. During the 2010 fall semester—the period covered by the NAS study—UT offered, in fulfillment of the U.S. history requirement, “History of Mexican Americans in the U.S.,” “Introduction to American Studies,” “Black Power Movement,” “Mexican-American Women, 1910–Present,” “Race and Revolution,” and “The United States and Africa.”

Among reading assignments at UT: “Africanisms in American Culture,” “Chicana Feminist Thought,” “Lakota Woman,” “Little X: Growing Up in the Nation of Islam,” “The Shawnees and the War for America,” “When Jesus Came, the Corn Mothers Went Away: Marriage, Sexuality, and Power in Colonial New Mexico, 1500–1800”...

NAS noted that there was scant coverage of key American source documents in reading lists of, e.g., the Federalist Papers, and expressed concerns what non-majors will take away from their history core requirement is (my words) politically correct nonsense versus "the larger political conflicts, institutional frameworks, and philosophic ideals that have governed the course of American history".

The university and student newspaper were predictably dismissive of the NAS study, but facts are stubborn things. It's not just grade inflation which has eroded the value of college degrees; the multicultural nonsense had started before I ever started college. I had to read Carlos Castaneda and attend a lecture by Alex Haley, but anyone arguing authors like these earned their place in a legitimate curriculum, even displacing core courses in Western Civilization,  is not being serious.

IPPON!

I have already commented on Kathleen Sebelius' incompetent understanding of insurance:

At a White House briefing Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said some of what passes for health insurance today is so skimpy it can't be compared to the comprehensive coverage available under the law. "Some of these folks have very high catastrophic plans that don't pay for anything unless you get hit by a bus," she said. "They're really mortgage protection, not health insurance."

There is no such thing as a "free lunch" or "free healthcare". These costs can be extraordinary (say, cancer treatment) or ordinary expenses that can be paid out of pocket (e.g., doctor visits, tests, meds, etc.) It is true that more comprehensive coverage will cover some out-of-pocket expenses--but you pay a lot more money for the policy. The difference is the insurance provider incurs costs for handling those transactions that are recaptured in the form of higher insurance premium. Just because someone is handling some expenses out of pocket doesn't imply he's getting less/inferior health care or paying more for his overall health costs.

Sebelius is promoting a bastardized version of "heath insurance (really "bundled health services"); government  subsidizes employer-provided insurance, including minor out-of-pocket expenses.  Of course, the person paying for catastrophic policies on his own isn't being subsidized by the government--Obama's version of equal protection.

Mankiw tongue-in-cheek responds to Sebelius' distinction of mortgage (i.e., bankruptcy) protection:

I have the same problem with my other insurance policies.  My homeowner insurance doesn't cover the cost when my gutters need cleaning, and my car insurance doesn't cover the cost when I need to fill the tank with gas. Instead, the policies cover only catastrophic events, like my house burning down or a major accident. Now that the Obama administration has fixed the health insurance system, I trust they will soon move on to solve these other problems.

Oh, God, let's hope not; I don't want the Obama Administration "fixing" those  insurance plans up another third, too.

Entertainment Potpourri

I've spent Sunday afternoon with a 'The Bible' miniseries watchathon. The series has picked up phenomenal ratings for its Sunday evening time slot on the History Channel, roughly in the top 10 shows, across national networks or cable. Very good performances, great storytelling; there are some minor inaccuracies; you can review one such list here. The series concludes tonight, and the miniseries DVD set is for sale, starting this Tuesday. I have to smile over the biggest phony kerfuffle--that Satan looks like a dead ringer for Barack Obama.



Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Earth, Wind & Fire, "September"



Gallup Looks at Catholics in the USA

I just want to comment on the point that traditionally lower-observing Protestants are now outperforming Catholics. Whereas pedestrian progressive Catholics want to blame things like the real, unconscionable but grossly exaggerated sexual abuse scandal,  I and other more traditional Catholics look more as poor leadership in the Church, excessive accommodation to the morally bankrupt culture, and unintended consequences to ill-conceived, pushing-on-a-string reforms. I can say these factors influenced my decision not to go to seminary after graduation.

Miscellany: 3/30/13

Quote of the Day
Courage is the greatest of all the virtues. 
Because if you haven't courage, 
you may not have an opportunity to use any of the others.
Samuel Johnson

Not So Free Market Schools



Does the Government Eat Its Own Dog Food?

From Gary North:

Federal agencies in 2012 spent $4.8 billion in mailing. Of this total, the Postal Service got $337 million. The GSA set up the contracts for mailing with FedEx and UPS back in 2001.The Postal Service said it was going to set up a system of guaranteed express delivery. It would get the package there in two days or three days. Unfortunately, the Postal Service never actually delivered on the promise. The Postal Service did not get involved until 2009. Apparently the Postal Service did not get the memo. I suppose it was sent by regular mail. FedEx and UPS offer significantly lower prices for next-day delivery. The Postal Service cannot compete.

North explains that unlike its private sector competitors, USPS doesn't operate its own aircraft fleet to accommodate tight delivery schedules. Even with a monopoly on regular mail and perhaps one of the widespread retail footprints in the world.

On the Eve of the Biggest Day on the Christian Calendar

• The "Jesus Stomping" Incident. As I recently read about the incident, it reminds me of an anecdote I have written in a prior post. Hyman Rickover, the "Father of the Nuclear Navy", was a notorious control freak: he even insisted on instructors in the training school be in the Navy, not mere contractors. One of the things he liked to tell the Congress in hearings is he personally interviewed all the officers in the program. I didn't know what to expect from the interview: I was qualified as a math instructor. He did have a reputation for unusual interviews. (My own interview was unremarkable, except he was incensed that I showed up wearing a turtleneck, wasn't interested in hearing my excuses and spent all the interview time reading me the riot act. I thought I was well-dressed but went away thinking I had lost the job based on my attire.) I had heard a lot of Rickover interview stories; I don't know how true they were, but my favorite one was when he reportedly dared one candidate to do something that would make Rickover angry. The candidate spotted a framed photo of Rickover's wife on the admiral's desk, tossed it on the floor and stomped a hole through it. According to the story, Rickover had to be restrained from going after the interviewee.

In this case, a Florida Atlantic professor Deandre Poole, vice chairman of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party, was teaching a intercultural communications class; as a live classroom exercise, he directed students to print 'Jesus' in large letters on a piece of paper, put the printed paper on the floor and stomp on it. Junior Ryan Rotelas, a devout Mormon, refused. According to the student's lawyer, the university initially threatened to sanction him with suspension. Since then the university has backed away from its unconscionable threats, and while paying lip service to academic freedom and trying to excuse it by explaining the exercise as coming from an instructor's manual, has put the professor on administrative leave based on fears for his safety.

 First,  "cultural communication" comes across as one of those pseudo-academic courses which are little more about repackaged progressive propaganda. I take academic freedom very seriously, but the very structure of the assignment is meant to trigger an emotional response from a primarily Christian class, not a rational one; emotionally-based exercises may be appropriate when used under the right context by licensed psychologists or (say) training security personnel whom must be unflappable under stress, but requiring a student, under threat of academic penalty, to do something which he conscientiously objects to, is straight-up an abuse of power.  All Christians understand the Golden Rule and its application in alternate context--without some smug self-superior local party operative trying to manipulate the behavior of students. I have a niece whom a few years back started writing 'G-d' in her emails. She had started dating a young Jewish man; this was an extension of a custom of referencing the name of God using Hebrew characters. Given a country where some 80% of people consider themselves religious, for a professor to demand a disrespectful act of students is not only incompetent and insensitive but in my judgment a violation of professional ethics,

Okay, faithful readers have to know this is coming. Dr. Poole, for demanding  Christian students perform a blasphemous act, is the latest nominee to this year's increasingly crowded Jackass of the Year contest.

There is a thin line of professional judgment; considerwhen public sector high school teacher Scott Compton stomped on an American flag 3 times on one classday to demonstrate the symbolic nature of abusing the flag as political speech. For a teacher to do that sends a mixed message. I'm sure there are lots of flag abuse clips on CNN or Youtube he could have found to illustrate the concept. Either Compton's flag abuse represented his true unpatriotic feelings or it didn't. If it wasn't legitimate, it was a transparent phony, manipulative exercise. If it was legitimate, there's a time and place to express his First Amendment rights, not in a taxpayer-paid classroom. Compton recently resigned, the right decision. As a professor, I never used a captive class or the sophistic  pretense of academic freedom to push my own political agenda.

• Defending Pope Francis. I love minimalist design; I've written some papers and a book chapter adapting John M. Carroll'a approach. I am quite capable of getting into the weeds with anyone but I think there is true genius in brevity. (Famous last words from someone whom many would regard as a long-winded blogger: yes, you're right: I don't yet have a Twitter account.) One of my favorite things about Jesus' teachings is His brilliant use of language (mustard seeds, eye of a needle, etc.) and distinctive parables (e.g, the prodigal son).

Many gifted politicians have a certain political genius at simplicity--the first-term Jerry Brown lived in an apartment vs. the governor's mansion;  Mayor Bloomberg rides the subway; Sen. McCain rides in coach and carries his own suitcases; Sarah Palin got rid of the mansion's staff and sold the governor's plane. As cardinal, Pope Francis also had a similar approach--living in a nondescript flat, cooking his own meals, taking mass transit, etc.

Pope Francis is getting some pushback from traditionalists, unhappy with the fact that he does not seem to share Pope Benedict's  flexibility towards limited restoration of the pre-Vatican II liturgy. They are also troubled about the fact that Francis modified the ritual of washing and kissing feet, an example set by Jesus for the all-male Apostles--among the inmates participating in the ritual  were two  young women (one Christian, the other Muslim). Traditionalists are seeing this as a sign, e.g., that Francis might be receptive to female clergy.

Personally, I like the higher discipline before Vatican II and the beauty of centuries'-old rituals. I loathe bastardized versions of the Mass with warmed-over bland humanist homilies; I want priests whom challenge  the perverse popular culture and focus on spiritual development, particularly prayer and repentance, and rebuke Catholics whom want the Church to capitulate to their pedestrian progressive beliefs.

Personally, and this has nothing to do with political ideology,  I have no problem with the Church opening more paths for married men and women to serve the Church. I have faith in the Holy Father, I love his approach to getting back to the basics, the simplicity of Jesus' original ministry. I hope my fellow Church conservatives will exercise more patience.

RIP, Sweet Katelyn!





Political Cartoon

Not to mention selling Treasury bonds, delivering on health care promises, etc: even if we confiscate all personal and business income, we can't balance the budget, but we really, really promise to pay you back, pinky swear! Pay no attention to the official near $17T debt and over $80T in off balance sheet unfunded liabilities below the surface.

Courtesy of Chuck Asay and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Earth, Wind & Fire, "Got To Get You Into My Life"

Miscellany: 3/29/13

Quote of the Day
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
Albert Einstein

Earlier One-Off Post:  Is Rich Lowry Right?

Guest Rant of the Day

So we are doomed to see Britain’s lights going out, all because the feather-headed lunatics in charge of our energy policy still believe that they’ve got to do something to save the planet from that CO2-induced global warming which this weekend has been covering much of the country up to a foot deep in snow. Meanwhile, the Indians are planning to build 455 new coal-fired power stations which will add more CO2 to the atmosphere of the planet every week than Britain emits in a year.- Christopher Booker, Telegraph  (HT Carpe Diem)

Reason's Nanny of the Month

Definitely not what I encountered on my last visit of Starbucks, but really I'm more impressed by, and more likely to tip, a friendly, attentive middle-aged waitress whom keeps my cup filled; why should people be threatened by what can be seen on any beach for free?



1913: A Bad Year... The Income Tax, the Fed, the Popular Election of Senators

Probably people would question the last point: indeed, do you honestly believe that the 87% Democratic state legislature of Massachusetts would have chosen Scott Brown to the reminder of Ted Kennedy's term in office? How could I reject something as intuitively obvious and democratic as the direct election of senators?  Recall before that, senators served at the discretion of state legislatures... And these days you have the  sad case of Blago whom thought that being able to name a replacement to Obama's Senate seat was his "golden ticket"...

We see self-financed millionaires trying to win Senate seats (granted, you still have to win a primary and general elections), out-of-state groups or even the political opposition pushing less viable candidates to nominations (e.'g., Delaware and Missouri) or influence the general election, e.g., Nevada.



Crazy Conspiracy Theories

I'm not going to embarrass the financial newsletter publisher by identifying it, but it's probably the wildest conspiracy theory I've heard involving Obama to date.

According to this one, Obama will order (via the EPA) a cessation to all fracking activity. The fracking process has yielded significant increases in new domestic supplies of oil and especially natural gas. Environmental activists have been fear-mongering about leakage of fracking chemicals into aquifers or drinking water supplies (for one brief, balanced discussion of this issue see here). (Other fear-mongering includes an exacerbation of earthquake risk, etc.) In any event, the conspiracy theorist suggestions that this edict would deal a heavy economic blow to several energy-producing states, notably North Dakota and Texas. And recall there was a kerfuffle a few months back about Texans considering secession from the US.

Texas entered the union with a fairly unique stipulation allowing the state to subdivide into 5 states; in this theory, Texas would respond by exercising its split-state option, potentially adding up to 8 new GOP senators. The theorist suggests Obama would crack down on Texas, possibly arresting the state government, including the legislature.

This is almost as delusional as the cost projections of ObamaCare. First, natural gas by fracking has lowered utility costs across the country. Second, natural gas emits half the CO2 of other carbon-based fuels; Obama is also trying to get truck fleets to be converted to run on natural gas, and coal-based plants are being replaced with natural gas ones. All of Obama's green-energy boondoggles haven't had the impact of much cheaper natural gas. Shale development adds good-paying jobs and tax revenue. Any moratorium in fracking  would likely cause natural gas prices, utility rates, etc., to skyrocket. Obama has tried to claim credit for less foreign oil imports. Fracking has been going on for years with minimal adverse environmental impact. There would be a heavy political price to Obama, and I think, just as in the case of Obama's illegal moratorium on Gulf offshore drilling, existing vendors will be backed up in court.

Once Again, the Gay Marriage Kerfuffle

Any familiar reader knows that I support the traditional definition of marriage, although I am fine with legally equivalent domestic partnerships/civil unions for gays and believe the State has no right intervening in the private lives of mutually consenting gay people. I don't intend to repeat myself here--I just want to briefly respond to certain talking points.

First, on the Defense of Marriage Act. I have already written I think if there is a substantive ruling, it will be that a state definition of marriage (including gay marriage) will take precedence over a more restrictive federal one. I don't think it will find a constitutional right to marry for nontraditional lifestyles.

Hearing Obama's SCOTUS justices question the motive of DOMA was patently absurd. At the time of DOMA, no state had legalized gay marriage. It simply stated for the record the de facto common definition of marriage in all states since the nation's beginning. DOMA did not forbid the states' rights to expand marriage to nontraditional relationships. I also point out the traditional definition of marriage underscored concerns about polygamy in the Utah territory before it won statehood.

Bill O'Reilly recently opined that the gay marriage people had a more compelling argument, that all opponents could do is reference their Bible. NONSENSE! The traditional definition of marriage has been observed across cultures and religions.  Straights did not invent marriage to exclude gay marriage. It has been around for at least 6000 years. It no doubt evolved as a way of promoting social stability and providing a context for procreation and sustainability of society. Procreation is decided by natural, not arbitrary factors. Straights did not arbitrarily restrict gays from marriage or revoke that right. Any right existed by judicial fiat. Gays have been trying to extend marriage. And let me point out in California, gay domestic partners already enjoyed marriage-like legal rights. Many of us against extending the definition note that the stability of marriage and family has suffered since the sexual revolution and are worried about the unintended consequences of socially experimental policies.

Finally, the latest issue of Time announces the American people have already decided the issue (presumably in favor of "gay marriage"). This is a load of crap and wishful thinking: a couple of vaguely worded polls and only a couple of recent  close victories in a couple of very liberal states where pro-marriage forces were heavily outspent and out-organized. What about the majority of states which  have already reaffirmed traditional marriage, most by wide margin? No doubt younger people are influenced by openly pro-gay groupthink Big Entertainment  and academia.. Probably a number of people feel it's a case of "be careful of what you wish for"--Jimmy Kimmel quipped that he was looking forward to 'Gay Divorce Court'.

Political Cartoon

Think that the government will fish you out? Maybe if you're in your prime earning years... Who else is going to pay its taxes or buy its bonds?

Courtesy of IBD's Michael Ramirez and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Earth, Wind and Fire, "Getaway"

Is Rich Lowry Right? Where is the GOP's new Jack Kemp?

If anyone hasn't read the National Review editor's widely-circulated op-ed, it's available here. One of my criticisms of the piece is that Lowry basically assumes that everyone knows Dole's 1996 running mate Jack Kemp. Kemp is perhaps best known for his prominent role as a supply-sider focused on low tax policy, but the former pro football quarterback, a self-styled "bleeding heart conservative", was charismatic and positive with a fusion of political beliefs: social conservative (abortion), libertarian (pro-immigration), and progressive (affirmative action), although he preferred a more market-oriented, incentive-based approach to progressive goals, including tax-advantaged enterprise zones. (However, I should point out that the presence of Kemp on the Dole ticket did not really improve the ticket's performance against the "first African American" President Clinton.)

The best line in the piece: "Every time [activist leaders] are about to congratulate themselves on [dumping  Mike Castle, leading Coons in all the polls, in favor of Christine O'Donnell], they should have to listen to three hours of Chris Coons floor speeches on their iPods." Come now, Rich; I think that's prohibited under the Geneva Convention....

I have some issues with Lowry's discussion: for instance, Charlie Crist. I'm not referring to the unprincipled politician whom couldn't handle a likely primary loss to Rubio and pandered his way to defeat in the general election as an independent candidate. Remember, at the time there was a vulnerable open Florida seat in purple-state Florida; Crist wanted to run for reelection as governor; getting a sitting or former governor to run for Senate is generally considered a coup (consider, e.g., Manchin (D-WV)).  I wouldn't say it ensured the seat would remain Republican, but Democrats had an up-hill fight in an election year where the GOP  had a shot at regaining control of Congress. I'm not a Florida voter but I think what really undid Crist was an ill-considered photo opp with Obama and an unprincipled eagerness for federal stimulus dollars. I remember I worried whether Rubio might be Florida's Christine O'Donnell. In this blog, I was originally supportive of Crist, but Rubio won my confidence that he was electable, and when Crist started pandering to the special interest groups like teacher unions, I was done with Crist.

But in general I would rather have half a loaf than no loaf: for example, I disagreed with some of former Senator Brown's (R-MA) votes, but is he better than "Cherokee Lizzie" Warren? Of course; he is fiscal conservative, not a "you didn't build that" ideologue.

On Mitt Romney: he was never particularly charismatic, he had an existing reputation as a flip-flopper, he had difficulties distancing himself from ObamaCare, he was perceived as elitist and out of touch; and he ran primarily on his resume and the economy.

Lowry seems to be looking for a charismatic, positive, visionary, articulate candidate, with fresh, novel approaches to problems; for example, Kemp looked at ways to address issues in public housing through tenant ownership or to increase urban development through tax-advantaged policies. The point is, we are talking not a centralized, top-down progressive government, but more of vesting individuals in their own future,

I have been saying for a long time now the GOP can't be rerunning the same platform, they need to avoid red-meat campaigns, and politicians aren't going to win popularity by cutting benefits or programs (I'm not saying we shouldn't do those things: we have to, but GOP needs to avoid being the Bad Cop, Party of No--you two people can't get married, you can't have this, you can't do that). The odd thing is the progressives are far more restrictive--you can't decide how to invest your own mandatory retirement dollars, you have to jump through hoops just to operate a simple refreshment stand in your own front yard, etc.

I  am not trying to flesh out a comprehensive set of policies here, but just to give examples: what if government stipends/grants/loans were means-tested and linked to the size, of say, a child's education fund. What if payroll taxes (both employee/employer) were waived for lower hourly wages and rose on a graduated scale after a certain level, say, poverty level? What if federal staffing requirements for local operations or projects were first made available to able local residents? What if unemployment compensation included matching funds for training and/or relocation or had incentives to get a GED or finish a college degree? What if the government was able to "invest" in audited private-sector charities? What if the federal government provided opportunity scholarships (including private religious-sponsored schools) for students in at risk areas? What if the government invited private sector investment partnerships in infrastructure?

Don't get me wrong; I'm a free market guy, but even half steps for individual ownership and responsibility and delegated authority,  away from the grand illusion of centralized planning and control, are movement in the right direction.

What do I see as part of a successful approach to restore sanity and competence to the Oval Office?

• Be tolerant of opposing points of view and don't sweat the small stuff. Take the issue of "gay marriage". I think Limbaugh's analysis is spot on; traditional marriage was not established over at least 6 millennia with the idea of prohibiting alternative relationships. I think the Warren denial of "separate but equal" in the Brown decision has become (in my view, without merit from a conceptual versus factual basis) an unquestioned trump card used against alternatives of domestic partnerships or civil unions. But I understand how some people might view the issue in terms of equal protection. I would remind other conservatives, that the State may change definitions by fiat, but we retain freedom of thought and religion. But as a national issue? I don't want the federal government dealing with marriage--yet another area beyond its limited scope of competence.
• More straight talk, less spin and fear-mongering: a confident, positive, constructive attitude.
• Take on the big issue of the historic failures of progressive policy. The point is, just about everything the government does and which "expert" bureaucrats "manage" is mismanaged, overpromised, and underdelivered. Bills have been passed down--but the trend has hit the demographic cliff: the larger Baby Boom generation is being succeeded by by smaller generations, not unlike the scene now playing out in Japan and Europe: do we really want to follow their lead? I would point out the biggest years of economic growth occurred when government wasn't as large a drag on the economy.
• The central question: who decides: you or the government? I think this is where the conservative/libertarian coalition will win mainstream support. Point out government solutions always cost more than they claim and you end up paying for things you don't want or need; the bureaucrat trumps those closest to the situation, for example, if you are in a government health program, your doctor is constrained in how he can treat you (e.g., you may be forced to take a less effective generic). Government may compel young people to pay more they should to subsidize the costs of older or sicker patients. Government restricts where you can send your kid to school; your property taxes are held by the ineffective local school system, use it or lose it, meaning parents have to pay twice to get  a good education for their kids. Statists will even use failures in banking regulation to expand their regulatory empire; in fact, government deposit guarantees exacerbate the regulatory issue because business risk has been socialized; prudent bank management is less a consideration for the potential depositor: if the less prudent bank offers him a bit more yield...
• Be less strident and more inclusive in platforms and candidate nominations. Don't demonize the opposition, express an openness to negotiation and compromise; be respectful of alternative points of view. For example, I don't think the GOP should back away from supporting traditional marriage, but the government should not intrude on the lifestyle choices of citizens and their pursuit of happiness. 

Miscellany: 3/28/13

Quote of the Day
But for the act to be virtuous,
the donor must give to the right person, 
for the right purpose, 
in the right amount, 
in the right manner, 
and at the right time.
Aristotle

Guest Quote of the Day

Courtesy of the Illinois Policy Insitute

Where Does YOUR State Stand on the 
Personal/Economic Liberty Index?

The BOTTOM 5: California (49). New York (50), New Jersey (48), Rhode Island (46), Hawaii (47). In case you are wondering, my current state barely missed the bottom 5:

Where Maryland fails is the personal freedom dimension, where it is the second-worst-ranked state. Maryland boasts the seventh-strictest gun control laws in the country: carry permits are expensive and rarely issued; “assault weapons,” cheap handguns, and large-capacity magazines are banned; sales are banned unless by licensed dealers; and so on. Its marijuana laws are fairly harsh as well, except that the first offense of high-level possession is only a misdemeanor, and the state has an almost-useless medical marijuana exception. Maryland’s impositions on personal freedom also include extensive auto and road regulations, tight gambling laws, a ban on raw milk, a law allowing police to take DNA from certain felony arrested, burdensome private and home school laws that require private school teachers to be licensed and effectively subject curricula to government approval, very high drug arrest rates (though incarceration and other victimless crimes arrest rates are low), lack of same-sex marriage or equivalent status (since enacted by the legislature and confirmed by popular vote), high tobacco taxes, and an airtight, statewide smoking ban. 

One Voice of Reason Off the Left Coast





Education Of, By and For the Students Teachers





A New Kind of Housing Bubble

A few prospective homeowners wrote to an investment newsletter. Here are excerpts:

•  Having just spent a couple of years in Scottsdale, I have seen the 'local' market be propped up by Blackstone, etc. They bought the entire supply of houses regardless of condition. Propped up the real estate market overnight. - Jimbo
• Last year, my husband and I could not sell our house for what we paid in 2002 (in Westchester County). This week, our realtor advised us to re-list at 20% over last year. Bidding wars everywhere. - Elida
• "My wife and I moved to Las Vegas, Nevada in June, 2012. The city is loaded with vacant houses, but they're not for sale. The banks are holding them, we are told, waiting for prices to increase. We saw perhaps 25 houses and made offers on four of them.  One example: a 70,000 deal fell through, and we quickly looked the house over and placed a 70,000 cash offer. We didn't get the place, because some investor offered 80,000! That kind of thing happened several times, and we decided to call it quits and rent an apartment… - Marty

No doubt easy money is behind this speculation, and the Fed loves seeing a housing recovery, but a surging stock market and sharp price increases  in low-growth and stagnant income America are unsustainable. I would be very concerned about fickle speculators propping up prices and banks sitting on inventories of foreclosed properties.

Political Cartoon

In response to the Society of Actuaries study, the excuses have already started:

"These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market," Sebelius said.

No, pricing reflects a government-manipulated market with special-interest mandates, and arbitrary policies that outlaw consideration of factors correlated with health costs (e.g., age).

Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall

Political Humor

Remy is back parodying another clueless self-important Hollywood progressive celebrity.




Legendary singer Dionne Warwick filed for bankruptcy, claiming she has only $25,000 in assets but owes more than $10 million in unpaid taxes. She owes 400 times what she has. She could end up serving three years — as the White House budget director. - Jay Leno

[In trouble with the IRS? I say a little prayer for you.]



A new survey found that the average American stays at his job for about four-and-a-half years. That is unless they're a late-night host on NBC. - Jimmy Fallon

[Or the first man in history to run up over a $6T deficit...]

Entertainment Potpourri

American Idol. The women are all but a lock to clinch this year's crown; my top 3: Candice Glover, Kree Harrison, and (below) Janelle Arthur. (If I had to name a favorite, Kree.) I was swerved by group pairings and performances in this week's Motown themed show; I know the Material Girl was raised in Michigan, but I don't consider her Motown; hearing Kree and Janelle make my favorite hit of hers a duet was a treat (I liked the performance better than the judges). I was disappointed there weren't more mixed gender pairings (I'm so used to hearing the Temptations on "I'm Going to Make You Love Me"); I would have loved to hear a Marvin/Tammi cover, some Ike and Tina, or even an R&B ballad like "With You I'm Born Again" or "Endless Love". (I'm writing before the elimination show; they often cover other era hits.) Or a medley of "My Guy"/"My Girl". I can't stand Nicki Minaj as judge (the bisexual flirting bit is growing old--it comes across as a cry for attention), and Keith Urban is easily the best new celebrity judge in years (I'm not a contemporary country fan and have none of his material in my collection; I know he's married to a famous actress, and they have a couple of daughters).

Janelle has an innovative arrangement of "You Keep Me Hanging On", one of the best I've heard. The inner record producer wants to tweak it at points, but this is flat-out one of the best covers I've ever heard. And how cool for it was it to see Smokey Robinson, one of the classiest singer-songwriters ever, on the show? I loved hear the back story to 'Tracks of My Tears'. (If the emhedded video is not functional, try this link.)



Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Earth, Wind and Fire, "Sing A Song"

Miscellany: 3/27/13

Quote of the Day
The soldiers fight 
and the kings are heroes.
Hebrew proverb

Chart of the Day (courtesy Carpe Diem)

Whipsawed

In context I liked the idea of contrasting mainstream conservatives against a pro-liberty politician like Ron Paul. I probably would have chosen Newt Gingrich versus Ann Coulter  and questioned him about the things like the growth of the military industrial complex, the erosion of individual rights and a deterioration of federalism (i.e., state rights). I think Kucinich was a good choice--but does anyone else notice how oxymoronic a title like 'a [social] liberal's case against liberty'. I think Stossel let Kucinich lapse into familiar talking points; I would have pressed on morally hazardous, Big Government Knows Best policies, the historic failures of progressive programs, all but insolvent entitlement programs, guaranties, government costs and regulations smothering entrepreneurship, etc. Letting Kucinich get away with saying I hate GOP spending priorities, too, is inexcusable: I would have pointed out Defense spending has gone up under Obama and a Democratic-controlled Senate, and Obama failed to back his own bipartisan debt reduction committee's findings, which won a majority vote. Hearing Kucinich demonizing profits without Stossel challenging him was disheartening.

I do feel for Coulter in the first clip when the topics are about drugs and "gay marriage"; I didn't like how Stossel framed the latter issue (marriage is not a widget with interchangeable parts). I am somewhat sympathetic to the concept of marriage privatization raised in the clip, although I think even with marriage as a legal versus social construct, there are unintended, bad consequences to socially experimental policies. Ann makes a good point you can't define away the problem, although I think there's a lot to be said about churches and communities resolving marital issues versus the state. I probably would have stressed the deterioration of marriage and the family since the sexual revolution (although Coulter hints at that by discussing making divorce harder to get). She has a more nuanced view on military intervention; I thought Stossel could have pursued the fact that many conservatives (e.g., the Old Right, Pat Buchanan), have been skeptical of interventionist policies. As to the discussion of drugs, I am more interested in talking about failed public policy, overcrowded prisons and expensive law enforcement trying to control an unenforceable  market, not unlike alcohol.

 The second clip is less successful. There was a pregnant pause when the student stumbles on inflation as hurting lower-income people--I probably would have focused more directly, say, by how ethanol mandates and other subsidies raise food costs, how rent control limits options for most potential tenants, how the crony  Fed punishes small savers and limited-income seniors with manipulating interest rates, collapsing purchasing power of the dollar, etc.

 

DiLorenzo on Goodwin, Spielberg and the REAL Lincoln

"Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years." ~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007

Why bring up a movie a month after the Academy Awards? (The biggest award the movie snagged was lead actor.) In part, FNC prime time anchor Bill O'Reilly, a former high school history teacher, has a new biography on Lincoln out. (Don't expect DiLorenzo on the Factor as a guest after this appraisal:

All it is is a narrative of the events leading up to the assassination. Over 100 books are already in print on the subject. There is nothing at all in O'Reilly's book about Lincoln's policies and behavior in office. There is nothing about his statist economic policies, his trashing of the Constitution by illegally suspending Habeas Corpus and mass arresting thousands of Northern political dissenters, his intentionally waging war on Southern civilians in violation of all moral and legal codes regarding warfare, his lifelong obsession with deporting all black people, free or slave, from America, etc. )

Let's start this segment with a rehash from high school civics class:

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. 

I am well aware of Doris Kearns Goodwin from her numerous appearances on Meet the Press, and my recurring Sunday Talk Soup segments have found her "contributions" little more than pedestrian progressivism as usual. DiLorenzo, who has written a competing, superior Lincoln biography, makes it a little personal in the first video; this is academia as usual.  DiLorenzo started off his education as most of us, with this image of the martyred liberator of slaves My Mom once told me about seeing a famous actress/beauty--and was disappointed to discover the beauty was illusory--the actress' complexion was flawed.  As DiLorenzo studied the "real" Lincoln, the hero worship began to fade. Let me quote one sample  tidbit from Gordon's review of DiLorenzo's 2006 book on Lincoln:

Lincoln turned aside all opposition to his ruthless conduct of the war, and he did not hesitate to act against judges who insisted on the rule of law. But what is a lowly circuit court judge, compared with the Chief Justice of the United States? Lincoln ordered an arrest warrant prepared for the aged Roger Taney, who had ruled that Lincoln had no authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The warrant was fortunately never served, and Taney escaped imprisonment. Some have doubted the story, but DiLorenzo finds confirmation in several sources, including the memoirs of Benjamin Curtis, no friend of Taney's. When he served on the Supreme Court, Curtis wrote a strongly worded dissent from Taney's opinion in the Dred Scott case. "Nevertheless, in his memoirs he praises the propriety of Justice Taney in upholding the Constitution by opposing Lincoln's unilateral suspension of habeas corpus. He refers to the arrest warrant for the chief justice, accusing him of treason, as a 'great crime'" 

I will let the historians battle out how much credit Lincoln deserves over the amendment to end slavery. (Most libertarians I know believe the collapse of slavery was inevitable; it was very bad economic policy ) Speaking of fictional accounts of Lincoln, wasn't there one about Lincoln being a vampire hunter? I want to know: was that also based on the Goodwin biography?

Political Humor

 Some people traveled to Washington and paid as much as $6,000 to watch the Supreme Court's deliberations on gay marriage. Yeah, $6,000. Maybe that's why the Supreme Court launched its 41-city Monsters of Gay Marriage Deliberation Tour. - Conan O'Brien

  [And they demanded their money back when Diana Ross didn't front the group...]

 A father of five has come forward to claim Saturday’s winning Powerball ticket worth $338 million. Or as he told his five kids, “Great news. Three of you can go to college.” - Jimmy Fallon

  [ The IRS got its cut... Obama told the other 2  kids. "Great news. You can go. too."]

Political Cartoon

 Just imagine their offspring--a pig-headed brat whom doesn't forget a slight....

Courtesy of Jerry Holbert and Townhall

Musical Interview: My Favorite Groups

Earth, Wind and Fire, "That's the Way of the World"



Your Tax Dollars At Government Work Training

 From CBS (no doubt they are working on Obama's Jedi mind melds):

According to a statement from the IRS, the "Star Trek" video (see below) was created to open a 2010 IRS training and leadership conference.

"Back in Russia, I dreamed someday I'd be rich and famous," says one crew member in the parody. "Me too," agrees another. "That's why I became a public servant." And the two fist bump. A separate skit based on the television show "Gilligan's Island" was also recorded. The IRS told Congress the cost of producing the two videos was thought to be about $60,000 dollars.

Miscellany: 3/26/13

Quote of the Day
The greater danger for most of us is not 
that our aim is too high and we miss it, 
but that it is too low and we reach it.
Michelangelo

Perky Economics = Grand Illusion

Mortimer Zuckerman has a notable WSJ op-ed post "The Great Recession Has Been Followed by the Grand Illusion". He points out how the mainstream media have all but taken their talking points from the White House:

• After 2.4% annual growth rates in gross domestic product in 2010 and 2011, the economy slowed to 1.5% growth in 2012. Cumulative growth for the past 12 quarters was just 6.3%, the slowest of all 11 recessions since World War II.
• Other numbers reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics have deteriorated. The 236,000 net new jobs added to the economy in February is misleading—the gross number of new jobs included 340,000 in the part-time, low wage category. Many of the so-called net new jobs are second or third jobs going to people who are already working, rather than going to those who are unemployed.
• Since World War II, it has typically taken 24 months to reach a new peak in employment after the onset of a recession. Yet the country is more than 60 months away from its previous high in 2007, and the economy is still down 3.2 million jobs from that year. Just to absorb the workforce's new entrants, the U.S. economy needs to add 1.8 million to three million new jobs every year. At the current rate, it will be seven years before the jobs lost in the Great Recession are restored. Employers will need to make at least 300,000 hires every month to recover the ground that has been lost.
• The job-training programs announced by the Obama administration in his State of the Union address are [not short-term fixes];  [Obama didn't mention] any reform of the patent system, which imposes long delays on innovators, inventors and entrepreneurs seeking approvals. [Immigration politics over unauthorized immigrants ignores entrepreneurial foreign-born, American-educated higher-level graduates not given an opportunity to stay.]

I am more critical than Zuckerman; for example, a number of technical position positions have arbitrary hiring criteria, the number of college graduate positions generated is exceeded by the supply; I have an issue with a centralized government trying to control education to accommodate the dynamic requirements of the real economy. Although Zuckerman does address some sclerotic government approvals, I would have liked to hear him talk mote about the fiscal drag of $1.7T in regulations and/or mandates, unsustainable debt service and all but insolvent unfunded liabilities, ideological barriers to good job yielding energy exploration and production, pipelines and refineries, noncompetitive business taxes and procrastinating public policy, a deteriorating fiat currency, and no trade breakthroughs.



SCOTUS Looks at Marriage

Courtesy of Dalton Glasscock

The California Proposition 8 case was heard today, and now I have contempt for Justice Elena Kagan whom asked an amateurish gotcha question one might expect from a smartass student in a freshman philosophy class: in essence, if procreation is tied to marriage, wouldn't this seem to rule out infertile (by nature or age) people from marrying? Why not point out adopted children are not natural children either? (I haven't read the transcript; maybe she did add it--it's utterly predictable...)  Marriage provides a socially accepted context for family and children. Of households with multiple children, over 80% consist of only full siblings, i.e., with the same biological father and mother. As my fellow mathematicians would say, gender differences are a necessary but insufficient basis for procreation. In Catholic thought, the married couple should be open to God's blessing of children in their lives. Same-gender couples cannot have children by natural design. However, and I don't think Kagan made this point because it's politically inconvenient, polygamous relationships can result in some permutations of fruitful married coupling. And to reprise a point I made in the blog some time back, the nature of marriage (polygamy was an accepted practice in the early LDS Church) was a question bearing on the Utah territory's application for citizenship. (I should point out Kagan wasn't alone in espousing this sophistry; the other liberal justices, as an example of the absurdity the arguments went to, even speculated on post-conviction convicts with few or no conjugal visits.)

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, hardly a pro-life jurist, is well aware of the polarizing effects Roe v Wade has had and continues to have in America; Sotomayor and  Kennedy also seemed to question, given the propaganda of vaguely-worded polls showing 53-57% support for "gay marriage", whether SCOTUS really wants to issue a ruling overruling traditional marriage affirmation in other states.

I think the justices will uphold state regulations and Proposition 8: they may figure it's just a matter of time before the People's Republic of California approves a new "gay marriage" proposition. That being said, swing court voter Kennedy said a couple of things that bothered me (one of them worrying about the self-esteem of children adopted by unrecognized "gay parents").  I heard no discussion about California's domestic partnerships: "A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples. . It affords the couple "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and... the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses." What the devil is Kennedy worrying about? If it quacks like a duck... It's because gay activists want to control the word 'marriage'; it has nothing to do with legal rights. You can put lipstick on a pig.... Does Kennedy think judicial fiat can confer social acceptability when California's mostly liberal  voters, unlike other liberal states like Maryland, wouldn't confer it directly?

Some Updates from the Institute for Justice

• The Caswells Win: the Boston US Attorney's Office won't appeal the dismissal of civil forfeiture case.  If you recall, the government sought to steal the Massachusetts motel property of the older couple because some people, without their knowledge or consent, made drug transactions on their property.
• You Can Rest in Peace: The monks of Saint Joseph Abbey in Louisiana can sell caskets. "the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous final decision in favor of the casket-making monks of Saint Joseph Abbey, setting up what could become a historic clash at the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Court of Appeals squarely rejected Louisiana’s argument that it was constitutional to enact a law forbidding anyone but a government-licensed funeral director from selling caskets, especially if the only purpose of the law is to make funeral directors wealthier by limiting competition."
• School Choice Wins Over Teacher Unions in Indiana: "In a landmark legal decision issued today, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the state’s Choice Scholarship Program does not violate the Indiana Constitution.  In a unanimous decision, the Court rejected every legal claim brought by the plaintiffs—who are supported by both state and national teachers’ unions—against the program, and it ruled in favor of both the state and two parents, Heather Coffy and Monica Poindexter, who have intervened in the lawsuit in defense of the program.  Those parents, who use Choice Scholarships to send their children to private schools, are represented in the case by the Institute for Justice.In rejecting the argument of the plaintiffs that the Choice Scholarship Program improperly benefits private religious schools, the Court held that the program “provide[s] lower-income Indiana families with the educational options generally available primarily to higher-income Indiana families.  The result is a direct benefit to these lower-income families—the provision of a wider array of education options, a valid secular purpose.  Any benefit to program-eligible schools, religious or non-religious, derives from the private, independent choice of the parents of program-eligible students, not the decree of the state, and is thus ancillary and incidental to the benefit conferred on these families.”

Another Iraq Engagement Retrospective

Christopher Prebles' post on those whom should have known better but didn't is here. I have little patience with ideologues whom parrot the same old, same old disingenuous nonsense, e.g., they promised costs would be repaid with Iraq oil revenues, they said the occupation would be short, that we would be greeted as liberators, etc. There may have been a few clueless Administration members whom spouted such nonsense, but Bush never expected a nearly decade long costly divisive quagmire. Any idea that the US would confiscate oil would have fed anti-American propaganda, As Prebles pointed out,  Powell  warned months in advance "You break it: you own it."

Let me point out a few points: at the tail end of the first Gulf War, a number of (majority) Shiites rose up, as Bush 41 had encouraged--and then stood by as Hussein ruthlessly suppressed the rebellion. Part of the response was no-fly zones enforced by the US, as a measure of control over Hussein atrocities against out-of-power Kurds and Shiites. There's a difference between a ceasefire and a treaty ending the war. Hussein had attempted to assassinate former President GHW Bush. By the end of Clinton's Presidency there was a policy of regime change in Iraq. There was a long string of failed UN resolutions.

Am I attempting to justify the 2003 decision? No. It's easy to say today I would have never made the decision, not seeing the flawed intelligence and knowing the botched aftermath, the casualties and cost. But like Bush 43 had campaigned, I don't believe in nation building, I would have done my due diligence and exhaustively studied the history of Iraq , and I would never wanted to open up the Pandora's box of sectarian strife. Being responsible for the lives or health of someone's son, husband or fiance, or father is something I would not take lightly (I'm not alleging GWB did, but I think he and I had different decision styles; I've emphasized iterative design in classes and research, which would have triggered earlier review cycles and corrective policies or even an exit; I would have definitely pulled the trigger sooner than Bush did on Rumsfeld and Petraeus.)



Political Cartoon

No doubt a victim of sequester, replaced by RoboSquirrel; given his forecasting skills, might I suggest a career as a government economist?

Courtesy of Gary Varvel and PatriotPost

Yet another government-maintained highway on the road to serfdom: they still haven't paid for repairs in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

Political Humor

Courtesy of PatriotPost.us and the original artists:

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Earth, Wind and Fire, "Shining Star"

Miscellany: 3/25/13

Quote of the Day
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, 
as being unwilling to learn.
Benjamin Franklin

Post Title of the Day

Will Your Bank Account Be "Cyprused" Next? - Bill Bonner's Diary

Excerpt from the post:

We maintain a small bank account in France. It is used just to make repairs and otherwise keep up our house there. The woman who handles it sent this message on Friday: "Don't put any more money in the account. We don't want to get Cyprused!"

I tell you the truth,
unless you change and become like little children,
you will never enter the kingdom of heaven - Matthew 18:3

As we enter SCOTUS marriage lawsuit week, and I am hardly a SCOTUS analyst, I think the most likely outcome is that traditional state regulation of marriage will be upheld, and the federal government will recognize state-defined marriage. Thus,a federal definition of marriage via DOMA would not trump a state definition including gay marriage, but I think the Court will uphold California Proposition 8. (The justices may think that socially liberal California may modify marriage on their own in future elections.)  More difficult is the question of state reciprocity agreements and the status of "gay married" couples moving to traditional marriage states: can a state unilaterally change its definition after an agreement? I would think not. I don't think this court will repeat the activist error of Roe v Wade.

I have made it clear I do not like socially experimental policies affecting the traditional institutions of family and marriage. From my pro-liberty perspective, there's a difference between negative vs. positive rights. For example, the State or some group of people cannot abuse my freedom to worship, to express my own opinions, to freely associate with others, etc. Thus, I don't think the State should interfere in the lives of gay people about  their relationships, Positive rights compel actions to be done on my behalf--for instance, provide me with legal assistance if I have been charged with a crime and cannot afford a lawyer. Must the State confer special recognition or privileges to nontraditional relationships? I would argue 'no'.



How Petraeus et al. Prevailed Over the DoD Bureaucracy

There are some interesting points in this discussion. One involved the progressive ideologues' damning the strategy with faint praise implying that taking advantage of Sunnis' recoiling from Al Qaeda atrocities in Iraq was "obvious" (whoever says that has never served in the military: Fred Kaplan does a good job at describing Petraeus' opportunistic tactics and ability to think outside the box). Still, Obama's hope that lightning could strike twice by putting Petraeus in charge of Afghanistan was wishful thinking--as was a demand that a smaller-than-recommended surge increase could win the fight and stabilize the country over 18 months; these were soldiers not about to tell Obama what he didn't want to hear at the risk of their careers. Petraeus didn't know Afghanistan as well as Iraq, and Afghanistan had unique challenges of its own; Kaplan does a good job of showing how Petraeus  was constantly reading Afghanistan in the context of his Iraq experience. In the video liner notes, there's an important point Kaplan makes: assuming successful counterinsurgency/nation building becomes part of military orthodoxy, will this lower the barrier of entry to policing global hot-spots? Oh  God, I hope not...



Carbon Tax? No

Reason does a remarkably even-handed job here without telegraphing a policy preference. Most economists will talk in terms of externalities. For example, car exhausts could contribute to smog/air quality; an industrial plant might discharge its wastes in a nearby waterway. These problems impose costs on other parties; the argument is the businesses understate their true cost of goods sold, which should include minimizing adverse environmental impact. The basic idea of a carbon tax credit was to provide those within quota but able to make further carbon reductions more cheaply than, say, those over quota, an economic incentive. The problem is, among other things, even the best reductions from US self-imposed reductions on existing regulations would be negligible, more than offset by other countries lacking even existing standards: Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger of the Cato Institute has a relevant discussion:

Based on mainstream estimates, of the approximately 3°C of global warming that is being projected to occur between now and the end of the century as a result of anthropogenic carbon (dioxide) emissions, the U.S. contribution will only be about 0.2°C, or about 7 percent of the total warming. And this is assuming that no carbon tax is put in place. Carbon dioxide emissions from the rest of the world—primarily driven by rapid emissions growth in developing countries like China and India—will be responsible for the other 93 percent of temperature rise.

More on Intellectual Property Rights

I think the very first LP I purchased was a cheap album of current hit covers; I thought I had purchased a collection of original hits. The performances, of course, lacked the quality of the originals. I learned my lesson and ensured I got the "official" songs. It's not just recordings: for many performers I liked, like Springsteen, I often purchased their next release without even reading a review or hearing a tune and I've wanted to go to their concerts. (I haven't gone to a concert in a while; the last time I tried, Bobby Goldsboro was making an appearance at Gilley's in Pasadena, TX.  Some redneck in a truck was tailing me and angry at me for God knows what. He ran me off the road; his lady was pleading with him to let whatever it was go, but I was mostly looking at his dangling shotgun. I suddenly lost interest in the concert and headed home.)



Political Cartoon

More than just one bitter pill to swallow. I would also like to see some cartoonist to mock federal money to the states with strings attached. One example would be Obama the Puppeteer pulling the strings of state legislators.

Courtesy of Henry Payne and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Backstreet Boys, "I Want It That Way". This is the end of my Backstreet Boys series. Next up: Earth. Wind and Fire.

Miscellany: 3/24/13

Quote of the Day
Appreciation can make a day, 
even change a life. 
Your willingness to put it into words is all that is necessary.
Margaret Cousins

Enough!

[The US invasion of Iraq] has cost more than $1.7 trillion, and when all is said and done including interest the cost may well be $6 trillion. Some $212 billion was spent on Iraqi reconstruction with nothing to show for it. Total deaths from US war on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have been at least 329, 000 [most non-combatant].Ten years ago the US invaded Iraq under the influence of neo-conservative [policy]. Those [ideas] continued to promote US military action in places like Libya, and next on their agenda is Syria and then on to Iran. It is time for the American people to shout “enough!" - Ron Paul

Reason Magazine Preview



I want to comment briefly on what I've in the past referred to the Procrustean approach of micromanaging businesses, and yes within that context,  doctors. This was an issue I explored in my own interdisciplinary research drawing on human factors and ergonomics. End users do not like or perform well with less natural interfaces. Many traditionally designed IT interfaces were designed from more of a technologist's perspective; users were distracted from the work they were doing to deal with technically-oriented busywork. Similarly, we can view government  paperwork and regulations as a Procrustean-designed government elitist hubris, a system designed by and for the convenience of  bureaucrats, nothing that materially contributes to health quality outcomes, inconvenient to doctors and patients. We want more usable interfaces for doctors; by that, I mean one that minimally infringes on the time of the doctor, limits paperwork and government micromanagement getting in the way of the doctor's knowledge, experience and related patient treatment and relationship. Any relevant system should be flexible to accommodate industry innovation: novel techniques, meds, etc.

One of my favorite economists, George Mason professor Walter E. Williams, has an awesome weblinks page; one of those is for the more market-oriented American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (Sen. Rand Paul is a member), There is a brilliant essay in the spring AAPS Journal by Lawrence Huttoon: "Time to Stop Tyranny in Medicine."

Busting Liberal Myths:
Union, Statist Propaganda and Distortion




Earworms: How to Get Rid of Songs Repeating in Your Mind: Next Validation: Do Techniques Work On Obama Soundbites?

Since I regularly embed music, this little science news story interested me (hopefully not done at taxpayer expense). I can't relate to current music performers sampled in the study (Lady Gaga, Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, etc.: people with a good  taste in music are immune from contemporary earworms), although they included a couple of Beatles' red album classics (although I would have probably chosen 'Help', 'Yesterday', 'Hey, Jude' and 'Let It Be') I do like the suggestion one of the Telegraph's commentators, overthecoastline, whom suggested a mechanism that works for me: "Whenever I get any song stuck in my head, I think of the very real possibility of Obama being in office for the rest of his miserable life, and that sobers me up quickly, and dispenses with any other thought, song pattern or shred of happiness I previously had in my head. "

I can think of a number of songs of that fit the mode; one commentator suggested "My Sharona", but other 80's tunes, off the top of my head: 'Come On, Eileen' and 'Total Eclipse of the Heart'. But how can you ignore The King's classic chorus that goes on forever:



Normally rational adults should be panicked over an amateur in the White House whose solution to any problem is to spend future tax revenues or to steal even more seed corn needed for economic growth. He and his party have repeated almost every policy mistake from Hoover and FDR in the 1930's. He is unable to learn from his mistakes; he engages in deceptive double-speak where "compromise" refers to capitulation to one-sided progressive "solutions" with at most token concessions (which for instance might amount to little more than pilot programs of necessary, overdue reforms.)

Let me just take into consideration Medicare, which I discussed in some detail in yesterday's post. I've seen a lot of taxpayer-paid promo spots paying lip service to improved government controls. Let's point out that Medicare's costs have been blowing past projections from the get-go, back from its inception, the Democrats have controlled one or both chambers of Congress almost continually since then.

The game playing is very sophisticated--just like Pomzi schemes. The Democrats pay lip service to transparency, but in fact unfunded liabilities are off the balance sheets, not unlike Enron on steroids. If you look at progressive rigged comparisons of administrative costs (Cato's Mike Cannon does a good job discussing this point), private insurers take on costs related to fraud prevention and comprehensive patient care the public sector piecemeal FFS system doesn't.

If you are a nonprofit, you don't really have an intrinsic incentive to invest in new, labor-saving technologies, re-engineer business processes, etc. Often the government adds costly stipulations for reimbursements which reflect political, not economic priorities (the ObamaCare "free birth control" mandate is a classic example). There are other things: for example, physicians could be tempted to schedule more office visits to make up for reduced fees. Cannon brings up a point I have mentioned independently in past posts (because of ubiquitous motorized scooter ads (which promise to help qualifying applicants with government paperwork, etc. while they end up with the product at little, if any out-of-pocket costs); he discusses a quid pro quo for physician referrals

This is not a partisan diatribe, but remember when Obama and Democrats hyped transparency. To them special interests are things like a decades-old tax treatment (percentage depletion) of natural resource depletion (which in the LONG RUN could result in more deductions than under cost depletion), but they don't count as special interests giveaways to crony Big Green Energy, e.g., ethanol subsidies.  Almost anything you can think of--guaranteed deposits, loans, pensions; farm, transit, school lunch subsidies; federal government set-asides (as Ted Dehaven points out: "Because set-asides effectively limit the competition for a government contract, taxpayers can end up paying even more – especially when economies of scale would have allowed a larger business to offer a lower-cost alternative. Cato adjunct scholar, Dr. Veronique de Rugy, has found that 'no more than 1 percent of [all] small business loans each year are SBA loans.  The private sector finances most loans without government guarantee and, hence, the SBA is largely irrelevant in the capital market.”' Moreover, because SBA financed loans have below market rates, small businesses who aren’t subsidized by the government are placed at a competitive disadvantage."

In fact, the whole Democratic economic agenda has been about picking winners and losers in the marketplace--not to mention  de facto nationalizations of home loans, student loans, health care, retirement programs, flood insurance. Every single progressive initiative, whether we are talking about overcapacity, poorly maintained highways and bridges past their lifecycle, public sector pension plans or entitlement programs, almost every single government agency overseeing guarantees, not to mention hundreds of billions in dysfunctional anti-poverty and education programs, with nothing to show but high dropout rates or socially promoted graduates, many with poor math and literacy skills; a deterioration of family structures in inner cities, a high percentage of pregnancies by unmarried women... I could go on and on. And voters keep returning the same idiots or related partisans to office wanting to throw even more of their grandchildren's good tax money after bad  at failed "solutions".

Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats treat voters like a mother-in-law coming over for a visit: they sweep things under the rug or into closets. They aren't like the Frito-Lay salesman taking expired merchandise off the shelf. No private toll operator would ever let roads fall into disrepair, because people won't pay to use the roads. The people know that they pay a high gas tax--but they don't realize that gas-sipper vehicle owners don't pay their fair share of maintenance costs and they are also paying to subsidize transit riders. (A lot of yuppies and city residents vote Democrat, but of course they aren't "special interests".)

In fact, Obama has done virtually nothing proactive on the debt even after the credit raters downgraded US debt for the first time in history. He has not come forward with a social security solution, 8 years after Bush made it the first item of his second term, and more than 2 years after social security first ran a pay-go deficit, years ahead of schedule. Medicare is in even worse shape (Cannon of Cato scorns the Obama point about extending the Medicare "trust fund": the government is running a trillion dollars in debt: if the trust fund cashes in a Treasury IOU, it's not like the government has the cash--in essence, it converts government-held debt to publicly-held debt. From a total debt perspective, of course, the transaction is a wash.)

Why solve these iceberg-below-the-surface problems sooner than later? It's a moral issue--first of all, I want to privatize all these government programs, but short of that, we current workers are not pulling our weight. That shifts the burden to future generations. I'm still several years away from retirement, but the idea that I'll be getting $3 for every $1 I put into the Medicare system means the other $2 are coming out of someone else's pocket. (I hope that my nephews and nieces remember I'm an awesome uncle...) I worry the next generation is going to run into one government program bailout after the next out of general revenues.

Political Cartoon

With all due respect to Glenn, I would have had had Obama and the elephant on a hunting trip, where Obama shoots skeet and the elephant shoots himself in the foot.

Courtesy of Glenn McCoy and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Backstreet Boys, "All I Have to Give"