Miscellany: 5/31/13

Quote of the Day
It is true that we cannot be free from sin,
but at least let our sins not always be the same.
Teresa of Avila

Reason Nanny of the Month--May 2013
Who Else But Soon to be Nanny Emeritus Bloomberg



Next JOTY Nominee: Barbara Boxer

From Reason:

“This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather: Not just hot weather, but extreme weather,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) declared on the floor of the U.S. Senate last week. “You’re going to have tornados and all the rest.” The senator’s impassioned outburst of climatological alarm was provoked by a mile-wide tornado that had just struck Moore, Oklahoma."

Never underestimate the immoral, shameless politically expoitative legislator trying to get her pet climate change legislation back on track. Bailey points out that weather-related technology and reporting has vastly improved over the past few decades, any increases are negligible and could be attributed to apples-to-oranges methodological changes:

[The National Climate Data Center] reports, “There has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.” Similarly, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2012 report on trends on weather extremes concludes that there is no evidence for either an increase or a decrease in tornado frequency or intensity.

In fact, the ratio of tornado-related deaths has steadily declined with improved warning times since the release of The Wizard of Oz . Outlying high tornado damage years of  1953, 1965, 1974, and 2011 are well-above general trend, but if you adjust for inflation, there's been an almost two-thirds drop in damage.

I'm not minimizing the reality of the Moore, OK (southwest suburb of Oklahoma City) tragedy, including a recently confirmed total of 24 deaths (9 of them children) and hundreds of injuries.  But I, for one, am sick and tired of megalomaniac progressive politicians seeking to expand their economy-sapping Statist empire building agenda, whoring science and crying crocodile tears.

Cool Science: 3D Printing and Mechanical Hands

HT Carpe Diem. Whose heart doesn't  melt at the excitement of a young boy being able to do something, enabled by technology, he couldn't do before like all the other kids, like grasp or catch a ball with his right hand for the first time? Welcome to the personalized age--where limited-scale production and rapid product prototyping becomes feasible; there are many parallel developments: for instance. imagine drugs customized to one's own body genetics and health condition....



The Mainstream Media, Progressives, and Scandals

Matt Welch has an amusing column about how the MSM has reacted to the IRS scandal by doing simple Google searches on the "so-called" scandal and predictably try to turn tables by focusing on the "real" scandals (as if Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore or Katrina vanden Heuvel have written anything worthy enough to line the bottom of my birdcage!) Out of  curiosity, I had to click on the Forbes' writer John Tamny link; I've mentioned him before--he's a self-taught Austrian School economist whom has taken a few shots at market monetarist Scott Sumner. In this case, he's basically asking, "Of course, the IRS is being used by politicians in power against their adversaries. This is news? It's always been that way." In other words, did anyone really believe the political rhetoric spun by Obama of a post-partisan politics, transparency, hiring the most ethical administration in history? I, of course, was never gullible enough to buy into the Obama fairy tales. Young people who have been manipulated by ideological "educators" have obviously never met a fast-talking snake oil salesman.

(I learned my lesson fairly early in life; I was a second grader attending a Catholic elementary school and didn't have much spending money--I don't recall getting much, if any allowance, mostly gift money for birthdays, Christmas, etc. We had a school fundraiser involving donated items. I got talked into buying a snow cone maker by a slick-talking big kid "demonstrating" its operation without ice. It turned out, of course to be a nonfunctional piece of junk. All sales final. Granted, I didn't pay that much for it, but I didn't have much money. It was a bitter lesson for a little kid--someone would really donate their junk to a fundraiser,  and others would take advantage of a trusting little kid.)

Even in my salad days when I was politically liberal, I would never in a million years have voted for Obama or Hillary Clinton; I was a fiscal hawk, even back then. Would I have voted GOP? Possibly; the big issue I had with Gerald Ford was his preemptive pardon of Nixon; Nixon had not even been charged with a crime. I know Ford wanted to get the nation past Watergate. Personally, I thought the disgrace of being the first President to resign from office was enough punishment.  Anyway, I would have probably voted for McCain in large part to my background as a military brat, his straight talk reputation,  his stand on earmarks, and his more pragmatic approach to politics. Romney would have been a harder sell because his earlier flip-flops on issues, but to be frank, I would have voted for a yellow dog over Obama, knowing he had doubled the publicly held debt in just one term of office.

The incoherence of the progressive critique of the Tea Party is obvious to any thinking person. The Tea Party is against a convoluted tax system and massive spending; we are trying to eliminate corruption by design. That means eliminating crony capitalism, not expanding it. Crony capitalists are politically agnostic; they contribute to the powers that be; we want to transform the status quo. Obama didn't transform the system; he has worked the system on behalf of his special interests. And I think Tamny is onto something when he talks about a national sales tax; in another piece, he's also willing to accept a low flat income tax (e.g., to address fairness concern). But think about it: the former ensures a reliable source of income, even if a company is losing money in a recession.

Dimwitted people don't get the point; the same Fourteenth Amendment that ensures equal protection for things like civil rights also ensures equal treatment for things like audits. What was wrong was the unsupervised abuse of discretion and asking for things that are subjective and in fact illegal to ask for, like donor lists. The process should be objective and impartially applied. It wasn't. Progressives would be screaming if the same thing was done to, say, progressive groups during a GOP administration.

Kevin Hassett, "Commencement speakers: Conservatives need not apply", Thumbs UP!

To be honest, I can't recall the commencement speakers at my four college graduations. I think the last time I attended a graduation as a faculty member I was at UWM; I vaguely remember getting my gown laundered. I was not on speaking terms with my department chair, a real [expletive-deleted],  back at UTEP. My baby sister was graduating the same day in San Antonio, and I had already booked my trip. He showed up in my office and ordered me to attend; I was already in the process of leaving UTEP, and I had no intention of cancelling my trip to accommodate the jerk's last-minute ultimatum. I think over the past 20 years I've probably been to one graduation--my second godchild's high school graduation in Colorado (I've occasionally mentioned that in past posts because one of the speakers decided to spend her allotted time giving her testimony for Jesus Christ.) But again, I couldn't tell you whom the commencement speaker was. I seriously doubt an obscure libertarian/conservative blogger will ever be booked as one. I think I've maybe embedded a couple in the blog, one from Steve Jobs, the other high school English teacher David McCullough Jr. ("You are not special.")

Hassett, like Mark Perry of Carpe Diem, is affiliated with AEI. His essay is not really that surprising given  other work. Consider this excerpt from David Horowitz:

In its examinations of more than 150 departments and upper-level administrations at the 32 elite colleges and universities, the CSPC found that the overall ratio of registered Democrats to registered Republicans was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134 Republicans). Although in the nation at large, registered Democrats and Republicans were roughly equal in number, not a single department at any of the 32 schools managed to achieve anything even remotely approaching parity between the two.... In the entire Ivy League, the researchers were able to identify only 3 Republican administrators.

Consider Robert Maranto's anecdotal experience (Moranto worked for the Clinton Administration, not an ideologue):

I think my political views hurt my career some years back when I was interviewing for a job at a prestigious research university. Everything seemed to be going well until I mentioned, in a casual conversation with department members over dinner, that I planned to vote Republican in the upcoming presidential election. Conversation came to a halt, and someone quickly changed the subject. The next day, I thought my final interview went fairly well. But the department ended up hiring someone who had published far less, but apparently "fit" better than I did. At least that's what I was told when I called a month later to learn the outcome of the job search, having never received any further communication from the school. (A friend at the same university later told me he didn't believe that particular department would ever hire a Republican.)

He also notes

Daniel Klein of George Mason University and Charlotta Stern of Stockholm University looked at all the reliable published studies of professors' political and ideological attachments. They found that conservatives and libertarians are outnumbered by liberals and Marxists by roughly two to one in economics, more than five to one in political science, and by 20 to one or more in anthropology and sociology....Further, academic job markets seem to discriminate against socially conservative PhDs. Stanley Rothman of Smith College and S. Robert Lichter of George Mason University find strong statistical evidence that these academics must publish more books and articles to get the same jobs as their liberal peers. Among professors who have published a book, 73 percent of Democrats are in high-prestige colleges and universities, compared with only 56 percent of Republicans.

Maranto thinks that this is more soft discrimination than an ideological purge.

Hassett notes how student protesters obstructed planned speeches by Ben Carson and Robert Zoellick and behaved badly at a Rand Paul speech at Howard University. He also did some summary statistics at top colleges:

In 2012, the political leanings of 84 people were identifiable. In 2013, with speakers still being announced, 69 are. In 2012, only one Republican elected official was invited to speak at a top 50 liberal arts college: Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell at the University of Richmond. The top 100 universities invited three Republican officeholders: Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal spoke at both the University of Georgia and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham spoke at Clemson. Missouri Rep. Sam Graves spoke at the University of Missouri. No Republican official spoke outside of his home state

Now I don't think any of these authors are suggesting quota systems for conservatives--but for hypocritical progressives extolling the virtues of diversity and tolerance, faculties without a single GOP/conservative faculty member in areas like history and political science contradict the very concept of a free market of ideas.

Political Cartoon

And the buck stops in the Treasury Department...

Courtesy of Bob Gorrell and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band, "The Rising". This concludes my Springsteen retrospective. My plan is to reprise Simon and Garfunkel and Beatles consistent with my recent hit/single format. Upcoming series include Motown and favorite solo artists.



School Freaks Out Over Kindergartner's Tiny Toy Gun

A 6-year-old  boy brought a tiny replica plastic nonfunctional toy gun; another student saw the toy and informed the bus driver. The school overreacted, initially punishing the boy with detention, having him write an apology to the bus driver, and threatening a possible suspension from bus riding. (It's not like he was bringing a loaded AK-47 to show and tell.) In a late development, the school has waived punishing the boy, but seriously some educators lack common sense....

Miscellany: 5/30/13

Quote of the Day
When I was 17,
 I read a quote that went something like: 
“If you live each day as if it was your last, 
someday you’ll most certainly be right.” 
It made an impression on me, 
and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: 
“If today were the last day of my life, 
would I want to do what I am about to do today?” 
And whenever the answer has been “No” for too many days in a row, 
I know I need to change something. 
Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered 
to help me make the big choices in life. 
Because almost everything 
— all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure — 
these things just fall away in the face of death, 
leaving only what is truly important. 
Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap 
of thinking you have something to lose. 
You are already naked. 
There is no reason not to follow your heart.
Steve Jobs

I Feel Another Rant Coming On...

From NPR:

The U.S. economy grew at a 2.4 percent annual rate in the first quarter [adjusted down from initial 2.5% estimate], the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported Thursday morning.  It's clear that growth did not hit the 3.2 percent rate that economists had once expected. But BNP Paribas SA economist Yelena Shulyatyeva tells Bloomberg News that "the economy is still okay." She expects it will "pick up in the second half as the sequestration effect fades." By that, she's referring to automatic federal spending cuts that appear to have been holding growth back.

First, let's recall the deficit "surprise". From CNN:

The annual deficit has fallen 32% over the first seven months of this fiscal year compared with same period last year, according to Congressional Budget Office figures released Tuesday. A major reason: A big jump in tax revenue. Tax collections rose by $220 billion -- or 16% -- between the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1 through April 30. Individual and payroll taxes accounted for $184 billion of that increase.

By some estimates the "payroll tax holiday"--2 points off the employee half of FICA, added about $125B/year to the deficit. But only about a third of that was collected through April of FY2013. And this area of the budget won't increase beyond job growth in the longer term. And a lot of the increase was higher-worth individuals pushing asset sales into the last quarter of last year to take advantage of lower investment taxes; this is more like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Accelerated asset sales are not sustainable and occur at the expense of higher tax rates. Generally speaking, projections of higher tax rate revenues tend to fall short of estimates because the tax base is reduced.

What I'm particularly scornful is the bogeyman of sequestration. The CNN source shows that spending has decreased by less than 2% through the first 7 months of the fiscal year. I don't hear a word about the economic drag of class warfare tax hikes taking money out of the private sector--but we have less than $100B in cuts from a $3.7T budget; this government has doubled spending since the Clinton Administration--with little to show for all that stimulus than the slowest job and economic growth since the Depression. And we are borrowing 40 cents on the federal dollar from future generations which also will have their own fair share of government costs to bear. Businesses all across the country cut, streamline and re-engineer processes to reduce costs, and we don't hear of macroeconomic effects. This is a $15T economy; we are not even talking about a penny on the dollar in the overall economy. There is vast waste in government, and stuff like paying maintenance on unoccupied property, not to mention badly managed, abandoned projects, is just the tip of the iceberg.

You want to talk drag on the economy? Let's talk about nearly $2T in regulation/compliance This President still hasn't moved on simplifying and lowering globally noncompetitive tax rates.

Koch Brothers Buyout of the LA Times?

Personally I don't  get why the Koch brothers want to buy into a dying newspaper industry. [Disclosure: I have a sibling whom works for a Koch subsidiary; it's really odd: my sibling is more likely to quote the Gray Lady, while I'm more likely to cite more libertarian sites that the Koches have sponsored for decades.] Familiar readers know that I have a personal ax to grind against the Koch brothers. I had been submitted by an agency to work on a Kansas ERP upgrade project; the Chicago market was challenging at the time, and we had negotiated a very good rate for the client, a fraction of what Oracle Consulting would have charged for my services, a win-win situation. A lot of agencies are paranoid of revealing the client, afraid candidates will approach the client directly and cut out the middleman. (I've never done that, but this policy sometimes results in multiple submissions, which clients immediately rule out from considering, not wanting to get caught in the middle--and the unknowing candidate pays the price.) At any rate, the position seems to be a lock to the extent I'm making travel plans. The staffing agent discloses it's a Koch business unit and I need to make travel arrangements to Wichita. I contact my sibling with the idea of visiting with my sibling's family instead of flying home that first weekend. My sibling freaks out and starts rambling on about the Koch nepotism policy. (Apparently it's okay for Koch siblings to work in the same conglomerate, but not the Guillemette siblings.) I had ZERO interest in a full-time position at Koch and would not even be working in the same business unit for the duration of the project; I had not found out about the subcontract through the sibling but a third party and the agency recruited me, which if it knew the Koch policy applied to temps never told me or raised the issue. Shortly thereafter, my connection with the agency went completely dead. Calls and emails were unacknowledged, but it was clear what had happened, given my sibling's reaction. I didn't have a fallback position, and it took time to find another gig.

A few years later, my sibling contacted me to let me know that the Koch conglomerate had reformed its nepotism policy if I was still interested, and my response was, and continues to be, "[Expletive deleted] the Koch brothers!" I would mop floors for a living rather than work for those guys. I had to cancel travel plans without the professional courtesy of a status update.

But to be honest, I've never understood why the Left Wing has demonized the Koch brothers. Libertarians have been severe critics of GOP spending and foreign policy; none of the recent Republican nominees for President have been even remotely libertarian. There are only a handful of legislators in either chamber of Congress whom are libertarian. Actually there is a decent libertarian paper in the area--the Orange County Register. Of course, progressives are hypocritically intolerant of alternative points of view because they want a monopoly on local editorial content. Look, how are those policies working in the People's Republic of California? But of course, these hypocrites don't have a clue what's on the Cato Institute or Reason websites--which hardly are the proxy for GOP policy. If the Koch brothers haven't changed those portals, I think the worries over a Koch takeover are exaggerated. They are businessmen; they need to know the market, and it doesn't make any business sense to impose a failing business model on an acquisition. I suspect they might push for a broader editorial perspective, but only hypocrites would object to that. By the way, the Chicago Tribune has usually been more conservative,but under the same owners.



While 'Cherokee Lizzie' Warren Wants Taxpayers to Subsidize College Loans Even More....

This is from a relevant Chapman post:

In the 21st century, we have U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s “Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act,” which would set the interest rate on student loans at the rate at which banks borrow from the Federal Reserve. The justification — if you can call it that — is that if the Federal Reserve lends money to banks at less than 1 percent, the federal government shouldn’t charge students more than that....The Federal Reserve’s discount rate is lower than the rate charged on student loans because banks, unlike students, provide collateral for loans.

This is sheer madness--from a clueless progressive from the same party that threatened to prosecute banks not making enough mortgage loans to lower-income/little collateral applicants. We all know how that story played out. Ms. Lizzie wants to grant sociology, drama and French literature majors loans BELOW the current inflation rate, i.e., a negative real interest rate. For the non-economist, this means you're actually losing money on the loan from day one--never mind taking on loan processing costs, and that anthropology major may have trouble landing a good enough job to pay off that 6-figure Ivy League loan... Not to mention not every college loan student makes it to graduation, only half the jobs being taken by recent graduates require a college degree, etc....

Now consider this note from the Economic Collapse Blog:

37 million Americans currently have outstanding student loans, and the delinquency rate on those student loans has now reached a level never seen before.  According to a new report that was just released by the U.S. Department of Education, 11 percent of all student loans are at least 90 days delinquent.  That is a brand new record high, and it is almost double the rate of a decade ago. 

Finally, let me comment on this well-delivered response from Skoble via Learn Liberty. As someone with a rare philosophy degree, to a large part he's preaching to the choir.  I think that the critical thinking and communication skills one develops in any rigorous philosophy program are very well suited to an IT career. That being said, I never got a job interview based on that degree. I got my big break primarily because of my background in mathematics and a particular computing language--the odd thing is one of my co-workers in the timesharing industry also held a philosophy degree. That being said, I haven't had much of a voice in hiring young graduates, but I would place a philosophy major in a position like a system analyst or project manager in a heartbeat, even over my former MIS students. There are at least a couple of things to Skoble: (1) pick your minor or second major well, like in a business or technical discipline; and (2) some disciplines are more rigorous than others, e.g., pre-med, engineering, actuarial sciences, accounting, math and sciences. One of my undergrad friends at UH, Matt, was a chem-e major whom couldn't find a suitable job at graduation and decided to pursue a PhD in math. I have a younger brother, a chemical engineer (I think he also transitioned to an environmental engineer during his career).  I still would prefer to hire an engineer, even if I didn't have a position for his specialty, because of the multiple skill sets, the attrition rate in more rigorous disciplines, etc. I have a couple of brilliant nephew engineers graduated from UT/Austin whom would succeed in any number of positions.

Skoble hasn't seen the same problems I've seen. For example, at UWM, we didn't have an IBM mainframe on campus. The business school concentrated on its own IBM PC network in the hope of attracting business recruiter interest for its graduates. When I joined the faculty, being an undergrad MIS major required just 9 hours (3 courses) in the major discipline. We faculty members realized that wasn't competitive and sought to double the number of major hours/courses. Students screamed bloody murder, insisted on grandfather clauses; I so wanted to recruit  "Moonstruck" Cher to slap them silly. Listen, you guys, UW-Whitewater requires 21 hours, and their students can work on IBM mainframes; recruiters are jumping all over their graduates. Nine hours is a joke; you're not fooling anyone, except yourselves. Yes, it's easier to earn your degree, but it's penny-wise, pound-foolish, because you won't be competitive looking for a job.



Tornado Relief Performance




America's Top 40 (Stats Under Obama)

Selected entries from the Economic Collapse Blog: (Heck of a job you're doing, Barry...):

#6 Back in 1970, the total amount of debt in the United States (government debt + business debt + consumer debt, etc.) was less than 2 trillion dollars.  Today it is over 56 trillion dollars...

#8 The United States has fallen in the global economic competitiveness rankings compiled by the World Economic Forum for four years in a row.

#9 According to The Economist, the United States was the best place in the world to be born into back in 1988.  Today, the United States is only tied for 16th place.

#19 Small business is rapidly dying in America.  At this point, only about 7 percent of all non-farm workers in the United States are self-employed.  That is an all-time record low.

#25 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that receives direct monetary benefits from the federal government.  Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government.

#26 Overall, the federal government runs nearly 80 different "means-tested welfare programs", and at this point more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one of them.

#35 The homeownership rate in America is now at its lowest level in nearly 18 years.

#38 Today, more than a million public school students in the United States are homeless.  This is the first time that has ever happened in our history.

#39 When Barack Obama first entered the White House, about 32 million Americans were on food stamps.  Now, more than 47 million Americans are on food stamps.

Still More Military Family Reunion Clips

I relate to the first couple in particular: I have 4 beautiful sisters whom love their Daddy, and I come from a large family.





From the video notes:

"When my husband left on his deployment, our 6-year-old son could not walk on his own. He has cerebral palsy. Doctors originally said that he would never walk or do much of anything. While daddy was away, he learned to walk. For his homecoming, we set it up for Michael to walk to his daddy for the first time ever! We kept the fact that he could walk a secret the whole time his dad was gone!"

Political Cartoon

You can't see me; my time is now.

Courtesy of Henry Payne and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band, "Secret Garden".  I prefer the movie edit version with key movie dialogue spliced into the soundtrack below. How Jerry could look into those doe-like eyes of Dorothy  and not be forever smitten is beyond me.

Miscellany: 5/29/13

Quote of the Day
I praise loudly; 
I blame softly.
Catherine the Second

Union Poster Boy of the Month: Mark Rosenthal

Courtesy of the NY Post

The 5'7" 400-plus lb. president of Local 983 of District Council 37, NYC's largest municipal blue-collar union, reportedly earns $156K a year, not counting averaging some $1400/month (almost 6 months'  cost of Nutrisystem food) in food bills on the union member dime. Rosenthal, shown here demonstrating his technique on  power naps, blames it on pain medication after he sat on a McDonald's chair, and it broke. He's up for reelection and his opponents claim he works 2 hours a day at the office, including eating and sleeping. Being overweight myself, I don't like to poke fun at other big men, but reportedly he suffered a stroke in 1999,  and that incident was an inspiration for the city to supersize its ambulances... You would think he and his doctor would have done something about his morbid obesity over the past 14 years....

How about right-to-work reform so hard-working blue collar workers aren't forced to pay for this nonsense through forced dues, out of their own pockets?

Now that Chris Christie is losing weight, might I suggest a different target for Letterman's offensive fat jokes?

Christie and Obama Redux 

Even Michelle approves of the governor's weight loss surgery. What will Letterman do? Switch to doughnut hole jokes?

Courtesy of  Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

Agnetha Still Has It...

The lead blond vocalist from ABBA still can work her magic with a well-crafted pop song. Ir'a hard to understand how any man lucky enough to win her love would be stupid enough to betray it... Just when I thought all new music is crap, Agnetha proves me wrong...



National ID Card? Thumbs DOWN!

This is an interesting topic for me intrinsically. While I was still a professor, I would get an open-ended survey on what I thought would be hot emerging topics in the MIS discipline, and one of the first items off the top of my head involved biometrics, e.g., identifying individuals through unique characteristics, e.g., fingerprints, DNA, retina/iris scans, vein recognition,  facial scan, voice recognition, signature recognition, etc. Why was I interested? Primarily I was looking at more natural approaches to secure privileged data access, versus more technology-friendly/less usable approaches, i.e., arcane passwords. Things like social security numbers, passwords or swipecards can be stolen and used by unauthorized persons; it says explicitly on your social security card it's not sufficient for identification: the card has no biometric mechanism to link the person holding the card to its owner. I remember once working on a local phone number portability project in the late 90's, and the defense contractor business unit running the project had a biometric entry device (involving reading our hands) that was probably malfunctioning a quarter of the time I used it--which mean I had to contact someone to let me in. I have written a number of papers on usability, and this was a textbook case of poor usability.

Populists on both sides of the partisan divide want employers to essentially serve as surrogate INS agents, verifying resident status, etc., something I believe is unconstitutional. This national ID card would include some sort of embedded biometric data which could be used to compare the holder's data with the stored data on the card. (One obvious practical issue is how to ensure the card itself is genuine.) But what about the costs of technology to process the match? Obviously in the real world, how would this work? If I hired a nanny, someone to clean my gutter or the boy next door to shovel my driveway?

It's very clear anti-immigrants want to regulate employers to make it impossible for unauthorized workers to find work... As an employer, that's not my concern; I'm more interested in whether the worker is qualified to do the work and can we arrive at a mutually agreed upon price.

I think as a policy we should not demand citizens or legal residents to serve the interests of the State; rather, it is the State that serves at our discretion. If I decide to drive to Texas I shouldn't have to show any ID short of an accident, traffic law violation, etc. Probably less than 4% of the population is unauthorized; is it worth the hassle of intruding in the lives of lawful residents because of failed government immigration policy? We lose yet more freedom because the government demands it to overcome past government failure? What makes us sure government is any more competent this time?

Whether you have religious objections to the Apocalyptic Mark of the Beast or you worry about RFID or other tracking devices embedded into the national ID card to facilitate tracking of individuals versus the freedom to be left alone, all of this government intrusion into our private lives essentially is pushing on a string, and the burden should be on the State on a case-by-case basis through our court system, prerequisites for warrants, etc. The risk for misuse of this information is far greater than its benefits.



Let's Do a Poll on the Cutest Pollster...

HINT: It's NOT Scott Rasmussen... More seriously, as someone who has designed measures/surveys, I like their methodology which goes beyond biased/convoluted single-item scales. For example, it's interesting to see whether people who originally supported it have moderated their view now that Pelosi's surprise secret ingredients have become public--for example, Catholic institutions forced to offer services contradicting Church policies.



Condorcet's Paradox or How to Manipulate Votes



Political Cartoon

And he hasn't even gotten to the point of discussing those unregulated piggy banks.....

Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band, "One Step Up". As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm blending the Boss' solo hits with those backed by the E-Street Band. I'll have a future theme on solo artists, but since the Boss' hits are mostly rock arrangements, I wanted to classify him under the group category. The hard-core Springsteen fan might nitpick: yes, I know The Big Man is not backing him with his legendary sax on this and a number of other hits.

Miscellany: 5/28/13

Quote of the Day
People love chopping wood. 
In this activity one immediately sees results.
Albert Einstein

Guest Quote of the Day

On Income Taxes:  "When men once get the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they are not easily cured of it." - The Gray Lady, 1909 BK (Before Krugman)

Courtesy of Joseph Thorndike, WSJ

Some Random Reflections

• The Stock Market. The market is up today based on home prices up, year over year nearly 11%, especially in the more price-volatile areas like California, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Florida, and the highest consumer confidence since early 2008. What bothers me is the frothiness in some areas, e.g., price gains of 20-odd percent in the Bay Area, CA; whereas some regression to the mean is to be expected after a market correction and no doubt there's some backlogged demand waiting for the market to bottom out, speculators may think that locking in a less than 4% rate on a mortgage where price appreciation makes owning a house a no-brainer, this pace is not sustainable, especially in a high-tax, low-growth state like California. The Fed is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea--if it increases rates too quickly, it could kill the housing recovery, one of the brighter spots in the economy; but the last thing it needs to do is feed another housing bubble. It's hard to argue, at least in some areas, Fed needs to stimulate housing purchases; they need to revert to more of a historic norm; note that the federal government still hasn't taken the opportunity to strip the mortgage interest deduction--which favors higher earners whom itemize their taxes. If you're going to do it on new mortgages it makes sense to do it when rates are lower.

The other troubling sign is the escalating use of margin debt during the stock market surge--to near the peak before the recession. Now whereas I would expect margin debt to track the major stock indexes and one can argue in terms of adjusted prices and PE levels, we are  not frothy yet from a historical perspective, it doesn't make a lot of sense for the Fed to subsidize speculative behavior. The theory that stock speculators are going to cash in and spend money in the economy is a pleasant pipe dream; more likely--they are going to try to leverage their gains. Once again, the Fed is caught in a dilemma. To some extent they've deferred the inevitable because the dollar has accidentally strengthened despite their best efforts, based on the woes of the yen and the euro and the dollar being the world's reserve currency--but it looks like China is cutting yet another direct exchange deal with New Zealand.

• Follow-Up on Nixon Discussion. In yesterday's post, I was scornful of a conservative columnist's article of those of us suggesting a Nixonian side to Obama. In fact, it's not just a conservative observation and goes beyond Chapman's narrow, simplistic distinction on misbehavior by the IRS; Will Bunch is critical particularly on the Nixonian paranoia over leaks (remember the infamous Pentagon Papers?) and the Obama war on whistle-blowers, gathering intelligence on AP personnel. Ir is part and parcel of the Administration's attempt to manipulate public opinion, disclose only what they choose, and to intimidate the press from publishing politically inconvenient stories.

In my rant on the Chapman piece, whereas Nixon did push the envelope in abusing the Presidency for his own agenda, I suggested more troublesome for me was his domestic policies and specifically his breaking the Bretton Woods arrangement (where trading partners could insist on gold for payment if they didn't trust our (debased?) fiat currency). The correct strategy would have been a sound money policy, especially a balanced budget versus putting the cost of the Vietnam War on future generations. Ben Traynor of  LFB published a broader essay on Nixonomics.

Let's start with this excerpt from his address on the decision: "Let me lay to rest the bugaboo of what is called devaluation... If you want to buy a foreign car or take a trip abroad, market conditions may cause your dollar to buy slightly less. But if you are among the overwhelming majority of Americans who buy American-made products in America, your dollar will be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today. The effect of this action, in other words, will be to stabilize the dollar." If Barack Obama ever said this nonsense, I would be screaming. It's ludicrous; it goes beyond nationalistic demagoguery--and the Dems do enough of that--remember 'buy American' with the stimulus? A devaluation decreases an American's purchasing power. Many goods, parts or resources (like oil) are imported--and those prices are passed along to customers. American goods or companies are more affordable for foreigners; for example, a Brazilian yuppie might outbid me for that south Florida condo. What will stabilize the dollar is sound money policy--no trying to print ourselves out of unsustainable deficits--, fiscal conservatism, and pro-growth policies. Nixon succeeded at none of that. The consequence? "Between August 1931 and August 1971, the consumer price index — as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — went up by 170%. Since 1971, the CPI has risen 453%."

 What were Nixon's economic "reforms"? Wage and price controls and a tariff. These are anathema to bloggers like me committed to free markets and free trade. Traynor goes on to explain that the real problem was the dollar serving as the world's reserve currency; this basically means the US maintaining a trade deficit to facilitate growing global trade (we have not run a trade surplus since the mid-70's)--which it could finance (unlike other countries) by simply printing more money. Why did Nixon really close the gold window? More dollars for a given quantity of gold made it impossible to maintain a fixed exchange rate for dollars; central banks were having to sell gold to keep the price of gold low; France decided that it preferred cheap gold to dollars, with profitable arbitrage opportunities,  and Nixon was facing depletion of US gold reserves. Clearly Bretton Woods needed to be reformed, but unleashing an unfettered fiat currency can only make anyone uneasy whom remembers the early American experiment with Continentals: "During the American Revolution, the colonies became independent states; freed from British monetary regulations, they issued paper money to pay for military expenses. The Continental Congress also issued paper money during the Revolution, known as Continental currency, to fund the war effort. Both state and Continental currency depreciated rapidly, becoming practically worthless by the end of the war."

• An American History of Taxes. There's a reason I've often tried to advocate reform as a composite of consumption taxes and income taxes (flattened). The Thorndike column above does a good description of the tensions between imposing regressive and progressive taxes. The rich could avoid taxes by minimizing taxable transactions while, among other things, profiting from selling goods and services to the government, otherwise paid mostly by less wealthy individual taxpayers--not to mention special favors like deferments or noncombat roles for their sons, unavailable to the average joe. (To be honest, as I read the account of how the first income tax law came about to finance the Civil War, I felt like saying, you wouldn't have a massive funding problem if you didn't pursue an unnecessary war....)  Hearing Thorndike talk about the use of a progressive income tax basically as a concession to regressive tax policies like FICA makes me roll my eyes: a low flat/proportional income tax would still collect much more revenue from richer individuals. Raising the top bracket to, say, 94% didn't achieve its intended result because rich people could simply defer taxable events: they could wait out the government. The problem is that the government has radically expanded its costs through entitlements and social programs and imposed these costs on a minority whom get little or no benefit from these programs; it's a form of theft.
• A Financial Newsletter Commenter. I normally don't comment on every stupid thing someone says or does, but let me paraphrase here: "It only makes sense to audit rich Republicans/Tea Party members. Let's face it: they're not going to recover income from lower-earning Americans; besides, wealthy progressives are decent, honest folks willing to pay their fair share; it's obviously those rich conservatives whom obviously have something to hide. So, of course, they should be getting strict scrutiny." 

First, let me disabuse you of the notion that wealthy progressives are decent, honorable folks; many conservatives, rich or poor, tithe their income, giving to churches and/or charities. VP Biden has increased his giving in his current role, but for much of his career has given a very low percentage. Buffett makes a big deal of the fact he pays a low income tax rate--because much of his compensation is not wages, subject to high tax rates. He could easily take a higher salary instead of stock--he could also optionally pay the Treasury more than he owes--plus he could also leave the bulk of his estate to the US Treasury. The real story is these hypocrites want to impose a tax rate they're comfortable with on other people--including high earners with most compensation in the form of higher-taxed wages. Don't forget: those evil Wall Street bankers heavily supported Obama in 2008.

 Second, a lot of, probably the vast majority of Tea Party people, including myself, are not wealthy and virtually all of us are civil and scrupulously honest (I even reported pocket change in interest income over last year when I didn't have to)--we wouldn't take a government handout, even if we were eligible for one. We oppose spendthrift government on principle; we believe that this government is plundering future generations of Americans. The government should not be singling out critics of government, a violation of constitutional principles.

Audits can and should be based on things like the nature and extent of documented transactions  and objective criteria, such as unusual patterns of data, not arbitrary grounds. The fact that progressive groups largely got a pass while Tea Party groups didn't is unconstitutional at its core. The fact that they were asked for identification of donors exercising their constitutional rights to anonymous speech is also illegal. The audit process must be objective and nonpartisan; anything less undermines the principles of this republic.

Entertainment Potpourri

• American Idol Has Lost My Niece. One of my nieces, an elementary school teacher and herself an able musician (euphonium) and talented church vocalist (I have another niece whom once studied opera in Oklahoma) and I have compared notes probably for a half dozen years. She finally got time after school was out to catch up on some emails. We tend to have similar opinions on contestants, but I liked Fantasia more than she did. She basically said she blew off this season, preferring The Voice.  She didn't go into specifics but seemed to share my dislike of Nicki Minaj as a judge. She seems to prefer the differences in format. (For me, The Voice is more of an acquired taste, and I could do without the inane chatter between the mentor/judges, but I do like, for instance, a country duo is able to compete.) I don't know what AI can do to get her back, I did briefly venture on AI's Facebook account; they wanted to do a brief survey of AI fans; I didn't post an entry but reviewed some of the comments, like "bring back Simon Cowell", with which I agree. Another fan wrote that AI lost her permanently. I've asked my niece (no response yet), whether the AI alumni judges might make a difference--I suspect not. I saw a Google news link that implied Jennifer Hudson was negotiating but had not yet signed on for next season. The next season's auditions start in a few weeks, so I expect some signings to be announced soon,  but I'm very negative on the idea of alumnus judges

Speaking of AI alumni, who wouldn't want to duet with Jagger? Carrie now dominates the country genre, but in the video below, she takes on a role as rock chick; I wonder if Linda Ronstadt ever joined Jagger on "Tumbling Dice"?

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band, "Tunnel of Love"



Fellow Americans Helping the Moore, OK Tornado Victims

Miscellany: 5/27/13

Memorial Day 2013

Courtesy of All Things Anderson

Quote of the Day
True love stories never have endings.
Richard Bach

Paul Krugman and "Spectacularly Uncivil Behavior"

In 2010 Harvard professors Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff wrote a widely cited paper citing a link between high statist debt levels and slower economic growth. Krugman, who has been calling for very large federal spending increases, finds their most recent work politically inconvenient. They have finally drafted a readable, well-organized response on the former author's website , where, among other things, they basically point out that Krugman is creating a straw man, that they have not been advocating for sharp, short-term austerity, like some targeted spending (e.g., education and infrastructure), see moderate inflation as helpful in cutting down debt load, etc.  I almost wish they didn't work so hard at making their point that they aren't the poster children for the conservative pro-liberty movement that people seem to think they are.

I, of course, am to the right of the professors on much of what I just described; I am far more skeptical of statist policymakers on either the fiscal or monetary front. I think the last thing we need to worry about is drastic austerity with a Democratic-controlled Senate or White House. Our federal budget has nearly doubled over the past dozen years or so while the Democrats do the Chicken Little routine over mere pocket change. But even so, hearing one of the professors say something positive things over Simpson-Bowles is a step in the right direction over Krugman.

"Compassionate" Progressivism



The Story Behind a Hit Country Song

On this Memorial Day weekend, Lee Brice’s “I Drive Your Truck” is the most played song in country music. The song was written after one of its songwriters heard an interview on National Public Radio. It was with the father of Sergeant First Class Jared Monti, the Fort Drum soldier killed back in 2006 trying to save members of his patrol after an attack in Afghanistan.Paul Monti was describing how he still drives his son's truck to feel close to him.

Lee Habeeb of NRO continues and retells one of the Gold Star dad's stories about his late son:

 [Jared's] truck was a Dodge 4X4 Ram 1500 with decals on it that included the 10th Mountain Division, the 82nd Airborne Division, an American flag, and a Go Army sticker. 

A Nashville songwriter named Connie Harrington was in her car, too, listening to the very same [interview]. Jared’s father got a message on Facebook from a woman whose son had died in the same battle Jared died in. “She sent me a message that she had heard the song,” Paul Monti told NPR last week, “and that I had to listen to it. She knew I drove Jared’s truck and she drove her son’s truck.”

His grief was palpable, as he told the NPR reporter some stories about his son. Stories of how his son was always helping people, especially people less fortunate than himself. His father nearly choked up telling a story about how his son once took a brand-new kitchen [dining] set he and his buddies at Fort Bragg had just purchased for their home, and gave it away to a fellow soldier’s family. “One day his buddies came home and the kitchen  set was missing,” his father recounted. “And they asked him where it was and Jared said, ‘Well, I was over at one of my soldier’s houses, and his kids were eating on the floor, so I figured they needed the kitchen set more than we did.’ And so the $700 kitchen set disappeared. That’s what he did.”

Eighty-nine cents in the ashtray
Half-empty bottle of Gatorade
Rollin’ on the floorboard

That dirty Braves cap on the dash
Dogtags hangin’ from the rearview
Old Skoal can and cowboy boots
And a “Go Army” shirt folded in the back

This thing burns gas like crazy
But that’s all right
People got their ways of copin’
Oh, and I’ve got mine

I drive your truck 
I roll every window down
And I burn up
Every back road in this town
I find a field, I tear it up
Till all the pain is a cloud of dust
Yes, sometimes, I drive your truck



Winning Contestant for Most Rants in a Minute 

I've never bought into fear-mongering over innovation in food production. Since 1960, while land devoted to agriculture, roughly just under 40%, has remained about the same, overall yield has more than doubled, due to a number of factors: improved technology (machinery, irrigation), higher-yielding crops, pesticides, etc. (See this piece by Bailey on so-called peak farmland.) Bailey here discusses the preponderance of peer-reviewed, independent scientific evidence across various scientific and international organizations supporting the overall safety of genetically modified (GMO) crops, in the food supply for over a generation and various agenda-related crackpot studies (Blue mouse testicles from eating GMO soy:  really?  No mouse fries for me!) and debunks 4 other myths about biotech crops.



Steve Chapman, "Obama is Not Nixon": Thumbs DOWN!

I think part of the reason this essay hits the wrong chord with me is because I just listened to MTP moderator David Gregory on Sunday talk soup.where Gregory attempted to go back nearly 26 years in his pathetic attempts of gotcha journalism:

(Videotape; C-SPAN, June 11, 1987)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): There are restrictions now on the kinds of activities that, for example, a 501(c)(3) and (4) organizations-- charitable organizations can engage in. They’re being abused not just by people on the right but most of the so-called charitable organizations who are involved in political activity in this country who are, in my judgment, involved in arguable violations of their tax-free status and violations of the campaign laws happen to be groups on the left. So that is a problem.
(End videotape)
GREGORY: So that is-- that was a problem then and some are arguing it’s-- it’s a problem now as well. Is there-- out of all of this, do you see more tax reform that addresses whether any of these groups should be tax exempt?
SEN. MCCONNELL: It’s not whether you have to go back 25 years to find a quote. What-- what we have seen here is an effort on the part of the government to make it difficult for citizens to get organized and to express themselves. There’s an effort here also to make sure that you can get their donor list or their membership list. I was wrong 25 years ago, I’ve been right for the last two decades. The government should not be trying to intimidate citizens who criticize the government from exercising their First Amendment Rights. And that’s what it is-- is at the heart of this and that’s what the IRS apparently was doing by making it difficult for citizens to get a legitimate tax-exempt status.

McConnell may be the most skillful politician I've ever seen. Gregory is trying to pull a bait-and-switch here, to argue that the IRS was simply doing its job in giving conservative groups extra scrutiny. He's implicitly arguing that McConnell is being hypocritical. There are a couple of problems here:: first, there is the unconstitutional double standard of scrutiny being applied; second, there's the chilling, unconstitutional effect on (anonymous) free speech. Note the attempts to restrict political speech (e.g. Pelosi's attempt to repeal Citizens United) are almost always from the left wing.

Gregory's performance was abysmal as usual; he's essentially demanding that the GOP prove a vast left conspiracy, top down from the White House.  First, this is not a partisan issue; it's a justice issue, and the fox is in charge of the hen house. Second, the salient issue is management, and a "look the other way" tolerance of wrongdoing is merely a softer version of tyranny. My understanding is the inspector investigations were not based on internal sources but complaints from those receiving unfair scrutiny. When you don't enforce policy, you're de facto making policy. McConnell makes a subtle related point, noting that Alabama had done a similar thing that the IRS operatives were doing in demanding donor lists from the NAACP, rightly ruled unconstitutional back in 1958. No doubt the Dems would love to make donor lists standard operating procedure; why didn't they? Certainly they knew what SCOTUS ruled. So why is it any more legal if they ask under scrutiny? You think constitutional law lecturer Barack Obama might know about the 1958 decision? Do I think that Barack Obama gets briefed on IRS interrogations of Tea Party groups? Not as standard operating procedure; he was probably busy playing another round of golf. But he does have ultimate responsibility that his Administration follows the law; this is a guy whom promised transparency and the highest ethics in his Administration. And amateurs like David Gregory are playing games, more interested in parroting Administration talking points than in engaging in serious news journalism.

Now as for the Chapman piece: let us recognize that late FBI director  Hoover reportedly had files on many political figures and other prominent celebrities (e.g., Martin Luther King), including extramarital affairs. This was unconstitutional, of  course, and allowed him to continue to blackmail politicians and subvert the democratic process.  Recall the spoils system originated under the Jackson Democrats and it took nearly 3 generations before we saw the precursor to today's civil service system, with a limited number of political patronage appointments

Of course, Nixon had issues, some of which I attribute to dubious election results in Illinois and Texas, possibly costing Nixon the 1960 election. I was too young to vote in either Nixon election, but I was not a Nixon fan. It was Nixon's own hubris that led to his undoing; he's the one whom had everything taped for posterity. McGovern never had a snowball's chance in hell of beating Nixon; why the break-in? And he certainly didn't help his case with the ill-advised "I am not a crook" speech or firing the special prosecutor. The fact he had enemies lists wasn't good, and he clearly thought he was above the law. Nixon lacked Obama's charisma and unflappable personality.

Here is what the 44th president had to say about how the agency should operate: "Americans have a right to be angry about it, and I'm angry about it. It should not matter what political stripe you're from. The fact of the matter is the IRS has to operate with absolute integrity." Obama said this as he announced the dismissal of the acting commissioner for failing to prevent political abuse.

Here is what the 37th president had to say about how the agency should operate: "Are we looking over the financial contributors to the Democratic National Committee? Are we running their income tax returns? ... We have all this power and we aren't using it. Now, what the Christ is the matter?"

Expletive deleted. Chapman's comparison--based on incomparable scandals--is intellectually shallow. There never would have been an impeachment of Nixon on the IRS charge; the Democrats were trying to throw the book at Nixon hoping something would stick.  But other Presidents from FDR through LBJ attempted to use the IRS (e.g., under JFK, the John Birch Society reportedly came under scrutiny).

But Chapman is comparing the political spin of the Obama Administration caught with its hand in the cookie jar--of course, Obama is going to throw his IRS commissioner under the bus--he's in damage control mode. Do you think Nixon would have thrown or did throw his minions under the bus? Of course

In contrast, Chapman is quoting Nixon--is this from a public speech? No, it's from a secret tape. Do we have secret tapes of Obama since the scandal surfaced, MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION? Not to my knowledge. In fact, from the quote, we can assume that Nixon was (rightly) getting pushback on his attempts to use the IRS...

Why is this a particularly potent issue? Because the IRS is expanding to enforce ObamaCare. There are also enormous stores of personal data potential vulnerable to abuse by "rogue personnel":

The IRS's mainframe computer in Martinsburg, W.Va., is among the world’s most powerful. As of October 2010, the Internal Revenue Service had the capability to sift through emailing patterns associated with millions of individual Internet addresses.

Sources tell Fox News the IRS continues to collect tax data, but they also are now acquiring huge volumes of personal information on taxpayers’ digital activities, from eBay auctions, Facebook posts, and, for the first time ever, credit card and e-payment transaction records.

Got that, Chapman? This isn't your grandfather's IRS. More to the point, there are different types of tyranny. Chapman is only interested in the visible tip of the tyranny iceberg. I'm more interested in the tyranny beneath the surface. Obama is condoning a culture of tyranny of thousands of unaccountable little Nixon's running their little bureaucratic fiefdoms. Obama does what he always does--makes some token concessions but only when his fingers have been caught in the cookie drive.

Nixon did some very bad things which were never on the table for impeachment, e.g., ditching Bretton-Woods, unleashing unfettered fiat currency madness and high inflation over the following decade because he couldn't hold down spending. Obama isn't as self-destructive, but a morally corrupt, hazardous culture under his "leadership" is far more insidious. I think Obama is grossly incompetent; that's far more dangerous than a universally despised, petty, failed leader whom lost the one thing he ever really wanted--a lasting legacy.

Political Cartoon

Courtesty of Henry Payne and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band, "57 Channels and Nothing On"

Miscellany: 5/26/13

Quote of the Day
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
Charles Mingus

On Military Brats

Courtesy of Stars and Stripes

It occurred to me after I published last night's post that some people without a military background might take offense at my calling the sweetheart cheerleader in the embedded video clip a "Navy brat". After all, if someone calls your child a 'brat', you probably think of the dictionary's first entry: "an ill-mannered annoying child". But I guarantee that the lovely young lady in question wouldn't bat an eyelash; the familiar reader knows I have referred to myself as a military or Air Force brat;  it is generally understood to refer to a child born and raised in the career military lifestyle. I think for most of us, even if we didn't understand the term's origin in a military fond of acronyms like PCS, TDY, etc., it represented a shared experience, a certain spunkiness and risilience: you typically move a lot  (between fourth and sixth grade, I attended 4 different schools, one of them twice: my maternal grandfather's parish school while my Dad procured family housing). Usually we lived on base, but sometimes we lived on the economy, like when my folks rented a house on the outskirts of a small French town, not a problem for my bilingual parents.  I can still recall with fondness buying warm crunchy, spongy baguettes from the local bakery and my Mom buying red balls of Gouda cheese from a traveling vendor. We also got to see a lot of the world; while my Dad was in France, we often visited places on weekends, including visits to Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium. My Mom has an extensive souvenir spoon collection.

Never being able to put down roots has implications; you have to adapt to a more transitory lifestyle and unfortunately that includes relationships. Maybe you learn not to vest too much in short-term relationships when you know you probably won't stay in any one place more than 3 or 4 years. On the other hand, you develop friendships that often span the US; for example, my baby brother and his wife recently went up to attend our niece Emily's confirmation but stayed with friends made while my brother was stationed in Italy. My folks sometimes also had reunions with family friends while I was growing up. My best friend in third grade (Florida) was Donna; we used to go down to the pier looking for crabs. I next remembered our visiting her family when we were in South Carolina and I was in sixth grade. It seems silly now, but I was very self-conscious about my height at the time; Donna and her older sister were at least 5'8", towered over my short Mom, even taller than my Dad,  while I probably stood just shy of the 5 foot mark and  felt freakishly short  next to them.  (I probably caught up while in eighth grade.)

It turns out "military brat" had its origins in yet another government acronym:

A researcher [at the National Defense University library] found a book written in 1921 which described the origins of the term.  It came, like many of our military traditions, from the British Army.  It seems that when a member of the British Army was assigned abroad and could take his family (mostly in India), the family went with the member in an Admin status entitled:  BRAT status.  It stands for:  British Regiment Attached Traveler.  Over the years, it was altered to refer only to the children of the military member (the wives of the British Army [who were all males] objected to the term referring to them).  And the term not only stuck, but in many cases was adopted world-wide. 

Mary Edwards Wertsch describes the culture (my edits):

A 'fortress,' with a capital "F," which suggests a togetherness within and a separation from civilian America.The military's demand for readiness sets it and its people apart from civilian America, she said. The military mentality supports the authoritarian lifestyle, and so kids growing up in it negotiate two different worlds.

Wertsch said military brats have such values as idealism, antiracism, loyalty, patriotism and honesty. Not only that, she said, "The vast majority of us really like to be called military brats. We look upon it as an affectionate term with humor built into it. 

Further, Wertsch said, military brats and civilians have different views on the importance of education. "I don't think military brats are consciously aware of that," she said. The way education plays out is, a military brat goes into a school in the middle of the year and needs to make friends and have a social identity in a hurry. So military brats tend to be either a super achiever in school, which gets the attention of their peers and teachers, or they go the opposite direction and join the out groups. Fortunately, I believe most military brats fall into the super-achievers category. They come in aiming to succeed. They've developed very high expectations for themselves. Military values are the things that separate us most from the civilian world. Idealism -- military brats tend to be very idealistic people. We've been raised in an environment where you do things for principle, to support an ideal."

I left for college while Dad was still active-duty; the rest of my siblings graduated from the same Texas high school, although sister #1 started at my (different) Texas high school and subsequently attended a base high school (along with brother #1) while my Dad was stationed in Germany. Sister #1 started a military career as an Air Force nurse but left the service after marrying and starting her family with a career enlisted man; my baby brother was also career enlisted Air Force. Together, 5 nieces and 2 nephews are also military brats; the group includes 2 nurses, 2 teachers, an engineer and an accountant.

Little things stick with you; I was still on UWM faculty when I went to visit my brother in Florida after Megan was born. My brother subsequently got orders for Germany and decided to stop by my folks before the family flew out; I flew in from El Paso to see the family; toddler Megan now had a baby brother. I remember Megan was playing with some toy when her older cousin walked by and stripped the toy from her grasp. I watched Megan's reaction; she didn't cry or complain: she walked up to her astonished cousin and snatched back her toy. I loved my spunky, cool niece.  My brother apparently had stayed just long enough for me to see them off; I remember that my brother called Megan to join them. As Megan left the room, I called after her that I loved her. I got up to go say my goodbyes to the family, but they had already left. I didn't know if my niece had heard me, and it would be years before I would next see them. (Megan was now a second grader and had 2 additional siblings, including my third goddaughter.)

More Military Homecoming Videos







Movie Stars, Breasts, Patents and ObamaCare

Recently one of the most beautiful, in-demand actresses on the planet, Angelina Jolie, went public with her decision to have preventive double breast surgery; a very expensive medical test under patent to Myriad revealed that she might be at risk for developing breast cancer. (Over the past day, one of Jolie's aunts has died from breast cancer. Jolie's explanation for her decision is here; she explains that her mom died from the disease in her mid-50's and her doctors estimated that she had nearly a 90% of developing breast cancer (and 50% of developing ovarian cancer,which also runs in her family, which this surgery does not address). The Myriad test showed she was carrying a marker mutation of the BRAC1 gene, which is associated with a nearly 2 out of 3 chance of developing  the disease. ) [I've seen one report that Jolie's mother had both breast and ovarian cancer but died from the latter.]

My first reaction to the news was a concern some healthy women with family history have the surgery unnecessarily; this one lady who ultimately decided against it talks about a second opinion she got: "I’m so glad I didn’t listen to the alarmist doctor who wanted to treat my breasts like “ticking time bombs.” Another cautioned against it, noting that it can’t eliminate all risk of breast cancer (Jolie’s is now estimated at 5 percent). He railed at surgeons describing the breasts of women like me as “ticking time bombs” and advising unnecessary prophylactic mastectomies. I do know that I chose a course of rigorous medical follow-up: an annual screening mammogram (where a radiologist reads the results immediately) and twice-yearly breast exams by a surgeon. The tiniest cyst gets emergency attention; I’ve had biopsies and ultrasounds and needle aspirations." She then quotes Dr. Francis: "For women like Angelina it’s important that they are made fully aware of all the options that are available, including risk-reducing surgery and extra breast screening."

I have a healthy skepticism of precise percentages for risks, e.g., 5%, 87%, etc.; I didn't really read Jolie discuss her treatment options and why she went chose major breast surgery over alternative approaches; my impression is she saw it as her only real option for her health under the circumstances. My opinion is that she probably made a reasonable, informed decision  and did due diligence in using the best tools/tests available, and I do admire her if for no other reason than to set an example for other women with known genetic risks for breast and/or ovarian cancer to take charge of their health versus gamble that they are the one of the lucky ones and "no news is good news".

The video below is more an opportunity to talk about the $3000 BRAC1 marker test, granted a patent, but which is now under deliberation by SCOTUS. The ACLU wants to argue that Myriad doesn't deserve a patent for a gene-based test because genes are a part of nature, which can't be patented, and that Myriad's patent impedes versus advances scientific process; Myriad insists that it has invented a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof" (which can [be patented]). The devil is in the details of detecting mutated genes, not the fact of the gene itself. Bailey in his write-up tries to provide an even-handed discussion of the issues but does a fairly good job eviscerating the ACLU's case (he says at the end he's still an ACLU member, which I infer as meaning "despite their stand in this case"). Bailey ends his piece with a classic spot-on Scalia exchange:

During oral arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia asked the highly relevant question of the ACLU attorney: "Why would a company incur massive investment if it—if it cannot patent?" The lawyer lamely responded that scientists might do such work "because they're curious," "because they want a Nobel Prize," and because they would "get enormous recognition." Scalia drily replied, "Well, that's lovely." Scalia asked the right question; for the sake of future patients' well-being, let's hope a majority of the court comes up with the right answer.

Indeed, Krugman has a Nobel Prize in economics which means squat in comparison to free market solutions for today's listless global economy. It wasn't "science for the sake of science", NIH, etc., that led to an innovative test to improve our detection of breast/ovarian cancer risks, but the private sector:  investors, management and applied scientists put time, effort and resources, often spanning years before they see a penny (if ever). They not only need to recover their costs in the long run but to cover the dry holes they drill. America leads the planet in innovative health care technologies and discoveries; let us not kill the goose laying the golden eggs, following the rest of world into mediocrity. If SCOTUS is competent, it will uphold the Myriad patent. Every American has a stake in SCOTUS doing what's right--and so does the rest of the world.

It's not clear how the Supreme Court will rule in the Myriad Technologies case, but this much is more certain than the fact there's not going to be a sequel to Salt: As Obamacare kicks in, groundbreaking genetic tests and preventative surgeries will remain elusive perks of the privileged, as innovation and patient choice are always the first things to go when bureaucracy and the state take over health care.

Political Cartoon

They forget the Fourth Amendment when it comes to personal communications, the First Amendment (press), and the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)--the one thing the Obama Administration does believe is the unfettered freedom  of government bureaucrats.

Courtesy of Robert Ariail and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Bruce Springsteen & the E-Street Band, "Streets of Philadelphia". Instantly recognizable percussion arrangement, Springsteen's most memorable movie track always makes me think that he's trying to channel his inner Bob Dylan.