Miscellany: 6/30/13

Quote of the Day
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. 
It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.
Marianne Williamson

Blog Update on the Zimmerman Trial

No, I don't have a scoop on the trial, but I've only had one relevant recent post since the arrest of Zimmerman. I feel some mini-rants coming on.

First, it seems every mainstream media starts off by noting that Trayvon Martin was unarmed. The very specification of that fact out of context lends the appearance of Martin being an innocent victim. Don't get me wrong--Martin's death is tragic, but the evidence is that the weapon was shot at close range and there was a physical confrontation before the shot was fired. The facts are consistent with the defense's claim that there was a struggle for Zimmerman's weapon; as Schiff discusses below, if Zimmerman's intent was to shoot, it would have been more prudent to use the weapon far enough from Martin to minimize the risk of Martin disarming him or taking possession of the weapon. I understand that the prosecution is (absurdly) trying Zimmerman for murder and the fact Martin was unarmed plays to the charge, but the underlying assumption is that Zimmerman used the weapon for reasons other than self-defense.The fact that Zimmerman was bloodied before the fatal shot presents strong  circumstantial evidence in support of self-defense.

My second complaint is the fact that the left wing continues to attack anything that stands in the way of railroading Zimmerman; how many ways? Let's just list a few: Zimmerman's head didn't seem as bloody at the police station (there was a report of some treating of the wounds before the police station); an allegation Zimmerman described Martin not as a 'punk' but using a racist term, any questioning of a prosecution witness (like Schiff does below) as itself 'racist'.

Third, I think the very fact of the trial is a perversion of the justice system; The police on the scene felt there was no evidence to dispute Zimmerman's assertion of self-defense. The fact that the President in Name Only all but called Martin the son he never had knowingly inserted himself in the trial is an extraordinary violation of legal ethics, perhaps even a violation of his Presidential Oath upholding the US Constitution and Zimmerman's right to a fair trial.

The mass media has even reported distortions of Martin's and Zimmerman's height and weight. Whereas Martin's parents put him at 6'2" and Zimmerman's former girlfriend put him at 5'7", I've seen some outlets put Martin 3 inches shorter and 20 pounds lighter--and Zimmerman inches taller and pounds heavier--trying to minimize the size mismatch. Although Schiff doesn't report on reluctant witness Jonathan Good here, it's very hard to see how the prosecution gets past reasonable doubt here; Good testified seeing Zimmerman on the ground, Martin on top of him in an MMA-style straddle throwing punches down on Zimmerman, and he heard Zimmerman cry for help. The best the prosecution could try to do is try to mitigate details by probing them months later. Apparently Martin had grass stains on the knees of his pants and Zimmerman didn't--adding additional evidence Zimmerman was the victim, not perpetrator of assault. In addition, Martin apparently had a history of getting into fights.

I'm nor going to take apart the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon's friend on the other end of his cellphone on the fateful night in question, as Schiff does. I will say "creepy-ass cracker", Trayvon's reference to Zimmerman on the Jeantel phone call, has become the soundbite of the week in a predictable "hate speech" double standard--consider how Paula Deen has seen her cable show cancelled, endorsement deals (pork company and diabetic supplies) scuttled, retailers like Wal-Mart drop her merchandise, a cookbook deal undone--all because she admitted under oath to saying the N-word once 27 years ago... But the idea that a kinder, gentler Trayvon politely asked (versus confronted) the "creepy-ass cracker" over why he was following him is patently absurd on its face. As I have previously written and Schiff also notes here, Zimmerman was no match for Martin; Martin was taller, stronger, faster. Zimmerman had no chance of catching Martin on foot; the only way they ended up wrestling each other in the grass is because Martin--tragically--chose to fight Zimmerman. I do want to point out here Schiff in the video below  keeps referencing the prosecuting attorney; I'm fairly sure he means to say the defense attorney. That is, the prosecuting attorney has no motive to impeach his own star witness; it was up to the defense attorney to undermine Jeantel's testimony.



George Will, "Supreme Court is correct on Voting Rights Act", Thumbs UP!

Justice Scalia loves to mock pretentious sounding legislation titles. It has been almost 50 years since the original Voting Rights Acts act. In its latest extension in 2006, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act passed with only 33 dissenting votes, all in the House. (I like to satirize pretentious titles as the "I Love Moms, Babies and Puppy Dogs Act"; I mean, what legislator wants to explain voting against something sounding so wonderful? It's like providing your next election opponent with a ready-made campaign attack ad; for many legislators it's just easier to go with the flow than educate voters on the bill's objectionable contents.)

The second section of the fifteenth amendment gives Congress the right to ensure voting rights of citizens are not restricted due to certain individual differences (particularly race). The Voting Rights Act of 1965 particularly focused on states in the Old South which had a history of literacy tests, poll taxes, and other policies when in the sixties still showed only a quarter of eligible Southern blacks registered. The Act included preclearances (i.e., federal scrutiny and approvals of voting changes in designated at risk areas, which I characterize as 'Mother, May I?'). The original act was supposed to last 5 years, but has been constantly renewed, the last time, 2 years before the election of the first African-American President and the highest black registration and turnout ever, for another 25 years!

George Will points out that there have been significant changes in the Old South since 1965. He cites Mississippi leads the nation in black elected officials, that black registration and turnout in the designated areas are at record levels, sometimes even more proportionately than white citizens. And yet they are basically restricted as if it's still 1965, subject to the same federal oversight--even voter fraud reforms are subject to scrutiny other states are not burdened with under the principles of federalism--even if similar minority voting performance is better in the Old South than in other states not subject to scrutiny!

I am not impressed by arguments appealing to the alleged mandate by a majority vote from other national regions imposing another 25-year sentence on the Old South,regardless of whether circumstances had materially changed over 2 generations. It's arbitrary and punitive in nature. Shelby County (AL) v Holder correctly decided violations of the Tenth Amendment and Article IV (presumably privileges and immunities, basically preferential treatment of some states over others). (I do not find the minority (5-4) opinion at all persuasive, basically arguing preclearance is principally responsible for improvements in voting performance.) Note that the Supreme Court did not strike down the Act itself or even the concept of preclearance, only the process cannot sanction states indefinitely regardless of voting performance.

The Gay "Marriage" Decisions and the Slippery Slope

I see that Gov. Brown (D-CA) is politically benefiting from the fact he as state attorney general and the Governator unethically refused to represent the people of California whom voted Proposition 8 into law. SCOTUS conveniently ruled the substitute advocates lacked standing into trying to appeal a district court decision. It's not clear how the people can appeal if and when top state elected officials refuse to exercise their responsibilities. Ir'a a perversion of the rule of law. Brown intends to resume gay "marriages" despite the state constitution; I would feel differently if Brown at least had the integrity to put up a referendum on the issue instead of backdoor legalization through the court system. But apparently Justice Kennedy is refusing to issue a stay while the Proposition 8 defenders try to respond to the legal standing problem.

I find it amusing some are calling Justice Kennedy the first gay Justice in the tradition of calling Clinton the first black President.

(HT Libertarian Republican). Gay '"marriage" advocates distanced themselves from other groups seeking legalization or discrimination of other nontraditional relationships  as articulated by  talk radio host Bryan Fischer: “The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.”

The Supreme Court’s rulings in favor of same-sex marriage Wednesday were greeted with excitement by polygamists across the country, who viewed the gay rights victory as a crucial step toward the country’s inevitable acceptance of plural marriage.

Anne Wilde, a vocal advocate for polygamist rights who practiced the lifestyle herself until her husband died in 2003, praised the court’s decision as a sign that society’s stringent attachment to traditional “family values” is evolving.

“I was very glad… The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” said Wilde.

The key difference in their missions, Wilde said, is that “gays want legal marriage and polygamists don’t” — they just want their lifestyle to be decriminalized.

“If you legalize plural marriage, that means the government is going to control certain aspects of it,” Wilde reasoned. “They might say, you have to make so much money, you can’t have any more than four like it says in the Koran.”

I will say this: Ms. Wilde's point of view on polygamy is much more authentically libertarian by focusing on negative rights regarding free association than gays demanding special government status for their relationships. Ms. Wilde is simply asking for the right of polygamists and their families to be left alone, in the context of traditional libertarian objections to the prosecution of victimless crimes.

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Bob Gorrell and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "A Hard Day's Night". Another in a string of #1's. In my personal top 5 Beatles' tunes. Just brilliant craftsmanship. When they bridge to the cathartic cresting verses "When I'm home...feeling you holding me tight", it's like they brought pop music to a whole new level.

Miscellany: 6/29/13

Quote of the Day
People are more easily led than driven.
David Harold Fink

Earlier One-Off Post: "An Uncle, Generation Next and Politics"

Obama and "Words, Just Words"

Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, "Who do the crowds say I am?" - Luke 9:18

Obama would never be welcome in my folks' home. The reason I know is from the evidence in the photos of Obama at "work" below. I remember on Christmas break typing a graduate philosophy paper; I was sitting on a rocking chair at a desk in the living room. I was bracing my socked feet on a couple of drawers to stabilize against rocking. My Mom called out once, "Feet off the furniture!' She didn't ask a second time; she had my middle brother pull the rocker out from under me, which I never saw coming. In mid-stroke. I found myself crashing on the floor, my glasses flying off. I fought off the urge to go after the sibling; he was only doing what my mom told him to do. As for Obama putting his shoes on the people's furniture, not his own, the word I would use came out in prior iterations of the Pew survey: "arrogant".

So I can just see "The One" with his pollsters, asking them, "What do the voters say I am?" We have a good idea. Among the top 5 most recent words include "incompetent" and "liar" (as the music business would say, rising with a bullet up the charts). To show how the post-partisan has brought people together, the term that tied with 'liar' was 'honest'. 'Socialist' has been common across charts. Dropping on the charts: 'intelligent'.

Phoros Courtesy of Daily Mail

Another Obama Epic Failure: Deliberate Ambiguity on Keystone

As per Forbes:

In his speech [June 25] at Georgetown, Obama said that the Keystone XL pipeline would only be approved if it “does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”

Is there any intelligent person on earth whom doesn't realize this is a doublespeak load of crap? First, in a world where oil exports are in demand, Canadian oil will find a customer; China is willing to buy up every drop the US doesn't. Moreover, a significant percentage of our oil is still imported; do we want to buy it from a friendly supplier or from an unstable region supplier? The bottom line is our oil demand has not really been increasing from a rate of 20M barrels daily. Oil is essentially fungible: we don't care where it comes from. (I'm oversimplifying somewhat: there are some differences between light/sweet and heavy oil, the latter being more difficult to refine) Oil that displaces other suppliers' doesn't really add to "carbon pollution" (i.e., carbon dioxide, needed for vegetation). Second, if Canadian oil isn't processed in US refineries, US refineries can process oil from other foreign countries lacking refinery capacity. The pipeline itself would add very little to the carbon problem, particularly in relation to  other modes of transport, like oil tankers, trucks, etc.

You would think Obama would simply declare victory given market share gained by cleaner burning natural gas at the expense of coal plants, courtesy of private sector fracking supplies....

Beyond the Scope of SCOTUS: Real Love, Marriage, and Family









Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Henry Payne and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "Do You Want To Know A Secret?"

An Uncle, Generation Next and Politics

To be honest, I don't recall my folks discussing politics around the dinner table. I was too young to vote during the Nixon elections, but I remember being obsessed with the House impeachment hearings being televised. I was watching into the late evenings on a small black-and-white in the living room. My folks showed zero interest and had already turned in. The sound of the TV was irritating my Dad, whom no doubt had work in the morning, and he yelled out to me to turn it off and go to sleep. I pleaded just a few minutes more; he was in no mood to argue. He got up and flipped the circuit breaker. I initially thought we had a weird power outage (no storms in the area); my folks didn't seem all that concerned.

My mom's family was a rare Massachusetts Republican family; my grandfather and his dad had built a small grocery; he operated the grocery with his brother, whose wife ironically was one of my Dad's aunts. The grocery went out of business while I was in junior high; my Mom's sibling is a priest, and my grand-uncle had no dependents to pass the business on. My Grandfather was a news fanatic; he watched two of the national newscasts each evening (staggered schedule) (I went to visit him during college Christmas break while my folks were in Germany).  I only recall one political discussion; one day for some unknown reason he gave me an impassioned lecture against abortion, apparently not realizing I had been pro-life for years. I felt like saying, "Grandfather, I don't even have a girlfriend yet..." My uncle was/is a staunch conservative (probably more than I have ever been), but he's got a different style than me: he's got better people skills, concisely makes his point, doesn't like to argue or repeat himself and is unflappable. (To a large extent, based on circumstances, I'm similar, but I'm more direct and more likely to debate a point--it's the academic in me.) My Mom is more of a social conservative; she doesn't like the censorship on religious speech in the public arena, and she has low expectations of politicians and public policy. She always manages to surprise me; several months ago, she forwarded me one of Paul Krugman's nonsensical columns that she had gotten from some email correspondent. I snapped back at her effectively, "Why are you sending me this crap? Haven't you read my blog?" She thought it sounded "interesting".

My Mom did get upset at my blog once; it wasn't my discussions of economics, which she usually finds boring. She ironically thought I was promoting the gay lifestyle. There's a difference between tolerance and advocacy. I also believe in religious diversity, although I'm not Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.; that doesn't mean that my Catholic beliefs have been compromised.

Actually, my Mom in practice has been tolerant; of my 6 siblings, 4 of their spouses were non-Catholic (3 have converted well into the course of their marriages), and only one was of French descent. This may not impress a lot of people, but she still takes faith-sharing classes and EWTN is her favorite cable channel; my Dad is still a lay Eucharistic minister.

A lot of the so-called progressive causes (feminism, minority and gay rights, environmentalism) were already  in place long before I started college. My Dad enlisted as a teen after the military was already integrated. What I find remarkable is that the younger generation, which has been largely indoctrinated by members of my generation and above, seems to think they've discovered this issue.

I've cited these examples in past posts. A number of GI's serving in Asia meet and marry local women; a few relevant families were part of my parish before I left for college. (I have a cousin whom while in the Marines married an Australian woman.) I befriended a couple of white/Asian married couples while in the UT graduate math program. There were lots of white-Hispanic couples at OLL, including my Vietnam vet RA whom was involved with one of my pretty, petite Latina co-workers, Sally. (I was jealous; I used to tease her she looked like a grown-up version of a doll, and she would throw gross stuff at me.) When I was part of the in-crowd at UH Catholic Newman, I befriended a biracial couple. Jane, a woman of color, was a lead singer for a local Christian group; her husband was a white postal worker. One evening he and I had a conversation, and without my prying, he had mentioned how his parents had essentially cut him out of their lives when he started dating Jane. He always figured that sooner or later they would come to accept and love Jane as his partner in life; Jane was beautiful, upbeat, one of the nicest ladies you would ever meet, a true blessing, and a very talented singer. My friend got teary-eyed as he went on to say that his folks refused to acknowledge the existence of their own grandchildren. He couldn't understand how they had put their own flesh and blood, the boy they raised and loved, below their belief system.

Several years later, one of my favorite nieces had fallen in love with a young man; she had been a consistent Dean's List student, and it looked like her desired admission to the nursing program was a formality. Shortly before the qualification exam she got involved with a new boyfriend. Somehow she barely missed the cutoff score on the qualification exam. At some point later, I was asking her some questions about the relationship (in part, I was concerned about some steamy love letters she posted on the open Internet to her boyfriend), when she started blasting me, saying her father had asked the same questions and it was all because of how the boyfriend looked. First, my siblings or their spouses have never discussed their kids with me other than the normal stuff you might hear in an annual Christmas card, certainly not their dating life. Second, I was stung by how quickly she was questioning my motives. I had occasionally dated women from different racial/ethnic backgrounds; she wouldn't know that, of course; my family only knew about one girl I asked out to dinner, a former college roommate of sister #1.

I had known at least some of my nephews and nieces had Democratic Party leanings since 2008; I was not pushing my point of view on them. I did say I've got a blog out there; if you want to read my opinions, here's the URL. What happened was I got cc'ed on an email to my Mom (using an obsolete email address) which made a vicious personal attack on McCain for his support of embryonic stem cell research. (One-time Democratic Presidential candidate Morris Udall, a political mentor to Congressman McCain, developed severe Parkinson's and McCain's position on the issue, to the left of George W. Bush, reflected his friendship with Udall.) My liberal niece was convinced stem cell research was junk science; it was a confusing rant because Kerry, Obama et al. had been promoting stem cell research like snake oil, with industrial policy preferences, etc. I advised my niece that she was underestimating scientific research and the fact that the Democrats, to the left of McCain, had made it  a high-profile issue, using celebrities to promote it. The exchange deteriorated soon thereafter (I started getting crap that looked like it had been copied and pasted from the Daily Kos) and my younger nephew taunting me that I couldn't stop him and his sister from voting for Obama. (No, he was not still in third grade .)

Now I myself had once considered myself  "liberal" (by that, I mean center-left; I still consider myself as a "classic liberal", based on individual liberty and free markets), although I was always pro-life and a fiscal hawk. It wasn't until I pursued my MBA that I took classes in economics, and even though the classes were non-political, I became fairly conservative on economic issues and not at all happy with Reagan's deficits.

Still, I figured if I had been stupid enough to have voted for Carter, my nephews and nieces were entitled to similarly waste their votes on Obama. I know for a fact I would never have voted for Obama, even in my salad days, because his stonewalling of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act materially disqualified him from holding higher office.

Do I regret supporting McCain in 2008? No. I know we wouldn't have had ObamaCare and McCain would never have accepted trillion dollar deficits. McCain would have been far more engaged with Congress than Bush or Obama. Without Obama and the 111th Congress overplaying their hands, the Tea Party may never have spawned.

Yes, I have distanced myself from McCain's neo-con, more proactive foreign policy; I'm not sure when that started; a lot of it had to do with Obama's convoluted Afghanistan surge policy, Obama's escalated drone policy, and a deepening skepticism with Big Government.

Getting back to Generation Next: I explained in yesterday's post how much I disliked Justice Kennedy's obnoxious judgmental tone to those patriots fending off socially experimental policy striking at the very core of our society's bedrock of the institutions of marriage and family.  I am not surprised that the next generation has bought into the concept that marriage is a mix-or-match construct--and it's taken over 6000 years in world history for us to suddenly realize it. Never mind gay couples cannot naturally bear their own children--that is, God and/or Mother Nature discriminates against gays!

The talking point about standing in the way of gay people finding love is absurd; the government is not banning gay relationships, commitment ceremonies, etc. Many states have domestic partnerships/civil unions, providing legal protections.

I've also pointed out the talking point of "banning gay marriage" is pure propaganda. There's a difference between banning something and regulating something. For example, if you transfer to another college, some classes may not be recognized. It's not a ban on work from other colleges. In the same way, relationships may not be recognized for a designated status by the government. For example, all the states refuse to recognize polygamous marriages (a key condition for Utah to reach statehood) and adult/child marriages. A state may not necessarily criminalize polygamous marriages, but they may only recognize the original marriage.

The mass media almost universally portrays gays in a sympathetic light and opponents of their special interest agenda as ignorant, bigoted, etc. It is difficult to explain to younger people the concept of unintended consequences. But take, for instance, the social welfare net; nobody really anticipated the declining stability of urban families (particularly African-American); over a third of pregnancies involve unmarried women.  The further blurring of the concepts of marriage and family is disconcerting; we are simultaneously dealing with a sexually permissive culture, declining religious influence, latchkey kids, remarried/fused families, etc.

So when a different nephew, raised Catholic, on a social networking site started spouting the same Justice Kennedy-like hypocritical condescending,judgmental politically correct claptrap on the SCOTUS gay "marriage" decisions, I had exhausted my patience. Loosely paraphrased, "instead of regurgitating all the politically correct nonsense trying to impress people with how 'open-minded' you are, why don't you stop and think for yourself?" It did not go over well, just as I intended.

Miscellany: 6/28/13

Quote of the Day
Let us by all wise and constitutional measures 
promote intelligence among the people 
as the best means of preserving our liberties.
James Monroe

Rich Lowry, "Justice Anthony Kennedy's Contempt", Thumbs UP

I have some differences of opinion with the National Review editor, whom recently published yet another flattering biography of Abraham Lincoln (see movie trailer below for a less sympathetic portrayal).

Going on a related rant, I'm very disappointed when someone I respect, like John Stossel, engages in politically correct, nonsensical verbiage like "ban gay marriage". Not a single state recognized gay "marriage" when DOMA was passed into law in 1996--during the entire history of their statehood, spanning up to centuries. The idea of a "vast anti-gay conspiracy" is ludicrous on its face; traditional marriage reflects religious and social norms across cultures for thousands of years. The fact is, gay couples cannot reproduce; society developed conventions and institutions that serve to promote its own survival and stability. Whether or not many societies approved of homosexuality is irrelevant, but certainly in some ancient cultures (e.g., Greece) homosexuality was celebrated, not condemned. (That dawned on me when in college I unknowingly  read some translation of an ancient Greek text, and the author kept mentioning 'beautiful boys'; at first I thought it was merely an odd translation, but when the phrase kept recurring, the author's intent was clear.)

None of the states with ballot constitutional questions intended to "ban gay marriage"; the ones I read were simply designed to protect against judicially activist state courts from a backdoor legalization of nontraditional marriages, such as what happened in Massachusetts and California. Most young people seem completely uninformed, for instance, California had a domestic partnership construct which protected legal rights of gays, including hospital visitation and inheritance. I was living in California at the time and voted for the original propositions. When California's Supreme Court set aside the traditional marriage proposition, they argued that the proposition wasn't written to modify the law beyond their scope of review and they struck it down--on a legal technicality, although the intent of the people was clear. So proposition 8 was written in a way to get it past California court review. I never really believed Obama believed in the traditional definition of marriage; he opposed DOMA in 1996. How do I explain his equivocation on the issue? His original base was the black community, which largely favors traditional marriage. In fact, Proposition 8 looked like it was heading to defeat when a very heavy turnout of blacks, out to elect Obama, carried the proposition. I'm convinced Obama's "evolution" on marriage was more of a political calculation with Obama not wanting to alienate his power base. Maybe because I lived in the Chicago suburbs for more than a decade, I was aware of Obama's DOMA opposition--which made me a little contemptuous when Hannity kept repeating Obama supported traditional marriage, clearly inconsistent with his DOMA opposition. Obama unprincipled doublespeak was a way of having his cake and eating it, too, just like he modified his oil exploration rhetoric with nearly $5/gallon gasoline, but he continued to push his climate change agenda, which is anti-fossil fuel.

Going back to the intellectual dishonesty of the "ban gay marriage" soundbite, I wasn't aware of an initiative to ban gay relationships, civil unions, etc. Occasionally you have some old sodomy law on the books, like in Texas; when I lived in Irving, I needed to go to another county to buy a six-pack of beer; this is  part of the Bible belt, and some religious prohibitions got passed into local or state law.  But for example, when I moved to Houston, work colleagues warned me that Montrose area was the gay hub of the city (I lived in the straight suburbs); most people, including myself, had an attitude of "live and let live". I wasn't aware of any government crackdowns on the gay population, say enforcing an anachronistic sodomy law. Given ubiquitous gay pride parades, sympathetic treatment in the mass media, various class status protections, etc., I think it's pathetic that John Stossel, normally a skeptic, buys into the misleading hype.

If John Stossel had researched the issue, he would have known that nontraditional lifestyles had been a national issue far before DOMA--the practice of polygamy in the Utah territory was an obstacle to statehood. So why Stossel and others are referring to the confirmation of traditional marriage as "banning gay marriage" versus "banning polygamy" or even weirder relationships (such as adult/child marriages) is beyond me. There's also  a difference between say, busting a minister performing gay "marriages" and that state legally recognizing said marriages.

Lowry points out the Feds have had a long-time interest in assessing marriages, predating DOMA; take, for instance, marriages of convenience with foreign aliens looking to reside legally in the US. Even if the marriages are legal, say, in the eyes of Nevada, INS may disagree; the Feds may not regard separated spouses as married for tax purposes. And if states have differing standards of marriage (say, age restrictions), how do the Fed's evaluate marriage--by the former state's rules or the current resident state's rules?

Lowry then points out the opportunistic migration of politically motivated Dems whom a decade ago opposed gay "marriage" but supported comparable civil unions, particularly President Zipper, that paragon of marital virtue, whom signed DOMA into law. These political whores stayed on the sidelines until they detected a shift in attitudes due to  cultural and academia brainwashing that redefined marriage as a mix-or-match relationship and portrayed those whom stood by the traditional definitions of marriage and family as morally contemptible.

Who is really contemptible is an empty robe like Justice Kennedy whom thinks that he has the moral authority to condemn traditionalists and millennia of history. That he applies presentist criteria is sheer hubris, and this piece of work is more interested in impressing the god of hedonistic culture than the God of Abraham.

Reason Nanny of the Month: Unconstitutional Politically Correct Speech Codes 

Whereas I believe in civility, government's stealth attempts to suppress critical speech (if say someone in a politically preferred group feels offended) reflects a morally bankrupt double standard, one which is intrinsically subjective. If the honest critical analysis of someone whom happens to be in a politically favored group "feels" it is motivated by darker motives, the result is a society where freedom of speech is arbitrarily recognized.



Before "The Life of Julia", "Tax the Rich" et al, There Was....



Busting the Myth of Saint Abraham Lincoln




In the Wake of Gay Self-Esteem Day at SCOTUS, Let Us Take a Moment to Celebrate REAL Marriage and Family









Political Humor

The Girl Scouts announced that their pension plan has a $347 million deficit. The Girl Scouts are $347 million in debt so in addition to teaching girls about camping it also is preparing them for careers in government.- Jay Leno

[They promised to pay out 77 cents on the dollar...]

If you really don't want gay people to get married, you shouldn't ban gay marriage. You should ban gay divorce. - Craig Ferguson

[And miss those child custody disputes?]



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Lisa Benson and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "Can't Buy Me Love"

Miscellany: 6/27/13

Quote of the Day
The world is moving so fast these days 
that the man who says it can't be done
is generally interrupted by someone doing it.
Harry Emerson Fosdick

Image of the Day

One year's worth of new federal regulations; how would we ever cope without bureaucrats telling us what to do, even capping how many people can swim with a dolphin?  "The ratio of human participants to cetaceans shall not exceed 3:1."

Courtesy of an investment newsletter publisher

Insult of the Day

Re: Who will succeed Fed Reserve Chair Bernanke? The truth about [Christina Romer] the former chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers is that she has made more predictions that were wrong in her career than a deaf and blind weatherman forecasting from a windowless studio. -  Shah Gilani 

[Incidentally, I'm intrigued by Gilani's admittedly no-chance suggestion of David Stockman. I could go with Stockman or any of a number of free market economists, like Steve Horwitz.  Reading between the lines, like this blog has predicted, Gilano seems to regard Janet Yellen as Obama's obvious choice. His assessment: "She’s a mild-mannered bank boot licker who never met a printing press she didn’t know how to operate." IPPON!]

Bernanke, PCE and the Markets

I'm still not sure what was behind Bernanke's suggestion that the Fed might taper off asset purchases (for the record, I oppose ZIRP and Fed intervention in the open markets)--might it be his way of encouraging investors to reallocate part of their bond holdings to equities?, but I'm convinced that he's bluffing. Bernanke, like Obama, is predictable; as I pointed out, in a recent post, Bernanke recoils at deflation; his main area of study has been the Great Depression. At each phase of Fed asset buying, we've seen changes in inflation statistics (I'm not going to quibble here about food and energy exclusions; I'm trying to look at things from Bernanke's point of view.) I think in part we've seen a softening in the resources market because China has slowed relevant imports due to an economic slowdown. In any event, PCE data is at the lowest (or trivially above)  rate since they've kept records. Poor Ben; as much as he's pumped money into the economy, it's like trying to revive a corpse. No wonder he's been going apeshit over sequester. AEI's Pethokoukis, not exactly a sound money enthusiast (he seems to lean to the market monetarist perspective in other posts), suggests that instead of buying assets, the Fed should do a Helicopter Ben money drop, as in the form of a Fed-financed tax cut. Wow, nothing would inspire confidence in the dollar like directly monetizing the federal budget... (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

Courtesy of Seeking Alpha

Moi Aussi 

I do disagree with an occasional item, e.g.,  enabling "gay marriage"
Courtesy of John Stossel

Senate Passes Immigration Bill 68-32: Thumbs UP!

There are parts of this bill I strongly disagree with: the E-Verify nonsense and the trivial working visa caps. I believe that we need to radically expand immigration, moving towards an ideal of open immigration. I'm disappointed in not seeing some of my favorite more Tea Party senators join in (Rand Paul, Lee, Cruz, and Johnson), although some of my favorites did (Kirk, Flake). Some of the senators had a principled objection to the Gang of 8 negotiated compromise which largely excluded input from the rest of the Senate. I think Rand Paul is posturing for 2016 by focusing on the southern border vulnerabilities; however, Paul, Lee et al. do not share an anti-immigrant perspective. Marco Rubio has taken a lot of hits since the infamous bottled water kerfuffle. His participation in the Gang of 8 has aroused the ire of the "anti-amnesty"  forces, to the point that there is now talk of contesting his renomination for the Senate in 2016. Although the bill is flawed in many ways as I briefly mentioned at the start, it improves on the status quo.

Post-DOMA Ruling: Let's Eliminate the Federal Marital Benefit Breaks

Let's not forget the abysmal SCOTUS rulings in part were an attempt by gays to capture federal goodies; in part, these go back to more traditional settings where mothers stayed at home to raise kids, which affects household income, retirement planning etc. This, of course, is irrelevant to gay couples unless they result to extraordinary means (sperm banks, surrogates, etc.) and/or liberal adoption policies. (I strongly endorse lowering/simplifying taxes; I also dislike social engineering through tax or social policies.) Consider this relevant interview excerpt from LifeSiteNews:

“The important philosophical question is, what were these benefits intended for? Why do they exist?” Dr. Allan F. Carlson, president of the The Howard Center, told LifeSiteNews.com.

The federal government provides federal economic incentives for marriage – such as tax exemptions and Social Security survivors benefits – in order to encourage the institution as “a place for children to be born and raised and nurtured.”

Carlson suggested that since marriage has now been “stripped of its child-centered focus” by the legalization of homosexual unions, which are always naturally sterile, “maybe it’s time to abandon marriage as an important category for benefits and simply focus on giving benefits to parents, people with children.”

“If [federal incentives] are no longer fulfilling the proper function, which was encouraging the promotion of children, it’s possible that some of these benefits should no longer exist, perhaps,” Carlson told LifeSiteNews. “I think it’s time to rethink the whole concept of benefits in this regard.”

Carlson suggested “Instead of tying benefits to marriage,” the federal government might “tie them to the presence of children in the home. To me, that’s a much more important thing.”

Going Beyond Williams, Cain, Sowell and Thomas: 
Other Conservatives of Color



A Congressman's Moving Tribute to His Hero Father



In the Aftermath of Gay Appreciation Day at SCOTUS, Celebrating Real Betrothal

I still haven't met the right girl, but others have...









Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Glenn Foden and Townhall

Political Humor

The Supreme Court has overturned the Defense of Marriage Act. How about that? We don't need a Defense of Marriage Act. What we need in this country is a marriage cap. You're allowed three, and after that, you're done. - Jay Leno

[Come on, Jay; what guy can afford to get married 4 times in California?]

In New York, the new front-runner in the New York City mayor's race is Anthony Weiner. Some analysts say it's due to name recognition. Actually, I think a few people recognize more than just his name. - Conan O'Brien

[Conan, no hitting below the belt!]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Group Redux

The Beatles, "Twist and Shout". Lennon shows off his decent pipes in one of the few Beatles' remakes that charted. Oddly, I didn't know up-and-coming producer Phil Spector was the first to cover Bert Berns' song, and Berns hated the arrangement; after the Top Notes' effort (third video) flopped on the hit charts, Berns produced the Isley Brothers' monster hit version (second video), and obviously the Beatles were influenced by the Isleys.

Miscellany: 6/26/13

Quote of the Day
Order is to arrangement what the soul is to the body, and what mind is to matter.
Joseph 

How Democratic Party Regulatory Zeal Hurts Your Bottom Line

The growth of federal regulations over the past six decades has cut U.S. economic growth by an average of 2 percentage points per year, according to a new study in the Journal of Economic Growth. As a result, the average American household receives about $277,000 less annually than it would have gotten in the absence of six decades of accumulated regulations—a median household income of $330,000 instead of the $53,000 we get now. - Ronald Bailey

Keep in mind this doesn't include the adverse economic impact of state regulations....

Image of the Day

Not to mention unsustainable Dem social programs: "Yes, We Scam"....

Courtesy of an investment newsletter publisherr

Boudreaux Rant of the Day

The Cafe Hayek free market economist points the contradiction of those whom argue an implicit subsidy of American consumers (by a pegged yuan) strengthens the Chinese economy but an implicit subsidy of immigrants (by a social welfare net) weakens the American economy. [The correct policy, of course, is for the government to embrace the free markets; for example, protectionist policies by putting say a quota on the import of Japanese cars is no less arbitrary, protectionist and anti-consumer than a quota on Japanese immigrants. What we need to do is to embrace the interests of the consumer whom benefits from low prices and ample supply and variety of goods and services.]

This is not to say that China should be pegging its currency to the dollar instead of letting it float. They import a lot of natural resources; an undervalued yuan makes imports more expensive, reduces already thin profit margins,  exacerbates inflation (particularly food inflation, affecting lower-income citizens), and lowers the Chinese standard of living; in the long run, related political unrest poses a threat to the governing regime. More to the point, demagogues like Chuck Schumer (D-NY) fail to realize the enormous privilege the US has in having the de facto world reserve currency and why many governments holding dollar reserves may despise the Fed for debasing the currency. Many find it hypocritical that American politicians have the audacity to criticize the monetary policies of other countries while not saying a word about the Fed's easy money printing and ZIRP, which is the ultimate market manipulation.

Why do American voters often favor shoot-yourself-in-the-foot bad economic policies like farm subsidies, minimum wage, import quotas, etc.? Bryan Caplan wrote an interesting book on the matter: The Myth of the Rational Voter. Russ Roberts did an interesting relevant EconTalk with Caplan here.

Let's briefly look at one of those policies here: farm subsidies. The Freakonomics blog has an interesting relevant discussion:

[Daniel Sumner's] answer to whether there’s a good argument to be made for farm subsidies:

“No.”

Q: Is there any evidence to support the claim that agricultural subsidies contribute to obesity?
A: The short answer is no. There are lots of reasons for dissatisfaction with farm subsidies, obesity is not one of them.

The reasoning is that, although farm subsidies programs have made the price of corn and soybeans slightly cheaper for buyers in the U.S., the accompanying trade policies have raised the prices of sugar and dairy products. Furthermore, farm costs comprise such a small fraction of the retail price, the small farm price effects have tiny retail price impacts. Finally, in rich countries such as the U.S., buyers respond little to any food price declines or increases.

 Q: If the U.S. were to do away with all agriculture subsidies (in a similar manner as New Zealand), do you think that we would be better off in the long run?

A: U.S. farm subsidies tend to kick in with the big government payouts when prices are low. Big subsidies last flowed in 2005 (in the range of $20 billion in government program crop payments). Much of this money goes to farm landlords and farm operators with some going to suppliers of other inputs or buyers who get lower prices for grains and cotton.

Clearly the U.S. economy is a loser from farm subsidies and most of U.S. agriculture (hay, fruits, tree nuts, livestock, vegetables) also gets nothing much from the programs.

As someone who has to deal with weight issues, I found a Forbes article referencing a 2007 WHO study. The US made the top 10, at nearly three-quarters overweight, but even more free market New Zealand and Australia tip the scales at just over two-thirds. In fact, obesity is a rapidly emerging problem among poor people and emerging/developing countries like China and India. (The article author references low-fat foods, but I argue it's more high-carb foods, not to mention more common sedentary lifestyles.) Note that Sumner in the above interview cites a number of factors exacerbating food commodity price increases, many of them involving government subsidies and export/import policies.

One of the points I hope the reader picked up on is the observation I highlighted above; many food items not subsidized by American taxpayers can be found in plentiful supply at supermarkets; why, then, are products like dairy and sugar more equal? Americans enjoyed milk products and sugar long before politically connected farmers and governments formed an unholy alliance to manipulate the market at the expense of consumers.

"Gay Marriage" Rulings at SCOTUS: An Initial Reflection

I was not surprised by the rulings. This is from my March 29 post:

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.

I was spot on: DOMA got overturned for overstepping on traditional state regulation. This is a really odd case to begin with: the lesbian surviving partner NY resident Edie Windsor was "married" in Canada and contested a related estate tax bill in 2009. New York state did not even legalize "gay marriage" until 2011. Granted, I am not a lawyer, but the whole reason the couple went to Canada in 2007 to get "married" was because they couldn't get "married" in NY.  Even if you argue that the Feds cannot trump the state definition of marriage, Windsor's partner died years before legalization and would not be material from an IRS standpoint; what's relevant is the status at the time of death. It's bizarre to me that she had legal standing to challenge DOMA; Canada's idiosyncratic marriage policies do not supersede the state's. I also find SCOTUS' ruling puzzling because at the time of DOMA the traditional definition of marriage held in all 50 states.  Why is it that the Feds couldn't define what it considers "marriage"? DOMA was not a ban on a state's ability to change marriage policies; it simply identified qualifications for certain benefits, just like it does for any number of federal programs. Congress could always change DOMA just like New York was able to redefine marriage.

The second decision, basically sustaining an overturn on California's Proposition 8 on a legal technicality,  was an especially bad one, in the sense right after ruling the state definition has precedence, instead of upholding a proposition reinstating the traditional definition of marriage (recall the Governator and then attorney general Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8), SCOTUS simply ruled the party subsequently representing state voters lacked standing. What's particularly notable is they did not rule that Proposition 8 itself was unconstitutional. That is, they sidestepped the so-called "constitutional right to marry". But why is it that states recognizing "gay marriage" are more equal?

I'm not particularly motivated to get all excited about the less than 5% of Americans whom are gay, a notoriously promiscuous group where only a few form sustained monogamous relationships. Unlike most libertarians, I view gay relationships as more about negative vs. positive rights; that is, I see a difference between the state meddling in the relationships of gay people (which I oppose) vs. conferring a special status.

I oppose socially experimental policies undermining traditional institutions thousands of years old; I am concerned about unintended consequences. That being said, as a libertarian-conservative like the Pauls and Justin Amash, I believe that marriage law comes under the Tenth Amendment, i.e., the principle of federalism. I don't like the federal government meddling in relationships, and to be honest, I would prefer marriage and related policies to be delegated to religious institutions.

What now? A constitutional marriage amendment? I think it would be difficult to clear the Congress (especially the Senate with the Democratic Party all but adopting "gay marriage" as a litmus-test issue)  by the necessary majorities plus the necessary number of states. Our attention should focus more on morally hazardous domestic policies undermining marriage and family. To those of us of faith, marriage is not merely a civil procedure, but a sacrament; just because a state or court calls something a "marriage" doesn't make it so; you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Don't sweat the small stuff.

SCOTUS Gets One Right on Private Property Rights



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Michael Ramirez and Investors.com

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "All My Loving". A perfectly written, performed pop song; one of my all-time favorite love songs.



Political Humor

Miscellany: 6/25/13

Quote of the Day
The road to perdition has ever been accompanied by lip service to an ideal.
Albert Einstein

Artwork of the Day

Courtesy of Brazilian artist Cildo Meireles via financial newsletter

Helicopter Ben Bernanke, Gold and Stocks



Obama gave Bernanke the kiss of death on reappointment by pointing out that Bernanke has already mentioned moving on. Who will replace him? This has to be the easiest call since Obama named Solicitor General Kagan to SCOTUS. There is no announcement yet, so how do I know? If there's one thing Obama knows, it's symbolism. The vice chair of the Federal Board of Governors is a woman, Janet Yallen, an inflation dove, i.e., someone any inflation hawk like myself, with a high priority on sound money, would strongly oppose. (Don't be fooled by her recent rhetoric paying lip service to inflation; this is like Obama's familiar tactic of trying to co-opt the political opposition--remember Obama's disingenuous support of traditional marriage? She's anticipating the objection and wants something  on the record for the benefit of her Senate confirmation allies. This kabuki dance is so damn predictable.) Do you think that ideological feminists, still furious that Susan Rice was passed over for Secretary of State, will allow him to overlook the opportunity to appoint the first female Fed Reserve chair? Are you kidding? Yallen, unlike Rice, is a legitimate qualified candidate for the target promotion.

This is not an investment blog, but there have some interesting themes going on: precious metals like gold and silver are in a slump, even as it seems like every central bank has been printed paper currency. If you look at gold as a currency hedge against a depreciating dollar, why have we seen precious metals correct--other than the old saw about corrections being inevitable in any market? Well, of course, we saw the gold market slump after the early 1980's after Volcker raised interest rates, effectively strengthening the dollar. Consider the following chart; there's not a perfect inverse relationship--note points A and B where both dollar and gold prices are strengthening. I sometimes like to think of central bank gold transactions in terms of money supply, e.g., selling takes money out of circulation. Generally, though, with most central bankers worried about deflation (as in Japan), gold buying might be seen as a tactic against currency becoming too strong, making imports cheaper and exports more expensive.

Courtesy of Incredible Charts

There are some conspiracy theories, e.g., of central bankers manipulating prices, although the bankers have a vested interest in their gold holdings; I saw one analyst saying that the anticipated sale of Cyprus gold holdings as a sign of  capitulation, the first in a series of dominoes, and a bottoming of the gold correction. I am skeptical of this viewpoint.  I think the dollar has strengthened primarily as a default of the Japanese imploding the yen and a global flight to safety given economic uncertainty in the rest of the world. China's stocks I believe have now entered bear market territory, emerging markets are tanking--consider Brazil; if US interest rates strengthen, then other countries have to offset their own interest rates to attract investors--and, of course, high interest rates hurt economies, at least in the short run. Business expenses rise, which are bad for stock prices.

What I find enigmatic is Bernanke's decision to suggest that he might taper down the Fed's indefinite asset buying spree, which in part has been propping up the stock market. What motivated that? A smaller government deficit and sufficient foreign demand to offset Fed purchases? Recent spikes in 10-year notes despite Fed purchases? A recognition that Fed policy hasn't been able to restore long-standing growth trend lines? Or is he merely setting the stage for even more dramatic Fed activist policy? Or was this basically just a badly worded gaffe?  Surely he can't believe with weak job growth, the economy is now healthy enough to sustain itself? Or Fed policy has so distorted the economy he needs to see how the economy can do without a constant sugar high?

I did see one commenter's discussion which said, forget about all this misdirection about tying Fed policy to the second mandate (unemployment): he claimed Bernanke is mostly obsessed about avoiding deflation (recall Bernanke's academic specialty is the Great Depression), and each new QE leg up was prefaced by a plunge in expected inflation rates.... Maybe the answer to this mysterious Bernanke softening reflects an assessment he no longer sees a deflationary risk in the economy.... That could be problematic  to most of us inflation hawks.

As for stocks, whereas a case could be made stocks weren't pricey before the recent 4% drop, given a sluggish global economic recovery, I think investors should not have unrealistic expectations about extended sustained gains without more robust growth across the economy.

Political Humor

The NSA says they have developed a robotic bird that looks and flies like a bird to use for surveillance. So if you see a bird outside your window tweeting with a BlackBerry, it’s spying on you. - Jay Leno



NSA leaker Edward Snowden somehow managed to get out of the U.S. with all their information. Now where is he? He's in Russia now, going to be in Ecuador or wherever. He remains at large. Now what are the odds out of 350 million Americans, the only one the government wasn't watching was him? - Jay Leno



Chris Christie, James Gandolfini and Flags at Half-Staff

I don't mean to be disrespectful to the memory of the late cable TV male lead actor, but I have to question Christie's subsequent decision to order flags lowered to half-mast. According to the Department of Veteran Affairs:

An easy way to remember when to fly the United States flag at half-staff is to consider when the whole nation is in mourning. These periods of mourning are proclaimed either by the president of the United States, for national remembrance, or the governor of a state or territory, for local remembrance, in the event of a death of a member or former member of the federal, state or territorial government or judiciary. The heads of departments and agencies of the federal government may also order that the flag be flown at halfstaff on buildings, grounds and naval vessels under their jurisdiction

I Believe the Children Are Our Future 

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Michael Ramirez and Investors.com

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "I Saw Her Standing There"

Miscellany: 6/24/13

Quote of the Day
The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. 
Every class is unfit to govern.
Lord Acton

Have You Heard of the Ferry to Nowhere?

The Alaskan Congressional delegation (in particular, the late Alaskan Sen. "Earmarker-in-Chief" Stevens) is responsible for a textbook $80M white elephant, the Susitna. This was built, ostensibly for the US Navy, as a multi-functional vessel (ramps for loading/unloading vehicles, ice-breaker, surface ship); as we have come to expect, the gold-plated project went way over budget, the Alaskan-located company that built it went under, and ownership was eventually transferred to Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The intent of the transfer was for the ferry to be used connecting Anchorage to Juneau, although the ship's unusual shape would require costly special docks to be constructed. Long story short, the ferry has been a chronic operational money drain from day one, spending $90K month just to cover insurance, docking fees, and maintenance. The municipality tried to offload it to the Northern Mariana Islands, then it tried to auction it off where a Dutch company offered a $750K bid, and in the latest update via Libertarian Republican, Los Angeles County took a pass, deeming its loading capacity too limited for the cost, not to mention the crew somehow managed to run the ship aground on a demo run. Note to conservatives, Sen. Begich (D), who supported the project while mayor of Anchorage, is up for reelection next year.

Remember the Laffer Curve (Taxation)? Consider the Tabarrok Curve (Innovation)

The Twinkies Are Coming... The Twinkies Are Coming... July 15

I can't indulge (low-carb), but... Unions killed the company, but not the product.

Catholic Voters and Unconstitutional ObamaCare Mandates



Choose Lucy: She's Totally Worth It



Another Military Family Reunion Set







Operation Occupy French Socialist HQ

(HT Libertarian Republican)



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "Roll Over Beethoven"

Miscellany: 6/23/13

Quote of the Day
I have no special talent. 
I am only passionately curious.
Albert Einstein

The Paula Deen Kerfuffle

One of the hottest topics on the Internet is the latest incident of political correctness run amok: the Food Network dumped the queen of Southern comfort cuisine after word emerged about Ms. Deen having admitted, under oath, that IN THE PAST she had occasionally referred to people of color using the infamous N word (rhymes with 'trigger'), widely regarded as a racial slur. This word was never used on the job where she has hosted cooking shows since 2002.  When I heard the story, the first thing that stuck with me is the fact she had made the admission under oath. Ms. Deen and/or her brother own restaurants; a disgruntled former manager filed suit making allegations of a hostile work environment. The woman's lawyer, no doubt trying to establish a pattern of behavior, asked Ms. Deen under oath whether she had ever used the term in the past, and Ms. Deen answered the question honestly. The transcript of this testimony somehow made it into the public domain; Ms. Deen went into damage control with multiple video apologies, to no avail, as the Food Network dumped her over her radioactive admission.

The conservative bloggers are having a field day over this since Paula Deen had endorsed Obama in 2008 and it's yet another example of Democrat hypocrisy with the late Sen. Byrd (WV) a one-time member of the KKK, not to mention prominent segregationist governor and former Presidential candidate George Wallace (AL). Woodrow Wilson supported segregation policies and it took an executive order by Truman decades later to integrate the troops. The Republicans paid a political price for its political leadership during the Civil War and Reconstruction: political exile for the better part of the following century. I view the morally bankrupt Jim Crow (racial segregation) laws as a form of regional rebellion against federal micromanagement of the South. A number of rationalizations were used to justify segregation, including preventive policy against racial conflict.

Ms. Deen is financially set for life, although her food empire may experience additional setbacks as her endorsement sponsors and/or retailers try to avoid being tainted by the scandal. Personally I think the Food Network overreacted; our last 3 Presidents all but admitted past alcohol abuse and/or recreational drug use during their salad days. It should be treated differently than if she had abused her show staffers or used the word on the air; I think network management could have made their point by sending her to a diversity training class. Ms. Deen has a more forgiving audience and I suspect like Don Imus and others, she'll do her penance and move on (I bet Oprah Winfrey is just dying to interview her now) if not back to the Food Network, another cable network or a syndication deal.

My position, as I've stated in past posts, I generally think as a matter of civility, one should refer to people in terms they prefer, but I'm more concerned by people's reactions to uncivil behavior. I believe that most people use discourteous speech to provoke a disproportionate response, and it's more prudent and effective not to give them the undue attention they're seeking. Personally, I don't value the opinions of people I consider bigoted--I think they're self-destructive and end up losing the respect from others they crave; I prefer to reinforce positive behavior.

The Zimmerman Trial is Underway

Let me say first of all I think the death of Trayvon Martin is tragic, and I think Zimmerman's tracking of Martin was aggressive. But as I read about the disputed source of screams overheard on a call, the fact remains that Zimmerman was much shorter and in worse shape than Martin, I do not see how Zimmerman, who had been shadowing Martin in a car, decided to leave his car and managed to chase Martin down, provoking a physical attack in which he was obviously overmatched. I think it more likely that Martin resented the fact that he was being followed and when Zimmerman stopped the car (e.g., to get a better look at street signs in the dark to provide the police better directions), Martin decided to confront him by surprise. Obviously Martin was not aware that Zimmerman was armed. I doubt that Zimmerman had intended to shoot Martin given the fact he had gotten the worst of the scuffle before the fatal shot was fired.

I find it interesting that Zimmerman is facing an all-female jury. I don't bet on trials, but I don't see how the jury gets past reasonable doubt given the size difference between the two. The judge has decided to disallow testimony by conflicting audio expert results. The prosecution witness claimed he could rule out it was Zimmerman's voice based on other Zimmerman voice samples. Again, Martin's body showed little evidence Zimmerman hurt him during the fight (other than the fatal gun shot wound, of course) while Zimmerman had been subsequently treated for head wounds. Why would a young man getting the better of  another in a physical shuffle be screaming for help?

What I'm particularly concerned about is a negative public reaction to the likely verdict; this case has been heavily politicized with Obama all but calling Martin the son he never had.

My Favorite EconTalk (So Far): Roberts v Frank Debate On Infrastructure

I'm still working through a backlog of the weekly podcasts going back to 2006. There's an eclectic selection of topics, many of which I find interesting and others which are more of an acquired taste. For example, Eric Topol has a fascinating discussion of the dumbing down of the medical profession, of undue reliance of reducing individual cases, as it were square pegs in round holes, into standard treatment units. Another talk, with Jonah Lehrer, focused on creativity (a topic which, as a creative person, I find fascinating--for instance, sometimes I'll dream new songs, and I'll jot them down when I wake up), including a discussion of some companies externally posting problems that have stumped internal resources, often solved by people in different fields, and companies like MMM which cross-pollinate product teams; the idea is sometimes people in a discipline can be tunnel-visioned, and people who come from other backgrounds sometimes conceptualize a problem differently, questioning certain assumptions, etc.)

In this case, Russ Roberts (of Cafe Hayek), who indicates elsewhere he's become more Austrian (School) in perspective over the years, took on Robert Frank, a Cornell economist, on infrastructure spending. Frank is, quite obviously, a Keynesian pro-infrastructure spending economist who at times lapses into progressive politics, not unlike Paul Krugman, at one point bitterly lapsing into a rant on GOP use of the filibuster. [Russ Roberts tries to avoid tipping his hand on politics; most libertarians, in fact, will go out of their way to tweak the GOP as unprincipled  or hypocritical Big Spenders Lite.]

From a big picture perspective, some infrastructure is more equal; take, for instance a canal that connects an internal waterway to a coast. The ability of a ship to travel directly from the waterway to overseas ports without having to unload and transport (say, via truck or rail) to the coast and reload on another vessel, can be more efficient. There are diminishing returns, however, when there are multiple paths or modes (say, air, car, or rail) between locations.

Russ Roberts does a good job pointing out the vested self-interests, say, of civil engineering groups, and distinctions between federal and state/local government responsibilities. I wish he would have gone a little bit more into taxpayer subsidies of user fees (e.g., AMTRAK, mass transit, highway use by electric cars, etc.), political raids of highway trust funds, high-speed rail boondoggles, etc. I think at one point he starts to talk about private-sector bridge construction, but quickly retreats for unspecified reasons, I found myself pounding the table for privatization, noting overcapacity "free" highways, poorly maintained roads, bridges, levees, etc., with funding diverted elsewhere for political priorities. Another blogger has also noticed that Roberts as a libertarian disappointingly seemed all too willing to concede infrastructure to the public sector.

Still, on my scorecard, Roberts won this debate going away.  I intensely loathe morally hazardous policies which under-invest in infrastructure during flush times and in bad times engage in budget shell games.          

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "Please Mr. Postman". The Beatles prove they can do justice to a Motown song...