Miscellany: 7/31/13

Quote of the Day
Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity 
opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. 
Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
Albert Einstein

Nanny of the Month: July 2013

As someone who is very familiar with the San Antonio area (my undergraduate alma mater is there, plus I started my IT professional career there), I am dismayed to hear that some progressive piece of work is trying to legislate political correctness. The rank hypocrisy of a "diversity" proponent who is demanding groupthink to public office, regardless elected or appointed, versus a true diversity of perspective is appalling. I have not sought elected or appointed office and have no relevant future plans, but as a matter of principle, it's never a good idea to filter the best candidates for any position based on artificial criteria. What you end up at the end is incompetent ideologues or mediocre people whom muddle through life without doing or saying anything that may offend some special-interest group. Moreover, what people have said or done is not necessarily indicative of current or future views, and whatever those views are should not be relevant to policy, which is the province of elected officials.

On a side note, I hate the victimization philosophy and the laundry list of various politically favored groups. For those of us who are Christian, we ideally operate by one principle--the golden rule. We don't need to lectured about treating other people fairly based on incidental characteristics like gender, race, religion, etc. [Has this happened? Of course: slavery, Jim Crow laws. But those were failures of the justice system in protecting individual rights. We are not talking about implementing laws adverse to these protected groups.]

I think we should be much more worried about the motives of self-anointed moral policemen legislators. Adding more and more regulations is adverse from the interests of justice; almost no one could pass a "white glove" test of arbitrarily enforced, unknowable laws. We need to demand concrete net benefits to new laws (beyond the relevant costs) and realize it's difficult to legislate fairness in all human encounters: for example, is it fair that some women prefer to date rich men, tall men or celebrities? Government must be limited and chose its battles carefully...



It's Beginning to Look a Lot like Rome....

Are you kidding? A sexually obsessed culture, unsustainable empire building, buying votes by promising all sorts of government freebies or below-cost entitlements, transition from more republican to statist/autocratic government (consider Obama's manipulation of the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, picking and choosing laws to enforce--for example, if Arizona police have retained an undocumented alien, INS would release them, using executive orders when the Senate turns down the legislation he wants, e.g., the Dream Act, gun control, etc.; also rule making in health care by unaccountable bureaucrats). In fact, Politico has a current piece on Obama's "no-Congress strategy".



Mexican Immigrant Restaurant Owners Find Themselves Extorted by ADA-Based Fraud

The next time I'm in the Los Angeles area, I'll have to make a point to visit La Casita Mexicana; the food looks magnificent and very nice owners. Incidentally, I think Bell, where the restaurant is located, must be the same city of the infamous public pay scandal: remember this? "Rizzo collected a salary of US$ 787,637 a year, with yearly 12% increases scheduled every July, he received $1.5 million in the last year.  Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia collected $376,288 a year, with a similar 12% annual pay increase. Rizzo remained unapologetic about his salary and said, "If that's a number people choke on, maybe I'm in the wrong business ... I could go into private business and make that kind of money. This council has compensated me for the job I've done." Spaccia concurred, saying: "I would have to argue you get what you pay for." Rizzo and Spaccia had never achieved such a salary in the private sector."



Paul's Proposal to Strip Post-Coup Egypt of Aid is Tabled/Killed 13-86: Thumbs DOWN!

It should not even be necessary to force a vote on this question except for the lawlessness of the Obama Administration. Let Politico explain this in a nutshell:

The Obama administration has declined to deem the ouster of President Mohamed Morsi by the Egyptian military a coup, a designation that would have automatically cut off U.S. assistance. If enacted, Paul’s amendment would have made it a finding of Congress that a “military coup d’etat” occurred in Egypt, as several other senators have suggested occurred.

Even neo-con John McCain recently acknowledged the nature of the coup and what the legislation said. Why are we subsidizing other countries and/or their armies? Make no mistake: not only does this constitute moral hazard, but we assume some of the responsibility for enabling the rogue leadership we subsidize. I am no admirer of the divisive Muslim Brotherhood, but brutal crackdowns seem counterproductive in the long run.

However, I am not happy about Rand Paul talking about sending the Egyptian government money while Detroit is in dire straits. Paul was admirably quoted earlier saying a federal bailout of Detroit over his dead body; Detroit's problems reflect public policy failures; ultimately, the fault rests with Detroit voters whom choose to believe in unsustainable paper promises of politicians whom rarely look beyond their next election. Paul needs to focus more on the soon-to-be-$17T debt, not phrase things in a typically Dem argument of zero-sum economics, the spending on a space program vs. poverty programs, etc. Neo-cons like McCain flipped, rationalizing this vote as pro-Israeli policy. Foreign aid decisions as protection money for allies? Are you serious? This constitutes national policy?

Obama Economic Illiteracy Watch

It's time for me to break in a new tag, which I should have started a long time ago. I stumbled upon the following Obama quote via Libertarian Republican (and share the sentiment of the blogger's post heading):

“the economy would be much better off,” unemployment would be 6.5 percent and the national deficit would be in decline if there were more federal, state and local government workers. 

“If those layoffs had not happened, if public sector employees grew like they did in the past two recessions, the unemployment rate would be 6.5 instead of 7.5,” Obama said.

“Our economy would be much better off, and the deficit would still be going down because we would be getting more tax revenue.”

It's so crystal clear to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Obama doesn't know the hell what he's talking about, it shouldn't be necessary to discuss it. But for the benefit of those who don't know better, here's a brief start:

The government labor force (at all levels) is about 22M, roughly 1 in 6 workers. Government workers, unlike private sector workers, were actually net gainers under Bush, by just over 1M workers. Even after the state/local cuts, they've lost a net few hundred thousand under Obama--and still a net increase since Clinton. At last glance, we're still a couple of million down since the start of the recession--meaning most of the hit has been in the private sector--which cannot print money to pay its workers.

But here's the main point: government doesn't create wealth--it is a consumer of wealth. Suppose everyone tithed to churches; this is like Obama saying, "Well, a lot of pastors went out of work during the recession. The economy would be much better off if we hired more pastors." But money people tithe to churches could be otherwise saved, invested or spent in the economy. Pastors, of course, save, invest or spend money in the real economy--but what they add is at best netted out from people whom give them the money.

Those dollars paid to ineffective teachers all but impossible to fire do nothing for the economy. Hiring bureaucrats to push paperwork doesn't add a single widget to the economy. The private sector has to streamline its costs, and government layoffs are much lower than in the rest of the economy. Obama, like any petty manager, just wants a bigger personnel budget to reward his crony union allies. But the private-sector is far more efficient than the government sector, often restricted by cumbersome work rules and other agreements: those dollars would go a lot further if they stayed in the productive real economy instead of serving as Obama's mad money for the benefit of his minions.

Don't expect Obama to grasp the concept of opportunity costs--he probably thinks that Bastiat is a French merlot wine.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "Lady Madonna"

Miscellany: 7/30/13

Quote of the Day
Nearly all men can stand adversity, 
but if you want to test a man's character, 
give him power.
Abraham Lincoln

Christie My Next Nominee for Bad Elephant of the Year

Christie likes to pick and choose his statistics; he may be referencing the ratios on this page. The idea that the third-year junior senator in the political minority is responsible for the status quo of federal funding to his state is frankly absurd. What Christie doesn't say is that in terms of median income, New Jersey is often in the top 5 and Kentucky is more like the bottom 5. We should see more taxes raised and fewer benefits received in higher-income states. (Of course Maryland is home to a number of well-paid government workers and contractors.) I will point out that the governor of a state has a lot more influence over public funding than a single federal legislator.

But you know, Christie went out of his  way to make sure he got his fair share of federal relief dollars for Hurricane Sandy. Just today he was promoting the distribution of $10K checks for non-construction costs from federal dollars. Of course, I'm sure that he sees it as only fair given net tax contributions to the federal government, but this is not the argument of a fiscal hawk.

Probably the wildest rumor I've read over the past week is Ruah Limbaugh suggesting Christie may flip parties and run as a Dem in 2016. It's not that far-fetched when you consider the last Republican posing for photo ops with Obama, Charlie Crist. Crist flipped parties last year and polls indicate that he could easily regain  the governor's mansion over Gov. Scott. But Crist pandered to the teacher unions in the 2010 Senate race, and Christie has burned that bridge.



A Step Forward: Education Reform in North Carolina

North Carolina has scrapped the tenure system for limited-term contracts with higher-ranked teachers renewed for up to 4 years. States like Florida, Colorado, and Louisiana have earlier passed reforms, but last fall voters in Idaho and South Dakota overturned tenure reform while charter schools got in a boost in Georgia and Washington state.

Bootleggers and Baptists

I enjoyed this one. You can think any number of examples: consider, for example, tougher occupational licensing, exempting current licensed professionals or crony bankers and consumer reformers.



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Steve Kelley and Townhall

Political Humor

Remy is back with a Weiner roast....



Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "I Am the Walrus"

Miscellany: 7/29/13 Happy Fifth Blogiversary!

Quote of the Day
The greatest pleasure in life is 
doing what people say you cannot do.
Walter Bagehot



Who Will Protect Us From Our Protectors?



After Bernanke

This blog predicted some time back that  Fed Vice Chair Yellen would be named to replace Bernanke. Over the past week, there has been a strange fixation with former Clinton/Obama economic adviser Larry Summers. But never fear: I soon saw a Hill piece about Dem Senators wanting to break the glass ceiling with Yellen; this is the easiest prediction I've made since I wrote Solicitor General Kagan would be nominated to SCOTUS. Does that mean I mean I support Yellen or Summers? Ask me if I prefer the devil or the deep blue sea; they are both easy money-printing maniacs ...

Grover Norquist on Immigration: Thumbs UP!

Immigration is a wonderful thing--Norquist largely reflects my point of view. He doesn't talk the Senate bill here, but you can hear towards the end when he is talking, like I've been mentioning, of fixing the disease, not the symptoms, of illegal entry--fix the broken working visa law. Whereas the Senate bill is a half measure I would reluctantly support, it tightly limits legal temp workers--sort of the economic equivalent of the US shooting itself in the foot. Why? Crony unionism. The unions see more workers not as growing the pie but as zero-sum, undermining compensation. The unions basically gave a face-saving, trivial quota to provide a facade of a compromise with Senate Republicans. Much ado has been made of the "conservative" anti-immigration populists, but in reality it was Sen. Obama whom, on behalf of the unions, sabotaged the 2007 immigration bill by kicking out the temp worker compromise. How ironic that immigrants would subsequently buy into Obama's "progressive" rhetoric.

I particularly loathe the populists whom are like the latest incarnation of the nativist Know-Nothings. They provide a facade they are concerned about the impact on social welfare net program costs. The correct response is to reform any programs, but I want to point out for the record we had strong immigration in the nineteenth century--well before the morally hazardous, corrupt domestic programs stemming from that blot on American history, the disastrous FDR Administration. I have pointed out my Franco-American roots; it was the Catholic Church, not the American government, whom assisted immigrants in need.

Here is an excerpt from a 1892 Gray Lady editorial, which could also be applied to Latinos or Asians:

It is said that there are more French-Canadians in New-England than there are in Canada....Mr. FRANCIS PARKMAN has ably pointed out their singular tenacity as a race and their extreme devotion to their religion, and their transplantation to the manufacturing centres and the rural districts in New-England means that Quebec is transferred bodily to Manchester and Fall River and Lowell. Not only does the French cure follow the French peasantry to their new homes, but he takes with him the parish church, the ample clerical residence, the convent for the sisters, and the parochial school for education of the children. He also perpetuates the French ideas and aspirations through the French language, and places all the obstacles possible in the way of the assimilation of these people to our American life and thought. There is something still more important in this transplantation. These people are in New-England as an organized body, whose motto is Notre religion, notre langue, et nos moeurs.... It is next to impossible to penetrate this mass of protected and secluded humanity with modern ideas or to induce them to interest themselves in democratic institutions and methods of government. They are almost as much out of reach as if they were living in a remote part of the Province of Quebec. No other people, except the Indians, are so persistent in repeating themselves. Where they halt they stay, and where they stay they multiply and cover the earth...There is apparently but one way in which this conquest can be arrested. That is to compel the use of the English language in all the schools of American citizen...when an immigration like that of the French Canadians in New-England takes possession of the centres of population and has the power to crowd out the less productive race in the struggle for the survival of the fittest, the free actions of American institutions is not strong enough to counteract these designs, and it is only by national legislation that the difficulty can be reached. 

Anti-Franco/Catholic KKK Courtesy of Worcester Museum Lecture

Know-Nothings in Bath [Maine] burned a church used by Roman Catholics on July 6, 1854. On October 14, 1854, Ellsworth Know-Nothings tarred and feathered Jesuit priest John Bapst and rode him out of town on a rail.

[D]uring the 1920′s worried that foreign culture, religion, and politics would contaminate Anglo-American society, some Maine people did not want the new immigrants in the state and joined a rejuvenated Ku Klux Klan...The new Klan was based on a debate over “Americanism”– what it meant to be an American and who deserved to be here. Thus, the Klan’s new agenda included hatred of foreigners.. Led by King Klegle F. Eugene Farnsworth of the Maine Realm, recruits targeted [mostly Franco-American] Catholics, Jews, and African Americans throughout the state. Claiming anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 members in 1924, Maine’s Ku Klux Klan presented itself as a respectable social club. The Klan’s leaders or “klegles” recruited ministers, politicians, doctors, and other members of the community who made the Klan seem reputable. Fanning fears that immigrants might gain control of the U.S. government, the Maine Klan organized as a political party. Their platform included the argument that Catholics could not be loyal to the United States because they owed allegiance to the Pope. Franco-Americans fought Klan members in street demonstrations in Greenville, Fairfield, and on the bridge between Biddeford and Saco in 1924.

With 150,000 members in 1920, Maine possessed the largest, most active Ku Klux Klan outside of the south. This group targeted the Franco-Americans rather than the African Americans, because they were Catholic, different than the people that were already in Maine. They were scared that the number of these people would become so large that they would take over Maine. Klan members would include 1 out of every 10 English-speaking Mainers. Businessmen, bankers, ministers, politicians, and newspaper editors were the main starters of this Klan. 

 This so-called "Second Klan" aimed its propaganda not only at African-Americans, but also at Catholics, Jews and "foreigners." In 1920s Maine, the African-American and Jewish populations were quite small, where they existed at all. There can be little doubt that the Klan's main focus in Maine was Catholic "foreigners," the vast majority of whom were the relative newcomers from Québec. The Second Klan was part of a wider Nativist movement representing a backlash against the wave of immigration, much of it from southern and eastern Europe, which was perceived as a threat to the Anglo-Saxon Protestant character of the United States.

From a decent Irish-American op-ed in the Gray Lady on the meaning of St. Patrick's Day:

St. Patrick’s Day isn’t really about Ireland. It’s about our ancestors leaving that country, often in bitter circumstances, and risking everything on a hazardous journey and being met with fierce hostility and scorn. It is about immigrants struggling, and mostly succeeding, in their new life, or making success possible for their children and grandchildren.The Catholic Gaelic Irish were the first cohort consistently labeled as “immigrants” in the modern, quasi-pejorative sense, and their experience established a stereotype, a template, applied ever since to whichever national or ethnic group happened to be the latest impoverished arrivals: French-Canadians, Chinese, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Hispanics. It’s embarrassing to listen to prosperous 21st-century Americans with Irish surnames lavish on Mexican or Central American immigrants the same slurs — “dark,” “dirty,” “violent,” “ignorant” — once slapped on our own, possibly shoeless, forebears. The Irish were seen as unclean, immoral and dangerously in thrall to a bizarre religion. They were said to be peculiarly prone to violence. 

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Bob Gorrell and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "Hello Goodbye"

Miscellany: 7/28/13

Quote of the Day
The reason why we have two ears and only one mouth
 is that we may listen the more and talk the less.
Zeno of Citium

Finishing Up 5 Years of the Blog

Tomorrow is my fifth blogiversary--over 1700 posts running. Periodically I have written about reorganizing older material; a lot of it is untagged, of different format, contains no longer accessible embedded objects, includes occasional non-political content, and/or has drawn limited, if any reader interest over the past 2 to 3 years. The reorganization will be phased in as time permits over the coming months.

The Neo-Cons Continue Their Assault on Rand Paul, Justin Amash et al.

Yes, the neo-cons know their priorities; while the Obama Administration makes disproportionate cuts to defense spending, ensures that openly gay recruits are able to fight for the right of gay pride parades and gay bars anywhere in America, and female combat soldiers have better-fitting unisex military attire. the neo-cons see the real danger is a very small number of libertarian-conservatives in Congress. Fellow Michigan Congressman Rogers calls Amash's attempt to llimit NSA surveillance to specific suspects instead of an unconstitutional general warrant "dangerous". Long Island Congressman King characterized Rand Paul's positions on individual liberty and scaled-back interventionist foreign policy as "madness", out to sabotage the GOP's hard-won credibility on national security, a potential McGovern in the making. King also managed to work in criticism of Congressman Amash. For that nonsense, King has entered the competition to my initial Bad Elephant of the Year Award.

First, as for Congressman Rogers: arguing that a generalized warrant has occasionally worked to prevent terrorist attacks is not unlike the British during the Revolutionary War justifying arbitrary searches and occupations of colonial homes by suggesting it worked in frustrating the objectives of British tax evaders. You cannot convince me that access to all metadata is any more effective than the TSA feeling up Grandma or small children. There are costs associated with any government benefit. Moreover we have the rule of law. It  doesn't make any sense to argue a different set of standards on specific warrants for other crimes.

For King, frittering away more lives (not to mention the permanently injured) in either Iraq or Afghanistan than the number of deaths on 9/11, not to mention over a trillion dollars added to our national debt, does not make this country stronger or more secure. A "real" conservative realizes that government waste and mismanagement occurs across government, including the Defense Department. Many countries are freeloading off the US for their security, which constitutes moral hazard. Moreover, Rand Paul's less interventionist positions are consistent  with the Old Right in the twentieth century, including Senator Taft. How is entangling America in the internal affairs of dubiously significant small countries in the Middle East/Gulf region helping us, diverting our attention from more salient global threats, not itself a betrayal of a strong national defense?

NSA, Web Firms and Passwords

As a techie, I've followed this story for days. As a DBA, I've had to deal with production issues involving user accounts in their absence. This is different because these accounts are authorized only by the business and there is no expectation of privacy. There were ways of resetting the password back to the original  password without actually knowing it; otherwise, if  the employee showed up, he or she wouldn't be able to get back into his or her account. However, imagine if a stooge of the Obama Administration got access to my blog administration account and replaced my commentaries with copy-and-paste of garbage from the Daily Kos or Media Matters...

We have this sample extract from CNET:

The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users' stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with these orders, which represent an escalation in surveillance techniques that has not previously been disclosed.

Some of the government orders demand not only a user's password but also the encryption algorithm and the so-called salt, according to a person familiar with the requests. A salt is a random string of letters or numbers used to make it more difficult to reverse the encryption process and determine the original password. Other orders demand the secret question codes e often associated with user accounts.

There's an interesting summary of some of the legal battles, but it is clear where I stand: the government has no general right to access your data, on your hard or removable drive or cloud drive any more than it has a general right to search your home at will. There is also a question of whether things one has written could be the equivalent of self-incrimination.

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Michael Ramirez and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "All You Need is Love"

Miscellany: 7/27/13

Quote of the Day
How far you go in life depends on 
you being tender with the young, 
compassionate with the aged,
sympathetic with the striving and 
tolerant of the weak and the strong. 
Because someday in life 
you will have been all of these.
George Washington Carver

B37, B29, and the Zimmerman Verdict

No, I'm nor discussing a game of Bingo. These were symbolic designations assigned to Zimmerman trial jurors to protect their real identities. I was thinking of writing a one-off post on this topic, but I have 2 other one-offs in progress, and I wanted to address the issue earlier than later.

It is not my intent to write about the Zimmerman trial. But to a certain extent, anyone who has ever been the target of an unprovoked physical assault may understand, although not necessarily agree with the nature of ,his response. When I was in high school, I was bullied by a bigger, taller fellow USAF brat Mike. (Don't ask me to explain how bullies pick their victims; I was one of the glasses-wearing geeks, which probably made me a natural target.) It was like his punching me on the head was on his daily to-do list. I don't think I ever told my folks. He usually did it after the school day. I would sometimes jump off at an earlier bus stop, but he would always manage to chase me down and deliver his blow.

Then one day I was waiting outside of school  for the school bus, and I never saw Mike coming. He punched me on the side of the head near my ear, and it made me angry as hell; I lost whatever fear or intimidation of him I had and connected with a solid blow to his face. Mike was totally stunned as he wiped the blood trickling down from his nose on his fingers, looking at it. His younger minions urged him to let me have it, but it was clear that circumstances had changed: I was no longer afraid of him, and it was no longer sadistic fun for him. And the bullying stopped.

What does this have to do with Zimmerman? I don't know what I would have done in Zimmerman's place; he says there was a struggle for his weapon. I would like to think that I would have given Martin a warning without shooting to get off me and leave. But if I thought that there was a chance that he could disarm me and use the weapon against me, I would have done whatever it took to defend myself. We are not talking about having an hour to deliberate one's actions; it's likely a split second. I also am not sure that he had time to aim and shoot; one of the key points I stressed in past commentaries is that he shot once--not multiple times to ensure he killed him. I'm sure that he realized that shooting the weapon would wound Martin, but he seemed actually surprised that Martin had died.

There were a lot of the things about the trial that as a non-lawyer has me shaking my head in bewilderment. I have read that the judge would not allow the jury to hear that Martin had had a pattern of getting into fights. I understand the point about wanting to judge this incident on its own merits--but here's the point:  IT WASN'T MARTIN ON TRIAL; IT WAS ZIMMERMAN. If we were discussing the prosecution of Martin on the charge of criminal assault and battery, it would be a different matter, But keep in mind that the prosecution was ludicrously attempting to argue that Martin was the one calling for help and was getting beaten up by the shorter, pudgier man. The fact that Martin had a history of getting in fights and Zimmerman didn't was something that the defense should have been allowed to present.

I don't know if the jurors have subsequently learned of evidence the judge did not allow to be presented, and I have to be frank here that I have not listened to the full interviews. But my patience snapped when I saw a CNN alert float by my inbox, nearly 2 weeks after the verdict saying that B29 believed that Zimmerman got away with murder. I realized that jury members are aware that there is a lynch mob mentality on the Zimmerman case, and jury members may want to distance themselves from Zimmerman and bow before the god of political correctness, but I personally think by grabbing their 15 minutes of fame, these jury members have dishonored our judicial system. They are certainly entitled to their personal opinions, but saying stuff of the nature that they knew Zimmerman was guilty but they couldn't prove it is like pouring gasoline on a fire

There have been chasms of misinformation around, like that Zimmerman was told to cease or desist or stand down the pursuit of Martin: in fact, he was told  "you don't need to do that sir" in the same way that an accountant might tell me I don't need meal receipts to claim per diem or for petty cash transactions. It's not like the accountant ordered me not to submit. A common sense interpretation of what the dispatcher said is: "Zimmerman, you've done your due diligence; the ball is now in our court." I can only speculate that since Martin was in the process of moving to an unknown destination, Zimmerman was trying to track him for the police.

I knew when 4 jurors had distanced themselves from B37's earlier interview, that one juror did not join them (the news report I read didn't identify the jurors by id), and at least one Democratic website identified the missing juror as B29. We also knew on the first jury ballot, one of the jurors had voted for the second-degree murder charge. I give the two jurors props for standing by their verdicts, but those weren't the headlines coming out of the interviews; I'm sure they knew the verdict wasn't popular

The big point is that this should never have gone to trial; there never was credible evidence Zimmerman shot Martin for any reason beyond self-defense.  DOJ inappropriately got involved behind the scene (i.e., rallies), the local authorities declined to prosecute because of insufficient evidence. The governor got involved. This was a corruption of our justice system; it was manipulated for political purposes.

I've made it clear that I am not a fan of Zimmerman. A young man is dead. Zimmerman exercised bad judgment, as did Trayvon Martin. It's senseless tragedy. I understand why people want to hold someone, anyone responsible. I read the other day a 13-year-old boy was practicing pro wrestling moves on his 5-year-old half-sister and killed her. He's been charged with second-degree murder. I don't think he intended to kill his little sister; I always wanted children of my own, and I can only imagine the anguish of a father whom finds himself losing up to 2 children from the same incident.

A sad postscript to the Zimmerman saga: Zimmerman recently helped rescue a family of 4 from an overturned SUV, but the family recently backed out of a news conference for fears of getting targeted by the anti-Zimmerman zealots.  Note that there were multiple independent witnesses of the incident, but the zealots are claiming the rescue was staged to rehabilitate Zimmerman's image. How pathetic are these zealots?

Kevin Williamson, "Bring on the Draconian Cuts", Thumbs UP

This post isn't very long or detailed, but it discusses a classic example of the dysfunction in Washington DC. To be fair, the House can't do big things with the Senate and White House controlled by big-spending populist demagogues. They end up with minuscule cuts in domestic programs, in this case nibbling at the Department of Energy expenditures and regulation--and no doubt draw histrionic responses from Senate Majority Leader Reid or Obama, with vows of vetoes. The way I feel is as long as these political hacks are going to bitch, make it worthwhile--like eliminate the Dept. of Energy. Williamson does a good job identifying my point of view:

The people who receive grants and other financial benefits under those programs will howl, and — more important — those who earn their living staffing those programs will fight to the death to avoid the hunt for productive employment in the real economy. That is why spending reductions on those kinds of programs are never really enough: You have to eliminate the program entirely. 

Obligatory reminder: None of this matters very much [relative to the $3.7T federal budget] without entitlement reform and controls on defense spending...The best course of action would be to turn the department’s defense functions over to Defense and its research functions over to the National Science Foundation and to zero out most of the rest. That’s what real fiscal reform would look like.

D'accord.

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Henry Payne and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "Strawberry Fields Forever"

Miscellany: 7/26/13

Quote of the Day
A daily routine built on 
good habits and disciplines 
separates the most successful among us from everyone else. 
The routine is exceptionally powerful.
Darren Hardy

Sunday Talk Soup

When earlier this week I reviewed Face the Nation, I mentioned that I hadn't seen the Meet the Press podcast yet. I have to be honest and say it was so spectacularly bad, probably the worst I've seen in years, I may need to parse the content in one or more one-off posts. So all I'll do is jot down some quick points.

First, it was strictly ideologically "progressive" and partisan except for the token appearance of Michael Steele, former GOP Maryland lieutenant governor, RNC chair, and apparently an MSNBC contributor.

Second, David Gregory pushed on the same federal bailout of Detroit, reprising 1975's urban legend of President Ford telling a near-bankrupt NYC to "drop dead". There was also mention of Obama's speech last year when Obama vowed that he refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. Gregory said that referred to GM and Chrysler. Say WHAT? In fact, they DID go bankrupt. Some "progressive" apologists claim that Obama was trying to distinguish his approach from an infamous Romney editorial in late 2008, claiming that it wasn't possible at the time (now isn't that special?). Yeah, right....

Third, I am getting tired of hearing trite charges of partisan obstructionism. Obama had super majorities in the 111st Congress.  The charge against the GOP is a red herring; Obama doesn't want, doesn't know how to compromise. Obama and the Congressional Dem leadership played hardball, passing a corrupt healthcare law without a single GOP vote. Obama got a referendum by losing the most House seats since FDR's second mid-term, following a recession. Payback is a bitch, isn't it?

It didn't help that all the black panelists were economic illiterates. For all the complaints about the GOP "obstructing" Obama's "job program", Obama's "program" is simply more of the same ineffectual spending, much of it funding of state and local government and other special-interest spending, with money we don't have. Obama has already more than doubled the public debt (the rest of the national debt is held as entitlement reserves). The problems we are seeing are entirely due to Obama's anti-economic growth policies--unprecedented regulations, federal debt competition with private-sector investment, etc. Government gets in the way of hiring by putting ever-increasing conditions and costs on employer hiring. And he did that in the face of the worst economic conditions since the Carter recession. What he should have done is freeze (if not streamline) regulations, stop playing winners and losers in the economy (the economy is bigger than the public sector, infrastructure construction, and green energy), and provide businesses with a more stable, certain environment. Instead, he's playing games of chicken over tax policy and debt ceiling issues, some of the most irresponsible "leadership" I've ever seen, in or out of government.

Fourth, I thought the whole discussion of Trayvon Martin was pathetic. Not one person, including David Gregory, discussed the fact that Martin attacked and beat an armed man; moreover, when Zimmerman was on the ground, the weapon was within Martin's reach. There was at least one lawyer on the panel, and there was the spurious allegation concerning "stand your ground", totally obnoxious talking points about what if Martin had a gun. The gun was discharged when Martin had Zimmerman on the ground; there were tests that showed the shot was at close range, there were grass stains on the front of Martin's pants, there was no evidence (beyond the single gunshot) that Zimmerman hurt Martin, but some evidence Martin's knuckles showed wear, and one reluctant witness reported Martin on top of Zimmerman raining punches down on him. Without "stand your ground", there may be a duty to retreat/flee. But in this case, Zimmerman was pinned to the ground; he couldn't retreat and Martin had already broken his nose. But going back to Zimmerman following Martin, Martin could not have fired his weapon lawfully unless Zimmerman was engaging in hostility, which is more than not liking Zimmerman following him. Similarly, Zimmerman did not have authority to use his gun except in self-defense.

Finally, there were some shallow analyses of urban black problems, and once again we hear excuses: the only solution is to use government--force--to engage in morally hazardous federal handouts, preferential policies, etc. There was the ludicrous assertion, detached from reality, that the recent SCOTUS decision setting aside certain states had to go through prior DOJ approval for voting changes had "gutted" the Voting Rights Act. No, this is a matter of equal protection and the tenth amendment. "Pre-clearance" is a bureaucratic, not substantive issue. States that received scrutiny nearly 50 years ago which no longer have the same processes and records no longer warrant extraordinary oversight. DOJ still has the right to challenge any state's voting laws violating the Voting Rights Act.

A Matter of Religious Liberty

The Catholic Church owns a 1925 church in Springfield, MA; it wants to exercise control of its property (e.g., demolish/rebuild). The city council likes the appearance of the building's Italian Renaissance architecture and stained glass windows and moved to preempt demolition by naming it a "historic site". The Church sued in federal  district court on religious liberty grounds and lost; the Court of Appeals has sustained that judgment.  This is a clear violation of property rights, and I hope the Church appeals to SCOTUS.

Rand Paul  vs. Chris Christie

Familiar readers know this puts me on the spot between my favorite governor and my favorite senator. I knew something was up when I saw multiple posts by Rand Paul on Facebook referencing the kerfuffle. I have become more disenchanted with Christie lately, in particular over the larded-up Sandy relief legislation. Christie recently made comments critical of Justin Amash's NSA reform amendment and/or Rand Paul's less interventionist foreign policy.

The result? Let's just say I "un-liked" Gov. Christie on Facebook and added Rand Paul and Justin Amash to my Twitter feeds. I, of course, support the governor's reelection, but the only way he gets my vote in 2016 is if he wins the nomination without my support.

Political Cartoon

For the benefit of the unknowing reader, these are names of victims of the Fast and Furious and Benghazi scandals.

Courtesy of Glenn Foden and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "Good Day Sunshine"

Miscellany: 7/25/13

Quote of the Day
The manner in which it is given is worth more than the gift.
Pierre Corneille

My Choice: Most Ridiculous Lawsuit: July 2013
Prisoner Sues for $1T over Prison Food

A 61-year-old Arizona prisoner, convicted 15 years ago of aggravated assault, is suing over meals allegedly giving him cramps and causing him to lose sleep. He has also filed some 379 other suits, a related one being for $10T over getting meals late two days in a row, resulting in an eating disorder.

Might I suggest a 15% discount off his next prison meal and "Lunches Designed By Michelle Obama" (I bet that he prefers lunches that taste good vs. lunches of good taste); Paul Krugman might know where he can get a hold on one of those $1T coins.

Detroit Bankruptcy Judge Lays the Smackdown on Crony State Judges: Thumbs UP!

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes yesterday noted that bankruptcy proceedings for cities are in the federal justice system, including the eligibility of Detroit to declare bankruptcy; all creditors, including public sector retirees, will have their opportunity to bring their claims before the bankruptcy court. It does not make sense to have multiple courts deciding the same claims. (There are a number of misleading or poorly written accounts on specifics. One account suggested that the $9B in unsecured debt to union retires is in the form of unfunded liabilities, i.e., cumulative underinvestment relative to secure ongoing pension and/or healthcare program for current and future retirees.)

Obama: STOP THE CHEAP DEMAGOGUERY!

Granted, Obama audiences and fans are not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer, and he sold the same snake oil for 2 Presidential elections. No thinking, sane person could have voted for this incompetent in good faith given the indisputable record of  failures of  "progressive policies".

I just heard another clip of this piece of work talking about pay increases of CEO's, and I've reached the limit of my patience with his Politics of Envy cow patties. I think he must have permanent brain damage from hitting his head on the wall so many times on this and related issues; he never learns from his mistakes. No doubt if someone made a talking Barack Obama doll (you first need batteries for the teleprompter accessories), it would say :"Budget math is tough". Listen, I'm not one of those "overpaid" CEO's, but let's face it: as Babe Ruth might say, they've had better years than Obama. No CEO could ever run up a $6T debt; as a taxpayer, would I pay someone from the private sector $50M a year to get this country's financial affairs in order? I don't have that kind of money, but I bet a majority of taxpayers would side with me in a heartbeat. Obama wins yet another nomination for JOTY for his divisive polemics.

I am so sick and tired of "progressives" of pulling this garbage. If Obama was intelligent, he would know that "progressive" policies do little more than sink the car ever deeper into the muck. The discussion of CEO salaries is just a distraction from how Obama has blundered his way into imitating FDR's ineffectual activist domestic policies.  You have employers cutting  hours or holding off hiring to avoid getting hit with huge ObamaCare-related costs. The government sucks up dollars directly or indirectly (compliance or mandated costs) that would otherwise be saved, invested or spent in the real economy versus sustaining a parasitic bureaucracy.

Now let me say as a stockholder, I'm not impressed with the performance of a lot of CEO's, and if I sat on the board of directors I would be more of a miser about executive compensation unless a company was increasing global market share and reaping commensurate profits (which is why I'll probably never be asked to serve on a board). But when you consider bone-headed CEO's, like in the auto and banking industries, can cost stockholders billions, not to mention thousands of well-paying jobs, I would rather overpay a great executive versus settle for whom I could get cheaply: you sometimes get what you pay for.

Obama needs to stop obsessing how big the slices of the pie are; all he's doing is ending up with shrinking pies. He needs to focus is growing the pie (so ALL the slices get bigger), and the way you do that is to get all the politicians out of the kitchen and let the chefs do their own thing.

Are We Rome?

I've been waiting for the right moment to promote one of the best essays I've read comparing Rome and the US: Lawrence Reed's "Are We Rome?" Most people are no doubt are familiar with the rise and fall of Roman imperialism (particularly starting with the lifetime of Jesus Christ) but less so with Rome's political and economic history. Reed's obvious comparisons (even accommodating monetary policy) are chilling, and the story about the man whom captured the wild hogs Reed uses to close the essay is compelling: "I can pen any animal on the face of the earth if I can corrupt them enough to depend on me for a free handout!”,  nor unlike how a drug  dealer gets a user hooked with free samples or how "progressives" bait the hook with government freebies (or underfunded benefits people delude themselves into believing are "earned" or "paid for"), like food stamps, retirement entitlements, and government-sponsored healthcare. In the second highlighted quote below, how many don't see the obvious implied reference to Martin Niemöller's "first they came"?

In the waning years of the Roman republic, a rogue named Clodius ran for the office of tribune. He bribed the electorate with promises of free grain at taxpayer expense and won. Thereafter, Romans in growing numbers embraced the notion that voting for a living could be more lucrative than working for one. 

 Emperor Nero is said by Roman historian Gaius Suetonius in De Vitae Caesarum to have once rubbed his hands together and declared, “Let us tax and tax again! Let us see to it that no one owns anything!” Taxation ultimately destroyed the wealthy first, followed by the middle and lower classes. “

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Nate Beeler and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "Drive My Car"

Miscellany: 7/24/13

Quote of the Day
God gives every bird its food,
but he does not throw it into the nest.
Josiah G. Holland

Image of the Day

Former POTUS 89-year-old G.H.W.  Bush holding 2-year-old leukemia patient Patrick
Bush's first daughter Pauline ("Robin") died of leukemia at age 3
POTUS shaved his head in support of Patrick, son of one of his Secret Service officers

He's Got a Name, He's Got a Name

I'm not saying the former colonies are obsessed with the royal family, but Prince George already has a Maryland county named after him.... I pass through its Metro stop every time I go to DC.... (Yes, I'm mocking the absurd amount of coverage to the royal baby. There have been relevant alerts from serious news organizations flowing into my inbox, reports that the Obamas have sent their good wishes, and don't get me started on Hollywood celebrities. Yes, the same people who oppose restrictions on pain-culpable abortions past the 20th week of pregnancy seem to think fawning acknowledgment of the baby prince proves their "love" for children.)




Amash Amendment to Restrict NSA Surveillance Fails 205-227: Thumbs DOWN!

Familiar readers know Justin Amash (R-MI), a fellow libertarian-conservative, is my favorite Congressman. He was attempting to limit record-keeping to identified suspects, not ordinary citizens. Ironically, most Democrats voted for the amendment despite heavy pressure from the Administration to kill it.

Facebook Post of the Day: Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT):

"There are three great crises in our economy today, each a crisis of fairness and equality - each caused in large part by the very policies President Obama supports.

First, there is the crisis of upward mobility. In America today, people born in poverty are often trapped there. It's not the free market that forces poor kids into underperforming schools, punishes single parents for getting married, and penalizes people for hard work - it's big government.

Second, there is the crisis of cronyism. If the economy seems rigged these days, that's because it is. Big government, big business, and big special interests manipulate the rules to profit at everyone else's expense.

Companies succeed not by serving customers, but politicians and bureaucrats. In Barack Obama's economy, Wall Street gets a bailout, Solyndra-gets a hand out, liberal interests get a carve-out, and everyone else gets left out.

And finally, there is the crisis of the middle class: stagnant wages, inequality, insecurity, and the exploding costs of housing, health care, and education. Contrary to the president's rhetoric, all of the above are directly tied to federal policy.

Wages rise when small businesses grow. But small businesses can't grow when crony capitalism protects large corporations from smaller competitors. And it's not a coincidence that the industries that have seen the worst inflation - housing, health care, and education - are the very industries controlled by government!

It is liberal big government - Barack Obama's government - that today ensnares the poor, privileges the rich, and squeezes the middle class.

It is time for us as Republicans to finally make a pivot of our own. It's time to become once again the Party of Lincoln and Reagan, the party of opportunity, and of ideas."

We need  to understand that regulation is a vicious circle vortex, which sucks up resources needed to drive the real economy, not the expansion of parasitic Leviathan. We need a cultural change in Washington, Presidential historians, etc. that realizes that we should not see the rush to new legislation with ill-considered opportunity costs (Bastiat's infamous things unseen) or unintended consequences, like thousand-page bills nobody reads before voting on them, as a  good thing: the "we can't afford to do nothing" madness of a Barack Obama. We need accountability of public employees, transparency of the legislative process, streamlining of government, simplification of taxes, full implementation or restoration of individual rights, free market and free trade policies, the end to morally hazardous government dependency programs, and the reining in of activist monetary, fiscal, foreign and regulatory policy.

Efficiency Doesn't Mean Writing Dubious Tickets to Meet Quota: People Following the Law is a Good Thing



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Bob Gorrell and Townhall

Fear-Mongering Hits New Low in NJ Senate Race

Congressman Holt is running for the Democratic nomination in the special election to replace the late Frank Lautenberg. He is running an apolcalyptic ad warning millions will die if he can't soak utility customers through a special interest carbon tax. (I'm rephrasing him, of course.) For his pathetic Gore-like alarmism, he now joins a crowded JOTY list. Fortunately, NJ voters have better alternatives to the likes of all hat, no cattle Mayor Booker or Holt: Dr. Eck or former Mayor Lonegan.




Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux 

 The Beatles, "Taxman"

 

Miscellany: 7/23/13

Quote of the Day
Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another 
as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances.
Thomas Jefferson

Sunday Talk Soup

This time I'm going to pick on Bob Schieffer of Face the Nation. (I haven't listened to David Gregory on MTP; veggies are sometimes the last thing I eat off my plate. Maybe there will be a follow-up rant this week.)  The first part of the rant involves Schieffer wanting to make some trouble for guest Michigan GOP Gov. Snyder by drilling him over a federal bailout of Detroit, making a reference to Detroit Mayor Bing raising the prospect on an earlier talk soup program. Snyder went on to discuss local/state responsibilities, when Schieffer persisted, channeling his inner teenage smart ass: but what about the federal bailouts of GM and Chrysler?

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this: Mayor David Bing said this morning on ABC, I think, that no decision has yet been made on asking for a federal bailout. Do you think there is a federal bailout in Detroit's future?

SNYDER: No, and I don't expect one. I've said before the state cannot bail out the city of Detroit. And part of the context I would say that to you in is it's not about just putting more money in a situation; it's about better services to citizens. Again, it's about accountable government. And so what we're doing at the state level -- and I would ask the federal government the same thing -- is let's use -- let's come up with targeted programs where we can see there's real value to citizens for improvement. I'll give you one tangible illustration we are partnering with the city government, the state, and the federal government on is about taking down blighted structures. We were able to obtain $100 million that, hopefully within the next 30 days, we'll start deploying those dollars toward taking some of those 78,000 abandoned structures down. They have been going on for years.

SCHIEFFER: But, you know, the federal government bailed out General Motors. It bailed out Chrysler. That worked out pretty well. Are you saying that that is just simply not on the table as far as you're concerned?

SNYDER: If the federal government wants to do that, that's their option. That's always their alternative. The way I view it is, I want to partner with all levels of government and stay focused on services to citizens.

Apparently Gov. Snyder doesn't look a gift horse in the mouth; Governor, that cop-out response is not the principled response I was hoping for and earns you a nomination for my Bad Elephant of the Year award. Until then Snyder had done well, putting a positive, constructive spin on government services, similar to former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, whom I much admire. (Remember how he focused on wait times at DMV? Clearly a one-hour wait time for police via 9/11 is unacceptable...)

It's not Snyder's responsibility to teach the economically illiterate mainstream media basic business and economics. But there's a world of difference between the private sector providing goods and services and the public sector, which is basically a drain on the private sector, has extremely high personnel costs, is a monopoly protected from competition, and has vested interests (e.g., public union collective bargaining agreements) impeding managerial cost-cutting: consider for instance seniority-protective layoff policies, which do not assure the most productive workers are retained.

When Schieffer manages to slip in some propaganda point about how the bailouts and crony bankruptcies "worked out pretty well", he lost contact with reality. What happened there was a violation of the rule of law, pure and simple; when the Congress passed TARP, the idea was to target toxic assets, like underwater mortgages to unqualified buyers, with little skin in the game in terms of a conventional 20% down payment.  By making money available to high-risk buyers and threatening banks which didn't grant enough politically correct loans, the Dems and GSE's fed the unsustainable housing bubble. (The GOP did its own part by giving tax breaks used by mostly higher middle-class home buyers and providing an incentive for intermediate-interval house flipping, and Bush himself was promoting an all-time high in home ownership.) The TARP funds became sort of a convoluted political slush fund that benefited the politically well-connected, including the GSE's (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), AIG and the auto companies.

Poor Schieffer! He's analytically challenged; he seems to confound the difference between bailouts and bankruptcy. The Democrats didn't want GM and Chrysler to go into bankruptcy where union contracts could come under scrutiny. They wanted US taxpayers to be on the hook for huge loans to companies that were sickly even before the Great Recession started and had failing business models; with nearly 8 million people losing jobs, millions more worried about losing theirs and reluctant to take on major purchases like new cars, this was like throwing good money after bad, just to defer the day of reckoning. Their rationale was that nobody would ever buy a car from a bankrupt company... They did, in the end of course, go through a bankruptcy. "Worked out well?" In what sense, Schieffer? The last I saw, the US taxpayer is still in the red on GM stock. If GM and Chrysler had filed earlier, they could still be recovering in improved auto sales FOUR YEARS into the Obama "recovery"; there are still over 100 million workers out there, many of whom will have to buy a new car sooner or later, so it was inevitable there would be a relief rally in auto sales from pent-up demand. There's nothing magic about a GM or Chrysler signature plate; there were still profitable domestic-produced auto operations (Ford or subsidiaries of Toyota, etc.) with plenty of capacity, and that's even in a worst-case scenario of GM and Chrysler liquidation. Besides the Obama Administration corruptly hijacking the bankruptcy proceedings on behalf of its union cronies, there was nothing done that couldn't have been done directly by the private sector sooner rather than later, without putting the taxpayer on the hook.

The point is that companies go out of business all the time; there's a moral hazard and a violation of the rule of law in picking and choose what entity to bail out. If the federal government bails out a big city, it's giving irresponsible city leadership a blank check to run up debts guaranteed not by local governments but US taxpayers whom have no stake in management and control. It's also only a short-term fix. It still has a high, unsustainable cost structure in place; the only way you are going to be able to attack the disease versus the symptoms is by going to bankruptcy and address things like work rules which make cost management all but impossible.

Let me now shift to what I consider disingenuous discussions on immigration and healthcare. It seemed to me that the House GOP was hinting at a path for citizenship for minor aliens whom were not responsible for the decision to immigrate through unauthorized channels, the GOP version of a Dream Act. I don't see a scenario where the GOP would cause families to split by deporting parents; I would have to believe they are willing to confer legal status at minimum on parents (assuming a clean criminal record check). This, if true, is a huge step forward. The Democrats should embrace the deal if offered. There was ZERO discussion of this on their panel: the conventional analytically-challenged discussion was political, i.e., the GOP must embrace the Latino vote because of a ticking demographic time bomb, and the Dems hold the Senate and White House, and Obama will veto any half-measure. This is a pathetic argument; first of all, the only demographics that matter to politicians is their next election; second, the House can and will veto the bill Obama wants. The real question is whether Obama wants to explain to Latinos why he vetoed the first immigration bill in decades; there are enough Republicans whom oppose any deal, they would be quite happy to see Obama kill it--and point their fingers at the Dems. Reid can bluff all he wants is the passed Senate bill or nothing, but the Senate bill will not pass the House. Fact of life; deal with it. I think the GOP has the Dems boxed in, especially if the House passes a Dream Act; after all, didn't the Dems themselves propose a Dream Act. The FTN round table had no real ideological diversity.

Healthcare--how many times are left-wing partisan hacks going to continue to recycle their misleading discussion on House votes on ObamaCare? Indisputable fact: the vote on the whole bill has been only once per session--there's no need to vote a repeal more than once. Fact of life; deal with it. Why a vote on a full repeal knowing Reid will bury it and in any event Obama can veto and have it sustained in either chamber? Simply put: House members committed to a repeal vote, and they can put Dem legislators on the record for the next election. The other votes are more specific in nature.

Once again, Schieffer's panel was incompetent on this issue. When Obama announced a one-year delay in delaying the employer mandate, his action is clearly illegal and unconstitutional; the bill/law did not give him an option to defer the mandate. Now I would like to permanently repeal both mandates (employer and individual). But the GOP is more than willing to give Obama authorization to delay hopefully both mandates. (And if Obama thinks he's got a problem with businesses, imagine when unemployed people whom can't afford health insurance find themselves being extorted by the government, say, for a $2K tax penalty they don't have...) Listen, these fools are playing games with the same old same old talking points: e.g., happily pointing out parents can continue to hold their unemployed college graduate kids on their policies. Really, what kind of economic illiterates are these people? If coverage of adult kids is without cost, there would be no need for regulation; the free market vendors would offer it on their own initiative. If there are costs (unless the kids never use benefits, there will be costs), these costs get ultimately charged back against policies--whether indirectly through the employer side of compensation and/or higher premiums for the policyholder. Now maybe as a single person, I'm being forced to pay towards the healthcare costs of your freeloading kids.... But still, I expected more than "progressive" groupthink and shallow analysis out of this group.

Finally, there was gushing, "thrill up my trousers" praise for Obama's "personal experience" comments on the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman item. What did this have to do with a kid beating the hell out of Zimmerman without provocation? That's criminal assault and battery. You don't have a right to attack people for following you, unsettling as it may be--ask any celebrity whom wishes he or she could. I have not read Obama's autobiographies, but I'm sure he must have discussed his experience about being a person of color. I know that he threw his white grandmother under the bus. But really, what does hearing locks click or women clutching their purses in elevators have to do with a murder trial? This is all about victimization; we need to know that Obama ,who somehow got into and graduated  from 2 Ivy League schools, was elected editor to the Harvard Law Review, US senator and President, and owns a mansion in Chicago,  identifies with the people in the hood. What did he say that I haven't already heard hundreds of times before from other people of color? That we "white people" don't know what it's like to have other people avoid eye contact, move away from us in an elevator, etc.? How does he know? I've experienced this many times on my own; the difference is I don't take it personally--and he is paranoid enough to believe it has to do with his skin color.

Let me quote from HuffPost contributor Janet Tavakoli:

On Friday, President Obama gave an off-the-cuff speech at the White House, and he raised other issues:

"There are very few African-Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often."

President Obama merely mentioned "a woman," and he didn't mention any particular race. He was talking about his own experience, but I guarantee you, men of every race have had that experience.

C'est vrai.

My Third Nominee for Bad Judge of the Year: Timothy Black

The Obama-nominated federal district judge has essentially ruled Oho's traditional marriage definition "unconstitutional", in essence trying to exploit Justice Kennedy's inconsistency between backing federalism on the DOMA decision but sustaining a California district judge decision overturning the Prop 8/traditional marriage initiative on a technicality of standing (the Governator and then AG Jerry Brown unethically refused to defend laws they personally disagree with). The Obama Administration has set the lawless standard by picking and choosing which laws they'll enforce (e.g.,  the Black Panthers voter intimidation case, INS, etc.)

Ohio in 2004 passed a traditional marriage initiative:

86.6%   15.11 - Marriage Amendment

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
(Adopted Nov. 2, 2004; Proposed by Initiative Petition) Marriage Amendment

In this case, you have a brief sham "wedding" between two gay men on the premises of BWI  (in MD, which narrowly confirmed a gay "marriage" proposition)  by one of the grooms' aunts whom was ordained over the Internet. The is exactly the kind of game playing that was the chief motivation behind DOMA and the California marriage propositions.

Black is a disingenuous judicial hack whom tries to argue a slippery slope. For example, suppose for the sake of argument that Ohio has a minimum age of 17 for marriage, it's 18 in Pennsylvania; if Ohio and Pennsylvania have a marriage reciprocity agreement, in Black's Alice in Wonderland view, a gay "marriage" from Maryland (never mind the participants above weren't Maryland residents but Ohio residents) is no different than a 17-year-old spouse in Ohio moving to Pennsylvania and having his/her marriage recognized; any variance implies all variances. By this reasoning, if Utah decided to recognize plural marriage, it would dictate plural marriages in any state with which it has a reciprocity agreement. Just like the gay Ohio couple, the polygamous couples could fly to Utah and have quickie weddings on the runway, head back home, and file a federal suit.

I think ultimately this argument fails on appeal; SCOTUS dodged this issue, but they pointedly did not find a constitutional right to marry. I don't see Kennedy explaining away his federalism argument; why argue the Tenth Amendment unless states had a right to maintain traditional marriage laws? The only question is whether they will decide the question directly or by technicality (e.g., incidentals of the quickie "wedding" in Maryland). I have mentioned in past posts a free market among states; some states could market themselves as gay-friendly and use policies as ways to attract gays. I  could see a justice asking the gay couple why they just didn't move to Maryland, which is certainly their constitutional right.

How the Government Feeds Crony Farmers



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Steve Breen and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux

The Beatles, "Got To Get You Into My Life". This was an odd Top 10 hit for the Beatles, released as part of a compilation album several years after the group broke up, a decade after its original release. I loved the brass flourishes here and on "Penny Lane" (which I recently covered). I was disappointed to read Sir Paul called the tune a subtle ode to marijuana. No, thanks: I still prefer to think of it as a love song.....

Miscellany: 7/22/13

Quote of the Day
Action springs not from thought, 
but from a readiness for responsibility.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The Future King of Britain Is Born

Let's hope all parents treat their children, born and preborn, equally worthy. Not blessed with a child of my own, I first became aware of this traditional Welsh lullaby in a recent Hallmaek movie.



Thomas Sowell Quotation of the Day

"It is fascinating to watch politicians come up with “solutions” to problems that are a direct result of their previous solutions. In many cases, the most efficient thing to do would be to repeal their previous solution and stop being so gung-ho for creating new solutions in the future. But, politically, that is the last thing they will do.” HT Lawrence Reed

Bank regulation? Public education? Healthcare and entitlements? Prohibitions? A massive public debt? A jobless, slow-growth economic recovery? Wars/nation-building? Can you think of a single thing not exacerbated (if not outright government failure) by elected public officials and/or "expert" bureaucrats?

Stupid Politician Tricks

Can we PLEASE have legislators vote on something more substantive--like repealing regulations, fixing entitlements, or reforming taxes? Doesn't the Congress have anything better to do than get involved in a bridge-naming squabble between Missouri and Illinois, when the Feds aren't even funding the bridge? I mean, if James Carville and Mary Matalin could name their children without a Congressional vote....

It's not even something interesting like Missouri wanting recently deceased Hall of Fame St. Louis Cardinal Stan Musial and Illinois opting for Ernie Banks or Shoeless Joe Jackson. Here's my favorite Congressman, Justin Amash (R-MI) via Facebook:

I voted no on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 2383, to designate the new Interstate Route 20 bridge over the Mississippi River connecting St. Louis, Missouri, and southwestern Illinois as the "Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge." The bridge is currently being constructed and its naming is the subject of an ongoing dispute between Missouri and Illinois, both of which are contributing to the bridge's construction. The Missouri Legislature has voted to name the bridge after Stan Musial, a former baseball player for the St. Louis Cardinals. The Illinois Legislature has voted to name it the "Veterans Memorial Bridge." The bill sponsor is attempting to offer a compromise, but the bridge isn't owned by the federal government. And if the states agree to the congressional compromise (as members of the Missouri and Illinois delegations assert), then there is no need for this legislation. Missouri and Illinois can and should work this out themselves. It passed 395-2.

I think the "Missouri Compromise" was already taken... Maybe the Illinois-Missouri Compromise...Or the Missouri-Illinois Compromise.. Or maybe their land grant college football teams can settle it on the gridiron in the Bridge Name Bowl.. Ask me if I care; if I was driving on Route 20, I would probably call it the Route 20 bridge.

Obama Anecdote of the Day

HT Jim Geraghty: Katherine Rosman WSJ

On a warm weekday evening in 2003, a group that can fairly be described as representative of the media elite gathered at one if its favored venues: the garden behind the Manhattan apartment of journalists Tina Brown and Harold Evans. [Party celebrating a book from former Clinton staffer Sidney Blumenthal; Rosman, then a free-lancer, came as a guest of a British columnist.] Standing by myself I noticed, on the periphery of the party, a man looking as awkward and out-of-place as I felt. I approached him and introduced myself. He was an Illinois state senator who was running for the U.S. Senate. He was African American, one of a few black people in attendance....As I was leaving that party in 2003, I was approached by another guest, an established author. He asked about the man I had been talking to. Sheepishly he told me he didn’t know that Obama was a guest at the party, and had asked him to fetch him a drink. 

I have to say if I came across someone looking like Obama at a party, I would ask him for a drink, too. Not because I'm a hypocritical "progressive" journalist thinking that state senator Obama must be a waiter, but because he's "led" America on an unsustainable course: :it's the least he can do for me. I might need more than 1 drink.

Crony Public Union Abuse and Reform



Fight for the Preborn Children

In response to uncivil pro-abort protesters:

Via Lifesitenews

Political Humor

Glenn Beck mocks my first nominee for Worst Political Celebrity of the Year. I wonder if Ms. Harris-Perry will respond with an IUD nose ring?



Much is being made of 70-year-old Geraldo Rivera's topless Twitter photo. Fellow FNC host Greg Gutfeld quipped back that it's clear that Rivera is running for NYC mayor (re: Weiner).I disagree--I think he's going after former Congressman Chris Lee's seat.

Researchers in New Mexico say that brain scans of prison inmates can predict whether they will commit another crime. You know another good way to predict? They're already in prison. - Jay Leno

[An obscure blogger in Maryland says that the lack of brainwaves in Detroit voters can predict which party candidate will win the next local election.]

According to an English newspaper, a mystery fan has been leaking the results of professional wrestling matches before they even begin. He knows who is going to win and he puts it online. That Edward Snowden has gone too far! - Jay Leno

[In response to WWE demands for his extradition, Snowden has applied for TNA Asylum.]

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Lisa Benson and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Beatles, "Norwegian Wood". This song title is a reference to cheap pine that was commonly used during the period to furnish apartments or homes. This song was a veiled reference to an unconsummated affair of John's, and the last verse is John's metaphorical revenge for his sexual frustration; the lady's home was not really furnished in Norwegian pine. The track arrangement is particularly notable because of Harrison's inspired use of the sitar.