Miscellany: 4/30/14

Quote of the Day
Murphy's First Law:
Nothing is as easy as it looks.

Closing In On Post 2000

I'm likely to post my 2000th post over the coming week. I'll note the occasion accordingly. Whereas I would love to have a wider readership, even my own extended family find my views an acquired taste. Nevertheless, even with readership varying widely by posts, readership is up significantly over the past year. I would like to think it reflecta my unique blog format and variety of content, perhaps my more visible presence in social media, etc. But hopefully I can multiply my readership more over the coming years.

Image of the Day

The last time a "Progressive" had a lucid moment on tax policy....

Sweatshops: Often an Important Local Employment Alternative



Youtube Place: End of Net Neutrality?

I've embedded dozens, if not hundreds of Youtube videos and am well aware of comment sections on videos although I've rarely, if ever, commented on any. In part, as bad as the trolls are on FB, they can be out of control on Youtube. (I embeded a recent video about a video claiming to feature the "ugliest" girl in the universe, The woman in question had a rare medical disorder, and I found the cruelty to her, whom stumbled upon the video by accident, heartbreaking.) I have long opposed the lipstick on a pig notion of "net neutrality", and I think I was motivated by Shep Smith's comment at the end of the clip, he thought "net neutrality" was a good thing...

The below thread may evolve in a similar feature concept to FB Corner I'm calling 'Youtube Place', although likely on an irregular basis. These threads can be time-consuming, and I have higher priorities on my time.



this isn't free market if rich companies get higher priority - free market means we are all on the same platform. this is akin to cronyism - that corporations can pay governments and get all the subsidies and tax breaks.

Nonsense. It merely recognizes that privileged handling is a fungible benefit; for example, overnight delivery has always cost more than first-class mail. Some users hog bandwidth which affects other users. To invest in bandwidth requires money and hence premium pricing, which, as in the case of Netflix, gets passed along to the consumer. Many ISP's offer premium access to consumers whom need the access, say, to upload yet another cat video on Youtube as soon as possible. If you want to simply stick with a budget Internet plan, it may simply take longer.

whenever a government body starts to change its rules, most of the times you can bet that they figured out a way to receive some "fungible benefit" for themselves.

First of all, the Internet was commercialized WITHOUT government involvement. We went dial-up, DSL, highspeed without government mandates. Why? Because the private sector saw there was a market. You are forgetting here, it was the government trying to intercede by imposing rules essentially trying to micromanage how ISP's provided services to their customers--particularly representing the interests of resource hogs, a crony special interest, whom wanted to impose slow Internet on everyone else while paying the same price. All this report is saying (despite the nonsensical babbling of Shep Smith) is that the government won't stand in the way of the market addressing a premium segment of the market. This is hardly "cronyism"; it's simply government letting the market do what was in the best interests of the consumer

actually i have no idea exactly how free market woud handle this since we haven't had real free market or real price discovery for ANYTHING for so long - but left to their own devices, people do look for some kind of fairness.

A free market means that  ISP's are free to enter and exit markets, offer whatever goods and services they choose at whatever price, for any combination of market segments, and customers rule the markets by choosing their ISP, without government interference. If a company finds a particularly profitable segment, other vendors will compete, e.g., by price, for that segment. We don't need the government intervening; a dynamic market is far more effective.

no argument there. and actually a free market would ensure that no one company grows too big to dominate the market. but given the system that we have where the government is regulating everything, even when they regulate "to allow" a few things seemingly mimicking free market, you can bet the process has been anything but free market. Also this mimicking of seemingly free market is against the backdrop of an economy that is 100% centrally controlled - thus distortions are inevitable.

I agree that the US mixed economy, particularly in heavily regulated sectors like banking and health care, never mind restrictions on immigration and free trade, is hardly free market. Fortunately, some industry segments, like high tech, aren't quite as regulated. Any plain vanilla ISP provides rich content sources--without government mandates. That's why I've resisted net neutrality and other stealth attempts by government to rationalize counterproductive intervention. Recall it was the FCC that attempted to expand its empire unilaterally to extend its regulation over the Internet, which was not in its mandate.

Well said. It seems like some people believe that the free-market is conducive to virtue. It's government that makes humans "bad". Such people seem to believe that the drive to control and dominate is limited to politicians and bureaucrats, but not businessmen. The free-market sounds good in theory, but in practice it means that the biggest companies squeeze out the smallest companies.

Actually, as almost any investor knows, it is easier for smaller companies to sustain high growth patterns. Big companies are often less nimble and worry about cannabilizing existing revenues. It is true that megalomaniac interventionist government enacts morally hazardous, corruptive programs unduly promoting dependence on government. Government not only impairs the market by regulation but discourages business formation by imposing barriers of entry, e.g., occupational licensing schemes. It's government that often drives industry consolidation.

The ISP market is not a free market and never will be in the USA. Guess what, Verizon has a monopoly partially thanks to the federal govt. Remember! You are free! But don't forget to pay the Kings taxes!

According to netmarketshare, Verizon Fios has 2.7% and Verizon Wireless  has 2.5% marketshare. Comcast is the marketshare leader with 8%. You have cable, dial-up, DSL, wireless, wifi, satellite providers; even Google is getting into the act as it starts to roll out its Fiber service. Some "monopoly": find some other delusional conspiracy.

Facebook Corner

(Cato Institute). "We do not have to choose between free immigration and continued U.S. national sovereignty - we can have both just as our ancestors did."
I agree completely with the article. I would only add that we need to get rid of the welfare state first. We should also get rid of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.
Whereas there's a lot to be said for government reform across the board, certainly we should not delay win-win immigration until someone's arbitrary wishlist is fulfilled. It's like saying we should not open a new business until the government reforms tax and regulatory policy. The populists drastically restricted immigration nearly a century ago. Most immigrants are not motivated to leave their home country for our bankrupt social programs.
Immigration laws haven't been enforced since Operation Wetback in 1954. The Republicans are addicted to the cheap labor illegal aliens provide and the Democrats want the potential votes.
Yes, most of this thread is irresponsible anti-growth populist nonsense. The fact of the matter is that labor protectionists and xenophobes have succeed in killing the goose laying the golden egg since the early 1920's, unconscionable and inconsistent with our cultural values and heritage. Our phenomenal economic growth and improvements in the standard of living during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was in part fueled by liberalized immigration. Saying that pro-liberty conservatives want a black market of cheap labor is utter nonsense; we simply don't believe in arbitrary restrictions by busybodies whom stand in the way, say, of farmers getting the resources to harvest their crops or an IT company wanting to hire foreign talented professionals, never mind entrepreneurs and in-demand professionals, like medical and technical personnel. We want the economy to be transparent.


As for the Dems, I know that much of their focus has been on low-skill Latino workers for transparent reasons; we know the historical fact of labor unionists, e.g., forcing JFK/LBJ to do away with the bracero program, and the unions have resisted temporary worker programs repeatedly over the decades, including the sabotage of 2007 immigration reform, where I remind people that the Dems controlled Congress and POTUS was behind compromise legislation--which current POTUS opposed. However, for reasons I don't understand (probably "Progressive" groupthink in academia) many Silicon Valley corporate leaders back Dems and want liberalization for professional immigrants.

I just want to address the cart before the horse nonsense on black markets. Black markets result from irresponsible "progressive" market interventions, like Prohibition, the "War on Drugs", punitive tax policies, anti-competitive labor restrictions (e.g., minimum wage laws and occupational licensing), effective bans on legal immigration, etc. We pro-liberty conservatives reject economically perverse policies from either side of the aisle.

(Reason). Judging from clemency criteria unveiled by the Justice Department last week, Obama plans to make up for lost time when it comes to freeing people who do not belong in prison.
What we really need are changes in federal policy--which requires the Congress, not some arbitrary lawless President pick and choosing which convictions he personally agrees with. Where has been his "leadership" on this issue?

(IPI). Chicago alderman turns down a bribe
It's sad when a politician doing the right thing makes the news....

(Cato Institute). "Next time you notice some politician demanding a higher minimum wage and denouncing private employers for underpaying labor, chances are good the message reached you with the help of an unpaid student intern."
Nothing wrong with unpaid internships. What's wrong is banning unpaid internships which limits opportunities even more.
I disagree. If you work, you get paid. No exceptions.
"Progressive" trolls are economic illiterates. Is voluntary work less valuable simply because it's free? What are you going to do, ban charity work? In this case, whereas I understand why partisans want to point out liberal hypocrisy, let's not pretend there's no fungible benefit for work experience and connections at Congress and/or the White House. Internships are good experience on any young person's resume and open doors to many professional opportunities. You know, if you pay a quarter million dollars to earn a degree at an elite institution, what may be surprising is why employers don't charge young people to get valuable experience and a competitive edge...

Troll Stomping

from an IPI thread on Illinois property taxes increasing in Chicago suburbs:

And today the stock market erased and negatives from the beginning of the year and continues to grow year to year.
Okay, time to stomp a troll. Here are inflation-adjusted stock market returns since 2000:

Via dshort.com

Political Cartoon

Courteay of Glenn Foden via  Townhall

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

Agnetha Fältskog, "When You Really Loved Someone"

Miscellany: 4/29/14

Quote of the Day
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself
nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror 
which paralyzes needed efforts 
to convert retreat into advance.
Martin Luther

Image of the Day

Via CAGW

SPOT ON! I Did a Recent FB Comment on These Very Points

(Reason). Tip to Holder and Obama: Minority men will never trust police as long as police keep putting them in jail for things that shouldn't be crimes in the first place.
We can start, as Reason suggests, by eliminating laws enforcing victimless crimes. We can provide viable alternatives to failing public schools. We can allow households their liberty for self-defense. We can get the government out of the way of unemployed teens looking for that all important starter job.

Capitalism and Social Honor Have Lifted More People Out of Poverty Than All Religions and Politicians Put Together....

From one of Don Boudreaux's (Cafe Hayek) favorite economic historians:



Facebook Corner
(IPI). Senate Democrats defeated a Republican proposal today to put a limit of two terms on statewide officials, while the chances of a separate proposal to approve a graduated income tax in Illinois grew increasingly dim.
Why term limits? It's not that any Illinois governors have ended up in prison, right? Seriously, this state will never get its house in order so long as voters are in a state of denial of incumbency as a principal factor in corruption. Have we all forgotten how Obama's vacated seat was Blago's "golden ticket"? Voters need to send a message to self-serving politicians...
Corruption in Illinois will not end until we get rid of Speaker Madigan and that takes term limits.
Has nothing to do with term limits. Get out your common voters, get more repubs elected, then you can elect a speaker of the house. Once in power the Repubs wont be in favor of term limits because they wont want to loose their control either.
Not true. Only career politicians would be threatened. There are some career politicians in the GOP (McCain comes to mind). I can guarantee if Charlie Rangel was in the GOP, he would have been gone years ago.

(LFC). What is this???? I dont even....
First he is all like:
"There is nothing progressive about lowering earnings for working-class people, nor is there anything progressive about undercutting labor costs to the point workers are driven into poverty and homelessness. It's a game as old as the laborers in the days of the Bible and as recent as those sweating in the mines of Western and Southern Africa. Play the working class against one another for the benefit of the wealthy who seek to be served no matter the human cost."
And then he is all like:
"Most of the people who catch cabs in St. Louis are not hipsters, or yuppies or business people or college students. They're not out drinking and partying. No, the bulk of our passengers are the elderly and the working poor. People who catch cabs to and from work every day. Those who take cabs from the grocery store or to the doctor's office. Sunday is Easter and without a doubt I will be taking people to church and to their families homes to celebrate, There are others who we pick up from the emergency rooms of hospitals, rescue from domestic violence taking them to shelters or pick up from the Ronald McDonald house for sick children. No tips and usually not that much money."
Think about this for a second: The author is arguing in favor of the current taxi cartel because he believes that doing so will help the working poor in this industry earn living wages. He argues that Uber and Lyft undercut existing cab drivers and can even send them into poverty. He then makes a passionate plea to our soft sides by arguing that most of the customers he drives around are impoverished individuals in desperate need of assistance.
The author somehow is oblivious of the fact that he just contradicted himself in a major way. Yes, Uber and Lyft constitute a threat to the existing taxi structure. Yes, this will lower rates drastically and might even force some or many existing cab drivers into other professions. However, by cutting rates drastically, poor people who are forced to rely on taxis for their sole method of transportation (ie, the people who the author claims make up the majority of cab riders) will be made much better off.
You dont have to be an economist to understand that Uber and Lyft are good for the working poor: lower cab fares are more likely to help the poor people than are higher fares. Similarly, allowing any person with a clean driving record and a car to operate a cab (which is what Lyft and Uber essentially do) will do more to generate wealth among the poor than will restricting the number of cabs in order to artificially prop up the wages of a few privileged cab drivers.
No doubt he probaby still uses snail mail vs. email, because of the effect on those postal workers... We see similar muddled thinking when it comes to Chinatown buses and 1001 business model innovations. This guy is not going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle; the technology is here to stay. "Progressives" believe that they can manipulate labor markets by licensing, immigration restrictions, collective bargaining policies, and other corrupt practices. They conceptually don't get that economic growth lifts all boats and the demand for labor, that artificially high prices lessen demand and the consumer is left with less money to save, spend or invest elsewhere in the economy. In this case, the taxi industry needs to adapt if it hopes to survive.
I take cabs regularly in Austin. I'm always having to fight the drivers. There are a couple I like to ride with because they maintain their cab, are courteous and service oriented. The rest make me feel like I'm burdening them by making them do their job. Of course Austin banned Uber and Lyft for 'safety concerns', they also added some steep regulations to ensure if the services try to comply the customer will end up completely screwed. The point of all this is, I envy your ability to use Uber. Haha
It doesn't surprise me that Austin has sold out to the crony taxis; it was one of the most "progressive" cities in Texas when I earned my first Master's there.

(National Review). Elizabeth Warren wants to be president for your own good.
But I wouldn't vote for that...

(Drudge Report). BANNED FOR LIFE
Make a comment in private that we don't like? We will steal your property and trample on your rights of free association.
Rights to free association can't be abridged by a state function, a private company can.
The idea that one's constitutional rights are inapplicable if any mob chooses to ignore them is absurd. What particularly bothers me is this kerfuffle is based on a private message to a former girlfriend, whom apparently released it without his knowledge or consent; it was not in his capacity as an NBA owner. Now personally I thought what Sterling said was incredibly stupid and insensitive; if I were an owner, I would be proud to have an NBA legend like Magic Johnson in attendance at my team's games--I would probably give him the best seat in the house free for life. For Johnson to have worked with Sterling and find out later that Sterling didn't want his then girlfriend to be seen in public with him doesn't say much about Sterling as a man. Most fans like me would probably pay for an opportunity for a photo with Johnson or other NBA legends.

Sterling has already gone through a public tar-and-feathering; if and when he passes away, he'll probably be known more for his offensive soundbite than anything else he has accomplished in life. However, I have not looked at the ownership agreement with the NBA. It seems unfair that the league is punishing Sterling over a private, presumably confidential conversation, sacrificing him to the god of political correctness. Never mind the fact that NAACP gave Sterling a lifetime achievement award in 2009--presumably that was for positive reasons which should be taken into consideration of a single negative soundbite.

And now for the latest episode of troll stomping from an IPI thread :

Give up the TIF money. Stop the corporate handouts. The taxpayers, subsidize big business with food stamps, subsidized health care, and more for low paid employees of big business. Big business, needs to pay their own way, not rely on taxpayer subsidies.
"Progressive" trolls are economic illiterates. It's parasitic trolls responsible for the need for public bailouts of Dem-crony unionist corrupt bargains made behind the backs of taxpayers. Instead of reading the rants of self-serving thieves of taxpayer money, be aware that nobody supports corrupt morally hazardous policies like food stamps or subsidized health care for ANYBODY. Pretending you can pick a number out of your ass for the moronic concept of a "living wage" goes beyond economic illiteracy.

Traditional Marriage and Family



Twin sweeties! Beyond adorable!









Political Humor



Political Cartoon

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

ELO, "Do Ya?" Hands down, one of my favorite singles ever!

Miscellany: 4/28/14

Quote of the Day
Hating people is like 
burning down your own house 
to get rid of a rat.
Harry Emerson Fosdick

Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day

Via Libertarian Republic

On Failing Well



Facebook Corner

(Reason). The Obama administration will be imposing sanctions on 7 additional Russian officials and 17 companies amid the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.
Doesn't POTUS realize this plays right into the hands of the Russian hardliners? This is a European regional issue. Enough of seat-of-the-pants unprincipled, amateurish foreign policy!

(Cato Institute). "Debates about trade liberalization often focus on identifying the winners and losers of increased openness to foreign competition...But this whole exercise is completely backwards. We should instead be talking about the winners and losers of protectionism."
Let's not forget that consumers gain from liberalized trade agreements with better selection and price competition, economic efficiencies through comparative advantage, etc.

(Drudge Report). Guv urges restaurants to serve water only if diners request...
Oh, yeah, it's those glasses of water served at restaurants responsible for the water shortage... It's not like discarded water can be recycled, that water to restaurants is free, etc. Ah, the hubris of Statist planners. Here's a hint: free up the market to satisfy demand...

(Drudge Report). Knicks great Larry Johnson calls for all-black league amid Clippers race fiasco...
By all means--give the NBA some competition... It's the American way. But don't you think you should put your money where your mouth is and resign as a Knicks executive? From the same league which offered you an $84M contract 20 years ago?

(IPI). A Chicago City Council committee will consider a new set of restrictions on pedicabs at a hearing this week. Many specifics of the proposal, introduced by 44th Ward Alderman Tom Tunney, are unexceptional, but two provisions stand out as unnecessarily harmful to the pedicab market and consumer choice.
 I guess the business model isn't green enough for the political parasites...

(Cato Institute). "U.S. immigration policy currently prevents many productive foreign workers and entrepreneurs from contributing to the American economy."
I have no problem with immigrants. This country was built and made great by them. My problem is with ILLEGAL immigrants. As far as I'm concerned you're all welcome here, but please do it legally, and remember that a lot of people were turned away during the 1800's for a variety of reasons.
Which ignores the fact that the system is designed to form a black market in labor with illegal immigrants.
How do you figure that [commenter]? Standards in health and criminal background checks represent a responsible approach to the health and well-being of current citizens. Cheap labor will always exist, your beef should be with the minimum wage regulators. Immigration has a lot more facets than labor. I'd prefer not to have violent fugitives with contagious diseases in my neighborhood. I don't see it being a detriment to ask they not be violent criminals and not harbour any contagious diseases that can threaten public health. Beyond that, there shouldn't really be any barriers. I can't see how people can pay tens of thousands of dollars to sneak into the country but can't use that money to go through proper channels and legally immigrate. The US has some of the easiest citizenship requirements on the planet.
The problems include labor protectionists (primarily the crony unionists) have essentially bottlenecked legal temporary workers for decades (don't forget the bracero program was killed off by JFK/LBJ for their union bosses) and arcane quotas imposed first in the 1920's. (I won't go into earlier more racist motivated restrictions.) The above commenter is in a state of denial over existing anti-business, anti-growth corrupt immigration laws and the overwhelming evidence in favor of immigration. You obviously don't know how difficult and expensive it is to get naturalized; one of my best friends is a naturalized citizen, and I know the crap he had to put up with during his green card process. The issues are not with routine criminal and health checks and making the legal procedures transparent but with populist demagagues trying to scapegoat immigrants, which is shameful; we are a melting pot, a nation of immigrants.

(Reason). Tip to Holder and Obama: Minority men will never trust police as long as police keep putting them in jail for things that shouldn't be crimes in the first place.
We can start, as Reason suggests, by eliminating laws enforcing victimless crimes. We can provide viable alternatives to failing public schools. We can allow households their liberty for self-defense. We can get the government out of the way of unemployed teens looking for that all important starter job.

(Cato Institute). "Two Core-supporting state superintendents said pretty much what many Core opponents have long explained: Even if the standards are of outstanding quality, the Core won’t work because 'accountability' won’t be rigorously implemented."
I call it "Etch a Sketch" evaluations: if you don't like the results, you redefine the criteria. Remember Florida 2012? "Florida gave a new standardized writing test to students in various grades and the scores were worse than awful. Only 27 percent of fourth-graders had proficient scores on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), which was down from last year’s 81 percent. Eighth graders and 10th graders also had dramatically lower scores than last year...the Florida Board of Education decided in a 4-3 vote that the best thing to do was to lower the passing score on this exam."

Choose Life: A Deaf Chinese Girl Hears Her Adoptive Mother's Voice



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Michael Ramirez via PatriotPost

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

The Beatles, "Something"

Miscellany: 4/27/14

Quote of the Day
You can't build a reputation on 
what you're going to do.
Henry Ford

Saints John Paul II and John XXIII



Image of the Day

Chart of the Day

Via LFC and Bastiat Institute

Selgin, William Jennings Bryan and the Founding of the Fed: Thumbs UP!

One of the facts I've pointed out is that Canadian banks have been far more resilient than US banks; there were a couple of salient concepts that came into play: branch banking and asset currency. Unit banks did not want to compete against more diversified, capitalized brach banks. Now banks also issued their own banknotes; typically banknotes were convertible in specie, usually gold or silver coins. In the Civil War era, facing liquidity issues in financing the war, the goverment established federal (vs. traditional state) chartered banks. These banknotes had to be backed by Treasury notes or Civil War-era "greenbacks". When state banks were reluctant to convert, the federal government decided to enact a Draconian tax on outstanding state banknotes. To make things worse, as the federal government vs. today actually paid down its war debt and money supply shrank, it affected the banks' ability to handle the seasonal autumn currency spikes at farm state banks, ultimately resulting in financial panics. The 1907 panic really set the stage for the birth of the Federal Reserve under Wilson.

The populism of William Jennings Bryant, best known for trying to inflate the money supply through "free silver", in contrast to the international "sound money" gold standard, showed up in a significant way: Bryant had a distaste for commercial banknotes or more flexible asset-based vs. federal currency, which he portrayed as a "surrender" of the national sovereignty of the money supply to plutocrat bankers. Selgin explains how Wilson craftily got the bill past his Secretary of State Bryant and other reformers, whom had a populist's distaste for a European-style central bank (i.e., several regional branches),  no bankers on the Board, legal tender bonds (like greenbacks) vs. convertible bonds, being obligations not just of the Fed but of the government. Ironically, Bryant, a 3-time failed nominee whose support of Wilson was instrumental, was played by Wilson in supporting the creation of a currency monopoly far worse than Jefferson or Jackson could have imagined in their worst nightmares.

Facebook Corner

Via LFC

Milton Friedman noted if the federal government was in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in 5 years. Obviously in this case, the boy did not submit his sandcastle plans to the Beach Zoning Board for the necessary permit...

(Cato Institute). "Last week, the New Hampshire Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Duncan v. New Hampshire, concerning the constitutionality of the “Live Free or Die” state’s trailblazing scholarship tax credit program. The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in support of the program."
I favor school choice, but to their credit, there is a valid argument on behalf of those who oppose school vouchers. First of all, there is unequal competition between public and private school districts--namely-- private school districts can choose which applicants they want to accept into their districts. Public school districts, on the other hand, have to accept anyone and everyone who applies; Secondly, vouchers divert funding which goes to public schools. Public schools are funded by the taxpayer; in the process, private schools receive that funding instead, and thus, public school districts become weaker in the process.
First of all, public schools can and do suspend and/or expel students; do not blame private schools for public school policies, which often differ by location. Second, vouchers do not 'take away resources'; parents exercising school choice are forced to pay twice for their child's education, a perverse, immoral, monopoly privilege. We are simply offering parents more control of their own money to choose a better school. Education is a perverse, anti-competitive market. Lower-income students may be sentenced to badly run, ineffective schools if parents don't have the budget to pay for their kids' education twice.

Are there any politicians I can vote for that will follow through on a promise to create an economy that will allow me to get it for myself? Even with the possible risk of costing the ultrarich a portion of their disposable income? I ain't askin' for much. Just enough to keep a roof over my head, clothes on my back, food in my belly, and maybe a couple bucks I can save for a rainy day, cuz I can feel a storm comin'.
First of all, politicians can't create an economy; what they can do is alleviate the conditions that retard the efficiency and functionality of the free markets, including counterproductive tax and regulatory policies, manipulated monetary policy, barriers to free trade, immigration, etc. Second, you can lose the Politics of Envy; it's morally corrosive; there is no virtue of picking the other guy's pocket at the point of a gun. Look to lower the bite government takes out of your and everyone else's pocket equally by demanding less government spending. Consumers and investors are better off keeping more of their own money to spend, save, or invest much more effectively in the real economy, the private sector.

(IPI). Praise the Lord and pass the new progressive tax that will finance public pensions.
Concern for the poor is best handled through the private sector: religious-sponsored institutions (e.g., hospitals and schools), fraternal societies, philanthropies and charities, soup kitchens, etc. I have generally found the clergy to be utterly uninformed on business and economic matters, other than the fact in a challenging economy, the collection plate isn't as full.

Would any clergyman accept the collection of the proceeds from neighborhood burgler? Where is the virtue in giving what is not his to give? And yet they play the useful idiots, blessing the growth, ineffectiveness, and inefficiencies of state government which gets its cut before anything trickles down to the poor--while endorsing ever-increasing levels of theft at the point of a gun from the state? How soon they forget Mark 12:17? Jesus did NOT say, "Give Caesar whatever he demands"; He clearly distinguished the separate, higher obligation to God. There are several places in the Gospels where Jesus specifically rejected a political mandate.

A flat tax is really the easiest, fairest way to tax; whether we are talking about applying the same rate to the first vs. last dollar of purchase or your first vs. last hour of work income. People who spend or earn more pay more aggregate taxes; these tend to be higher-income people. It's not a per-capita tax. A "progressive" income tax punishes people or businesses which are more productive. The state thinks it's entitled to a greater take of each additional dollar you earn--which lowers your incentive to work. It's horrible economics. It shrinks the tax base, it lowers the incentive to invest in the local economy. People who object to punitive tax rates have the liberty to relocate to a more taxpayer-friendly state; guess who picks up the slack when higher-income taxpayers move out of state?

You might think that the clergy would not be so easily duped by "progressive" political rhetoric. We have decades of failed domestic programs, failing public education programs, drugs and violence-ridden neighborhoods, a large segment of the population dependent on morally-hazardous government, a high percentage of illegitimate births and single-parent homes: and yet the message is to give the political whores in Springfield even more money to fritter away at the expense of the real economy. Disgraceful and immoral.

(Reason). Should the NBA fire Clippers owners Donald Sterling for racist remarks? Is this case any different than Mozilla canning Brendan Eich over gay marriage stance? And should you worry more about your workplace these days?
People say stupid things every day. Can we go 24 hours before some media-generated crisis demanding a sacrifice to the god of political correctness?

(Drudge Report). NBA ROCKED BY RACISM CHARGE
How many race cards does [Obama] have left in his deck of cards?

Sportsmanship




Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Henry Payne via Townhall

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

The Carpenters, "Close to You"

Miscellany: 4/26/14

Quote of the Day
Love is a fire. 
But whether it is going to warm your hearth or 
burn down your house, 
you can never tell.
Joan Crawford

Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day

Rant of the Day

From Jim Baxter on a Cato Institute FB thread on progressive income taxes:

The KEY here is to 'deprogram' society's indoctrination by the left: that all citizens must 'look to government' for answers and solutions. Marxist liberal progressives have been very successful at creating and cultivating the 'dependent mindset' ...they captivate the minds of our culture to be fully attentive to look ONLY to government as society's 'institution of benevolence' ...it needs to be pointed out again and again that 'big government' has failed our workers and jobs, failed our economy, failed our poor, failed our needy, failed our educational intuitions, failed our healthcare institutions (by absurd and egregious regulations and now infinitely worse: Obamacare) ...the more money we send to government the more they steal and waste...the more power we give them the more convoluted and restricting, production choking regulations they persecute us with....so, taxes? The government doesn't need to collect more than the close to $3 Trillion it currently squanders....the answer isn't government or tax collecting at all! The left wants to get society bogged down in a tax debate when the answer is: federal government, tear down this wall! The IRS is the 'wall of lies' separating the citizen from prosperity made via his/ her own liberty...while eliminating the 'middle man' government tax thief...

Facebook Corner

(Cato Institute). "The income tax has greatly contributed to Americans’ steady and serious loss of liberty."
Loss of the liberty to extravagantly exploit the social power of shows of wealth without paying back the general society that generated it.Nonsense. Individuals create wealth by creating a variety of competitively-priced, efficient, satisfying goods and services that meet consumer demand, not by force but volition. Government is a self-serving parasitic monopoly of force that plunders the productive to pay for its own ever-spreading inefficient bureaucracy and its oversubscribed corrupt populist and special-interest bargains; it gets in the way of creating the wealth of a nation.
The Reagan assault on the progressive income tax is tied to our growing nature as an oligarchy
Nonsense. The progressive income tax punishes economic success by stealing even more to the point the earner is working more for the government than himself. Simple primal law of economics: you raise the cost of income, you get less of it, i.e., contract the tax base. If government is restricted to a low mandate of common services, we can cover those expenditures with a low flat rate of taxation which would minimize economic distortions and leave more resources for growing a robust economy.
Sales taxes always shift the tax burden to the poor.
Try the Fair Tax, then. Look it up.
The commenter was correct that the Fair Tax specifically addresses regressive aspects of consumption taxes. But all types of necessary expenditures have regressive aspects, and it's an incontrovertible economic law that arbitrarily low prices for goods and services increases related demand. The commenter is correct in the sense that higher earning people typically spend more given higher discretionary spending and hence will pick up more of the tax burden; let's not forget that prior to the economically perverse income tax, the country mostly funded its limited mandate of common expenditures through related tariffs.
The Fair Tax gives a prebate to cover sales tax on the necessities of life so that no one is taxed on basic needs.
Why is it, if government allegedly provides worthy goods and services, do the lower-level earners get them for free? Are those less worthy than food, clothing or other expenditures? What's their incentive to hold down costs if they have no skin in the game? What does the law of supply and demand mean to government expenditures if the price of relevant goods and services approximates near zero?

(Citizens Against Government Waste). TIME Magazine points out that President Obama’s foreign policy failures are proving his critics right. More than that, however, is they are hurting America’s global reputation. SHARE if the US should have stronger leadership. http://ti.me/1rxQRvn
 I'm a little confused as to CAGW's motivation for a thread on foreign affairs and what is meant by 'strong' leadership. Is the point to discuss the questionable use of taxpayer money to influence leaders in our alliances, the horrendous spending used in military interventions and nation building, the prosecution of illegal wars in Libya, Yemen and elsewhere? Certainly CAGW must question how we spend more than the next 10 military powers combined, given our distance from the rest of the world by large oceans and benign neighbors in Canada and Mexico.

There are reasons why the Founding Fathers pondered the wisdom of a standing military, the meddling in Europe's incessant squabbling, why Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex.

Does that mean I support the convoluted foreign policy of the current administration? No. His record hasn't met his pre-Presidency rhetoric. We don't see any recognition of the fact we don't have the resources to be the world's policeman. What I want to see is less lecturing, bluster, and diplomacy by soundbite, and more emphasis on trade liberalization. Obama has done little on the latter beyond what Bush negotiated nearly a decade ago.

(IPI). Illinois is one of only 14 states that doesn’t have some form of gubernatorial term-limits.
A new proposal would give Illinois voters an opportunity to change that this coming November by enacting eight-year term limits on executive branch officers.
Incumbency and seniority rules are two corrupting influences in politics. It's almost impossible to pass fiscally responsible legislation and regulatory reform given the fact that incumbents fear populist opposition for their next election. My salient comment to this proposal is that I would prefer Virginia's rule of single-term governors, or at least require the 2 term limit be noncontiguous.

(IPI). Legislators are elected to represent the people of their district; with that responsibility come essential rights that constituents deserve, such as truth, responsibility and dedication to improving the state. In Illinois, citizens do not believe they are getting what they deserve.
The reason why The One wants taxpayers to foot the bill for his own library, vs. his predecessors whom did their fundraising from the private sector, is because even he can't sell the snake oil merits of his abysmal record in public office. It's bad enough productive workers have been tapped out by this President-in-name-only's spendthrift, class-warfare politics, but partisan legislators want them forced at the point of a gun to "donate" to his monument. One question: wasn't there even one Republican whom had the testicular fortitude to object to this boondoggle in committee? Where did the 9-0 votes come from? (I know where most of them came from, given the supermajority..)
Legislators need to wake up and stop wasting tax payers money, like $750,000.00 doors at the capital!!!! Also, there should be a law that No TAX dollar be spent on anyone in this state illegally!!!! I am NOT against Mexicans, I am against breaking the law!!!!
Stop blaming immigrants for the political whores you elect in Illinois.
Legislators work for those who pay them: rich people and big corporations.
Tell me: which rich people and big corporations elected the corrupt, dysfunctional supermajority in Springfield? Did they get their money's worth?

(Reason). The Supreme Court case POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola could ultimately result in the FDA creating additional arcane, rigid, and unnecessary FDA standards of identity for foods.
Using the government to attack your competition is pure cronyism. Companies compare products all the time without resorting to Big Government. Whether Coke markets its product as "made with pomegranate and blueberry", "flavored with pomegranate and blueberry", etc. really doesn't matter, so long as they don't make false statements about their product. If POM wants to make an ad showing how many glasses of Minute Maid to get the same pomegranate you get in one glass of POM, fine. If it wants to show the ingredient label differences between its product and Coke's, fine. But to be honest, I think it's a bad business move; as a sector leader, I would benefit from Coke's promotion of pomegranate products, and certainly Coke has the resources, the marketing expertise, and distribution channels to buy out or build its own rival pomegranate juice operation. I'm less likely to purchase POM products because its shameful, unnecessary reliance on government force.

(More trollstomping via an IPI thread)
Corporate welfare is way bigger than social welfare...
Are you NUTS? Over two-thirds of the federal budget is spent on individual entitlements....

Entertainment Potpourri

A couple of American Idol notes:

• "In My Dreams". Season 5 runnerup Katharine McPhee plays Natalie, who has inherited her late mother's struggling restaurant and hasn't met the right guy; Nick, an ambitious young architect, has just come off a brutal breakup. At the same time, they pitched coins into a fountain with a legend that those who toss will meet their prospective lifetime mates over 7 nights of dreams, and if it's meant to be, they will then meet for real. Nick and Natalie meet in their dreams and instantly fall for each other but the maddening thing is each time they try to touch each other, kiss or whatever, the dream comes to an abrupt end.  There are, of course, other romanic interests over the week that follows, and they have a number of just misses in real life, including an unknowing visit by Nick to Natalie's restaurant (although they seem to be aware of each other on some level). How could a libertarian-conservative not fall for the love story of two entrepreneurs? I thought McPhee was quite fetching in that role and leaves me longing to cast a coin in my own fountain... Of course, I wanted to scuba dive off Cape Cod after Splash!....
• I cast my first AI competition votes for rocker Caleb Johnson. I was confused by his choice of a Carrie Underwood song for his second performance; I would have probably would have picked some country-rock material, e.g., Presley, Campbell, Denver, the Eagles or Alabama, maybe some Ray Charles. Is it my imagination or have most of the performances I've heard focus on material I haven't heard before? Some of the duets I've heard this have been phenomenal, including this one a few weeks back from Caleb and Jessica.

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of the original artist via IPI

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

Madonna, "This Used To Be My Playground"

Miscellany: 4/25/14

Quote of the Day
Do not spoil what you have 
by desiring what you have not; 
but remember that what you now have was once 
among the things you only hoped for.
Epicurus

Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day

Via Learn Liberty

The Clive Bundy Remarks Kerfuffle

I have not really commented on the BLM controversy; a decent overview is here from the Post, although its pro-federal bias is clear, e.g., "Hunters also prefer predator killing because of its effects on the deer population. Scientists counter that ecosystem preservation is a far better way to stop extinction than predator management. Gerald Lent, a former chairman of the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners called these findings, backed up by extensive research, “voodoo science.”" I have little patience for most special-interest environmentalist intervention which tramples on property rights and related fungible rights like grazing privileges. (This is clear from the early discussion of BLM purchases of these privileges on disputed territory.) How a government, $17.5T in debt, has any business laying claim to most property in any state or why some remote centralized bureaucracy is administering land which is better supervised by more local/state governance is beyond me.

Just because I empathize with Bundy's resistence to the government's obsession with the desert tortoise's "more equal" rights doesn't mean I agree with everything Bundy says or does. I have no idea how or why Bundy came to pontificate about blacks, but here is a relevant excerpt:

"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro," Bundy said, "and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids - and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch - they didn't have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for their kids to do. They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do.

"And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?" Bundy continued. "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."

First of all, slavery was a morally unconscionable violation of people's unalienable right of freedom, self-ownership. Case closed. However bad government policy, speculating people were better off being slaves than people with unalienable rights is abominable. Second, don't stereotype an entire race over what some individuals do. There are also a number of white women whom abort their babies, white criminals in jail, a number of poor white families on public welfare: would they also have been better off as slaves on plantations picking cotton?

I think hidden in his repugnant rhetoric are traces of relevant observations: we've had "progressive" programs in inner-cities which have exacerbated family instability and have encouraged a cycle of government dependency. There's a culture of victimhood, an undermining of virtues like self-reliance, persistence, diligence, integrity, and industriousness. Nevertheless, a number of successful people have emerged from challenging circumstances. However, I don't blame poor people for these problems; it's more the morally hazardous "progressive" policies and/or sense of entitlement. But we also need leadership in the private sector: role models whom emphasize hard work and goal-setting, reject victimhood and promiscuous extramarital sex, promote the importance of marriage and family, etc.

Facebook Corner

(Cato Institute). This new Cato study outlines a federalist approach to immigration reform: http://j.mp/1f865FF
This thread is attracting the attention of the present-day "Know Nothings" whom worship a century of broken restrictive immigration laws, despite the indisputable economic evidence of immigration as a win-win proposition. I welcome any proposal which extends an individual or business's access to resources, including those on temporary work permits and relevant decentralization of federal authority.

However, I can predict that the usual labor protectionists, xenophobes, etc. will oppose this like prior attempts to reform temporary worker programs, I worry about the complexity of joint federal-state administration, and I see some equal protection issues (e.g., why should employers in other states be denied access to workers based on their states' protectionist policies?) I also don't like making immigration law more complex and convoluted than it already is... I would prefer to see a vast liberalization and simplification of immigration policy across the board, a restoration of the same policies and ideals that facilitated the most rapid economic growth in our nation's history.
Would that be the cheap labor that probably lines your pockets at the end of the month. Perhaps the thought of you paying a living wage to a legal citizen is too much to take? And the real unemployment rate in this country which is more like in the middle teens is not reason enough to control our borders? Shameful!
I believe in a free market system, not your morally bankrupt attempt to intervene in the voluntary contract between willing parties. As usual, you economically illiterate "progressive" trolls want to impose counterproductive conditions on other people's business, which is none of your business. Your market manipulations have failed for decades; we had decades of strong economic growth and a rising standard of living before your corrupt interventions slowed the economy. What is it you don't get about there being jobs for which most Americans, even unemployed ones, don't want or aren't qualified for? Your anti-growth policy preference is shameful, even anti-American.

(Reason). Does the recent success of religiously themed movies suggest a revival of Christianity in the United States? Or is the long-term decline in most markers of religious activity and belief pretty much irreversible, especially among younger Americans?
Well, it is clear from the market that these movies are tapping into consumer demand. So the question is, why hasn't that channeled into gains for organized religion? As a Catholic, I've seen Mass attendance slump by nearly half of what it was in the 1950's; ordinations into the priesthood have slowed to a trickle; many Catholics-in-Name-Only openly disregard the Church's teachings on moral issues. (Gillespie essentially points out the same thing.)

I think in part the Church has had a crisis in leadership, and I'm not referring to the notorious bungled responses to the rogue priest sexual abuse scandals. There has been too much accommodation to a sexually permissive culture, instant gratification, secular humanism, "progressive' ideology, not enough emphasis on spiritual development, a "back to the basics" Christianity, moral discipline, repentence. Second, they mismanaged post-Vatican II reforms; traditional rites, customs, and masses were all but abandoned by paternalistic "reforms" that seemed to generate more confusion and questions than solutions. "New Catholicism" seemed to be marketed with similar results to Coke's infamous "New Coke" marketing failure. Third, the Church has found itself floundering in the age of new media, letting her enemies define her, reacting more defensively than proactively.

(Independent Institute). "In yet another example of how government bureaucrats look out only for their own interests, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service is paying out over $1 million in bonuses to 1,150 of its employees who have failed to pay their tax bills in previous years."
We are over $17T in the hole and the government is handing out bonuses to hypocritical tax collectors?

Daddies and Their Daughters



Political Humor

At least Barry didn't show off his robot dance moves...



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Nate Beeler and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

Meat Loaf, "I'd Lie For You (and That's the Truth)"

Miscellany: 4/24/14

Quote of the Day
The people I distrust most
are those who want to improve our lives
but have only one course of action.
Frank Herbert

Rant of the Day 

From Jimmy Hogan on a Reason thread arguing basically both Dems and GOPers are spendthrifts:

To lump W in with Obama on spending is simply intellectually dishonest. Bush's deficits averaged in the low hundred billions even considering the dot.com bubble burst, the enron / worldcomm debacles, 9/11, two wars and several unprecedented natural disasters. His last year deficit had a $600B offsetting receivable from TARP and the GSEs which was repaid to the with interest.

Obama blew the repayments and then used that exception one time spending as a new baseline for deficits $1Trillion a year over the earlier trend-line. Until this history is corrected and people start defending Bush on his merits rather than pulling an Obama and blaming every failure on him the Republicans will never regain control. 

Via Rational Environmentalists

The Government Pushes a Vice



Daddies and Their Daughters



Bullies and Heroes





Facebook  Corner

(Reason). A new bill making its way through the Connecticut legislature would ban daycare centers and home childcare providers from serving whole milk or 2% milk to the kids in their care.
Well, the pasteurized, antibiotic filled crap they sell at the store probably shouldn't be given to kids, or anybody.
No, the pasteurized product has been consumed by millions of people without health issues. However, an argument can be made that nutrition varies by any post-milking process, but pasteurization provides a degree of safety if you worry about the potential of contamination in the production process. 

My Dad spent much of his spare time during his teens working at a relative's farm; he swears by milk straight from the cow. When the farm women left blueberry pies cooling outside, he and his co-workers swiped one of them and ate it, washing it down with fresh cream off the top of raw milk. (They got caught despite denials when the ladies counted one missing and demanded the boys stick out their tongues...)

My position is let the market decide, not a government official olivious to the documented human tradition finding nourishment from the milk of cattle, goats, etc.
(on a separate thread discussing dietary fat, obesity, etc.)
Come on, people. Obesity is a complex phenomenon. Certain overconsumption, particularly of certain carbs, and a sedentary lifestyle exacerbate health issues. But it's the responsibility of the family and their physician to make relevant fixes; regulating what kids eat at school during say a 7-hour span half the days of the year is, at best, going to have limited effectiveness, and let's keep in mind that the purpose of education is education--not being Big Nanny. We need to promote competition, not micromanage student diets with a one-menu-fits-all approach. (For example, student athletes need more calories because their activity level requires it.)

See here for more

Let's not forget their contribution to the economy by enabling businesses to achieve objectives without artificial constraints on willing workers and/or starting new businesses to meet consumer demand....
I have owned several small businesses over the last 30 years and I never felt I needed to exploit illegal aliens to further my enterprise. Anyone who does should be shut down and fined . BTW, I always required proof of citizenship from all of my employees before they were hired long before we started requiring it.
It depends on the nature of the business and the labor requirements, but there are a number of businesses whom have found a necessity, whom have found the government has gotten in the way by manipulating the labor market through a century of counterproductive restrictive immigration policies. What right do you or any government to interfere in someone's business, whether it's getting enough workers to harvest crops, some raw materials or parts with mostly foreign suppliers, or some rigorously trained IT specialists? I don't have any trust in the central government, whether it's regulating businesses, implementing dysfunctional social welfare policies, or rigging immigration policy in some morally bankrupt anti-competitive, anti-business growth populist agenda to scapegoat aliens for bad public policy.

Remember the Star Kist tagline 'We don't want fish with good taste--we want fish that taste good.' Similarly, we don't want government with lower cost--we want government that does and costs less.

Courtesy of CAGW

What is it about environmentalist trolls on these threads? This is yet another corrupt goverment bargain with crony Big Green at taxpayer expense. If you are not using your own money to outfit your own homes and businesses, why is it right for the government to use your money to outfit their locations?

(Drudge Report). 8-Year-Old Disabled Boy Charged with Multiple Felonies...
Another part of the problem is adults can not physically handle children in any if they need controlling. If any Adult touches the child in a manner of restraint or punishment they risk arrest, prosecution and being sued. Heck even if another child does something to a misbehaving child, they risk unfair consequences. Bring bACK THE PADDLES and adults rights to discipline children as necessary. Sometimes a good rap on the ass cures problems, As well as the fear of a good rap on the ass
No. Just because you're obviously poor excuses for parents, giving school officials the right to physically abuse your or other parents' children is inexcusable. Learn to deal with the situation without violence.

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Michael Ramirez via Townhall

My iPod Shuffle Series

Rod Stewart, "Maggie May"

Miscellany: 4/23/14

Quote of the Day
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
Eureka! (I found it!)
but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'.
Isaac Asimov

Image of the Day

Via Drudge Report

I'll Take "Progressive" Ideology for $200, Alex...

Towards the Restoration of American Character

One theme I've been pushing over the last several weeks is the fact that over 60% of the federal budget goes not for common goods and services, but individual benefits (which can be done faster, cheaper, and better in the private sector). I have also been highly critical about the moral corrosiveness of "progressive" social policies; part of the conservative nature of my political views involves promoting the traditional bedrock of virtues (e.g., self-reliance, frugality, persistence, perseverance, independence, honesty, etc.) This is one of those talks that are so good, I wish that I had delivered it first.



The Rights of Property Owners v. Local Bureaucrats



Facebook Corner

And now for another two episodes of troll stomping:

(from a Cato thread on the need to reform uncompetitive tax brackets:)
Lower the corporate tax rate . . . Tell me, how much tax did BP, EXXON and Phillips Petroleum pay in actual taxes last year . . . ?
"Progressive" trolls should not demonstrate their economic illiteracy. In 2012, the top 2 companies paying the most income taxes were: Exxon ($31B) and Chevron ($20B). (Did you think we wouldn't notice you targeted big energy companies, for transparent political reasons?)

(from a Cato thread on leftist intolerance of the right of association)
Yes, CATO, explain to us about how great discrimination is for society. I will wait for that article.
Explain to us how your fascist intolerance of the rights of people to associate for any purpose they choose is for social good. I await your hypocritical post.

(Cato Institute) “The criminal justice system is nothing like you see on TV — it has become a system of plea bargaining."
Disparate outcomes for similar offenses offend the very concept of equality under the law. Under an increasing avalanche of rule making, any innocent person can be thrown the book of unknowable violations by prosecutorial intimidation and abuse of discretion for the mere audacity of asserting his constitutional rights. It is paradoxical and shameful that the land of the free has a disproportionately large imprisonment rate: individual rights have been trampled for the convenience of the prosecution.

(Cato Institute). "To the extent that states recognize marriage, every person has the right to choose whom to marry and to have that decision respected equally by the state in which they live."
Marriage is a social/religious construct, not a political one. The State is no more competent in intervening traditional institutions than in economics. If gays choose to migrate to communities which are supportive (vs. tolerant) of the social recognition of their relationship, it is their liberty to do so, but they should not seek to impose their values on more traditional communities/states.

(Reason). Is it constitutional to require strippers to wear pasties and G-strings?
Consenting Adults should be able to make whatever arrangements they choose without interference by the Government or busybodies
I agree, but the US Constitution does not prohibit states, cities, etc., from enacting and enforcing laws about things like nudity.
Generally, the Tenth Amendment recognizes the role of the state in promoting health, safety, and morals. I think the problem is where you draw the line. Generally speaking, I think that restrictions against artistic or personal expression under voluntary association behind closed doors (or, say, a nude beach) unduly compromise personal liberty.

(Cato Institute). "Government, as inefficient and incompetent as it often is, can sometimes make honest mistakes...however, these mistakes should raise serious concerns about government’s abilities as it seeks to spread into even more aspects of the economy and our lives."
The Congress vastly expands its intervention into the healthcare sector based on inflated estimates of the uninsured, and then the Bureau decides it needs to change metrics. Coincidence? No doubt "progressives" will pick and choose a metric to validate the "effectiveness" of their megalomaniac delusional program. But I believe Tanner is correct: I know enough about governmental bureaucratic inertia to believe it's a matter of incompetence. Still, I'm troubled by the "apples-and-oranges" statistics we get from the government for a number of indicators: inflation, unemployment, etc.

(Lew Rockwell). Camile Paglia is right, although I don’t agree with everything in her article, that the federal 21-year-old drinking age should be repealed. Within the American system, this should be a state or local matter. (I’d say parental, of course.) But Paglia places all the blame on MADD and Congress without mentioning that Reagan also pushed it.
I still remember when my Dad was stationed in France; one vacation we were driving through France when our VW bus broke down near Paris. We had to return home via train when we spotted a 4-year-old boy sipping beer and pointed him out to the folks.

I had my first beer in undergraduate school (I graduated at 19). But it was a Coors Light; I was so turned off, I didn't try another beer for years...

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of the original artist via IPI

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

Pat Benatar, "Suffer the Little Children/Hell Is For Children". I believe that children are gifts from God; hitting or harming a child is anathema. My 14-months-younger RN sister has had a hard time brokenheartedly coping with treating the victims of out-of-control parents. I recently featured Suzanne Vega's related signature hit "Luka". I was a Benatar fan from the start, but "Hell Is For Children" is by far my favorite track of hers with its brilliant arrangement and Pat's searing vocals.

I think my brother-in-law (of said sister) gave me a couple of albums, probably duplicates of my sister's collection; one of them was a Michael Jackson album and the other was a Benatar compilation. Now I did have my own copy of the original studio track of "Hell...", but this collection had a brief live medley intro of "Suffer the Little Children" that poignantly transitions to the signature introduction of "Hell..." It isn't often I prefer a "live" version, e.g., McCartney's "Maybe I'm Amazed". It took a while for me to find a relevant clip on Youtube.