I like a man who grins when he fights.
Winston Churchill
Image of the Day
Detroit Police Are Kid-Nappers
From Reason:
The couple, David and Sky Brown, were running a small, unofficial farm on their property near Detroit's west side. They possessed three baby goats and six chickens....Nevertheless, animal control agents, as well as two city police officers, showed up to the Brown residence last week to take the animals. City regulations prohibit residents from having unrestrained farm animals unless they are in the care of a trained professional.The officers refused to let the couple move the animals to a safe place outside of the city, Sky said, so she begrudgingly obeyed orders to place her goats in crates in the back of a city truck as she sobbed.“They are like our babies,” she told me, telling me their names – Idan, Raichel, and Sarai.According to WXYZ, animal control told Brown, "You're never going to see your goats again."The last time I heard, it took Detroit police nearly an hour to response to an emergency call. But they can spare cops to steal baby goats....
 |
| Courtesy of Detroit Press via NPR |
Hedge fund manager Mark Spitznagel, who recently tried to revitalize Detroit's Brightmoor neighborhood with a herd of 18 baby goats.World Series Goes to Game 7
As The New York Times reported, the plan was to direct the goats from Spitznagel's nearby farm in Michigan to graze on overgrown, abandoned lots. He would employ locals to herd and raise the animals, and eventually they'd be sold as meat. But the project met resistance. It's against the law in Detroit to keep farm animals in the city, and Spitznagel's herd was kicked out after two days.
So how hard is it to keep goats in a city anyway? Fans of these weed-munching animals point out that goats are an eco-friendly landscaping option, their meat is a staple in diets around the world and their milk makes for some delicious cheese. It also helps that they're totally adorable.
If you're around San Francisco, you can hire a herd from City Grazing, a landscaping business that employes about 100 goats. They can clear overgrown land, including areas covered in dry brush that could fuel wildfires. And conveniently, goats generally prefer munching on weeds, ivy and even poison oak to manicured lawns, says chief goat officer David Gavrich. Plus, the land that these guys clear off is ideal for growing crops, he says. "Their waste is a fertilizer. It's a nice little closed environmental circle."
Kudos to the Kansas City Royals, with their backs against the wall down 3-2 in the series, who blasted their way 10-0 on way to tomorrow's series finale. (Familiar readers know I'm an American League fan and hence am rooting for the Royals.) Still, regardless of what happens tomorrow, Giants pitcher Madison Bumgarner deserves Series MVP with 2 dominating wins, including Game 5, a complete game shutout. Both teams have superb relief pitchers, and in game 7, it's now or never, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Bumgarner on the mound sometime tomorrow.
Henderson on the Minimum Wage
I haven't embedded a Praeger University video since what I consider to be a really bad one justifying dropping the 2 atom bombs on Japan at the end of WWII. But this video and the following one are well done.
The Racist Charge of "Racism"
Facebook Corner
(CNN Politics) Rand Paul is "changing by the month," says former presidential candidate Ralph Nader. "What he ought to do is go back to his father, sit on his knee and become more like Ron Paul." http://cnn.it/1wyZJDL
Just as George W. Bush was a better politician than his father, Rand Paul is a better politician than his father. I think what Rand is doing is trying is blunt the tedious, repetitious allegations of isolationism; as principled as Ron Paul is and has been, Rand Paul works at building coalitions. Although philosophically I'm closer to Ron's perspective, but to govern, you have to have a governing coalition. But make no mistake: Rand Paul is substantively different than any major potential Presidential nominee in decades. I think the winner in 2016, a change election year, needs to posture himself against the Bush/Obama era, and no other viable candidate does that better than Rand Paul.
(Reason). Rand Paul fleshes out his notion of foreign policy "realism," and defines some limiting principles on taking the nation to war in this hot-off-the-press Reason interview.
I wrote an earlier opinion; here's an excerpt:
I will quibble with a few points, but what I like in particular is what he points to in his last two points: the importance of free trade as an instrument of peace, and how our chronic deficits and unconscionable national debt (not to mention untenable unfunded liabilities) are threats to our national security. Much of our publicly-held debt is held by foreign investors and could risk our ability to finance essential operations, not to mention a risk of crashing dumped Treasury bond prices, igniting recessionary interest spikes. We must have a sustainable budget; we must have competitive tax policies and regulatory reform to promote economic growth. To me, Rand Paul is both posturing against unpopular neocon policies and defining himself against likely 2016 Presidential candidates and a cohesive argument against the expected Dem challenger, Hillary Clinton.
I'm not going to do a comprehensive critique in this post, but I want to give some points where I don't agree with Rand Paul, at least in how he's presenting his arguments. First, at some point he loosely uses "free trade" as some sort of an American carrot in diplomacy. This is crap; free trade is win-win among consumers in two economies. When trade or access to our markets is a diplomatic concession, we are talking about the neomercantilistic whore of managed trade, which unfortunately reflects the reality of global markets today. Similarly, Rand Paul seems to accept the use of economic sanctions, which I regard as a type of warfare, which I oppose; recall the famous quote most attribute to Bastiat: "When goods don't cross borders, armies will." (Actual author: Mallery.)
Second, I disagree with his general discussion of the Afghanistan war, which he supported. At one point in his discussion, he basically discusses the futility of nationbuilding, and yet he seems to ignore that the Soviets and other occupiers of Afghanistan had found it to be a quagmire. As bad as the Taliban was, they did not attack America; I understand the point of a safe haven, but once the Taliban was defeated and Al Qaeda was on the run, I disagree with our occupation and nation building.
Finally, I still find Paul's position for military action on ISIS, which had not directly attacked the US, perplexing and unprincipled. Once we open the door of preventive warfare, you hand the neo-cons an unnecessary concession. At one point elsewhere, he points out the unintended consequences of our drone activities, but what about our ISIS initiative?
Without intending to disagree outright, I'll add:
1. I'd posit that he supports opening trade up as much as possible; this is a true wealth generator for all participants, while at the same time limiting trade with hostile postures also makes sense because it limits their available options, and it's cheaper for us than troops and bombs while having a similar if protracted effect. This makes sense with Iran, for instance, though in the long run it may not be seen as making sense with North Korea.
2. We're not the Soviets. The Soviets came as conquerors and their military at the time was of an especially brutal and uncivilized nature. In contrast, while US troops and assistance were widely received in a positive light after the also rather oppressive Taliban were pushed back, the realities on the ground have created another, though dissimilar, quagmire. Nation building then is only as effective as the people of the nation involved are at coming together. After World War II with many shattered and a number of defeated nations around the globe, few had issues coming together under the US's 'occupation and nation building' endeavors. Germany and Japan today stand as shining beacons in their respective regions, as does South Korea after the Korean war, but in those cases the peoples were rather determined to rebuild what was lost, while neither the Iraqis nor the Afghanis, or the Libyans for that matter share the necessary homogeneity. They're too tribal in nature.
3. If someone attacks your friend, you consider that an attack on yourself. Thus, the IS' attack on Iraqis is something that we can't really let pass, and the reality is that the IS is a significant ideological force to be reckoned with; it's the new communism, and it's a plague that threatens the destruction of peoples and nations across the globe. Note that the IS hasn't 'directly' attacked the US yet only because they lack the means. Their goal is the same as Al Qaeda; the destruction of Israel, of the US who supports them, and the subjugation of the world under an Islamic Caliphate and Shariah law.
1. My comments were made with respect to Rand Paul's address. [Me] "First, at some point he loosely uses "free trade" as some sort of an American carrot in diplomacy." From Rand Paul: "Free trade and technology should be the greatest carrot of our statecraft." He earlier says "President George W. Bush understood that part of the projection of American power is the exporting of American goods and culture." No politician wants to admit access to foreign goods and services also benefit American consumers. He also points out that Bush negotiated 14 free trade agreements and pushes TPP. None of these are "free trade"; they are really managed trade. As free market economists like Boudreaux point out, if you are for free trade, you simply allow it, even unilaterally, because it's to the benefit of American consumers.
[As a brief aside, the last thing Rand Paul should be doing is referencing GW Bush in deferential terms. He needs to posture himself in 2016 against the 16 years of domestic and foreign intervention of Bush/Obama.]
"Limiting trade with hostile postures" is NOT acceptable; this is a type of warfare where consumers are the intended target. Economic sanctions are denounced by every self-respecting libertarian as immoral. Here is Rand Paul on Russia: "I support the sanctions that the U.S. and the European Union put in place against Russia." Here is Ron Paul on Russia: "These sanctions will not produce the results Washington demands, but they will hurt the economies of the US and EU, as well as Russia." As Ryan McMaken writes, "From a free-market perspective, trade sanctions are always immoral and illegitimate because they restrict trade and free choice among individuals. Arguably, they are even worse when instituted for purposes of provoking war, as is the case with the Obama administration and Russia. "
2, It's not clear what your point is: some nation/state-building is more successful than others. Afghanistan has been occupied by many empires during its history. You seem to realize, after the fact, that Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, among others, were too tribal or sectarian; the point is, Bush knew about the risks before occupying Afghanisan and Iraq; for example, his own father had declined to topple Hussein at the end of the first Gulf War for just that reason, and Obama had to know the same about Libya, while his Administration failed to follow the British in withdrawing diplomats from Benghazi before the tragic 9/11 attack.
But the overall point is that state-building is not a constitutional responsibility; the citizens of a defeated state have the right to form their own government and leaders. We should not interfere in the internal affairs of other states.
3. ISIS is not a credible military threat to the US. You cannot rig a rationale for war based on the empty threats and rants of every anti-American group based in other countries. A rationale of preventive war is a prescription for nonstop, multi-front warfare. Again, Ron Paul has a more orthodox libertarian position: "A new US military incursion will not end ISIS; it will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave, while draining the US treasury. Just what Osama bin Laden wanted!" No more Whac-a-Mole. I don't disagree that Iraq's neighbors in the region have an interest in containing ISIS, but America's intervention is morally hazardous.
(LFC). On Michigan becoming the fifth state to reject Tesla's direct sales to consumers.
And he is a Republican! Shows that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties, both sellouts to cronies and those that finance their campaigns.
No. This is a Republican governor up for a tight reelection in a state whose economy is heavily dependent on the auto industry. I agree in principle Snyder should have vetoed the bill, but let me point out only one legislator from either party voted against the bill. Note the bill did not ban Tesla from sales, but Tesla has to work through dealerships. I agree that Tesla should have the right to sell directly rather than to sell through corrupt crony Big Dealers, but the courts haven't done a good job protecting economic liberty since Carolene Products.
(Judge Andrew Napolitano/Fox News). Do you think local officials have the right to lock you up if they believe you could have Ebola? Watch what Judge Andrew Napolitano had to say on 'The Kelly File' and weigh in.
Judge Napolitano has it spot on. This has been fear-mongering run amok, at the expense of individual liberty, almost like the Salem witch trials redux. There but for the grace of God... The anti-scientific public panic is unconscionable; out of all the recent airflights from West Africa, how many passengers and/or the people they've met since then have tested positive for the disease? You can count them on one hand. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be prudent, but most of the comments in this thread are utterly shameful, anti-liberty, and uncompassionate.
(Drudge Report). REPUBLICANS VOW: WE'LL STOP OBAMA'S 'UN-AMERICAN' AMNESTY IF WE WIN SENATE...
All Priebus is doing is losing credibility. There will be more than enough Democrats in either chamber to sustain an Obama veto. Setting false expectations will come back and bite you on the ass.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Henry Payne via Townhall |
Linda Ronstadt, "How Do I Make You". Linda Ronstadt brought her rocker chick credentials; I absolutely love the driving percussion in this hit--in my top 5 favorites, along with "You're No Good", "Dreams to Dream", "Love is a Rose", and "Don't Know Much". Honorable mention for "Someone to Lay Down Beside Me" and "Somewhere Out There". I prefer more original hit material, although I admit Ronstadt did spectacular remakes. But would you believe the "Very Best" Ronstadt CD I have playing in my car doesn't include 3 of these songs, including today's selection?
