Just because something doesn't do what you planned it to do doesn't mean it's useless.
Thomas A. Edison
Earlier One-Off Post: The Tea Party: A Coalition Between Pro-Liberty Conservatives and Right-Wing Populists
This is a piece I've been wanting to do for a while; you can probably tell--I still have an academic's desire to structure things, which is confounded when concepts are fuzzily defined or disputed. I read the Gray Lady saying that over 5 years, the Tea Party has shifted from limited government to opposition to immigration. No, there are affiliated groups with mixed agendas, but without a fiscally conservative President, we are limited in what we can do with a spendthrift President with a veto. The Senate Republicans, other than budget reconciliation, need 6 votes just to reach cloture and another 7 to override a veto. I think the real story is what happens in reconciliation. As to the essay, at first I worried it would be too unwieldy, but I like the structure and flow of the final piece, especially given the density of the material. For someone who is not familiar with the types of libertarianism or the difference between capitalism and corporatism, I think it's very readable. I also contrast differences between libertarianism and populism. Some of the discussion (e.g., the "large standing army" paragraph) is original, not paraphrased or summarized. As a perfectionist, I'm sure I can make another pass over the essay in the future, but I like the current essay as I write.
Guest Quotation of the Day
"The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble cause to fight!" - Ludwig von MisesOpen the Door and Let 'Em In
Facebook Corner
(National Review). The main problem at community colleges is not cost, or work disincentives, but the appallingly low rates at which their students finish with a useful credential. President Obama’s plan is not going to fix this.
It reminds me when I worked for a higher education ERP vendor a few years back; one of our clients was Nassau Community College on Long Island. I was responsible for helping set up an operational data store (think of an end-of-day updated clone of a production database in a more accessible format with user-friendly object and field names) and teaching local tech staffers how to administer them.
The database turned out to be much larger than expected; in troubleshooting the problem, I discovered the reason was that NCC did not have a policy of closing student records even if they took just one class, say in 1982. From a technical design standpoint, this mean our software would continue to generate empty records every semester over the next 26 years counting. I want to say the database size was something like 128GB, multiple times higher than expected. I think the functional client manager was looking into closing out old student records, but I had to transition to a new customer in the interim. [I'm driving home the point that many students never end up getting a degree; without skin in the game, these numbers will skyrocket at taxpayer expense.]
Parting bureaucratic point of the day: there was a state tech administration group which did backups for the college databases. I got contacted by one of the techies who solemnly told me that their backup procedures would only accommodate something like a maximum of 110GB. (Actual numbers may vary but the basic point is relevant.) She told me she could restore the database that was backed up 4 days ago, but I had to ensure the database in the future could never exceed 110GB. I pointed out that wasn't an option, because we would lose at least 4 days of more recent data. Not my problem, responded the Procrustean techie. Let's hope she never works at a funeral home. I can just see it now: "But my late husband is 6'5"..." "I'm sorry, but our caskets max out at 6 feet... Have you considered cremation?"
(Rand Paul). Earlier today, Cory Booker & I joined Sullivan University for a discussion about #REDEEMAct. WATCH here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5JqfLg22BM&feature=youtu.be
A long overdue first step to reduce our unparalleled high incarceration rate among advanced economies. Let's also look at ending the war on drugs, 3-strike laws, and civil asset forfeiture abuse; let's reduce incarceration for white-collar crimes.
(Reason). There are few areas on which most economists agree but one of them is that immigrants on the whole are an incredible economic boon.
We should immediately legalize all immigrants, establish an unrestricted temporary worker program, guarantee foreign students who earn American graduate school degrees in the medical, science, high technology, or engineering sectors green cards, expedited legal residency for any nuclear family members of immigrants and any professional with a job offer from an American employer, and quintuple quotas for any backlogged queues.
anyone thinking that massive illegal immigration is a plus to the economy is a f****** idiot
Anti-immigrants are immoral bigots who are in a state of denial. We've tended to achieve our highest growth rate with robust immigration. Immigration restrictions by the government are blatant violations of the human right to travel and economic rights of employers and willing workers.
(Heritage Foundation). The Daily Signal caught up Senator Paul on this hot subject. [Rand Paul on a third consecutive Romney candidacy: time for new blood].
Lots of senator-bashing. Understandable given Obama, never mind Hillary. But consider Governors Carter, Clinton, and George W. Bush: all of them miserable, all of whom learned foreign policy on the job and made some huge policy blunders,
Whereas I would like to see Rand with more executive experience, let's point out that Rand has demonstrated leadership, he's worked across the aisle, he has reached out to the black community. He brings some fresh policy ideas, he can broaden his message beyond the GOP base.
Romney is a good man, but he blew an easy shot to argue against 12 years of Bush/Obama domestic and foreign policies. His foreign policy views seem like a prescription for new wars we don't need and can't afford. I just think the voters got 2 good looks at him already, and the polls don't predict success over Hillary.
(Reason). No, Bobby Jindal it's not time to "turn back to God," especially when it comes to politics and public policy. The fault lies not in our stars but in policies.
Sometimes Nick Gillespie gets a little too full of himself. Heaven save us from a hypocritical libertarian who can't stomach references to God from a public servant but will fight to the death for the right of cartoonists to mock Mohammed,
Here's a hint to Gillespie: as a speaker or writer, know your audience. He was speaking to religious leaders. Imagine that--he actually mentions God in a speech to religious leaders. Not acceptable to the Censor of Secular Humanism Gillespie who, in his infinite tolerance, spells God "god". God save you, nick.
Do I have to spell out for you why it might be important to elect politicians who aren't political whores, who think twice before passing on trillions of debts and unfunded liabilities to future generations, who don't pass morally hazardous, corrupt domestic policies? You don't think there's something wrong when 40% of births are illegitimate and odds of growing up with 2 parents in urban communities aren't very good--and that fairly recent development has nothing to do with a hedonistic culture and government dependency programs?
(Reason). "The mainstream media immediately decided that the shooting was an attack on free speech...They prefer to believe the fantasy that they attack us because they hate our freedoms, or that they cannot stand our free speech." -Ron Paul
I guess I don't rate high enough for Welch to mention me, although I sent out a mocking tweet of him recently. I've commented several times over Reason's innumerable repetitive posts getting personally flamed many times without drawing a single like.
First, whereas I agree foreign interventionist meddling can have unintended consequences, it's not obvious this action had anything to do as a protest of French policy--it wasn't aimed at the population at large or government facility. On the other hand, Charlie had published material offensive to a number of local Muslims. In fact, it had been the target of a prior attack. By Ockham's razor, we don't need to overthink this. We knew that a fatwa had been issued on Salman Rushdie's life for his portrayal of Mohammed in his fourth novel.
Second, when you insult people or mock their cherished beliefs, it's not "free speech"; it's incivility, an abuse of liberty. However, there is no moral justification for killing anyone in cold blood, no matter what the reason. Now if you libel me, if you engage in fraud, if you cause a panic at a public event resulting in loss of life, if you tell a cop or a judge what you really think of him, if you lie under oath, if you lie on your resume, etc., it's not a matter of "free speech". You need to accept responsibility for your behavior. But any response must be commensurate and abide by the rule of law, e.g., a Muslim boycott of Charlie.
Finally, I find it rich that Welch is talking about free speech in a country, like many of the Western democracies which have legislated and prosecute hate crime laws.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel via Townhall |
Céline Dion (with Clive Griffin), "When I Fall In Love"
