"Here we are, I'm out at my third Pro Bowl, I'm about to go in and throw a touchdown to Jerry Rice, we're honoring the Hall of Fame, and we're talking about our idiot kicker who got liquored up and ran his mouth off." - Peyton Manning
News Item: WASHINGTON -
President Bush embraced Sen. John McCain 's proposal to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorism suspects on Thursday, reversing months of opposition that included White House veto threats. --AP
Which one (Manning or Bush) is a more effective leader? On a day when the Iraqi transformation was ratified by 68% of the electorate, and that his vision of Iraq's independence is now careening toward certainty, the "architect" of the war in Iraq is spouting off like an idiot. In recent days he's given the impression that the military intelligence leading into the war was "faulty", and now he wants to handcuff the intelligence function even more with this brain-dead scheme. Now, no matter what the terrorists do, they know they will get the country club treatment in Gitmo for all their troubles.
When McCain came up with this, George should have just said, "On a day when Iraqi independence is assured, and we are honoring the people who fought for their independence, we're talking about our idiot senators who get get liquored up and run their mouths off".
Peyton is 13-0 this season. GWB will miss the playoffs. Who's the better leader?
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Friday, December 09, 2005
Wizer One-Liner #6
What's going on with the Republicans may not be that funny, but It's hard to beat the Dems for pure entertainment value.
The survey says....
The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best. – Thomas Sowell
In almost all matters, the real question should be: why are we letting government handle this? – Harry Browne
I normally don't do surveys. My thinking is if the person writing the survey is smart enough to write a meaningful survey, he already knows the answers. Today, I get in the mail, a solicitation masquerading as a survey. It was from The National Republican Senatorial Committee, and it was called the Senate Majority Leader's Survey.
Don't ask me how I got on their mailing list. I have never been a member of their party, or even much of a sympathizer. But I did fill out this survey.
Here's an example question: "Should the United States increase spending to protect its borders and coastlines?" There was no checkbox for the real answer, which is "The United States gets enough money to protect our borders. It is the only constitutional duty the federal government is responsible for, and there ought to already be enough money in the budget to manage this one thing." Hard to cover that in a yes or no scenario. Put me down as undecided.
Here's another: "Should the United States accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces no matter what the cost? No matter what the cost? I wonder what kind of answer they were going for there. Surely a "No" answer tells them very little. The whole reason for the "survey", of course is in the last section, the one where you get to fill out your Visa, MasterCard, ar AmEx number.
Gonna send it in, anyway (no postage necessary, and no contribution made). They've got my response. I doubt they'll care about the answers. They did not even get the questions right.
In almost all matters, the real question should be: why are we letting government handle this? – Harry Browne
I normally don't do surveys. My thinking is if the person writing the survey is smart enough to write a meaningful survey, he already knows the answers. Today, I get in the mail, a solicitation masquerading as a survey. It was from The National Republican Senatorial Committee, and it was called the Senate Majority Leader's Survey.
Don't ask me how I got on their mailing list. I have never been a member of their party, or even much of a sympathizer. But I did fill out this survey.
Here's an example question: "Should the United States increase spending to protect its borders and coastlines?" There was no checkbox for the real answer, which is "The United States gets enough money to protect our borders. It is the only constitutional duty the federal government is responsible for, and there ought to already be enough money in the budget to manage this one thing." Hard to cover that in a yes or no scenario. Put me down as undecided.
Here's another: "Should the United States accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces no matter what the cost? No matter what the cost? I wonder what kind of answer they were going for there. Surely a "No" answer tells them very little. The whole reason for the "survey", of course is in the last section, the one where you get to fill out your Visa, MasterCard, ar AmEx number.
Gonna send it in, anyway (no postage necessary, and no contribution made). They've got my response. I doubt they'll care about the answers. They did not even get the questions right.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Small mindedness
"Intelligent people talk about ideas, average minded people talk about events, small minded people talk about people." - eleanor roosevelt
Jonah Goldberg, as usual, pretty much nails it in this article. Intelligent people talk about Freedom. Average people talk about The War. Small minded people talk about how "evil" George W. Bush is. Lets have our debates over ideas.
Jonah Goldberg, as usual, pretty much nails it in this article. Intelligent people talk about Freedom. Average people talk about The War. Small minded people talk about how "evil" George W. Bush is. Lets have our debates over ideas.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Meanwhile, back at home....
The Government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. – Ronald Reagan
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. – Milton Friedman
While our "leaders" debate the equivalent of pulling all police officers out of the South Central neighborhood of LA, or Eight Mile Road in Detroit, (we're making more enemies every day in Michigan) the bigger issue continues to fester. We are growing the government at an unprecedented and truly alarming rate.
The president points to the growing economy, as if your finding a job were a good excuse to run your credit cards over the top. You could easily just follow the money here, and see the problem, but I worry more about the size of the resulting government. Fiscal responsibility gets only lip service from this administration. GWB has never met a spending bill he didn't like. Tom DeLay couldn't find any fat in the budget either. Well, Tom, the rest of us see fat when we see it.
George's tax cuts have been on the right side of the Laffer curve, but that will change, one way or another.
Could it be that Mike Pence is the unwavering voice of fiscal reason? The real Republican Revolution has perhaps not yet begun?
All I know is we have more government than we want today, and much less than we paid for.
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. – Milton Friedman
While our "leaders" debate the equivalent of pulling all police officers out of the South Central neighborhood of LA, or Eight Mile Road in Detroit, (we're making more enemies every day in Michigan) the bigger issue continues to fester. We are growing the government at an unprecedented and truly alarming rate.
The president points to the growing economy, as if your finding a job were a good excuse to run your credit cards over the top. You could easily just follow the money here, and see the problem, but I worry more about the size of the resulting government. Fiscal responsibility gets only lip service from this administration. GWB has never met a spending bill he didn't like. Tom DeLay couldn't find any fat in the budget either. Well, Tom, the rest of us see fat when we see it.
George's tax cuts have been on the right side of the Laffer curve, but that will change, one way or another.
Could it be that Mike Pence is the unwavering voice of fiscal reason? The real Republican Revolution has perhaps not yet begun?
All I know is we have more government than we want today, and much less than we paid for.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
High Treason on the National Stage.
Article 3, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. -- U.S. Constitution
Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy is apparently protected under the first amendment rights to free speech, because much speechmaking these days is truly treasonous. To say to the world that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction is not only false, it's recklessly false.
Are we all naive enough to believe that they never existed? There are those who say that Bush made statements about WMD that were intentionally false, yet these facts turned out to be inarguably true. This is more than simple misunderstanding. It is disinformation; a tactic often used in wartime to mislead an opponent to help reach a military objective. In short, those who say these things are working against the effectiveness of our soldiers, and our government. They are traitors.
Then Murtha, Pelosi, and the whole gang of useful idiots is doing nothing but providing hope and encouragement to our enemies. And they call it patriotism, and somehow Kennedy and Kerry and McCain salute it.
It's disheartening to see the purveyors of this crap spout off on our national stage. The terrorists are hoping and believing that maybe we'll knock our own buildings down for them. If this isn't aid and comfort, what more can we give them?
Bottom line is we are at war, and we had better start acting like it. It seems sometimes that the only one who knows this is "W", and it's pathetic that he has to stop and explain it to all those who are "stuck on stupid". Move on, people. There's no "there" there.
You don't have to like the fact that we are forced to confront our godless enemies in a foreign land, but you do have to recognize that it's where we are today. Our so called "leaders" should refrain from the overt treason that disingenuous partisan politics represents.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
What would Jesus Drive?
Environmentalism, in short, is the last refuge of socialism. - Philip Brennan
What would Jesus Drive?, Why, a big SUV, so he can carry more apostles with him. -- Rush Limbaugh
In a 2003 speech by author Michael Crichton, among other places, he raised the spectre of environmentalism as the next big religion.
And so it is with environmentalism.
This speech, and the landmark Philip Brennan article paint a pretty strong picture on why you should simply ignore all calls for dealing with global warming. In fact, if I were you, I'd think a bit about prepping for the next ice age.
In the meantime, there will be more hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and forest fires. It's gonna happen. And the simple truth is that anybody who wants you to park your SUV in order to save the planet is trying to convert you into his environmentalist religion. Think of him as more of a Jehovah's Witness. Tell him no thanks.
What would Jesus Drive?, Why, a big SUV, so he can carry more apostles with him. -- Rush Limbaugh
In a 2003 speech by author Michael Crichton, among other places, he raised the spectre of environmentalism as the next big religion.
With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.
This speech, and the landmark Philip Brennan article paint a pretty strong picture on why you should simply ignore all calls for dealing with global warming. In fact, if I were you, I'd think a bit about prepping for the next ice age.
In the meantime, there will be more hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and forest fires. It's gonna happen. And the simple truth is that anybody who wants you to park your SUV in order to save the planet is trying to convert you into his environmentalist religion. Think of him as more of a Jehovah's Witness. Tell him no thanks.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Conservative vs. Republican
One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed (1886)
The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates. – Tacitus
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. – Ayn Rand
I profess, at the outset, to being a card carrying member of the Libertarian party. I don't feel any strong affinity or loyalty to the party; just a kind of "common identification" with the basic philosophy. The delicious irony is it is an organization made up of confirmed individualists. In that context, there probably isn't even a party platform, because that would require consensus, and individualists are parsimonious with their saluting of anything.
If there were a party platform it would be pretty simple, like repealing 90% of all laws, eliminating 90% of all bureacracies, and installing (for a change) a constitutional form of government.
Politicos today don't talk much about that. No, they talk about higher or lower funding of this bunch or that group, without even stopping to consider the absolute need. It's useful to see how we got this way. The government was founded on Federalist principles. That is, an expressly limited government. It was confusing enough in the 1780's when the so-called Federalist Party wound up supporting big government, and it took the Democratic-Republicans to finally win that battle (see this historical treatment).
Unfortunately, the war has gone poorly since then. It does appear that the modern day version of big government, the Democrat party is getting hammered the way the Federalist party did in the 1810's; only for us to to find now that the Republican Party is embracing all the big brother-inspired evil that folks didn't like about the Dems.
Let's examine the term "conservative". If by conservative you mean resistant to change; that can be said about both major parties. If however it means what it meant when the term applied to Barry Goldwater, Bill Buckley, and Ronald Reagan, it means something completely different.
Anyway, adopting the idea that limited government is still the domain of the so-called conservatives, then they have a common objective with libertarians and Libertarians, at least on the economic and political sides.
There is a very sharp divide at the moment between conservatives and Republicans. The opportunity does not exist for the Democrats, however. That is, unless the Dems somehow start a total retool and become the party of smaller government. Then we'll see a Federalist Party-like meltdown of the Republicans. Now THAT would be fun to watch.
The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates. – Tacitus
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. – Ayn Rand
I profess, at the outset, to being a card carrying member of the Libertarian party. I don't feel any strong affinity or loyalty to the party; just a kind of "common identification" with the basic philosophy. The delicious irony is it is an organization made up of confirmed individualists. In that context, there probably isn't even a party platform, because that would require consensus, and individualists are parsimonious with their saluting of anything.
If there were a party platform it would be pretty simple, like repealing 90% of all laws, eliminating 90% of all bureacracies, and installing (for a change) a constitutional form of government.
Politicos today don't talk much about that. No, they talk about higher or lower funding of this bunch or that group, without even stopping to consider the absolute need. It's useful to see how we got this way. The government was founded on Federalist principles. That is, an expressly limited government. It was confusing enough in the 1780's when the so-called Federalist Party wound up supporting big government, and it took the Democratic-Republicans to finally win that battle (see this historical treatment).
Unfortunately, the war has gone poorly since then. It does appear that the modern day version of big government, the Democrat party is getting hammered the way the Federalist party did in the 1810's; only for us to to find now that the Republican Party is embracing all the big brother-inspired evil that folks didn't like about the Dems.
Let's examine the term "conservative". If by conservative you mean resistant to change; that can be said about both major parties. If however it means what it meant when the term applied to Barry Goldwater, Bill Buckley, and Ronald Reagan, it means something completely different.
Anyway, adopting the idea that limited government is still the domain of the so-called conservatives, then they have a common objective with libertarians and Libertarians, at least on the economic and political sides.
There is a very sharp divide at the moment between conservatives and Republicans. The opportunity does not exist for the Democrats, however. That is, unless the Dems somehow start a total retool and become the party of smaller government. Then we'll see a Federalist Party-like meltdown of the Republicans. Now THAT would be fun to watch.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Supreme Court as Playground
"Ms. Miers has not been a judge, but I regard that as a strength, not a weakness." --Harry Reid, D-Nevada
"I know her well enough to say that she's not going to change; 20 years from now, she will be the same person with the same philosophy as today." -- George W. Bush
"the worst damn-fool mistake I made as president." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower on his appointment of Earl Warren as CJOTSCOTUS
It floored me when I learned of Miers nomination. Not so much because it was her, but because of who was extolling her virtues. Harry Reid. I was hoping to hear about a nominee that Harry hated. Then I could be pretty sure that the nominee at least wasn't a communist. Likewise, I would want someone that Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and their friends hate. Instead, I'm hearing that Bill Kristol, George Will, David Frum, and Rusty Limbaugh have a problem with this.
I didn't say much here about the Roberts nomination, but I am now marvelling at how the same president nominated both John Roberts and Harriet Miers. Bush-41 was one for two in his appointments, perhaps Bush-43 wanted to share that legacy too. Roberts could become the only real accomplishment of Bush's tenure (and that is all in the hands of Roberts now) but that possibility is amplified by the contrast between the two.
For a president who is wrong more often than he is right (recall: Social Security Privatization, Patriot Act, Immigration Amnesty), I suppose that we should feel lucky with one out of two. It just seems too much like the schoolyard playground situation where you need someone for right field, and so you pick your buddy because you don't know the other players.
"I know her well enough to say that she's not going to change; 20 years from now, she will be the same person with the same philosophy as today." -- George W. Bush
"the worst damn-fool mistake I made as president." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower on his appointment of Earl Warren as CJOTSCOTUS
It floored me when I learned of Miers nomination. Not so much because it was her, but because of who was extolling her virtues. Harry Reid. I was hoping to hear about a nominee that Harry hated. Then I could be pretty sure that the nominee at least wasn't a communist. Likewise, I would want someone that Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and their friends hate. Instead, I'm hearing that Bill Kristol, George Will, David Frum, and Rusty Limbaugh have a problem with this.
I didn't say much here about the Roberts nomination, but I am now marvelling at how the same president nominated both John Roberts and Harriet Miers. Bush-41 was one for two in his appointments, perhaps Bush-43 wanted to share that legacy too. Roberts could become the only real accomplishment of Bush's tenure (and that is all in the hands of Roberts now) but that possibility is amplified by the contrast between the two.
For a president who is wrong more often than he is right (recall: Social Security Privatization, Patriot Act, Immigration Amnesty), I suppose that we should feel lucky with one out of two. It just seems too much like the schoolyard playground situation where you need someone for right field, and so you pick your buddy because you don't know the other players.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Pork Barrel, Cajun Style
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."-- James Madison, in response to the 1792 congressional appropriation of $15,000 to assist some French refugees.
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve such spending, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."-- Franklin Pierce, after he vetoed a bill in 1854 to help the mentally ill
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds . . . I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." -- Grover Cleveland, after he vetoed an appropriation in 1887 to help drought-stricken counties in Texas
"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government. And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility." -- George W. Bush
Well, well, well, George to the rescue. I can't help but feel pangs of sorrow and disappointment that George did not take the opportunity to instruct the media of the true calling of a federal government. How is it we've come this far that when we have a hurricane in Louisiana, people fold their arms and look to Washington for the solution. So now we have George going on the biggest ego trip since FDR, armed with nary a hint of the fundamental flaws of FEMA. After 5 years of piling bureacracy on top of bureacracy, we can't even find FEMA on the org chart, much less give it a job description.
The sad thing is that the dialog is centering on what went wrong, when what really went wrong was the persistent expectation that the federal government should even be involved. FEMA is as unconstitutional as any organization in government today. The stupid part is that people will continue to live below sea level, on fault lines, in forest fires, and in every conceivable harm's way when they know someone else is perfectly willing to build them a new home when the worst comes. It's like federally subsidized insurance for the chronically stupid.
Compassionate Conservatism, I have finally ascertained, truly sucks. The biggest handout since LBJ is at our door, and "W" is dealing out the debit cards.
I believe we are now seeing what will eventually turn Washington back to the Democrats, and this time it won't take a Perot to do it.
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve such spending, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."-- Franklin Pierce, after he vetoed a bill in 1854 to help the mentally ill
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds . . . I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." -- Grover Cleveland, after he vetoed an appropriation in 1887 to help drought-stricken counties in Texas
"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government. And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility." -- George W. Bush
Well, well, well, George to the rescue. I can't help but feel pangs of sorrow and disappointment that George did not take the opportunity to instruct the media of the true calling of a federal government. How is it we've come this far that when we have a hurricane in Louisiana, people fold their arms and look to Washington for the solution. So now we have George going on the biggest ego trip since FDR, armed with nary a hint of the fundamental flaws of FEMA. After 5 years of piling bureacracy on top of bureacracy, we can't even find FEMA on the org chart, much less give it a job description.
The sad thing is that the dialog is centering on what went wrong, when what really went wrong was the persistent expectation that the federal government should even be involved. FEMA is as unconstitutional as any organization in government today. The stupid part is that people will continue to live below sea level, on fault lines, in forest fires, and in every conceivable harm's way when they know someone else is perfectly willing to build them a new home when the worst comes. It's like federally subsidized insurance for the chronically stupid.
Compassionate Conservatism, I have finally ascertained, truly sucks. The biggest handout since LBJ is at our door, and "W" is dealing out the debit cards.
I believe we are now seeing what will eventually turn Washington back to the Democrats, and this time it won't take a Perot to do it.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Hate Crimes
"The world is divided into the three super-powers Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia. Oceania is alternating at war with one power and allied with the other. The population of Oceania consists of three castes: the Inner Party (1%), the Outer Party (14%) and the Proles (85%). The Inner Party is the ruling caste and its sole desire is to gain power, have power, and keep the power - forever. The Inner Party uses a system of totalitarianism to stay in power, which means the total control over the people's actions and thoughts. "
-- excerpt, Reto Hohener's summary of the book Nineteen Eighty Four, by George Orwell (http://www.warroad.k12.mn.us/moredocs/stdnt_work/rhohener/1984.1.htm)
" Killing people is already illegal" -- The Wizer
Since about the '90's, certain states as well as the federal government have tacked on additional penalties for what is termed "hate crimes". As I understand it, you might get 25 years for killing a gay guy; however if you can prove you didn't know he was gay, maybe you get off in 15? Either way, this guys's dead, so it doesn't seem to protect his rights any.
Is it a hate crime every time a white guy kills a black? Or when a black guy kills a white? How about Jews. Does it become a hate crime if you knew the man you killed was a Jew? Why? Maybe you killed him just because he was an a**hole. The first point is, why would it matter why you killed him? Killing is already illegal. There's no additional protection for the killee, so why is this even bothered with?
Consider that the only difference between the two such crimes is what you were thinking. So, the additional penalty has as it's only legal definition, what the user was thinking, or, in short, "a thought crime". It's difficult to ignore the Orwellian aspects of that; but assuming we can for the moment, how do we establish what the offender was thinking? That would seem to be a job for a mind-reader. Last time I looked, that was not a rational possibility.
So, the only remaining objective of the "Hate Crime" penalty is to create a system whereby thoughts are monitored. It may be a while before Science catches up with the law, and folks, I for one am concerned that they just might be able to do it someday. When the Inner Party starts to fund it, it's time to watch out.
-- excerpt, Reto Hohener's summary of the book Nineteen Eighty Four, by George Orwell (http://www.warroad.k12.mn.us/moredocs/stdnt_work/rhohener/1984.1.htm)
" Killing people is already illegal" -- The Wizer
Since about the '90's, certain states as well as the federal government have tacked on additional penalties for what is termed "hate crimes". As I understand it, you might get 25 years for killing a gay guy; however if you can prove you didn't know he was gay, maybe you get off in 15? Either way, this guys's dead, so it doesn't seem to protect his rights any.
Is it a hate crime every time a white guy kills a black? Or when a black guy kills a white? How about Jews. Does it become a hate crime if you knew the man you killed was a Jew? Why? Maybe you killed him just because he was an a**hole. The first point is, why would it matter why you killed him? Killing is already illegal. There's no additional protection for the killee, so why is this even bothered with?
Consider that the only difference between the two such crimes is what you were thinking. So, the additional penalty has as it's only legal definition, what the user was thinking, or, in short, "a thought crime". It's difficult to ignore the Orwellian aspects of that; but assuming we can for the moment, how do we establish what the offender was thinking? That would seem to be a job for a mind-reader. Last time I looked, that was not a rational possibility.
So, the only remaining objective of the "Hate Crime" penalty is to create a system whereby thoughts are monitored. It may be a while before Science catches up with the law, and folks, I for one am concerned that they just might be able to do it someday. When the Inner Party starts to fund it, it's time to watch out.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Am I a Democrat or Republican?
"Dad, am I a Democrat or a Republican?" -- Billy, Age 9
"That's an interesting question. The short answer is that you are neither, at least yet. But since you asked, there are a number of things you need to look for before deciding if you are one or the other or something else. You see, Billy, most Democrats think Americans are dumb and can't be trusted to run their own lives. Most Republicans don't have a low opinion of people, but they try to run everybody's lives anyway. The difference is usually in how they spend your money. Both parties will spend everything they can. The political parties that won't spend your money are not in power. I wouldn't be in a hurry to line up with either side if I were you. Billy, there's a lot that will change before you have to decide anything about that. In the meantime learn all you can about it. The most important thing to remember is that you are in charge of your life, and not some politician in DC."
There's so much more I wanted to tell Billy. But we arrived at home, and other necessary routines put the question aside for a day. This morning he asked if we could get the police to stop the politicians from spending all the money. That's Billy. He asks a lot of good questions. I explained how our representative democracy works. Then he asked about voting. I said "You'll like voting", and I answered his questions until we got to the day care center. Billy is an optimist. The kind of kid who could grow up and lead a political party. You heard it here first.
"That's an interesting question. The short answer is that you are neither, at least yet. But since you asked, there are a number of things you need to look for before deciding if you are one or the other or something else. You see, Billy, most Democrats think Americans are dumb and can't be trusted to run their own lives. Most Republicans don't have a low opinion of people, but they try to run everybody's lives anyway. The difference is usually in how they spend your money. Both parties will spend everything they can. The political parties that won't spend your money are not in power. I wouldn't be in a hurry to line up with either side if I were you. Billy, there's a lot that will change before you have to decide anything about that. In the meantime learn all you can about it. The most important thing to remember is that you are in charge of your life, and not some politician in DC."
There's so much more I wanted to tell Billy. But we arrived at home, and other necessary routines put the question aside for a day. This morning he asked if we could get the police to stop the politicians from spending all the money. That's Billy. He asks a lot of good questions. I explained how our representative democracy works. Then he asked about voting. I said "You'll like voting", and I answered his questions until we got to the day care center. Billy is an optimist. The kind of kid who could grow up and lead a political party. You heard it here first.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Karl Rove
"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing" -- Karl Rove
You see it in the NFL all the time. The best team in football tends to dominate in its time, with a solid quarterback, and a number of other top-quality players. When a quarterback makes this much difference (as Karl Rove must be doing), the defense has to find a way to stop him.
If the offense is set up properly, there's no way for the defense to stop the quarterback. So, the defensive line coach puts in a designated thug, whose job it is to break the quarterback's arm; and to bend the rules as necessary to do it.
So there we are with Wilson. He's the designated thug, that the democrats will sacrifice so long as they get their man.
They may get to the quarterback, but it's not clear where the penalty flags will fall.
You see it in the NFL all the time. The best team in football tends to dominate in its time, with a solid quarterback, and a number of other top-quality players. When a quarterback makes this much difference (as Karl Rove must be doing), the defense has to find a way to stop him.
If the offense is set up properly, there's no way for the defense to stop the quarterback. So, the defensive line coach puts in a designated thug, whose job it is to break the quarterback's arm; and to bend the rules as necessary to do it.
So there we are with Wilson. He's the designated thug, that the democrats will sacrifice so long as they get their man.
They may get to the quarterback, but it's not clear where the penalty flags will fall.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Happy Trails, Sandy O'Connor
It is difficult to discern a serious threat to religious liberty from a room of silent, thoughtful schoolchildren. --Sandra Day O'Connor
Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet, 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade (1973), that definition of liberty is still questioned. --Sandra Day O'Connor
O'Connor often swerved wildly to miss the point in matters before the court. In case #1, she made the shallow observation that quasi-religious expression in school is hardly threatening, but she missed the broader constitutional point that freedom of religion does not require freedom from religion.
In case #2, she bemoaned the fact that the definition of liberty is questioned, while discounting and condemning the most fundamental liberty of the young and fragile.
The Supreme Court is supposed to settle matters of law. Most of O'Connor's rulings were not only shallow, but exceedingly narrow. This required many more passes at the court to re-try and clarify all these narrow rulings. That makes more work for lawyers, but is ultimately not efficient or effective.
I really wonder if lawyers are all that well suited to be judges. Maybe we should train judges to interpret the law, instead of drawing from the pool of those paid to exploit it.
Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet, 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade (1973), that definition of liberty is still questioned. --Sandra Day O'Connor
O'Connor often swerved wildly to miss the point in matters before the court. In case #1, she made the shallow observation that quasi-religious expression in school is hardly threatening, but she missed the broader constitutional point that freedom of religion does not require freedom from religion.
In case #2, she bemoaned the fact that the definition of liberty is questioned, while discounting and condemning the most fundamental liberty of the young and fragile.
The Supreme Court is supposed to settle matters of law. Most of O'Connor's rulings were not only shallow, but exceedingly narrow. This required many more passes at the court to re-try and clarify all these narrow rulings. That makes more work for lawyers, but is ultimately not efficient or effective.
I really wonder if lawyers are all that well suited to be judges. Maybe we should train judges to interpret the law, instead of drawing from the pool of those paid to exploit it.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wizer OneLiner #4
My right to display the Ten Commandments anywhere I want does not conflict with your right to ignore it.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Vietnam
"Goooooooood morning Vietnam! It's 0600 hours. What does the "O" stand for? O my God, it's early!" -- Adrian Cronauer
"Our power, therefore, is a very vital shield. If we are driven from the field in Viet-Nam, then no nation can ever again have the same confidence in American promise, or in American protection." -- Lyndon B. Johnson
"I saw courage both in the Vietnam War and in the struggle to stop it. I learned that patriotism includes protest, not just military service. " -- John F. Kerry
"Television brought the brutality of war into the comfort of the living room. Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of America - not on the battlefields of Vietnam. " -- Marshall McLuhan
"It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas." -- Ronald Reagan
I've often wondered why I never came to terms with opposition to this war. At that time in my life, I was able to sympathize with both sides of most issues. I never quite understood the arguments of people who thought we should get out of Vietnam. I remember standing around during some poorly organized protests, watching my classmates scream out at the uninterested and merely annoyed. I simply could not buy the anti-war rationale (...that killing bad guys makes you bad). So, I never heard a good argument against the war. Still haven't. Sure, war was hell. It also seemed necessary, given that not all the bad guys had surrendered yet.
Television made a big deal about college campus riots and demonstrations of young people. I surely would not have advocated that political leaders seriously listen to most of my classmates. Heck, these kids had no perspective whatsoever, no wisdom in the matter, and no basis for claiming either. The fact that TV covered it at all seemed odd at the time. The fact that the politicians listened reflects poorly on their own wisdom.
As to how the war was conducted, well that was the real crime. By restraining full scale military operations, we made every one of our boys a sitting duck. By pulling out, we allowed the slaughter of the entire South Vietnamese Army and spawned the Khmer Rouge and it's murder of 1.7 million people.
Thank God we don't do wars like that any more.
"Our power, therefore, is a very vital shield. If we are driven from the field in Viet-Nam, then no nation can ever again have the same confidence in American promise, or in American protection." -- Lyndon B. Johnson
"I saw courage both in the Vietnam War and in the struggle to stop it. I learned that patriotism includes protest, not just military service. " -- John F. Kerry
"Television brought the brutality of war into the comfort of the living room. Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of America - not on the battlefields of Vietnam. " -- Marshall McLuhan
"It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas." -- Ronald Reagan
I've often wondered why I never came to terms with opposition to this war. At that time in my life, I was able to sympathize with both sides of most issues. I never quite understood the arguments of people who thought we should get out of Vietnam. I remember standing around during some poorly organized protests, watching my classmates scream out at the uninterested and merely annoyed. I simply could not buy the anti-war rationale (...that killing bad guys makes you bad). So, I never heard a good argument against the war. Still haven't. Sure, war was hell. It also seemed necessary, given that not all the bad guys had surrendered yet.
Television made a big deal about college campus riots and demonstrations of young people. I surely would not have advocated that political leaders seriously listen to most of my classmates. Heck, these kids had no perspective whatsoever, no wisdom in the matter, and no basis for claiming either. The fact that TV covered it at all seemed odd at the time. The fact that the politicians listened reflects poorly on their own wisdom.
As to how the war was conducted, well that was the real crime. By restraining full scale military operations, we made every one of our boys a sitting duck. By pulling out, we allowed the slaughter of the entire South Vietnamese Army and spawned the Khmer Rouge and it's murder of 1.7 million people.
Thank God we don't do wars like that any more.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Magnet "Ribbons"
"Red is the AIDS ribbon, green is something else, and purple something else. Every color in the spectrum has been taken." -- Rush Limbaugh
Rush has a rant in which he decries the practice of wearing ribbons as a symbol of caring for something. His problem is not the caring itself, but the ribbon. It basically says "look at me. I care about AIDS/Troops/Pope John Paul/Domestic Violence/Hunger" or anything else someone will make a ribbon for "more than you do" . His point is that wearing the ribbon doesn't mean that you care more, and certainly doesn't mean that you do any more for that particular cause.
I have to agree with that, and I will take it a step further. Magnet Ribbons. Magnet Ribbons are ubiquitous now. I've seen a number of vehicles with 3 or more different magnet ribbons, most of which are large enough to be seen, but with text placed and sized so that nobody can see what's written on them. I suppose we are supposed to know the color code, but to me these things say "Look at me. I care about something". So what? I suppose you deserve a medal (or a ribbon...?) for that.
Look at http://www.wholesalecentral.com/accessoriespalace/store.cfm?event=showcatalog&catid=52706. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Betcha didn't know there were that many different ribbons for sale, did you?
I think there's something really pathetic about declaring your commitment to something by using a removeable sign.
Now, since everybody's got a ribbon, the messages are all much weaker. Other drivers don't believe in your cause, and they don't care that you do.
Rush has a rant in which he decries the practice of wearing ribbons as a symbol of caring for something. His problem is not the caring itself, but the ribbon. It basically says "look at me. I care about AIDS/Troops/Pope John Paul/Domestic Violence/Hunger" or anything else someone will make a ribbon for "more than you do" . His point is that wearing the ribbon doesn't mean that you care more, and certainly doesn't mean that you do any more for that particular cause.
I have to agree with that, and I will take it a step further. Magnet Ribbons. Magnet Ribbons are ubiquitous now. I've seen a number of vehicles with 3 or more different magnet ribbons, most of which are large enough to be seen, but with text placed and sized so that nobody can see what's written on them. I suppose we are supposed to know the color code, but to me these things say "Look at me. I care about something". So what? I suppose you deserve a medal (or a ribbon...?) for that.
Look at http://www.wholesalecentral.com/accessoriespalace/store.cfm?event=showcatalog&catid=52706. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Betcha didn't know there were that many different ribbons for sale, did you?
I think there's something really pathetic about declaring your commitment to something by using a removeable sign.
Now, since everybody's got a ribbon, the messages are all much weaker. Other drivers don't believe in your cause, and they don't care that you do.
Friday, May 27, 2005
On the Size of Government
President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. -- Stephen Slivinski, Cato Policy Analysis #543
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. --P.J. O'Rourke
There's nothing dumber than a big spending Republican. In fact, I'm starting to think wwould have been better off letting Bill have another 8 years. As a Democrat, he was downright frugal. It's one thing to have a redistributionist government that simply takes your money and gives it to the undeserving. It's quite another to have the government spend your money on dangerous things, like more bureacrats, homeland snoopiness, and alphabet soup (SEC/FCC/FDA/BATF/NSA) busy-bodying.
I'd like to say I gave up on the Republicans in 1975, and then again in 1989. And it seems like I have to give up on them about every 2 years. The only thing worse, I'd tell myself, is Democrats, and I find it increasingly maddening that these are the only two choices we get. My goodness. What is it going to take to get a constitutional government? (Short of colonial minutemen, that is).
And then the other choice is John Kerry? He got 50 odd million votes, not based on his voting record, which was quite possibly the worst possible of any presidential candidate; but because people felt anything was better than this. Maybe they were right.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. --P.J. O'Rourke
There's nothing dumber than a big spending Republican. In fact, I'm starting to think wwould have been better off letting Bill have another 8 years. As a Democrat, he was downright frugal. It's one thing to have a redistributionist government that simply takes your money and gives it to the undeserving. It's quite another to have the government spend your money on dangerous things, like more bureacrats, homeland snoopiness, and alphabet soup (SEC/FCC/FDA/BATF/NSA) busy-bodying.
I'd like to say I gave up on the Republicans in 1975, and then again in 1989. And it seems like I have to give up on them about every 2 years. The only thing worse, I'd tell myself, is Democrats, and I find it increasingly maddening that these are the only two choices we get. My goodness. What is it going to take to get a constitutional government? (Short of colonial minutemen, that is).
And then the other choice is John Kerry? He got 50 odd million votes, not based on his voting record, which was quite possibly the worst possible of any presidential candidate; but because people felt anything was better than this. Maybe they were right.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Sympathy for the Devil
"IN ONE OF THE FOUNDING TEXTS OF SOCIOLOGY, The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), Emile Durkheim set it down that "crime is normal." "It is," he wrote, "completely impossible for any society entirely free of it to exist." By defining what is deviant, we are enabled to know what is not, and hence to live by shared standards. This apercuappears in the chapter entitled "Rules for the Distinction of the Normal from the Pathological."" --Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1993, Defining Deviancy Down)
The third shoe has now dropped on the whole Abu Graib thing for me this week. First, we have Ted Kennedy celebrating the first anniversary of Abu Graib, as if he thought the whole affair were something worth remembering (I wonder if he also visits Mary Jo's grave once a year).
The second shoe was the rubble kicked up intentionally by Isikoff and Newsweek to try and paint a picture of Gitmo guards dumping the Koran down the crapper.
Then, we get a London tabloid tossing out pictures of Saddam in his underwear.
You know what? I've had it. So some Arabs get their burnoose in a bunch over hurt feelings. I really can't muster any sympathy for that. If Muslims were taking care of their own criminals, they wouldn't find themselves and their people exposed to the idiosyncracies of western cultures; albeit primarily pure fabrications. So what if some of their citizens get humiliated, sneered at, and denigrated. That's nothing that hasn't happened in a US prison. Or at a Dixie Chicks concert for that matter.
I have to wonder if the people who have a problem with this form of free expression have the same problem with those who would burn a US flag or spray paint a fur coat.
Defining deviancy up, for the purpose of gaining sympathy for the devil is the work of the devil himself.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Mortality
One of the reasons I write this blog is give a glimpse to my three sons of things that I believe in strongly enough to write about. It's a very selfish reason, and I indulge myself with the knowledge that if and when they read it, they do it of their own volition, and that they absorb whatever they wish from these writings.
It was not my intent to make this blog a treatise on life or philosophies thereof, but there are some things you cannot escape; much as we'd like to compartmentalize things and stash them away for processing at a later time.
Recently, my sons lost their beloved mother. It's a time for reflection for each of us, and to contemplate the rugged aspects of mortality. I hurt for the boys, and I pray that there's a hidden strength that God can grace me with to help them through it.
Suffice to say that I gladly bear the burden, if it will ease theirs. And if sometime in the distant future they have occasion to read this, I can only offer that they made her extremely proud, and they were her only true joy as the years went on. God rest her soul.
It was not my intent to make this blog a treatise on life or philosophies thereof, but there are some things you cannot escape; much as we'd like to compartmentalize things and stash them away for processing at a later time.
Recently, my sons lost their beloved mother. It's a time for reflection for each of us, and to contemplate the rugged aspects of mortality. I hurt for the boys, and I pray that there's a hidden strength that God can grace me with to help them through it.
Suffice to say that I gladly bear the burden, if it will ease theirs. And if sometime in the distant future they have occasion to read this, I can only offer that they made her extremely proud, and they were her only true joy as the years went on. God rest her soul.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Wizer OneLiner #3
Proving yet another adage wrong, this morning I sat on the edge of the bed and put my pants on two legs at a time.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Monday, April 25, 2005
Filibusters
The filibuster is a U. S. Senate practice whereby a single Senator, or his minority party, can block full Senate consideration of a bill or nomination by extending debate on the proposal indefinitely. The resulting "filibuster" can ordinarily be stopped only by a "cloture" vote, which requires 60 of the 100 Senators (a supermajority) to vote to end debate, and bring the bill or nomination to a final vote.
The filibuster, obviously, plays a crucial role whenever only 50 to 59 Senators support a given bill or nomination. It can ensure that the proposal is not approved, despite the fact that a majority of the Senate (or half the Senate, plus the Vice President, who breaks ties) would approve the measure if a vote were taken.
This right to endless debate evolved in the Senate over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is now embodied in the Senate's own formal rules - particularly Rule XXII, which guarantees unlimited discussion absent cloture.
Filibusters of old required the filibustering party to actually stand and hold the Senate floor by speaking continuously, in order to delay a final vote, as depicted in Frank Capra's famous movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," which featured Jimmy Stewart as a young and idealistic Senate newcomer. Today, by contrast, a minority party can indefinitely put off a vote on a bill or nomination by simply indicating to Senate leaders that this indefinite delay is desired - unless there are 60 Senators in favor of cloture.
--Article by Vikram David Amar. Full text athttp://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/Senate%20Rules%20on%20Filibuster.html
It seems to me that if you're going to have filibusters, you should have them the old fashioned way: Have the senator stand up in front of everybody, eat his Wheaties, and give some sense to the world why he's wasting everybody's time. This business of voting whether or not to vote is pretty darned stupid.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Daylight Saving Time
"For in walking thro' the Strand and Fleet Street one morning at seven o clock, I observed there was not one shop open tho it had been daylight and the sun up above three hours -- the inhabitants of London choosing voluntarily to live much by candlelight and sleep by sunshine, and yet often complaining a little absurdly of the duty on candles and the high price of tallow." --Ben Franklin, Autobiography
Factoid: Daylight Saving Time, for the U.S. and its territories, is NOT observed in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, most of the Eastern Time Zone portion of the State of Indiana, and the state of Arizona (not the Navajo Indian Reservation, which does observe). Navajo Nation participates in the Daylight Saving Time policy, due to its large size and location in three states.
"I don't really care how time is reckoned so long as there is some agreement about it, but I object to being told that I am saving daylight when my reason tells me that I am doing nothing of the kind. I even object to the implication that I am wasting something valuable if I stay in bed after the sun has risen. As an admirer of moonlight I resent the bossy insistence of those who want to reduce my time for enjoying it. At the back of the Daylight Saving scheme I detect the bony, blue-fingered hand of Puritanism, eager to push people into bed earlier, and get them up earlier, to make them healthy, wealthy and wise in spite of themselves." (Robertson Davies, The Diary of Samuel Marchbanks, 1947, XIX, Sunday.)
Useful References: http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/
Most Hoosiers are happy leaving time alone. The reasons for this are many and varied.
1. There aren't that many "strange quirks" for Hoosiers, so let's try and keep the one.
2. We don't want to be particularly associated with either Chicago or New York.
3. We're too far West to be East, and too far East to be Central.
4. Sun's gonna come up on its own schedule. Not on ours.
5. Tell us again why you all change your clocks?
6. Okay, say we do change our clocks. Do we really want the sun shining at 10:00 PM?
7. Say we go to Central time. Do we really want the sun to shine at 5:00 AM?
8. How many clocks did you say you changed twice a year? VCR's? Microwaves? Tsk.
9. Keeps the blue states guessing.
10. 15 Indiana counties already do what they want with time. Think that's gonna change?
It's good sport to watch the Indiana legislature wrestle with this one. Seems like a lot of people care enough to harass their state legislator. This kind of belies the idea that Hoosiers are indifferent about it. It now occurs to me that by the time this is settled, we will have lost every hour that we would have gained by DST in the first place, just arguing about it.
Factoid: Daylight Saving Time, for the U.S. and its territories, is NOT observed in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, most of the Eastern Time Zone portion of the State of Indiana, and the state of Arizona (not the Navajo Indian Reservation, which does observe). Navajo Nation participates in the Daylight Saving Time policy, due to its large size and location in three states.
"I don't really care how time is reckoned so long as there is some agreement about it, but I object to being told that I am saving daylight when my reason tells me that I am doing nothing of the kind. I even object to the implication that I am wasting something valuable if I stay in bed after the sun has risen. As an admirer of moonlight I resent the bossy insistence of those who want to reduce my time for enjoying it. At the back of the Daylight Saving scheme I detect the bony, blue-fingered hand of Puritanism, eager to push people into bed earlier, and get them up earlier, to make them healthy, wealthy and wise in spite of themselves." (Robertson Davies, The Diary of Samuel Marchbanks, 1947, XIX, Sunday.)
Useful References: http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/
Most Hoosiers are happy leaving time alone. The reasons for this are many and varied.
1. There aren't that many "strange quirks" for Hoosiers, so let's try and keep the one.
2. We don't want to be particularly associated with either Chicago or New York.
3. We're too far West to be East, and too far East to be Central.
4. Sun's gonna come up on its own schedule. Not on ours.
5. Tell us again why you all change your clocks?
6. Okay, say we do change our clocks. Do we really want the sun shining at 10:00 PM?
7. Say we go to Central time. Do we really want the sun to shine at 5:00 AM?
8. How many clocks did you say you changed twice a year? VCR's? Microwaves? Tsk.
9. Keeps the blue states guessing.
10. 15 Indiana counties already do what they want with time. Think that's gonna change?
It's good sport to watch the Indiana legislature wrestle with this one. Seems like a lot of people care enough to harass their state legislator. This kind of belies the idea that Hoosiers are indifferent about it. It now occurs to me that by the time this is settled, we will have lost every hour that we would have gained by DST in the first place, just arguing about it.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
National Sales Tax
Proposed House Bill: Subchapter A Section 1, item`(a) IN GENERAL- There is hereby imposed a tax of 15 percent on the gross payments for the use, consumption or enjoyment in the United States of any taxable property or service, whether produced or rendered within or without the United States.-- National Retail Sales Tax Act of 1997 (Introduced in House)
"If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds." --Alexander Hamilton
When you tax something, you get less of it. Put a tax on cigarettes, liquor, gasoline, etc., and consumption naturally falls (or people go across state lines to get it at the right price).
If we agree to a national sales tax, where a car costs $25,000 instead of $20,000; or a TV that yesterday cost $449 now costs $565; the economy will come to a screeching halt. Sure, people have to buy food. They have to buy dish soap. But do they need the big ticket items? Can they put off remodelling the bathroom? Is this trip to The Gap really necessary? When those questions are finally answered, you will see that people will find out they can do without a lot of stuff.
Half the people in the U.S. don't pay tax today, and that's the way they like it. Now we're going to ask them to start paying 15-17-23% in sales tax? Ha. Talk about a plan that's DOA. But let's say the politicos do manage put such a plan into play. The people buying things now will stop buying things for at least a year. Can our economy survive that? I doubt it.
"If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds." --Alexander Hamilton
When you tax something, you get less of it. Put a tax on cigarettes, liquor, gasoline, etc., and consumption naturally falls (or people go across state lines to get it at the right price).
If we agree to a national sales tax, where a car costs $25,000 instead of $20,000; or a TV that yesterday cost $449 now costs $565; the economy will come to a screeching halt. Sure, people have to buy food. They have to buy dish soap. But do they need the big ticket items? Can they put off remodelling the bathroom? Is this trip to The Gap really necessary? When those questions are finally answered, you will see that people will find out they can do without a lot of stuff.
Half the people in the U.S. don't pay tax today, and that's the way they like it. Now we're going to ask them to start paying 15-17-23% in sales tax? Ha. Talk about a plan that's DOA. But let's say the politicos do manage put such a plan into play. The people buying things now will stop buying things for at least a year. Can our economy survive that? I doubt it.
Trade Deficits
News item: Commerce Department said the February trade deficit swelled 4.3% to $61 billion, easily topping November's record $59.4 billion. Exports were nearly flat at $100.5 billion. Imports rose 1.6% to $161.5 billion, also a record. That was partly due to the price-driven run-up in oil imports, which rose $1.4 billion to $13.3 billion.
In a complex economic system, it's easy to oversimplify things. Heads talk about a single figure of merit (like the trade gap) as evidence of things gone wrong. It's why most people don't understand macro-economics. All these numbers are out there and none of them relate to what's happening at home.
To put this "deficit" into perspective, ...it amounts to about $200 per U.S. Citizen.
Two hundred dollars. I have a trade deficit with Great Clips that is more than that. Want to know what my trade deficit at Wal Mart is?
As long as we buy things on the open international market, there will always be this trade gap number. What it really means to us is not as much as some folks would have you believe.
In a complex economic system, it's easy to oversimplify things. Heads talk about a single figure of merit (like the trade gap) as evidence of things gone wrong. It's why most people don't understand macro-economics. All these numbers are out there and none of them relate to what's happening at home.
To put this "deficit" into perspective, ...it amounts to about $200 per U.S. Citizen.
Two hundred dollars. I have a trade deficit with Great Clips that is more than that. Want to know what my trade deficit at Wal Mart is?
As long as we buy things on the open international market, there will always be this trade gap number. What it really means to us is not as much as some folks would have you believe.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Freedom of Association
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry... has acquired too much, in order to spare others who... have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association - the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." -- Thomas Jefferson
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
Along with the provisions of freedom of speech in Article 1, that most beloved of all the Bills of Rights, is one that covers freedom of association. It certainly is not the one most vigorously defended, particularly when it involves Boy Scouts, smokers, and college republicans.
Selwyn Duke posted an article in February (http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn9.htm) that makes this point as well as anyone has.
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
Along with the provisions of freedom of speech in Article 1, that most beloved of all the Bills of Rights, is one that covers freedom of association. It certainly is not the one most vigorously defended, particularly when it involves Boy Scouts, smokers, and college republicans.
Selwyn Duke posted an article in February (http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn9.htm) that makes this point as well as anyone has.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Quaint Notions of the US Constitution
"The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification." --Supreme Court "Justice" Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be 'living'? Depending on 'evolving standards,' maybe my two pair could beat your flush." --Walter Williams
Gotta love Walter Williams. He is one of the very few opinion page artists who understands both economics and politics. He's of course talking here about those who would seek to change the constitution based on various "alternate interpretations" of the its meanings. The plain language of the constitution leaves little room for that, so anarchists float the idea that the Constitution was meant to change with the times. It's certainly a flexible enough document, which is how we got the Bill of Rights added to it. It's when you realize that changes require thoughtful discussion and a 3/4ths majority, that these people get impatient, and try to change it in fly-by-night courtrooms all over the country.
Now we learn that Darth Bader Ginsburg and her free-wheeling associates think law settled outside this country's borders, from places that do not have the protection of the US Constitution is somehow relevant. Great. Back to the one world society of Woodrow Wilson. Don't let us be dragged down into that morass. We already happen to have the best constitution on the planet and the most complete spectrum of case law to work from. If it comes up somewhere else (like East Timor or New Guinea), it has no bearing on our situation, because it was not reviewed in the context of U.S. constitutionality. We must ask our representatives to approve only those judges who understand, honor, and pledge to protect the constitution.
The new judicial battle is just getting underway. I suspect that, regardless of how it turns out, we are not likely to have a majority of constitutionalists on those benches. Let's hope we get all we can in the right places.
"Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be 'living'? Depending on 'evolving standards,' maybe my two pair could beat your flush." --Walter Williams
Gotta love Walter Williams. He is one of the very few opinion page artists who understands both economics and politics. He's of course talking here about those who would seek to change the constitution based on various "alternate interpretations" of the its meanings. The plain language of the constitution leaves little room for that, so anarchists float the idea that the Constitution was meant to change with the times. It's certainly a flexible enough document, which is how we got the Bill of Rights added to it. It's when you realize that changes require thoughtful discussion and a 3/4ths majority, that these people get impatient, and try to change it in fly-by-night courtrooms all over the country.
Now we learn that Darth Bader Ginsburg and her free-wheeling associates think law settled outside this country's borders, from places that do not have the protection of the US Constitution is somehow relevant. Great. Back to the one world society of Woodrow Wilson. Don't let us be dragged down into that morass. We already happen to have the best constitution on the planet and the most complete spectrum of case law to work from. If it comes up somewhere else (like East Timor or New Guinea), it has no bearing on our situation, because it was not reviewed in the context of U.S. constitutionality. We must ask our representatives to approve only those judges who understand, honor, and pledge to protect the constitution.
The new judicial battle is just getting underway. I suspect that, regardless of how it turns out, we are not likely to have a majority of constitutionalists on those benches. Let's hope we get all we can in the right places.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Life is negotiable?
"[T]he Atlanta courthouse attack that left four murdered; the Wisconsin church shooting, where seven were murdered, and Monday's high-school shooting in Minnesota, where nine were murdered.... All three attacks took place in areas where gun possession by those who did the attack as well as civilians generally was already banned -- so-called 'gun-free safe zones.' ... Would you feel safer putting a sign in front of your home saying 'This Home is a Gun-Free Zone'? ... As with many other gun laws, law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, would obey the sign. Instead of creating a safe zone for victims, it leaves victims defenseless and creates a safe zone for those intent on causing harm." --John Lott
I continue to be amazed that otherwise intelligent people point to tragedies like those above as if they were proof that more gun control laws are necessary. In fact, they say just the opposite to me. If all of the victims were armed, these events would probably not have happened, or at least the outcome would have been more equitable.
More to the point, it is the constant drumbeat that is the culture of death that I feel is to blame. If we continue to whittle away at the heart of the very young, the very old, or the very ill; as if their lives were merely "negotiable", then how long will it be before nobody's life is worth a plug nickel?
No, I respect life, which is also why I respect the second amendment.
I continue to be amazed that otherwise intelligent people point to tragedies like those above as if they were proof that more gun control laws are necessary. In fact, they say just the opposite to me. If all of the victims were armed, these events would probably not have happened, or at least the outcome would have been more equitable.
More to the point, it is the constant drumbeat that is the culture of death that I feel is to blame. If we continue to whittle away at the heart of the very young, the very old, or the very ill; as if their lives were merely "negotiable", then how long will it be before nobody's life is worth a plug nickel?
No, I respect life, which is also why I respect the second amendment.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Terri Schiavo
"whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to Me." (Mt. 25:40)
I don't know what it was that triggered all aspects of this to fall into place in my mind. Oddly, I remember musing in my post Easter supper trance, whether or not there is an Easter equivalent to the term "bah, humbug". As you probably know, the Dickens phrase is now symbolic with the idea that none of this matters. The "this" in this case refers to a holiday sentiment in particular. After all, there is no downside to "He is Risen". What can work against this?
It's interesting to note that Pope John Paul II's, body is weakened, but what he is saying is so very strong...that life is vital, that his purpose continues to serve His purpose, and that carrying on is precisely what God would have us all do.
Then there is the Terri Schiavo case. There is no new news to share at this point, as it is clear that Terri's court ordered execution will reach it's only ordained conclusion.
I'll have to deal with Michael Schiavo, the various court systems and the politicos later. For the moment the thoughts and prayers are with Terri and her family. For the moment, it should not be about politics, legalities, and the courts. This should have been a slam dunk decision in favor of life; and only a system that is too screwed up to get it right can get it this wrong.
To withhold food and water from someone is criminally negligent. As a society, we wouldn't condone starving a 3 month old baby. Terri Schiavo is a 3 month old in a large person's body. Tragic, yes. The fundamental point is this: How can it be okay to end someone's life simply because they cannot feed themselves? The second point is, how can a court direct the taking of a disabled person's life. Third, how can either of these things be done against the wishes of the persons parents and loved ones? The logical conclusion of all this is that it is okay to kill someone as long as you are the legal guardian.
I'm glad Pope John Paul is still giving us the benefit of his input.
I don't know what it was that triggered all aspects of this to fall into place in my mind. Oddly, I remember musing in my post Easter supper trance, whether or not there is an Easter equivalent to the term "bah, humbug". As you probably know, the Dickens phrase is now symbolic with the idea that none of this matters. The "this" in this case refers to a holiday sentiment in particular. After all, there is no downside to "He is Risen". What can work against this?
It's interesting to note that Pope John Paul II's, body is weakened, but what he is saying is so very strong...that life is vital, that his purpose continues to serve His purpose, and that carrying on is precisely what God would have us all do.
Then there is the Terri Schiavo case. There is no new news to share at this point, as it is clear that Terri's court ordered execution will reach it's only ordained conclusion.
I'll have to deal with Michael Schiavo, the various court systems and the politicos later. For the moment the thoughts and prayers are with Terri and her family. For the moment, it should not be about politics, legalities, and the courts. This should have been a slam dunk decision in favor of life; and only a system that is too screwed up to get it right can get it this wrong.
To withhold food and water from someone is criminally negligent. As a society, we wouldn't condone starving a 3 month old baby. Terri Schiavo is a 3 month old in a large person's body. Tragic, yes. The fundamental point is this: How can it be okay to end someone's life simply because they cannot feed themselves? The second point is, how can a court direct the taking of a disabled person's life. Third, how can either of these things be done against the wishes of the persons parents and loved ones? The logical conclusion of all this is that it is okay to kill someone as long as you are the legal guardian.
I'm glad Pope John Paul is still giving us the benefit of his input.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
A young man whose father is a carpenter grows up working in his father's shop. One day he puts down his tools and walks out of his father's shop. He starts preaching on streetcorners and in the nearby countryside, walking from place to place, preaching all the while, even though he is not an ordained minister. He never gets farther than an area perhaps 100 miles wide at the most. He does this for three years. Then he is arrested, tried and convicted.There is no court of appeal, so he is executed at age 33 along with two common thieves. Those in charge of his execution roll dice to see who gets his clothing -- the only possessions he has. His family cannot afford a burial place for him so he is interred in a borrowed tomb. End of story? No, this uneducated, property-less young man has, for 2,000 years, had a greater effect on the world than all the rulers, kings, emperors; all the conquerors, generals and admirals, all the scholars, scientists and philosophers who have ever lived -- all of them put together. How do we explain that -- unless He really was what He said He was?" --Ronald Reagan
Saturday, March 19, 2005
FDR and the Great Depression
News item: ... After scrutinizing Roosevelt ’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years. http://www.econ.ucla.edu/whatsbruin/news/FDRarticle.htm
Johnson, Nixon and Carter weren't the only ones to screw up a good economy. We always knew that Johnson's "Great Society", Nixon's wage and price tampering, and Carter's era of "Stagflation" and malaise were self inflicted poxes on the economy of the respective eras. It was always much harder to judge what impact FDR's policies had.
We know for example that he inherited the stock market crash from Hoover. People were going to give him a long leash. Just do something, even if it's wrong. I've always viewed the TVA and other programs like it with mixed feelings. Sure, some good came out of it, but giving people high paying jobs during a depression really did gum up the works. It did two other things that I think of as very damaging. It created the false impression that a government program can be efficient enough by itself to maintain an economy. I suppose if that were remotely true, the Soviet Union would be kicking our butt in every market. Second, any "make work" program will never accrue to our personal well being. Digging holes, and filling them up again is certainly work. It's also criminally unproductive. Any big hiring program by the government is going to tend towards "make work".
Today, nobody today knows just how hard the times were for people in 1929. The most damaging thing we saw in every historical treatment of the era, however, were the number of people out of work. Well, that's clearly what happens when wages are artificially high...people lose their jobs.
Johnson, Nixon and Carter weren't the only ones to screw up a good economy. We always knew that Johnson's "Great Society", Nixon's wage and price tampering, and Carter's era of "Stagflation" and malaise were self inflicted poxes on the economy of the respective eras. It was always much harder to judge what impact FDR's policies had.
We know for example that he inherited the stock market crash from Hoover. People were going to give him a long leash. Just do something, even if it's wrong. I've always viewed the TVA and other programs like it with mixed feelings. Sure, some good came out of it, but giving people high paying jobs during a depression really did gum up the works. It did two other things that I think of as very damaging. It created the false impression that a government program can be efficient enough by itself to maintain an economy. I suppose if that were remotely true, the Soviet Union would be kicking our butt in every market. Second, any "make work" program will never accrue to our personal well being. Digging holes, and filling them up again is certainly work. It's also criminally unproductive. Any big hiring program by the government is going to tend towards "make work".
Today, nobody today knows just how hard the times were for people in 1929. The most damaging thing we saw in every historical treatment of the era, however, were the number of people out of work. Well, that's clearly what happens when wages are artificially high...people lose their jobs.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Media election coverage
News Item: 3/14/05 NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush (news - web sites) than Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites), according to a study released Monday.
(Full article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/media_report_dc)
I suppose that's news, in a dog-bites-man kind of way. The article goes on to describe a 58% increase in blog readership (Yay!) as an alternative, citing that people "expect to be disappointed" with network news.
(Full article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/media_report_dc)
I suppose that's news, in a dog-bites-man kind of way. The article goes on to describe a 58% increase in blog readership (Yay!) as an alternative, citing that people "expect to be disappointed" with network news.
Friday, March 11, 2005
Congress and Baseball
"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson
"When I was a small boy in Kansas, a friend of mine and I went fishing. I told him I wanted to be a real Major League baseball player, a genuine professional like Honus Wagner. My friend said that he'd like to be President of the United States. Neither of us got our wish." --Dwight D. Eisenhower
At first I was put off by the notion that our federal government should meddle in the affairs of a private entertainment entity like baseball. After all, I find that the free market usually polices itself on matters that get public attention. A big suspension and some community service time should keep basketball stars from slugging fans, and hockey has a year to figure out it's own shortcomings in the market. Baseball last year put in a solid testing program, and it will work to keep the drug out of the game. That's that, and nuff said. Then I saw the Jefferson quote above.
Is it possible that congress is actually taking a leadership role on something important for a change? Nobody likes heros more than Americans. The number of people who wanna "be like Mike" is enormous. For most young people the only way to approach mike-like proportion (in both physical and public stature) is to use some enhancement. We can't have steroids in the nations locker rooms dispensed like salt tablets, without getting a generation's worth of medical problems; so maybe it's a good thing this is getting attention from the top.
I'll be watching this with some interest, and perhaps more than a little regret that a dozen other more important topics are not given this much focus by our legislators. That's not to say there should be any laws enacted from this. Laws are usually bad. Talking about stuff, that's usually good.
Yes, I know it's mostly grandstanding by the lawmakers. They didn't get to where they are without awesome grandstanding capabilities. A message this important just needs to be made from positions of leadership. Then everybody should just shut up and play ball.
"When I was a small boy in Kansas, a friend of mine and I went fishing. I told him I wanted to be a real Major League baseball player, a genuine professional like Honus Wagner. My friend said that he'd like to be President of the United States. Neither of us got our wish." --Dwight D. Eisenhower
At first I was put off by the notion that our federal government should meddle in the affairs of a private entertainment entity like baseball. After all, I find that the free market usually polices itself on matters that get public attention. A big suspension and some community service time should keep basketball stars from slugging fans, and hockey has a year to figure out it's own shortcomings in the market. Baseball last year put in a solid testing program, and it will work to keep the drug out of the game. That's that, and nuff said. Then I saw the Jefferson quote above.
Is it possible that congress is actually taking a leadership role on something important for a change? Nobody likes heros more than Americans. The number of people who wanna "be like Mike" is enormous. For most young people the only way to approach mike-like proportion (in both physical and public stature) is to use some enhancement. We can't have steroids in the nations locker rooms dispensed like salt tablets, without getting a generation's worth of medical problems; so maybe it's a good thing this is getting attention from the top.
I'll be watching this with some interest, and perhaps more than a little regret that a dozen other more important topics are not given this much focus by our legislators. That's not to say there should be any laws enacted from this. Laws are usually bad. Talking about stuff, that's usually good.
Yes, I know it's mostly grandstanding by the lawmakers. They didn't get to where they are without awesome grandstanding capabilities. A message this important just needs to be made from positions of leadership. Then everybody should just shut up and play ball.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Happy Trails, Dan Rather
"One's reminded of that old saying, 'Don't taunt the alligator until after you've crossed the creek.'"
- Dan Rather (Dan Ratherisms: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blratherisms.htm)
Today is Dan's last day as the CBS anchor. Everybody, including Uncle Walter took turns bashing him since last year's memogate. Dan definitely had his faults all right. He presided over an era of political correctedness, blue state snootiness, and leftist condescension that afflicted all major networks since the 1980's. He tossed softball questions to murderous tyrants, and gave the leader of the free world the third degree. None of us is perfect I suppose.
For me, the end of network news came sometime in the 80's. That's when I would tune in at the end of the day to hear about this racist world, this oppression of women, the attack on seniors, and the ravaging of our precious forest land. Then I'd go out in the real world and find none of that, but some very real problems that needed to be fixed. I had to ask, where is the relevance. Where is the priority? Dan, you let us all down.
Hopefully someone at network news can put some reality back into their work. I think that is the only hope for network news going forward.
- Dan Rather (Dan Ratherisms: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blratherisms.htm)
Today is Dan's last day as the CBS anchor. Everybody, including Uncle Walter took turns bashing him since last year's memogate. Dan definitely had his faults all right. He presided over an era of political correctedness, blue state snootiness, and leftist condescension that afflicted all major networks since the 1980's. He tossed softball questions to murderous tyrants, and gave the leader of the free world the third degree. None of us is perfect I suppose.
For me, the end of network news came sometime in the 80's. That's when I would tune in at the end of the day to hear about this racist world, this oppression of women, the attack on seniors, and the ravaging of our precious forest land. Then I'd go out in the real world and find none of that, but some very real problems that needed to be fixed. I had to ask, where is the relevance. Where is the priority? Dan, you let us all down.
Hopefully someone at network news can put some reality back into their work. I think that is the only hope for network news going forward.
Monday, March 07, 2005
The Patriot Act
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
-- Samuel Johnson (Boswell's Life of Johnson)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
-- Benjamin Franklin (An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania).
There are many excuses that are used to grow the government. One of the biggest government power grabs happened just a few short years ago in the Patriot Act. It was accomplished under the banner of fighting terrorism (i.e., temporary safety) but ravaged our essential liberties. Did you know that the government can now conduct unlawful search and siezure if it merely suspects you of being a terrorist? Yep. No warrant needed. They also can hack into your computer and see what you've been reading and writing (to all you feds out there: A big Howdy from the Wizer--y'all should be reading the stuff I'm reading).
All this is supposed to make me feel safer? I feel less safe. Take airline travel, for example. We have so many security protocols that you can't help but feel substantially less safe. The constant reminders of how unsafe it can be is more debilitating than the actual risk itself. Wizer believes we'd be much safer just to issue firearms to all the passengers. Oh, wait, that's one of those essential liberties we have a nasty habit of giving up just so somebody can "feel" safer.
Now we have created this big honkin' bureacracy (Dept. of Homeland Security) for the purpose of spying on our own citizenry. We're training computer snoops by the hundreds and thousands. All of this so that we can believe the country is doing something to make the citizens feel safer. Word to George: "It's NOT WORKING".
-- Samuel Johnson (Boswell's Life of Johnson)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
-- Benjamin Franklin (An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania).
There are many excuses that are used to grow the government. One of the biggest government power grabs happened just a few short years ago in the Patriot Act. It was accomplished under the banner of fighting terrorism (i.e., temporary safety) but ravaged our essential liberties. Did you know that the government can now conduct unlawful search and siezure if it merely suspects you of being a terrorist? Yep. No warrant needed. They also can hack into your computer and see what you've been reading and writing (to all you feds out there: A big Howdy from the Wizer--y'all should be reading the stuff I'm reading).
All this is supposed to make me feel safer? I feel less safe. Take airline travel, for example. We have so many security protocols that you can't help but feel substantially less safe. The constant reminders of how unsafe it can be is more debilitating than the actual risk itself. Wizer believes we'd be much safer just to issue firearms to all the passengers. Oh, wait, that's one of those essential liberties we have a nasty habit of giving up just so somebody can "feel" safer.
Now we have created this big honkin' bureacracy (Dept. of Homeland Security) for the purpose of spying on our own citizenry. We're training computer snoops by the hundreds and thousands. All of this so that we can believe the country is doing something to make the citizens feel safer. Word to George: "It's NOT WORKING".
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Dad's birthday
My father used to play with my brother and me in the yard. Mother would come out and say, "You're tearing up the grass." "We're not raising grass," Dad would reply. "We're raising boys." -Harmon Killebrew
Dad never lost his sense of priority. Never, at least, in the 50 plus (plus) years I have known him. What was important to him (including love, honor, duty, faith, family) became important to me, too. Not because these were good things (which they were), but because he was good, and you could trust him to know what was good. Over time, these good things become important to all of us.
The Boy Scout meetings, the trips to the junkyards looking for a pan big enough to cook a 27 pound turkey in, building a camper or a shooting pit. All of this was quality time, and allowed me the true honor of watching a dad at work. I didn't realize at the time that he was growing me up.
Today is his birthday. I chatted with him this morning. We talked about cranking up the fishing boat and heading to the northwoods, just as in years past. It's not really about the fishing. The Priority is simpler than that. I don't even need to bring a pole. It's just something to do between hearing his stories around the campfire.
Let's go Dad. The fish need catching.
Dad never lost his sense of priority. Never, at least, in the 50 plus (plus) years I have known him. What was important to him (including love, honor, duty, faith, family) became important to me, too. Not because these were good things (which they were), but because he was good, and you could trust him to know what was good. Over time, these good things become important to all of us.
The Boy Scout meetings, the trips to the junkyards looking for a pan big enough to cook a 27 pound turkey in, building a camper or a shooting pit. All of this was quality time, and allowed me the true honor of watching a dad at work. I didn't realize at the time that he was growing me up.
Today is his birthday. I chatted with him this morning. We talked about cranking up the fishing boat and heading to the northwoods, just as in years past. It's not really about the fishing. The Priority is simpler than that. I don't even need to bring a pole. It's just something to do between hearing his stories around the campfire.
Let's go Dad. The fish need catching.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Social Security
News item: Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has recommended increasing the payroll tax cap from $90,000 to about $150,000, essentially financing the transition with higher payments from wealthier workers. National Center for Policy Analysis
I've got three problems with Bush's social security plan:
I've got three problems with Bush's social security plan:
- I don't really want another account to manage. I have this savings account, that IRA, this 401(k), that mutual fund, and a bunch of other stuff to keep track of. And that's not even counting my fantasy baseball team stats. Why in God's name would I want to manage yet another account? Yes, yes, I see the benefit of an ownership society. If you really want to do that, just drop Social Security altogether. Just grandfather it out (so to speak) and let everyone decide how many accounts he or she needs (and for what).
- Has anybody asked the question I find most troubling? What is the effect on the market of putting 4% of our collective net income every year into the stock market. Won't that be a trillion bucks a year into a finite equity market? My take is the inflation will overrun any real gains. Thinking ahead, that makes this a real ponzi scheme. When people start drawing out of this market, it will depress so fast, the net gain we're being told about could very well be a loss. I'm not a zero sum kind of guy, but I don't see the numbers working out.
- This business of overcoming the near term shortfall by raising the social security tax (on middle income people) without increasing their benefits is horsesh*t. I can't believe a Republican came up with it. Get me Hastert on the phone....
Here's a plan: It's clearly better to define the benefits downward. Nobody thinks SS will be their entire retirement security any more. Start phasing it out, and instead, offer insurance policies to those who think they might outlive the average guy.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Making a blog work
A clear idea is defined as one which is so apprehended that it will be recognized wherever it is met with, and so that no other will be mistaken for it. If it fails of this clearness, it is said to be obscure. - C.S. Peirce
Brevity is the soul of wit - William Shakespeare (Hamlet)
This blog strives for clarity and brevity. Hopefully the ideas will be delivered clearly; and with enough wit to help you remember and apply them in your daily life.
Thus, the pace will be unlike most blogs. What may at first seem to be a fragment of an idea will instead be the whole idea stated as concisely as possible.
You see, I don't get paid by the paragraph. Some authors seem to restate a point with enough clutter to fill out a newspaper column's worth of space. I value your time much more than that.
Brevity is the soul of wit - William Shakespeare (Hamlet)
This blog strives for clarity and brevity. Hopefully the ideas will be delivered clearly; and with enough wit to help you remember and apply them in your daily life.
Thus, the pace will be unlike most blogs. What may at first seem to be a fragment of an idea will instead be the whole idea stated as concisely as possible.
You see, I don't get paid by the paragraph. Some authors seem to restate a point with enough clutter to fill out a newspaper column's worth of space. I value your time much more than that.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Intro to my blog
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government."
-George Washington
Greetings! I've been wanting to do this for a while. Ever since the party of George Bush became the party of big government, I've found that I have a lot to say on the subject of politics. No way you're going to agree with me on everything, and maybe there will be precious little we agree on at the end of the day. However there is a lot to say on both sides, and this blog site will be another way to say it.
So, dig in. Read, respond. Let's have at it. Thanks,
-George Washington
Greetings! I've been wanting to do this for a while. Ever since the party of George Bush became the party of big government, I've found that I have a lot to say on the subject of politics. No way you're going to agree with me on everything, and maybe there will be precious little we agree on at the end of the day. However there is a lot to say on both sides, and this blog site will be another way to say it.
So, dig in. Read, respond. Let's have at it. Thanks,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)