Lacking creativity

Where's the creativity?

Under the legislation proposed to the House by (Rep. Jim) Kolbe, all cash transactions would be rounded to the nearest nickel. The bill, known formally as the Currency Overhaul for an Industrious Nation (COIN), would also gradually phase out the dollar bill in favor of a dollar coin and restructure the bureaucracy of the U.S. Mint.

Getting rid of the dollar bill for a coin is a good idea, though in true Republican fashion, Kolbe can't just do it - which guarantees Americans will hate and ignore the dollar coin just like its last three iterations. There was an old joke that if the Dems wanted to burn down the library of Congress, the GOP would agree but insist that it be phased in over three years. Their inclinations haven't changed a bit since Gerald Ford was the face of the party.

But what bothers me is the heavy-handed federal law requirement that all transations be rounded. Why does it need to be a law, which must come with a bureau to monitor it, police to enforce it, and courts to punish it? Is there currently a law that all transactions be rounded to the cent? If not (and "not" is the correct answer) how does the nation manage to survive gas priced in tenths of a cent without Kolbe and his law there to tell us how to buy and sell? The government should simply stop minting cents and when they are gone (which will take a period of several years) they are gone. Most stores will re-price, but no one will be forced to.

But what would we use for cents if a store insisted that something cost $1.04? I don't know, maybe aluminum can tabs, small rocks, printed coupons, coat buttons, who cares what? No one would have to accept them, but it would be in their best interest to do so. The amazing thing about freedom is that a standard would come into use before the pennies ran out because when people need to do something, they usually manage it. Where do you think coins came from in the first place? They are not the invention of government.

I would be perfectly happy to see an extra-legal, voluntary cent, just like I'm glad to see extra-legal, voluntary currencies like the Liberty Dollar. The government has screwed up our money enough, the more we avoid their coercive solutions the happier we'll be in the long run.

Will it be messy? Probably for a while. So what? One thing Americans have never lacked is creativity in dealing with conundrums. I'm pretty sure we can solve our penny problem without a federal law and probably even without pennies.

Unicorn Power

She is coming

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Ex-U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that the thought of California Rep. Nancy Pelosi becoming the next leader of the House and being third in line to the presidency is frightening.

"The prospect of her bringing San Francisco values and a whole attitude on foreign policy that is, I think, an attitude of weakness and appeasement and surrender, I think, would be a disaster for the country," the outspoken Republican said.

Gingrich said keeping power out of the hands of Pelosi, the House minority leader, and other Democrats is one of the reasons he was in South Carolina this week raising money for the GOP.

Yep, Pelosi is going to be a disaster for everyone but late night comics. However, Newt and his party have no one to blame but themselves for the fact that Americans are about to hand her the gavel. There's a reason - actually a multitude of reasons - Newt is introduced these days as "Ex-U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich," and none of them are the Democrats' fault*, because the Democrats are not in power. At least not for a few more months.

Gingrich and his band of merry men rode into Washington with one promise: to reduce the cost and scope of government. Instead, they settled in and violated nearly every promise they made, growing government, abusing earmarks, exempting themselves from the laws they passed.

They became what they replaced, so they will themselves be replaced. The machinery they have built will be run by others, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

And nothing to look forward to but 2008 when then Democrats are handed the White House as well, and for the same reason.

* As Bob Novak points out, Speaker Newt has learned nothing in exile and still plays fast and loose with the truth. Such does not raise much confidence in his party's rule.

Red Dawn

Because we live here

Admit it, you loved the movie. From the classroom scene where paratroopers drop into a sleepy Colorado town to the closing prayer at the memorial of two brothers who gave all, Red Dawn is one of the best movies of the 80s. It captures not only the late cold-war times in which it was made, but also something stubbornly and quintisentially American: that spirit that says no matter the odds or the cost, we will fight them. Ask the Wolverines why they fought, and it was not about star-spangled banners or apple pie or baseball or proportional representation, they fought, in their own words, "because we live here" and the men with red stars and guns did not.

I'm reminded of that tonight by a Buckley column which makes three points: we left Vietnam, terrible things occured after we left, and we are facing the same cut-and-run political pressure the longer we stay in Iraq. Buckley, while not laying out his own view so much, certainly attempts to make the case that what happened after Vietnam is likely to happen after Iraq. And perhaps he's right, it may very well occur. But Buckley fails, I think, to ask a very important question, and that is, "Could we have won in Vietnam?"

We had troops there in various capacities from 1960 to 1975. In 15 years we lost 50,000 men, spent untold billions of dollars, and in the end we left and bad things happened. In the end, we lost, even though we offered the Vietnamese a better life than they got. In the end all our effort was for naught*. We are urged, I suppose, to not make the same mistake in Iraq lest the same bad things happen. I submit to you that we have no choice, that we will leave at some point or other, and bad things may very well happen, and there is nothing we can do about them.

Who are we fighting in Iraq? We were told it was Saddam's loyalists, who wanted to return him to power, secular Sunni Baathists who pined for the days when they ruled the roost. We were told that we fought Shiite theocrats, in alliance with Iran, who want to join those two nations together and create a regional power. We were told that we fought al Qaeda, terrorists, Taliban, Islamic radical, fascists. These were not lies, for we have, at one point or another, fought them all. But most of all, and most ignored of all, we are fighting Wolverines. We are fighting people who are fighting us because they live there. Just like Red Dawn. Just like Vietnam.

The assumption in the smooth words of those who tell us to stay the course, to avoid cutting and running, to support the President, is that if we only hang together, we must win. We can construct a government and a society that will freely choose what we offer because that's where this road leads.

That's the choice we offered Vietnam. They chose poorly and paid dearly. But it was not our choice to make, only to offer; we bled ourselves white for 15 years until the American people decided their sons were more valuable than holding that door open any longer. Iraq will not last 15 years. We will not hold that door open for a generation, for our armed forces have not the power nor our people the patience.

But those who believe that America can do what it wants so long as we have a plan, so long as we have unity, so long as we try our best, had best look at Vietnam, because we had those for years but in the end we left. We had no choice. There was no victory to be had.

I did not start out believing that Iraq was Vietnam - in fact, one of my first posts was a warning to avoid the comparison - nor do I believe it is today. But I do believe it has become unwinnable, if by that we mean that we must leave a stable democratic government, an ally, a city on a hill, behind. We are fighting Wolverines who fight us so long as we are there, who will not support a government we create any more than Red Dawn's Wolverines would have supported a Cuban-imposed government, no matter what benefits it offered.

So long as we fought on offense, removing Saddam and destroying his army, we were on solid ground and I supported that effort 100%. We were doing right, protecting the innocent from a monster who had used mustard gas on his own people, who stole their lives and their daughters and their future. Most importantly, we were fighting the kind of war an army could win. We are no longer doing that. Now we are fighting people who are fighting us because they live there.

Iraq is not Vietnam, but it is becoming so. The offense won in 100 days, the defense has been on the field for three years. We have killed thousands of Wolverines, yet we are no closer to victory than we were after those 100 days, because every Wolverine has a father and a brother - and if we stay long enough, sons and nephews - who will fight us because they live there.

We won the game, yet refused to leave the field for fear that the bad things that happened in Vietnam would happen there. They still might. The question is, how much will we pay before it happens over our dead bodies anyway?

* Not completely for naught, as there are thousands who escaped that hellhole due to our troops' valiant efforts. Their lives were saved because we fought for them. No war, not even Vietnam, is all good or all bad - never trust those who argue otherwise.

America United

America united

Adblock

Adblock

Dark Lord of Pengersick

Dark Lord of Pengersick

So there's this little girl, right? And there's elves, right? And there's a dark lord who lives in a dark tower in which he performs terrible magic, right? So the girl becomes invisible and she steals his magic ring, in which is stored all his power...

I sure liked this book better when it was called "The Hobbit."

One little two little three little indians

So I'm sitting in class last night and my professor (for whom I have the deepest sympathy - a three hour history class must be as boring to teach as it is to attend) is leading us over the effects of European diseases on the indigenous peoples of America, when she drops the number 70 million as a beginning population figure.

And I'm thinking, "What? You've got to be kidding me."

Raise hand. "70 million?"

"That's a best estimate."

Nfway is that a best estimate. Tenochtitlan (modern day Mexico City), the capital of the Aztecs, had about 100k people. Big city for the time, one of the biggest in the world, and the Aztecs were far and away the biggest and most powerful civilization in MesoAmerica.

Up north, the Capital of the Missippians, Cahokia (near modern St. Louis, MO), had 15-20k people.

For there to be 70 million people in the New World there would have to have been 700 Tenochtitlans from Argentina to Canada, or 3500 Cahokias in the same area. So where are they? They aren't. They never were.

But in addition to there being no evidence that the populations were that high, there is at least circumstantial evidence that it was not significantly changed - at least not to the "90% dieoff" number that's casually thrown about. When the Europeans pushed West from their colonies, it set off a series of migration-related wars among the tribes. This tribe pushed into this one, who then pushed into that one, not unlike the Germanic tribes 1200 years before. But if the populations were 90% (or even 50%) wiped out, why go to war rather than simply joining together? In fact, who was out there to push away? The tribes displaced by the English would have had almost literally no one to fight, with vast areas of North America being completely depopulated.

Of course, there may be any number of reasons to try to make the pre-invasion population as big as possible, and the main one is to make the subsequent depopulation as 'bad' as possible. Hey, the palefaces did enough stuff to be ashamed of. There's no sense in making it any worse than it was.

canon

Christmas music as it ought to be

Adblock

Adblock

feminizing the classroom

Gerry Garibaldi on how schools shortchange boys

As Sommers understood, it is boys’ aggressive and rationalist nature—redefined by educators as a behavioral disorder—that’s getting so many of them in trouble in the feminized schools. Their problem: they don’t want to be girls...

Good piece, and while I wonder whether a 7% differential in graduation rates is that significant, I do think one of the problems in the schools is that young female teachers simply don't know how to - or are unable to - handle boys. It's not a boy problem at all, they are what they are. OTOH, there's a pretty good racket going to drug them into submission...

And I'll be honest, I'm not surprised to find this from San Fran (hat tip: Sniffer) But I'll be damned if I know what to think about it:

Park Day's gender-neutral metamorphosis happened over the past few years, as applications trickled in for kindergartners who didn't fit on either side of the gender line. One girl enrolled as a boy, and there were other children who didn't dress or act in gender-typical ways. Last year the school hired a consultant to help the staff accommodate these new students.

I guess if you can't beat 'em, conjoin em.

cheerleading

Cheerleading for government

One of the misconceptions about libertarians (and it's one I would not be surprised to see MikeT deal with better than I ever could) is that they believe that government never does anything worthwhile. Most of that is because we fail to acknowledge, in our zeal to show that on balance the vast majority of government programs do more harm than good, that government occasionally accomplishes something worthwhile. I consider the eradication of smallpox probably the best example of something that is, without a doubt, a net positive. Denying these small victories simply makes us look like the nuts most of us are.

However, it's understandable - at least to me - that libertarians get carried away with negativity when we see lists from Government's cheerleaders filled with "accomplishments" that tend to be little more than deck chair moving or good intentions measured in dollars spent. The Brookings Institution has published such a list, filled with items like the following:

2. Expand the Right to Vote

Why should it be an accomplishment of government (and, my goodness, the second-greatest of all) that government managed to change the makeup of people allowed to choose government itself?

9. Reduce the Federal Budget Deficit

Still in the Top 10, and it's a great accomplishment of government that it is not overspending as much as it could conceivably overspend. Perhaps it is also meet to thank a thief who in stealing your wallet returns enough cab fare for you to make it safely home.

17. Strengthen the National Defense

Yes, it is a great accomplishment of government to do the main thing that we most rely on national government to do (the same could be said for #36, reduce crime and #49, control immigration). Well done, thou good and faithful servant. Tell me again why this is #17.

41. Improve Government Performance/42. Reform Welfare/48. Reform Taxes

Of course, it is a great endeavor of government to do what does better than it might. But "It could be worse" is not a very inspiring slogan, I don't think.

There are a lot of numbers missing here, and while some are unarguably good things (e.g. 18. Reduce Hunger and Improve Nutrition) and some are completely unecessary (e.g. 39. Stabilize Agricultural Prices), the vast majority have no constitutional authority whatsoever. A few (e.g. 29. Maintain Stability in the Persian Gulf) fell from beneath a bull's tail.

Most of the things government gets gold stars for from its cheerleaders are things that government need not do, does worse than the market could do, or that it is a best a peripheral responsiblity of government to do, and the few things only it can do always seem to fall fairly low on the cheerleaders' lists of its accomplishments. So the libertarian is at least justified in arguing that the government, at best, has its priorities wrong. At worst, government is holding those few things that it ought to do hostage in the interest of accomplishing that which results in more money, more power, and more kudos for government itself.

(hat tip: Karen De Coster)

Note to Vox Day readers: Yes, I picked that picture with him in mind.

its coming

It's Coming


The bad news is that I've got to buy a better computer to play it.

Or is that the good news?

here comes the ice again

Here comes the ice again

MOSCOW, Aug. 25 (UPI) -- A Russian scientist predicts a period of global cooling in coming decades, followed by a warmer interval.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches.

The Little Ice Age is believed to have contributed to the end of the Norse colony in Greenland, which was founded during an interval of much warmer weather.

Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.

Obviously, those Russians are in the pocket of Big Oil. Or since we found out this week that Russia is now the world's biggest oil producer, maybe they are big oil.

Two things I do note in their favor, however:

a) They are absolutely correct about the Norse in Greenland, which colony was founded during the Medieval Warm Period and was subsequently choked out by a global cooling period known as the Little Ice Age.

b) Good science is seldom done by consensus. That means that any argument you hear that "virtually all scientists believe in this new thing" is as likely to be an argument against the new thing as for it. Science is not democratic and truth is not determined by counting noses.

The earth has warmed and it has cooled. Sometimes that's good (warming generally corresponds with periods of rising wealth) and sometimes it's bad (cooling generally corresponds with mass migrations and starvations). For whatever reason it occurs it will continue, no matter what the Al Gores of the world say ought to happen and (most importantly) no matter what they do. Mankind has not been given control of the thermostat.

only liberals

NEW YORK (AP) — A group of New York City officials blasted CBS and its hit series "Survivor" on Thursday, a day after the network announced that the teams on the new season of the reality show will be divided by race.

(City Councilman John) Liu, who is Asian-American, said he was launching a campaign urging CBS to pull the show because it could encourage racial division and promote negative typecasts. He and a coalition of officials, including the council's black, Latino and Asian caucus, planned to rally at City Hall on Friday.

Let me get this straight. The Black Caucus, Latino Caucus, and Asian Caucus are going to rally against a TV show for encouraging racial division.

Only liberals, man. Only freaking liberals...

I'm heading outta town for a foster parent conference. Be well.

(hat tip: Sniffer)

all your fakes are belong to us

All your fakes are belong to us

Adblock

Adblock

you have the right

You have the right to remain silent

so long as you're willing to be punished for it.

CROWN POINT, Ind. - A judge detained and questioned a row of spectators when a cell phone rang for a third time in her courtroom, later ordering two people to serve community service for contempt of court...

Shonique Freeman, of Gary, said she knew it was Berry's phone, but she didn't offer the information, either.

(Judge Diane) Boswell ordered both Berry and Freeman to serve 40 hours of community service.

"The next time you come to court, don't bring your cell phone," Boswell said. "And when the court asks a question, answer the question."

I have no problem punishing people who disrupt court hearings. Turn your cell phone off. However, for the judge to unilaterally sentence someone who did not disrupt to punishment for not fingering someone who did seems to me more than a little heavy handed. If judges can punish people unilaterally for not narcing, why can't cops? "Won't say where the bad guy went, huh? How 'bout receiving your sentence upside the skull?"

Boortz apparently loves the idea, giving the judge in question an honorable mention. However, as with his anti-smoking crusades, I think his libertarianism is more in reputation than in fact. Perhaps I'm just a little jaded on the courts due to the time I've spent in them in foster parent-related hearings and such, but these petty little judicial dictatorships are a bigger threat to liberty than either cell phones or smoking could ever be.

save the biker chicks

Save the biker chicks

The Washington Post is born to miss the point:

The number of people killed on U.S. roadways in 2005 climbed to the highest level in 15 years, an increase tied to rising deaths among motorcyclists and pedestrians, the federal government reported yesterday.

A total of 43,443 people died in traffic accidents last year, up 1.4 percent from the previous year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said. The agency said the motorcycle death toll rose for the eighth consecutive year. Last year, 4,553 motorcyclists died on the roadways, up 13 percent from the previous year. The agency said 4,881 pedestrians were killed last year, up 4.4 percent.

"The traffic environment is getting more dangerous," said Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "People are driving a lot faster. We've lost momentum in reducing alcohol-impaired driving and unprotected road users, like pedestrians, and to some extent motorcyclists are going to suffer from that."

While it may be true that people are driving faster (and I don't know that it is - Iowa is the only state I know of that has raised its speed limit recently, and that to match Minnesota and Missouri) and while it may be true that alcohol-related accidents are dropping more slowly than in years past, neither explains why the number of fatalities among motorcyclists rose 13% last year.

There's a very easy explanation. Next time you're on the road, take a look at your fellow drivers. One thing you'll probably notice is that there are more motorcyclists around than ever. Why? Because as the price of gas rises, more people are riding bikes. Bikers are unprotected, and cycle crashes tend to be catastrophic when compared to a person riding in, say, a Hummer. More bikers means more leather-covered roadkill.

There is good news. The overall fatality rate of 1.47 per 100 million miles traveled was barely over 2004's record low rate of 1.45. Deaths among passengers in autos was down, as were deaths among young drivers and women.

However, as the high price of fuel induces more people to saddle up rather than buckling up, the high price of motorcycle accidents will be paid by more and more riders. So double-check before changing lanes, huh? The world still needs biker chicks.

conformity

stumbling on a solution

Stumbling on a solution

Historian Victor Davis Hanson explains how we could lose and hides how we can win:

Despite the enormous advantages of Western militaries, there is no guarantee we can keep ahead of terrorists - especially since they are becoming more adept while we seem tired and unsure about whom, why and how we should fight.

So far, the U.S. has been able to dodge the latest terrorist bullets. So far, Afghanistan and Iraq are clinging to their newfound democracies. So far, Israel has been able to survive Hamas and Hezbollah, and these groups' state sponsors in Iran and Syria.

But unless we in the West adapt more quickly than do canny Islamic terrorists in this constantly evolving war, cease our internecine fighting and stop forgetting what we've learned about our enemies - there will be disasters to come far worse than Sept. 11.

VDH understands the premises here, that Islamists are obsessed with death, that oil revenues fuel jihad, that technology favors the weak, both in the affordability of missiles and the ineffectiveness of air power in defeating terrorists (because Israel did not win in Lebanon, they lost. Don't think the Syrians didn't notice). And VDH is a good enough historian to know where that leads; after all, this type of Islamic expansion has happened twice before. But perhaps he's too classy a guy to speak the whole truth, so he lets it out in hints and mutterings, and the most important hint is "cease our internicene fighting."

Now even if we did that, completely, today, it would not help us win - Israel is united, yet they just lost to guys with stingers and mobile missiles. The solution on the ground is not a military one and unity is not necessarily a decisive factor. The road to victory is not to cease our own internicene fighting, which we cannot do without giving up our freedom. But it may lie in actively ensuring that our enemies fight amongst themselves, that their internicene fighting cripples their ability to project a united and effective front. The hatreds between various Arab and Muslim groups run much deeper than their hatred of we Crusaders. Therein lies our chance perhaps not to defeat, but at least to diffuse, the terrorist menace.

Jill Carroll, a former captive of mujahidin fighters in Iraq, describes our opportunity this way:

We arrived back at the place I called the "clubhouse," near Salman Pak, later that night. Slumped in a plastic chair in a room lit by the stark half-light of a fluorescent camping lantern, another mujahid told me their new bottom line.

"Aisha," he said, calling me by the Sunni nickname they'd given me, "now our No. 1 enemy are the Shias. Americans are No. 2."

The most likely effect of our Democracy policy - should it succeed - will simply be to make us number 1 again. So why not encourage their natural tendencies to fight amongst themselves, turning their aggression inward rather than drawing it outward?

We can't change their ideology, and certainly not with democracy - that form of government just gives outlet to it. We can't change technology, the world is moving toward a miniaturization that will be devolutionary - and bigger better bombs don't help. We can't change their religion. The boy in the picture above will grow up with a desire and drive to kill in Allah's name and for his glory. Giving him a chance to vote does not change that.

But we can make sure that if he must kill someone, it's not us. Or if we don't want to actively stir the pot - a defensible moral position, to be sure - we should at least stop trying to draw his bead to our own foreheads.

doomsday

solttdad

I want my two dollars

So I'm sitting at the Dole Center listening to Ann Coulter. Sniffer was there (in the front row... thanks for saving me a good seat, buddy) as were Jozum and Magruder. Bethany and Misty, both sporting multi-hued tresses, lounged in back with the Halelluia Chorus. Ann was on a rampage (is that redundant?) when a fellow arose and shared an interesting fact.

"Do you know," he began, with a palpable sense of self-importance, "that three billion people on the planet live on less than two dollars a day?"

"Thank you for sharing that interesting fact," was her response. Much laughter ensued.

I'm reminded of that tonight by the article linked below by Mark Morford, who expands on that same interesting fact with the same sense of self-importance:

We already have three billion humans on the planet who subsist on less than two dollars a day. Every other child in the world (one billion of them) lives in abject poverty.

That billions of people are brutally poor is a fact, though I note that the liberals who pass it one to another like an Olympic torch of self-righteousness are seldom counted among them. Nor am I, though apparently I am to blame for it - or maybe Ann Coulter is. I'm sure someone who does not carry the FactTorch(tm) is to be blamed for its existence, else why bring it up?

But if we examine the fact, we find that it is not true only here and only today. In ancient Egypt, the vast majority of people subsisted on less than two dollars a day (let's call that condition "SOLTTDAD"). In pre-Columbian America, most people were SOLTTDAD. In Medieval Europe and classical Greece, in ancient and modern Africa and the Far East, most people were or are SOLTTDAD. In fact, SOLTTDAD is the condition in which we find most of the people who have ever lived, regardless of when or where they lived. It is *gasp* the normal condition of Mankind, only "untrue" in certain places and under certain conditions.

The most amazing thing about those who bear the FactTorch of SOLTTDAD is that they almost universally misunderstand its significance, because they presume (incorrectly) that it is abnormal; they never bother to ask in what kinds of places and under what conditions it does not exist.

It's not sharing, not tribalism nor feminism nor socialism, not "fairness" or government-imposed "social justice" that causes SOLTTDAD not to stalk the land, though the liberal uses SOLTTDAD to promote those very things. SOLTTDAD is not banished by the abundance of the nation's metals and minerals; Liberia is filled with both natural resources and SOLTTDAD. It is not held at bay by manipulating money; a cab driver in Zimbabwe earns a million dollars a fare and has no more to eat than a Liberian. It is not a function of population; the least-populated areas of the world tend to be among the poorest, wealthy Belgium is the most densely-populated nation on the planet.

SOLTTDAD is held temporarily at bay by wealth, but wealth is not a thing that grows in the distribution like Jesus' loaves and fishes; it diminishes every day. Once it's consumed, then everyone is SOLTTDAD. Wealth is instead a thing that must be produced, daily, using tools (capital) and energy and knowledge.

SOLTTDAD only ceases to exist as a permanent condition when a nation puts in place protections on the lives, liberties, and (perhaps most importantly) the property of its citizens, when it allows them to keep the work of their hands, to trade for whatever they wish, to accumulate tools with which to produce goods for themselves and their families. In short, SOLTTDAD is only banished when wealth can be accumulated by individuals working freely and when it can be passed to their families.

"The problem with our Liberal friends is not that they are ignorant," Reagan once solemnly intoned, "but that they know so much that ain't so." That's not entirely true. American Liberals are certain that SOLTTDAD is a result of capitalism, or freedom, of private property, or at least they are fond of waving the FactTorch as soon as someone defends those things. They are ignorant of the fact that living in a nation that has historically protected those things is the only reason they are not SOLTTDAD themselves.

If capitalism did not exist, would SOLTTDAD still exist? It would be well nigh universal, as it was before capitalism. If Socialism didn't exist, would SOLTTDAD still exist? I should sure like to find out.

UPDATE: how many mentions until it becomes a meme? CNN adds one:

As the only African-American in the U.S. Senate, Obama is seen as an inspiration in this east African country where more than half its 33 million people eke out a living on less than $1 a day.

grok the vote

ABC fails to grok the numbers:

Liberals, it is said, have a baby problem. They don't have enough of them, compared to conservatives. And this failure to replenish their ranks is a reason why they lose elections. Call it a fertility gap...

Studying numbers from the General Social Survey — a government survey of social trends — (Syracuse University professor Arthur) Brooks found that 100 unrelated liberal adults have 147 children, while 100 unrelated conservatives have 208 kids...

There are many possible reasons for these lopsided numbers — conservative opposition to birth control, the fact that city residents are more likely to be liberal and have smaller families...(Brooks') message to liberals dismayed with his findings: "Have babies! Forgo the cat, have kids."

Of course, there are many possible reasons for the gap, but only one probable one: people tend to practice what they preach. Sure, we all know hypocrites, but generally if someone believes in something, they'll follow that, because ideology is usually but a mental justification for what we want to do anyway.

Liberalism celebrates all manner of attitudes and actions which do not result in children*, from homosexuality to abortion to overpopulation hysteria to a palpable disdain for 'breeders'. That's not a moral judgment but a statement of fact. When liberals practice what they preach, they do not generally end up with a lot of kids**. And the more liberal they are, the less likely they are to have kids. It's a Catch-22 for the left, because while Brooks says that Liberal politics will prove fruitless as long as liberals refuse to multiply, the fact is that much of Liberalism is simply a refusal to multiply cast into a political platform.

On the conservative side the numbers are better, but they are not good enough, though for a different reason altogether. With few exceptions (like Evangelical Christians) even conservatives are failing to replace themselves biologically (2.1 kids/woman is considered replacement rate to account for accidents, sterlility, etc.) and the numbers are falling. That fact alone condemns Social Security and Medicare to a fiery death.

But it also means the replacement, if it comes at all, will come from immigrants, most of whom share neither the liberals' nor conservatives' Americanized attitudes, but those of their own nation and culture. In other words, America will become less American as the years pass, or at least the definition of what makes an American will change dramatically.

I suppose it has to be that way, or at least it always has been. A culture that cannot be bothered to replace itself is a culture that will be replaced by others. The liberal/conservative gap is far less important in the medium-term than the fact that Americans (like the rest of the West if a little less obviously) have decided that their heritage is not worth creating children to pass it on to.

That just goes to show how much liberalism's fatal malady has infected even those who consider themselves conservative.

* Malcolm Muggeridge called that tendency the "Great Liberal Death Wish," though I believe he included euthanasia under that title. It's a fitting title, and one that I have stolen before.

** Or as Mark Morford put it, "Where is, in other words, the funky tattooed intellectual poetess who, along with her genius anarchist husband, is popping out 16 funky progressive intellectually curious fashion-forward pagan offspring to answer the Duggar's squad of über-white future Wal-Mart shoppers? Where is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side? Verily I say unto thee, it ain't lookin' good."

BTW, that pic is cropped from Misty's blog. I do not suggest you click here to see the original or put down your drink first.

human sign

nickel meltdown

A meltdown, so to speak

The New York Times confuses speculation with scarcity:

This week, (nickel's) surging price and falling stockpiles prompted the London Metal Exchange to impose restrictions on its trading, warning that “we now have a genuine material shortage.” ...

To ease supplies in the short run, the London Metal Exchange beginning today, has imposed a daily limit of $300 a metric ton on how much short sellers have to pay to delay delivery of any nickel they have borrowed that is due to be returned. Previously, the price to delay delivery was set by the market and could run into thousands of dollars a ton.

Silver analyst Ted Butler notes that setting specific legal penalties by the exchange shows that the contract is actually in default. The Exchange has changed the rules to protect the financial interests of those who are short the metal and can't deliver any. It is not being done to protect small investors or mining companies, and it is contrary to the interests of industrial users who need delivery on time. Any guesses as to what kind of institutions this might be designed to protect?

I've been saying for several years that such will occur in silver as well, and for the same reasons. When the big finance boys are caught, they change the rules. Call it "home field advantage" or the golden rule ("He who has the gold makes the rules") but it's exactly the reason why, though I own a lot of silver, not a single ounce of it is represented by paper contracts.

But the finance boys can play with the rules all they want and it won't help them a bit, except to push back financial reckoning day a little further. There is a genuine shortage in the metal, the Chinese and Indians are buying it like crazy, and you can't make stainless steel or 5-cent pieces out of paper contracts.

Reality always wins in the long run. In the short run, save your nickels...

Update: Rob Kirby explains nickel-plated dominoes.

liberty from the tombs

Liberty is more than quitting your job

"Now," he said, "now we're away, now we're clear, we're clean gone, Tenar. Do you feel it?"

She did feel it. A dark hand had let go of its lifelong hold upon her heart. But she did not feel joy, as she had in the mountains. She put her head down in her arms and cried, and her cheeks were salt and wet. She cried for the waste of her years in bondage to a useless evil. She wept in pain, because she was free.

What she had begun to learn was the weight of liberty. Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward towards the light; but the laden traveler may never reach the end of it.
-- Ursula Le Guin, "The Tombs of Atuan"

I'd never read Le Guin's Earthsea series, but started it last weekend while in Minnesota. Little books, very very good. Tombs of Atuan, which I finished last night, is interesting in that for half the book, nothing happens - it's like a drawn-out version of life in Castle Anthrax (dressing, undressing, making exciting underwear). The end absolutely flies and once you're done you realize how little happened and how much it means...

Perhaps after class tonight I'll start The Farthest Shore...

black or white

Clayton Bigsby, black white supremist

jilla

Godjilla shows me something or other

I just don't have the time, or patience. My reasoning for distrusting Libertarians would have only been illustrated by the fact that I know two, and they're both raging assholes.

In the interest of being "nice" and the fact that internet/L.com arguments never go anywhere, that's all I'll say.

I, apparently, am one of them. But like I've mentioned there before, it's hard to fathom how little I care about being called names. And I ignore the last claim as well; if Jilla learns nothing from internet arguments, it's either because she knows everything or thinks she does; I still learn from long, drawn-out, and sometimes heated arguments with others. I was not born a libertarian, I was pummeled into being one via the internet.

But Jilla's main assumption here is interesting and one that illustrates a major problem in contemporary American politics: the cult of personality/team sport aspect of it. You've seen it in elections, especially presidential ones. To the Kerry supporter, Kerry can do no wrong, and everything GWB has ever done has been woven from a black heart of unmitigated evil. Same for Bush supporters, Kerry is a blackhanded rogue who never did anyting praiseworthy in his life, while Bush does pure good from pure motives always.

It's as irrelevant, though, as it is consistent, like saying I don't believe in plane geometry because my high-school math teacher cheated on his wife or I believe in a flat earth because my neighbor who told me of it once rescued my cat from a tree. Either the thing is true or the thing is false, the foibles and personalities of the adherents don't matter, because they are not the thing under discussion, or at least should not be. I don't ask Jilla to trust me, a Libertarian, I ask her only to examine whether freedom is worth her affection. People claim to vote for "the person," yet they don't know the person, but what they choose to believe about him. They vote for a god made in their own image, a mirage of their own imagining.

Of course there are times when the messenger is the message. If one is trying to claim that (for example) Jesus Christ made him a new man, but his would-be converts see him hitting on their wives, then sure, there's bound to be some doubts raised. As there should be, because a person is using himself as a proof and proving himself to be a lecher and a liar.

But politics is not religion and I don't expect one will become libertarian because of who I am, what I have seen, done, or been. It's not about me. It's about them, their freedom, their nation that must choose between a totalitarian future, brought about regulation by regulation and election by election, or a future where there are no guarantees but also no limits but what they bring along themselves.

Frankly, I think the reason that I'm an asshole (a while back it was "magnificent asshat," but I've apparently been promoted) is that I don't spare feelings when it comes to policy or economics. I don't coddle feminists. I don't try to pretend the world is other than it is. But we Americans love pretend. We hire politicians to pretend on our behalf, to tell us how healthy and wealthy and wise we'll be by turning our lives over to them, to cure cancer and save us from little brown men with box knives. It is, frankly, offensive to say that someone is worth exactly what they accept as pay, or that if they have kids outside of marriage, they are more likely to attract a substandard mate. I think those are valuable facts, but I am an asshole for sharing them. Tell someone they live the life they live today because that is the result of the choices they have made in the life they lived yesterday, and you're an asshole.

But I could be wrong. I may very well just be one, down to my very black heart.

I can live with that, too. After all, I'm not running for office.

oops

what would El B do

"OK smart guy"

The challenge comes via email:

I know you said you'd never run for office, but if you did, what would your platform be? How can a Libertarian compete in conservative Kansas when he's defined as being "pro-drug" and "pro-gay marriage"?

It's a good question and illustrates the problem Libertarians have in running for office. The national party is getting better at this, but the state party is still holding fundraisers at nudist colonies. You will never, ever, win anything in Kansas if you get your press in the same sentence as "nudist colonies." Libertarians are friggin' nuts, and that's not a problem except that they revel in being seen as nuts. They are marginal because they marginalize themselves.

But a certain Republican Attorney General taught me a few things about campaigns, of which I've run a few successfully in the past 2 decades. He said, "You pick three issues. That's what you talk about. If someone wants to talk about something else, fine, but *you* talk about your three issues. You have to define yourself, and the more issues you talk about (especially the 'wierd' ones) the more chances you give voters to vote againt you." He's right.

The main necessity is that you've got to pick issues that resonate with voters. If they don't care about your issue, pick another one. You can always work on your issue after you're elected, but if you're not elected it won't matter. Elections are about voters, not candidates, so talk about what matters to them.

But most of all, be honest with voters. What you do in office should never surprise them because your principles ought to be clear. Don't lie, mislead, threaten, or deceive them. Elected office is a trust. Respect that above your own ideology and desire for power.

So if I were to design a campaign brochure or write a campaign speech for a Libertarian candidate running for state-level office, it would feature these three issues in this fashion:

I. Property rights: This is the bedrock of all Libertarian principles and should be treated as such. "The right of the individual to be secure in his person, property, and effects" is something every voter can relate to. The Libertarian should touch on Kelo just to show that the GOP and Dems are both more than willing to take their house and sell it to WalMart. Then he should say proudly "A man's home is his castle" and talk about what that means. No one cares about zoning, but this has a huge impact on it. He can also talk about removing property taxes, that the state shouldn't make you buy what's already yours. He should talk about how the government unjustly siezes property, and why that is never in the voters' interest.

II. School Finance: Voters love their public schools and those public schools consume the majority of the state budget. The Libertarian has to live with that. Article VI of the Kansas Constitution says there shall be public schools. Until that's repealed (don't hold your breath) we have public schools. The objective, however, is to make control of those schools as local as possible. "Local control of schools" is the mantra, and under it one can import vouchers, charters, whatever one wants (I don't like any of those, but some Libertarians do, it's up to you). The Libertarian *cannot* get rid of the public schools under the current Constitution, but he can and should weaken the centralizing tendencies of the unions and parties. Freedom is a long-term project.

He should also have a canned answer for those who ask about the courts' interference: "Article VI of the Kansas Constitution makes it the legislature's job to organize and finance the schools. If the judges can't read English, then it is our duty to impeach them and replace them with judges who can." It's simple, and everyone can understand it. The unions will hate it, but they already hate you, so who cares? The Libertarian should be a vocal enemy of the centralizing mandates of any court.

III. Extra Credit. The third issue should be the one nearest and dearest to the heart of the candidate. It might be fully-informed juries. It might be decriminalization of marijuana. It might be repeal of some petty law that is abused by prosecutors. In any case, the objective is not to teach "libertarian principles" (this is a campaign, not a civics class) but to show how the application of those principles benefits the voters. This is a far cry from "I brought this bridge to the district, vote for me and I'll plunder the rest of the state on your behalf," which is the rallying cry of the major parties. Rather it should focus on how doing what the candidate wants to do will benefit all voters. You're not going to convince a voter that smoking pot is just fine, either they believe it or they don't. But you may convince them that jailing pot smokers is far more costly than it's worth. Ask, "Your office mate occasionally sparks up a doob. Do you really think he deserves a year in jail for what he does in his basement?"

The objective here is not to explain Libertarian principles, but to explain how those principles will affect those who vote for you. Stay away from moral judgments of actions and instead focus on what actions demand a government response. You will, to be blunt, never turn a majority of the voters in your district into Libertarians, but you might appeal to the libertarian impulses of a majority of the voters in your district. And when the "pro-drug" or "pro-gay marriage" questions arise, answer them with a question: "If pot was legal, would *you* smoke it?" "If gays could get married, would *you* marry another man?" If the answer is no (and it will be most of the time) then ask them why they are so keen on passing laws that they admit would have no effect on how they live their lives.

The gist of the Libertarian campaign should be on convincing the voters that your ideas will benefit them more than the tax-and-spend, plunder-and-build ideas of your major-party opponents rather than trying to convince a majority of voters that snorting cocaine is a good idea. "To each his own","A man's home is his castle", and "Local control of schools" are powerful enough to carry the Libertarian message to the vast majority of voters who are not Libertarian themselves, but have libertarian impulses that arise from innate American ideology.

That's how I'd run it. Go thou and do likewise.

shame on phill

Shame on Phill Kline

Magruder's disappointment comes via email:

Just heard on the KMBZ: Paul Morrison's campaign has been going through Phill Kline's donor list from 2002, and now we know that Benjamin Phelps made a $500 donation to Kline's campaign in 2002. He is the son of Fred Phelps of the Westborough Baptist Church, famous for their obnoxious and tasteless anti-gay protests. Morrison's spokesman says that people should know who Kline's supporters are.

Um.... this is a news story? And is this an example of what Morrison's campaign is about?

Four years ago we were told that Phill Kline may have committed a zoning violation. Now this. I am so disillusioned.

I'm thinking that this is *exactly* what Morrison's campaign is going to be about... I wonder if he'll mention the six figure sum Kansas' biggest abortionist spent to defeat Kline last time around. Better yet, I wonder if, when that blood money comes around again, Morrison will be as forthcoming about who his own supporters are...

fire bad

Fire Bad

Adblock

Adblock

too bad hes never cried

Don't tell the Democrats

but Chuck Norris' tears are the only known cancer cure:

With a month to go before primary voters head to the polls to choose Senate nominees, Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin kicked off yesterday a weeklong effort to highlight his congressional record and vision on health care by making the mother of all campaign promises - to cure cancer...

"We are going to lick cancer by 2015," Cardin told a group of 15 people at the HopeWell Cancer Support Center on Falls Road.

Politicans promising to cure cancer? I suppose next they'll tell us that if we give a little of every paycheck to the government to invest for us, we can all retire someday.

In all fairness to Cardin though, he really didn't promise to "cure" cancer, but to "lick" it (which is gross, I know, but politicians have done worse things for a vote). Democrats may be fools, but not even they really think they can make Chuck Norris cry some time in the next 9 years.

While the average Republican is a tragic figure - hoping without hope that his party will keep the promises of campaigns past - the average Democrat remains a purely comic one.

all geek 2 me

It's all geek to me

Ben McIntyre on all those new words:

According to Paul Payack, who runs the Global Language Monitor, there are currently 988,974 words in the English language, with thousands more emerging every month. By his calculation, English will adopt its one millionth word in late November. To put that statistic another way, for every French word, there are now ten in English.

That claim has enraged traditional lexicographers. The 20-volume OED has 301,100 entries, and purists point out that Mr Payack has little in the way of method and few criteria to define what really constitutes a word. But that, of course, is the point.

He found the remaining 687,874 words by scouring the internet...

The neologism of the web goes far beyond the question of whether "pwned" belongs in the dictionary, but to the very heart of political control. The fact that the web is global, anarchic, playful, and resistant to regulation, in addition to tripling the "official" number of words in the English language in 15 years, sets it completely at odds with Orwell's vision of totalitarian oppression. While politicians continue to measure and mislead with language, a growing number of people simply pass them by, not only ignoring them but inventing on the fly an English they cannot comprehend.

Orwellian control relies on the ability to limit thought by controlling the words in which thought is formed. The net is making that, to be blunt, impossible. No wonder elected control freaks, no matter what rules they pass concerning "the internets," have not the faintest idea what they are up against.

power

On the isolation of women

Common Reader shares an uncommon insight:

Women need to spend a lot of time around other women doing stuff together. If we can't make trinkets and hang out in the marketplace selling them because the state has regulated that out of existence, and told us that we can't let their small children help but must have them in school, if we can't throw parties together for our older children to find mates at, if we are shut away in nuclear households and expected to sublimate our intense social needs in watching the soaps and chatting online, then I am just going to be cranky and spend a lot of time at the park with the Guatamalan nannies, but most women are going to go to the office.

It's not a question of women working vs. women taking care of children. It's a question of women insisting on working while taking care of children, and not submitting to the state's attempted grab at power over childhood. But that power grab is attractive to women not because they are unmaternal, but because care of small children is horribly isolating, and most women can't handle resisting the strong social pressure to be like the tribe and go be where the other women are.

The rise of feminism following the normalization of the suburban nuclear family is probably no coincidence. In the 40s and 50s, it became the norm for men to go off to work and for elderly parents to live alone on Socsec (a generation earlier, the vast majority of Americans still lived rurally and in extended families). That meant more and more women isolated from the adult conversation they need, which meant at some point, they would rebel en masse against that station. Feminists don't hate housework; they still clean their houses. What they hated was the isolation they suffered while *doing* housework, so housework became a useful symbol ("to gender feminists housework is a direct expression of man’s oppression of women and capitalism’s exploitation" - Wendy McElroy) that all suburban women could understand.

We men probably don't appreciate the strength of this social drive because we are perfectly satisfied to work alone or play Madden alone until the sun comes up. In fact, my wife is convinced that I'm a hermit. Of course she's right, and that makes me as mysterious to her as she is to me.

lieberman

I command you, as King of the Britons

to stand aside:

(CNN) -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson became the first prominent national Democrat to call on Sen. Joe Lieberman to drop his independent bid for re-election in Connecticut...

"I look forward to supporting Ned as he fights to help Democrats take back the Senate, and I call on Joe Lieberman to respect the will of the voters and step aside," Richardson said.

I get the fact that Dems want Lieberman out of the race. The Connecticut senate seat is theirs, both currently and in the future. The GOP has but token opposition...hell, whoever the guy is is running so far back even the Libertarian might beat him (I'm kidding; Libertarians don't beat anyone, it's part of our platform) and they don't want Lieberman screwing that up. Joe's yesterday's beau and they have a new one. Oh, the ephemerality of young love!

What I don't get, however, is the ink Republicans spend gushing over Lieberman. According to Pat Buchanan (I only quote him because I haven't checked the numbers myself):

Last year, Joe's rating by Americans for Democratic Action was 80. The ACLU gave him an 83, the NAACP an 85, the AFL-CIO a 92, LULAC a perfect 100. In 2004, Joe got a 100 rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League and a zero from National Right to Life. His American Conservative Union rating was zero. His Christian Coalition rating was zero. The National Rifle Association, which grades by letters, gave Joe a big, fat "F."

Perhaps the GOP thinks Uncle Joe's worth having around because the majority of the Dems hate (and that's not too strong a word) him so much, and I guess I can see some value in that - being the sharing souls they are, Republicans apparently don't want to keep all that vitriol for themselves. But the idea that because Dems hate him he must be a good guy is rather silly. The enemy of your enemy may be an ally at times, but at the end of the day he's still Al Gore's former running mate.

back b4 dinner

Conviction is too cumbersome

So the LA Police steal cars instead:

Police officers acting like prostitutes in Los Angeles, California are not looking to take money from their street walking, they're looking to take their cars. Since 2003, they have seized over 500 cars with the department's cut being $325,000 in profit and the remainder going to the city attorney's office...

Once seized, vehicles are held by the city until a civil hearing is held. In this hearing, the traditional rules of evidence and burden of proof do not apply. Instead, the city only needs to prove its case with a "preponderance of the evidence," not establish its case "beyond a reasonable doubt," in order to keep the car. The city attorney then will offer to sell back the car to its owner through a settlement offer. If the settlement is not accepted, the city will auction the car and keep the proceeds.

When I worked in the AG's office, this sort of thing bothered me as well. There the Anti-trust Division is funded by settlements from companies accused of breaking anti-trust laws. It doesn't mean that any of the companies that settled are innocent (nor does settling mean they are guilty), but it sure creates an incentive for the government to seek cash settlements from as many companies as possible, whether they have broken the law or not. It's a moral hazard both for government and for the employees whose jobs depend on a steady stream of "lawbreakers" to fund their salaries. It's simply taxation via negotiation.

The discussion over at Code Monkey Ramblings has a number of interesting comments about common law vs. deodan, but that's over my head. I just find it interesting (though not surprising) that as devolution picks up steam, government theft becomes more and more blatant. Each is both a cause and an effect of the other.

hat tip: MikeT

Don't just sit there, pass something!

Karen De Coster on why women make bad libertarians:

Women love laws. The more the better! And in fact, a favorite statement of women in general – parroted by Stevie Nicks in concert – is "We got to do something!" In other words, any action taken is effort well spent, 'cuz, we just gotta, you know, do something. That means, of course, that we didn't just sit and do nothing. Whatever that something is, they don’t seem to care. Laws, after all, are evidence of "doing something." A fuzzy phrase like that is a case of Montezuma's revenge for the intellect.

Politically-oriented women are generally more interested in group action than individual thinking and are more than happy to use the power of the law to provide material security for themselves while banning unpleasant thoughts in others. Ironically, self-described "independent" women are the most collectivist of all.

Take a look sometime at how women want to use the law to protect breastfeeding - unarguably a good thing - in public. It's not enough to keep the government from citing or harassing women for doing it - a solution that maximizes freedom and respects the rights of everyone. Rather, lactivists want to make sure no one can prevent it even on their own property, make sure that everyone has correct attitudes about it, provide government-funded lacatation consultants to encourage it, and ban alternatives, even if they are provided to mothers for free. In short, their approach is a comprehensive government-mandated standard that everyone must comply with and pay for. It is a totalitarian approach indifferent to the rights or opinions of others.

But I rather think women's natural nurturing is less of a political menace than their naivete'. The one trait my favorite libertarian women share - besides high intelligence and a natural nurturing instinct - is a healthy distrust of government, its solutions, and especially its "independent" apologists. And I'll take a woman who distrusts the government over a man who dreams of running it any day of the week.

It's not easy being green

USA Today exposes another inconvenient truth:

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

...according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes.

Gore reminds me of the carpetbagger in Outlaw Josey Wales. After pontificating to the public about all the wonderful effects one can expect to receive from imbibing his miraculous elixir, Lone Watie tells him to drink it himself. Unsurprisingly, he refuses. Some medicines are only meant for others.

But it's not really about hypocrisy but about the truth. If one refuses to drink his own medicine, then he really doesn't believe he's sick or he really doesn't believe it works. That's a valuable insight for those who are not sure whether to buy or not - especially coming from one widely regarded as an expert.

green helmet blog

You just knew this was coming

Green Helmet Guy has a blog.

It's actually pretty funny stuff, but the must-see (in other words, the serious) is the video showing Green Helmet Guy in action (via German TV), not as a rescuer but as a director of rescue movies.

Maybe he can find Lulu...

lulu is gone

Lulu is missing

My favorite public school teacher, Lulu, has turned up missing from the Lawrence Journal World discussion groups for several months now. I'm hoping that she's just on a summer walkabout and will return with her students this fall, but if not, if we have truly seen the last of Lulu, the world will be immeasurably poorer for her absence.

But she did leave us a few gems to ponder:

Tax the soccer mom commuters. Sports are dreadful. I am number 2 and it feels great.
On Do you think professional soccer is a viable sport in Kansas?

Earth Day is a joyous and Momentum occasion to worship our Mother Earth. She is a wonderful lady who does not like pollutants infesting her body like festering cold sores. I want to name her Kyoto.
On Why is it important to celebrate Earth Day?

When will people get hip and stop calling it Easter? Easter is for the Christian Taliban. It should be renamed Bunny Day or Jonas' humorous hunt for shrunken heads day. Separation of church and state People!
On When was the last time you went Easter egg hunting?

This is an utterly outrageous attempt by the neocon Christian Taliban to embarrass our sweet governor. Handguns are made for killing and imagine all the unknowing children who will now have easy access to handguns. I could cry. Why do bad things happen to good people? I fear for the safety of our young. If guns didn't kill people then how would people kill people?
On It's law — concealed carry upheld in House

I'm just glad she's teaching your kids.

Rather than mine.

fauxtojournalism

UPDATE: Zombie Time has a great summary of the entire sordid business.

useful work

Useful work deserves fair pay

Walter Williams on the Minwage debate:

There are decent people, without a selfish hidden agenda, who support increases in minimum wages as a means to help low-skilled workers, and there are other decent people, with the identical goal, who strongly oppose increases in the minimum wage. So the question is: How can people who share the same goals, helping low-skilled workers, come up with polar opposite means that produce polar opposite results?

Williams goes on to illustrate how those on the left side of the spectrum make an honest mistake: they view the world as they wish it to be and not how it is. That's particularly ironic considering that they dub themselves the "Reality-Based Community."

But there's one point Williams doesn't address that is illustrated in the above pic I stole from Sniffer and is almost a mantra among the RBC: that hard work ought to be rewarded for its own sake. Basically they have made "It's the thought that counts" into an economic principle by concentrating on process while neglecting to take into account the end product. They weren't the first to make that mistake, it goes all the way back to Marx and even Adam Smith.

There are two ways of looking at work. The RBC relies on the fundamentally flawed “Labor Theory of Value” that values the product by the labor it took to create it (that’s simplified, of course). The other way is through valuing labor instead by the product it creates.

Imagine a guy at an art show. He sees an unpriced painting that might look good on his wall.

“I’ll give you $100 for it,” he tells the artist.

The artist is aghast. “But sir,” he says, I spent a month on that painting. Since I need $1000 a month to live, that painting is worth at least $1000.”

At issue is precisely what’s illustrated in the pic (and what is presumed by proponents of a minwage increase), that the value of something is dependent upon how hard or long someone worked at it and quite often the personal financial needs of the seller as well. Thus the "living wage."

So who’s right? Is the picture worth $100 or $1000? It’s not worth $1000 if no one will give the artist that for it. $100 is not worth the painting if no one will provide the painting in exchange for $100. Neither offer, no matter whether based on need or desire, gives value to the item.

Rather the picture is worth whatever amount the seller and any final buyer agree to exchange and the painter's hourly or daily or weekly rate of pay will be derived from that - and it matters not one bit how hard he worked in the process.

If the painter finds he can't make enough selling paintings, it’s in his interest to try something else for a living, the sooner the better, rather than insisting on even higher prices for the products he creates. But if he finds he always gets his ask, he can increase his hourly pay by raising his ask or by working more efficiently.

A second example might make the principle more clear. You may work very hard moving rocks in my yard for me, but if at the end of the day you have put all the rocks back in place, I would be a fool to pay you. But if you have done what I asked, even if you slacked or used tools, it’s only fair that I pay you full price for the job.

Fairness is not, in the end, a dollar amount based on RBC moral intuition. It is keeping one's end of a freely-agreed bargain, no matter the amount that changes hands. And hard work is itself useless, unless some person, yourself or another, derives a tangible benefit from it.

(hat tip: Sniffer)