Free to Choose

Welcome Back Stagflation.

2008-01-22T09:05:00.001-08:00

The market never seems to make sense. The fed cuts rates, it goes down, companies come in with good earnings its down, bad news about employment and its up. Most of the time the underlying news is not the driver. Market moves can be as mysterious as the lockness monster or a UFO sighting. Everybody things they can explain the unexplainable. In the case of the stock market people get paid big money to explain the unexplainable.

Today there is a very rational explanation. Because economists still have two hands, to the dismay of Harry Truman, there are differing opinions. On the one hand economists/traders are saying its because people are putting money on the sidelines until the bigger rate cuts predicted within the week. On the other hand, this is a major sign of deep fundamental problems with the economy.

Not surprisingly I am siding with the latter. If you have read this blog in the last month you know i have been predicting doom and gloom for the economy. Why? Because of a contracted capital market. Lenders are squeezing the amount of money their willing to lend basically because they just got burned and they are low on reserves. This course was headed straight to a recession (don't pass go), but what is happening now is leading us to stagflation scenario.

At the same time companies are spending and hiring less,and financial institutions are lending less, the federal government is going to try and flood the market again with worthless dollars. The fed wants to continue to cut rates that are still historically low, and the geniuses on the hill want to send people checks indiscriminately. The result is economic slowdown combined with worthless dollars let loose: stagflation. Its not like im the only one out there saying this, but too many pundits act like reality isn't reality or they believe that the liberal media is just making this all up.

For those of us in fairyland (otherwise known as DC) it probably wont hurt too bad. For the rest of you...

New Hampshire Predictions

2008-01-08T10:03:00.000-08:00

Republican:
1. McCain
2. Willard
3. Giuliani
4. Paul
5. Huckabee
6. Thompson

Democrat:
1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Is there any other Democrats still in the race?

Rational:
I think a similar type of scenario will play out in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. The front runners (Willard and Hillary) were stung hard in Iowa and will lose in New Hampshire.

On the Republican side, Willard went from front runner in Iowa to losing badly against a guy with no money and a tiny organization. It's tough to pull out of that especially considering McCain's strength in New Hampshire. With that said, he may still take it if Obama pulls enough independents over to vote on the D side then Willard can win. That analysis goes against my belief about independents (the vast majority of them are partisans who enjoy the distinction of independence), but the landscape in New Hampshire is rapidly shifting left. In recent history it has been somewhat of a swing state but in the coming years it will become solidly blue (thanks W). Advantage: McCain. My Paul prediction this time may be wishful thinking (slightly) but I have a hard time seeing the non-existent evangelical vote in New Hampshire showing up to pull Huckabee over Paul. This may be a bad prediction because the dead have turned out in many past elections so don't discount them.

On the Democratic side, it is not momentum that will kill Hillary. She can withstand an onslaught. The problem is the exit polls from Iowa. Obama won the female vote. If Hillary, the first real chance for a woman to be President of the United States ever, can't win the female vote then she is done. Second, voters seemed to favor change over experience. Although that only captures the sentiment of Democratic voters in Iowa, it is probably not much different from New Hampshire. If the sentiment is even remotely similar, then it is too late for her to change the entire rational for her candidacy.

Overall Picture:
The winners of New Hampshire on both sides will go on to take their parties nomination. To me, this is much clearer on the Republican side. If McCain wins New Hampshire, he will win Michigan next (He and Willard are close in the polls there) which will provide the necessary boost for South Carolina. This will kill Rudy for good and finish Thompson and Huckabee. Replace the name McCain with Willard and the same analysis holds true (especially considering Willard will probably also win Nevada). It isn't as clear on the Democratic side, but I can't see how Hillary can take South Carolina, a state with a black Democratic base, away from a surging black man. Sounds simplistic, but such is life. If she loses all of the early states then she will be done. Her money and organization will mean nothing on February 5th because Obama has tons of money himself.

Note: Considering I F-ed up the Iowa predictions these thoughts may be useful inverse.

Iowa Predictions

2008-01-03T11:39:00.000-08:00

I have been away for the holidays but I must put in my picks before its too late.

Republican:
1. Romney
2. Huckabee
3. Paul
4. McCain
5. Thompson
6. Rudy who?

Democrat:
1. Hilary
2. Obama
3. Edwards

Rational:
Having Ron Paul in the third spot is more than wishful thinking. In multiple polls he has double digit support among likely caucus goers in Iowa. A double digit number for Ron Paul is a much larger statement than any of the other candidates. If you say your for Ron Paul your not saying it because you kinda-sorta like him. You say it because you are solidly in his corner. That isn't true of the others.

On the Democratic side I am predicting Hillary because the candidates who do not have enough caucus supporters at any given polling station will lose them to the front runner: Hillary. I thought twice about predicting this because Kucinich has instructed his supporters to support Obama when they are outnumbered, but the remainder should go to Hillary.

Paul Krugman: Socialism Tastes Good - ala Mode

2007-12-17T06:43:00.000-08:00

I usually will skip over the New York Times editorials but this one caught my eye. I wanted to read about why Paul Marx Krugman thinks Obama is the "anti-change candidate" but instead was treated to a warm piece of socialism ala mode.

"Mr. Obama who’s being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there’s no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste."

This is so crazy coming from an "economist". Profits are the problem? Profits cause waste? What economics theory produced such nonsense.

Reduced profits = less research and development

If a reduction in research is what the desired outcome is then using government to take away profits is probably a good idea. I'm going to assume that Krugman doesn't want that to happen. Using that assumption im not sure what he thinks is going to happen. Does he think that companies are going to make large quantities of high quality pills if there is no profit incentive? Interesting. Maybe he knows something that the economics field does not already know.

The real problem is collectivist health care systems around the world. Essentially, American health care consumers subsidize health care costs for the advanced nations. How? Because they cap prices and have collective bargaining schemes to drive down prices. Where do pharmaceutical companies make up the lost revenue? From us. That is one of the fundamental problems and it has no logical solution.

Taking away profits away from pharmaceutical companies will not improve health care quality any more than taking profits away from Intel will improve processor speed.

Currently Being Crushed

2007-12-04T11:33:00.000-08:00

The weight of finals etc is heavy.

No postings until next week unless something exceptional happens.

Muhammad Teddy Bear Story Goes from Abnormal to Unbelievable

2007-11-30T06:42:00.000-08:00

I usually don't write about stories like the Muhammad teddy bear because it is a better fit for alarmist talk radio, but this is too crazy not to write about.

As you probably already know, an English teacher was sentenced to jail (a lesser punishment considering she escaped 40 lashes) in the Sudan for allowing (encouraging?) her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

This story didn't surprise me in any way. That society has decided that they want some form of theocracy. Fine. Let them have it. I don't live there and never will. My knowledge of Sudan's legal system is not up to par, but if they had a clearly stated law against naming animals Muhammad then I don't know what all the fuss is about.

The problem is this. These people are rallying in the streets with clubs and axes demanding that the teacher be executed.

I think I am speechless. Not exactly, but nearly.

Mostly, I think this is a control issue. Muslims feel dominated and disgraced by their lack of economic and military progress in the last 500 years so they show their superiority where they can. I do not think there is any coincidence that the teacher is British. The Islamic state of Sudan was originally created after the original expulsion of the British under the leadership of Muhammad ibn Abdalla. Abdalla fought for the return to a more pure form of Islam; a fight that continues today.

In short: the people rallying are saying we want a return to a pure form of Islam and we don't want to be walked dominated by Western powers. They picked an absurd event to make their statement, but they are Abdalla's hordes.

Pelosi Strikes Again

2007-11-28T12:51:00.000-08:00

Common sense? Who needs no stinkin common sense!

This appears to be the motto of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Why?

She is holding up the $53 billion dollar Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) budget because she thinks employers should be allowed to have English only policies in the workplace. Senator Alexander's amendment to the CJS appropriations bill (the source of her angst) strips EEOC funding for lawsuits against English in the work place policies.

Beyond objections from the Hispanic caucus and ACLU types there is no reasonable objection. The employers who were being sued were not impinging on any rights because they did not dictate which language employees spoke on their free time. I could probably make an argument for the employers about efficiency, but what about common sense? If an employer can't dictate how an employee acts at work then what can they dictate? Maybe disgruntled employees should get the EEOC to start suing employers who mandate culturally insensitive uniforms etc.?

I'm not sure how or why the Hispanic caucus in Congress got so powerful, but she must find a backbone. I'm not holding my breath while i wait.

Thanks to John Fund at the Wall St. Journal.

Financial Collapse Continued

2007-11-20T11:35:00.001-08:00

I hope this doesn't become a 'cry in your beer blog' but i can't ignore the bad financial news. There is almost literally a story every day about a major financial institution getting the smack down. Here are the latest and greatest.

Freddie Mac- $2 billion dollar loss for the third quarter

H&R Block - Chairman and Chief Executive Mark Ernst resigned today because of subprime exposure through Block's subsidiary Option One Mortgage Company

The Freddie Mac news may be the worse yet because investors may lose confidence in the governments will to bail out financial institutions. I don't think the government should do anything (after all they got us into this mess in the first place) but investors have held somewhat steady because the fed had already opened up the vault to be raided once. With inflation fears growing it is doubtful they will do the same again. Combine that with continued weakness in the overall housing market, retail weakness (Target's weak earnings), and weakened dollar (gold spiked about $20 an ounce today/yesterday), and you have the makings of a recession.

Buckle up.

Tough Primary Decisions

2007-11-19T14:27:00.000-08:00

This morning I was swayed to support Mike Huckabee. There is now no choice based on this video.

Then I came to my senses. I am going to be voting for Ike based simply on his ad (via TruthCaucus).

Vote Ike 2008.

Financial Collapse Continued

2007-11-15T06:48:00.000-08:00

About a week ago i wrote a post about how the subprime crisis is going to tighten capital markets. I provided a list of real estate failures that painted a stark picture. Little did I know that there would be more evidence in the coming days.

Barclays Capital - Announced write-downs totaling 2.67 billion

HSBC - $1 billion more in write-downs

As I said in the last post about this issue, the danger is not that these companies are going to go under. In fact, Barclays still turned a profit (amazingly). The problem is that capital markets are going to tighten. Lending institutions are going to make it harder to lend money. Less money means less investment. Less investment means less jobs.

Buckle in because its going to get bumpy.

Fred Thompson is the Heir Apparent to W

2007-11-05T06:59:00.000-08:00

Fred Thompson seems to be the heir apparent to W. Why? Because Freddy has been light on the details and heavy on talking to the 'folks' its tough to know if he matches W in the policy realm, but phonetically he appears to be a perfect match. Here is an excerpt from his Meet the Press interview yesterday regarding a drug dealer friend of his (Los Angeles Times here),

"I'm not going to throw my friend under the bus for something he did, you know, 25 years ago if he's OK now," Thompson said. "On the other hand, I'm running for president. I've got, you know, to do the right thing, you know, and problems occur, and I'll just have to figure it out."

He manages to say 'you know' 3 times in 3 sentences. One word comes to mind: amateur. When a speaker feels nervous they tend to fill in the gaps with 'um' and 'you know' etc. A good speaker, when hit with a tough question as Thompson was, will pause. It is amazingly difficult to pause and collect your thoughts when eyes (and in this case cameras) are glaring, but is essential in public speaking. While it is true that he was hit with a very difficult question that he did not expect, it is also true that he normally speaks poorly. It is why he seems uninterested and bored.

At least George W. was animated when he would jump off the grammatical cliff. Maybe Thompson should take a page from W's book.

Quote of the Day

2007-10-30T13:03:00.000-07:00

It is remarkable how many political "solutions" today are dealing with problems created by previous political "solutions."

Thomas Sowell

Party like it's 2004

2007-10-29T09:50:00.001-07:00

Sweet

2007-10-29T09:46:00.001-07:00

Random Rumination

2007-10-26T11:34:00.001-07:00

I have been steeped in thought for some time. I have been thinking about the Civil War and its affects and the Federalist papers (don't ask, i have an odd mind) lately and have come up with a conclusion: the defeat of the south has extinguished the check on government power intended by Madison and the founders.

It is normally apostate to say anything negative about the south losing the civil war but stick with me here. In Federalist 10 Madison wrote about faction. He basically explained his plan to stop the hording masses (factions) from using the democratic system to take peoples private property. He first explains that we cannot extinguish the fire that is faction. Faction is to democracy what air is to fire (rough paraphrase). To outlaw faction would be to enact a cure that would be worse than the disease (rough paraphrase again). His plan was instead to widely distribute power. Have each state act as a sovereign entity with all powers not enumerated to the federal government. Therefore, the competing interests of sovereign states would prevent a metaphorically huddled mass of poor voters with pitchforks.

This seems to make a lot of sense. But there is one problem: states are no longer sovereign entities. Not since the Civil War. States lost sovereignty rights at Appomattox court house. North and South.

So if states are no longer sovereign then what is preventing the masses armed with pitchforks and ballots from seizing the property of the minority? Not much. We have seen the power of the federal government increase in all areas of life and there seems to be no brake peddle. The middle class acted as the stopper in the past but they have realized that there is no need to get screwed. Just join the party. Get tax cuts without sacrificing government insurance or things like corporate welfare, and continue to demand more services.

I guess Madison's brilliant architecture couldn't last forever.

Economic Outlook...Dim Government's Response....Worse

2007-10-24T06:22:00.000-07:00

American's seem to have an amazingly tiny attention span. When the "subprime" mortgage problems began to bubble up people were worried. Now? Most people don't seem to care. That's unfortunate because the hammer hasn't fallen yet. It takes time but it will trickle down. Buckle up.
Merrill Lynch - $8 billion in write offs for bad debt. They went from a profit of $3 billion to a net loss of $2.3 billion.

Bank of America - 32% drop in 2007 Q3 profits. Net income fell 1.72 billion dollars.

Bear Stearns - 61% drop in 2007 Q3 profits. Total revenue fell 38%.

Countrywide Financial - 37% drop in Q1 2007 profits. Net income fell 249.5 million.

Citigroup - 57% drop in Q3 2007 profits. $6.5 billion in pretax losses and write downs.

I could go on, but these are the best examples. The bigger question is what does this mean? The drop in profits alone is irrelevant for the wider economy. What is relevant is how these loses have tightened equity markets. Less capital leads to less investment which leads to fewer jobs. It is a very simple equation. The fed has bailed out the banks with bundles of cheap cash (notice the dollar's value falling hourly?), but banks will still tighten their lending practices.

What is the government proposing to do? Exacerbate the problem of course. Congressman Barney Frank is proposing to...

"require all mortgage originators to present consumers with loan products appropriate to their current circumstances, ban prepayment penalties for sub-prime mortgages and forbid incentive payments to lenders who steer borrowers into higher-cost loans" (from The Hill)

Imagine if we instituted such rules for restaurants. What would happen? The menu would change for most people depending on who decides the definition of "appropriate", the restaurant wouldn't be able to punish you if you walked out on your check, and waiters would not be allowed to encourage you to buy the extras (desserts, appetizers, drinks). Does not sound like a desirable economic situation for either the buyer or the seller. Essentially the same will happen in the real estate market. There will be a capital crunch.

I'm no historian but this is eerily similar to what happened in the great depression.

Some Common Sense On Iran

2007-10-22T07:57:00.000-07:00

For some time I have been frustrated over the inevitable war coming with Iran. The administration has made it abundantly clear that Iran is the center of all the worlds ills. This should come as no surprise. Along with being a convenient diversion from the failures in Iraq, it is a great way to coalesce the American people against a common enemy. It worked wonderfully for so many years so why abandon the formula?

The only problem is that it is divorced from reality. Fareed Zakaria tosses a dash of common sense over the issue below...

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?

The only advice i can give is to hold onto your oil stocks and wait for the war.

Midterms

2007-10-16T08:22:00.000-07:00

Midterms killing me at this time. Check back for a pulse.

Notice a Trend?

2007-10-15T12:17:00.000-07:00

From Slate.

State Secrets?

2007-10-10T06:35:00.000-07:00

What information can be considered a "state secret"?

Here, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case in which a German man was mistakenly abducted in Albania and tortured in a secret Afghanistan prison. Khaled el-Masri's lawsuit was tossed out of federal court and the 4th circuit court of appeals before being turned down by the supremes because the government claimed the case would compromise national security. The precedence for the case in the article below....

The Supreme Court created the doctrine in a 1953 decision, United States v. Reynolds, which began as a lawsuit by survivors of three civilians who had died in the crash of a military aircraft. In pretrial discovery, the plaintiffs sought the official accident report.

But the government, asserting that the report included information about the plane’s secret mission and the equipment that it was testing, refused to reveal it. The Supreme Court upheld the government, ruling that evidence should not be disclosed when “there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged.”

It appears that there may be some risk involved in revealing the location of secret prisons, but what is the criteria? I am not a lawyer (I only play one on the Internet), but it seems the government has a free hand to define "state secret".

There is no burden to prove that a fact must remain secret beyond merely stating so. Is what happened to Pat Tillman a state secret? It is if they want it to be. Also, what does the term "national security" encompass? That is potentially a very large field. According to the presidential candidates regulating the Internet and global warming are "national security" issues.

I can only hope the judiciary would not allow such a wild expansion.

Non-Interventionist vs Isolationist

2007-10-08T08:45:00.001-07:00

Most people commonly confuse a non-interventionist with an isolationist foreign policy. Here, Ron Paul distinguishes the two.

In economics they are very different but are similar regarding diplomacy. A non-interventionist favors free trade and open travel (as Paul mentions) while an isolationist is not thrilled with either idea. A good example of a classic isolationist is Senator Webb. He is against the war and an intrusive foreign policy in general, but also opposes free trade deals because he claims they hurt American workers. The non-interventionist Ron Paul is also against an intrusive foreign policy, but supports free trade, travel, and currency.

In foreign policy there is very little difference. They are very similar in how they oppose the current administrations quest to spread democracy. To be fair to Bush, he isn't the first and will not be the last to take the democracy mantle, but he has taken it to new heights. Democracy cannot be exported to whoever we want whenever we want. In fact, there is no example of a country successfully importing democracy without several preconditions being met in the modern world.

A country must first have a somewhat distinct middle class, a history with free or semi-free markets, a common cultural bond, and a functioning judicial system able to protect private property rights. Iraq met only one of the above criteria (a middle class, however weak). No surprise that they have failed miserably in the short run. Maybe in 10-20 years it will catch-on, but don't hold your breath waiting.

Paul is correct to distinguish non-interventionism from isolationism in the economic world but they are exceedingly similar in the foreign policy world.

Need inspiration or motivation?

2007-10-02T08:54:00.000-07:00

The 60 minutes interview with Clarence Thomas is the best interview i have seen in a long time. Justice Thomas is an interesting and captivating individual, but it is his personal story which is inspirational. After seeing it I honestly felt energized and motivated. Hope it does the same for you if you have not already seen it.

Interview Part 1
Interview Part 2

It's official: Kennedy is Senile

2007-09-28T07:07:00.000-07:00

I had an internal debate as to whether or not I should write this post. Reading this article was infuriating and writing blog posts while angry is akin to going food shopping hungry. Neither is a particularly good idea. Both invariably lead to excess. So I will write very little about the Kennedy hate crimes bill.

1) A hate crimes bill should not be attached to a defense bill for obvious reasons.

2) He thinks that expanding hate crimes legislation will protect the military by ending crimes that the military commits. He is either senile or this is all a big rhetorical joke.

3) The bill also covers "perceived" gender/orientation crimes. Without the fancy law degree I can say with some certainty that the ambiguity of the word "perceived" opens a large door.

4) Is there a violent crime that isn't a hateful crime? I can comfortably answer no here, so why are some crimes committed in hate worse than other crimes committed in hate? There is no logical answer. The only logic that can be used is the first Tuesday in November.

Thanks go to Byron York for writing about this because it is destined for the back pages.

# 160

2007-09-26T06:27:00.000-07:00

I didn't think I would get to 160 so soon but here it is. The good news is that SHIP doesn't have the votes to survive a Bush veto. The bad news below:

The bill drew support from 45 House Republicans, many of them moderates who do not want to be depicted as indifferent to low-income children's health needs when they seek re-election next year. But 151 Republicans sided with Bush, a move that Democrats see as a political blunder.

It hardly matters that the expansion would be expensive or a step toward socialized health care, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said during the House debate. When lawmakers go home, he said, "the question is, Were you with the kids or were you not?"

It just seems crazy to me that politicians can openly flaunt their status as populist (kids divert your eyes) sluts. Maybe I'm wrong but wasn't there a day when politicians would only say these things in smoke filled back rooms. Oh wait....smoking is illegal. Maybe all the smoke filled back rooms have been closed and the only alternative is to give bad speeches on the floor of the house. I have no clue.

The health care system may have its problems now, but in 5-10 years it is going to be broken. What do i mean by broken? All vestiges of a free market will be banished (free market in the Milton Friedman sense not the faux free Willard Romney prefers). Once price signals are eliminated quality will decrease, choices will vanish, and the US will lose its edge. Can't wait.

Reason to Hate Politics - #159

2007-09-25T07:23:00.000-07:00

The impending expansion of SCHIP is placing the Republicans lack of courage on display. Once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away, Republicans fought against government control and socialized anything. Now they don't have the backbone to defeat a bill which is simply another step closer to federal control of the health care system. Although some politicians like Senator McConnell are standing strong, the head counters predict 69 votes for SCHIP in the Senate here.

Senator Grassley isn't worried. It is only going to cost a mere $35 billion. Whats a few billion among friends? They also have it paid for. Tax those dirty cigarette smokers. In exclusive Free to Choose breaking news I have obtained the formula used by genius law makers:

61cents on every pack of cigarettes - any recognition that people are smoking less in this country + absolutely ignoring the possibility that the $35 billion figure will not increase at a time when we don't know how we are going to pay for social security and Medicare = sound policy

I'm sure it makes a ton of sense now that I have revealed the formula.

If you want solid evidence that this is bad policy look at what America's Health Insurance Plans (the largest insurance lobbying group according to the Post) said:

"It repairs the safety net and is a major movement toward addressing the problems that states and governors have been trying to address, which is how to get access for children"

Translated for the politically impaired: "We want the government to use your money to guarantee our sales. Thank you hapless voter."

Quiz Answers

2007-09-21T08:04:00.000-07:00

Source: Cafe Hayek cites these statistics from a Cato study here.

1) e. 2006 (Source: Economic Report of the President, 2007)

2) e. 2006 (Source: Bureau of the Census)

3) e. 2006 (Source: Bureau of the Census)

4) a. 2006 (Source: U.S. International Trade Commission)

5) d. $66,414 (Source: National Association of Manufacturers)

6) c. The U.S. output is 2.5 times as much as China (Source: U.N. Industrial Development Org.)

7) e. U.S. manufacturing output is 21 percent of world total (Source: U,N. Industrial Development Org.)

Correction

2007-09-20T11:44:00.000-07:00

I extend my sincerest apologies to Willard. I mistakenly used Millard in a previous post.

Sorry Willard.

Quiz

2007-09-20T07:33:00.000-07:00

Because we are saturated with O.J., Brittney, Jena 6, and Ahmadinejad, I have have decided to go with something a little sexier: US Manufacturing!

Here is a quiz that was posted at Cafe Hayek by Don Boudreaux (don't cheat!). Answers will be posted tomorrow.

1) In what year did U.S. Manufacturing output reach its all-time peak?
a. 1966 b. 1976 c. 1986 d. 1996 e. 2006

2) In what year did U.S. Manufacturing revenue reach its all-time peak? (inflation adjusted)
a. 1966 b. 1976 c. 1986 d. 1996 e. 2006

3) In what year did U.S. Manufacturing profits reach their all-time peak? (inflation adjusted)
a. 1966 b. 1976 c. 1986 d. 1996 e. 2006

4) In what year did U.S. Manufacturing exports reach their all-time peak? (inflation adjusted)
a. 1966 b. 1976 c. 1986 d. 1996 e. 2006

5) Average annual compensation (wages + benefits) for US manufacturing jobs is
a. $36,000 b. $46,0000 c. $56,0000 d. $66,000

6) What are the relative sizes of the US and Chinese manufacturing sectors?
a. China outputs 2.5 times the US b. Equal c. The US outputs 2.5 times China

7) Which country produces the largest share of total world manufacturing output?
a. China b. Japan c. Germany d. France e. US

Thank you Willard Romney

2007-09-19T07:02:00.001-07:00

Thank you for opening the door Willard. The door to universal health care. Now Hillary can deflect charges of socialistic medicine by pointing to Willard, a "conservative" Republican. What is the proper retort to that? I can't think of one. Many "conservatives" had few reservations because the Marx-Guevara Provide Everything For Everybody, Especially Women, Children, Elderly, Hobbits, and Lepers Act of 2006 (you may know it as Romneycare) was endorsed by Heritage. Their excuse now is that the darn liberal Democrats changed everything. They did tinker with the bill (including tax issues) but the essence was unchanged.

Willard has done more than open the door. He has has provided a blueprint. Hillary's plan (here) is very similar. I'm sure that it is a TERRIBLE idea now that Hillary is onboard the Millard cool aide train. If I am correct that she is sailing towards the next presidency (and i see no evidence to the contrary) we can expect to hear Willard's name being used to justify her plan.

Thank You Willard.

When did Iowa Become New York?

2007-09-14T08:37:00.000-07:00

I just don't know what to say about this. We all know by now (or have been forced to cede by college professors) that the government will eventually create utopia by slowly picking away our freedoms in the name of "common sense" or "fairness" or "equality", but can't we stick to the best bad policies.

No government should be banning trans fats. We should make the decision to consume or not to consume privately, but at least there was a rational (however poor). Banning a corn eating contest has no rational. And yes this is quasi public policy because a publicly funded institution is attempting to sway societal behavior in a distinct direction.

Has everyone gone crazy?

The War On Fat (And Tradition)

What's the world coming to when fans of Iowa's Hawkeyes cannot fuel their fervor for the annual Cy-Hawk Trophy tussle with the hated Iowa State Cyclones by devouring as much locally grown corn as possible? Yes, the students' annual corn-on-the-cob eating contest has been cancelled. Iowa's vice president for student services, Phillip Jones, explains that the contest promotes gluttony and collides with initiatives to curtail obesity. According to the FDA, a cob of corn contains about 150 calories and 31 grams of fat, if it's not lathered up with a bunch of butter. That doesn't seem too bad.

Still, Jones probably prefers that students limit their pregame tailgate menu to celery sticks and rice cakes, washed down with a nice glass of water.

No word on whether Iowa's bratwurst eating contest, which was a hit last year, will be permitted.

Thompson Torn to Pieces

2007-09-13T08:10:00.000-07:00

Here, (printed in the Washington Post and linked on RealClear) George Will absolutely annihilates Fred Thompson. It is well known that Will is a Giuliani supporter and it is obvious in the article. He makes several points that bolster the anti-Thompson arguments. Will paints the picture of a cosmopolitan DC insider who is now trying to reclaim the pickup truck and flannel shirt. Although I personally don't care about a politicians personal life, it would be nice if they were at least slightly genuine.

More importantly he absolutely eviscerates Thompson on campaign finance reform. You can read it below, but the real impact is it feeds into the attack line that Thompson will hear until January (December?): he is lazy. I have no idea if he is lazy or not, but if he can't get his story straight on campaign finance then is he presidential material? The average voter may not care about losing basic individual freedoms in the name of "fairness" but the voters do care about a candidates understanding of the issues.

Here is Will's thrashing of Thompson.

Consider his confusion the next day when talk radio host Laura Ingraham asked him about something he ardently supported -- the McCain-Feingold expansion of government regulation of political speech. His rambling, incoherent explanation was just clear enough to be alarming about what he believes, misremembers and does not know.

Thompson said he had advocated McCain-Feingold to prevent, among other things, corporations and labor unions from "giving large sums of money to individual politicians." But corporate and union contributions to individual candidates were outlawed in 1907 and 1947, respectively.

Ingraham asked about McCain-Feingold's ban on issue ads that mention a candidate close to an election. He blamed an unidentified "they" who "added on" that provision, which he implied was a hitherto undiscussed surprise.

But surely he knows that bills containing the ban had been introduced in previous sessions of Congress before passage in 2002.

In 1997, Thompson chaired a Senate committee investigating 1996 election spending. In its final report, issued in 1998, Thompson's committee recommended a statutory "restriction on issue advocacy" during "a set period prior to an election" when the speech includes "any use of a candidate's name or image." And in 1999, Thompson co-sponsored legislation containing what became, in 2002, the McCain-Feingold blackout periods imposed on any television or radio ad that "refers to" a candidate for federal office -- a portion of which the Supreme Court in June declared unconstitutional.

Thompson, contrary to his current memories, was deeply involved in expanding government restrictions on political speech generally and the ban on issue ads specifically. Yet he told Ingraham "I voted for all of it," meaning McCain-Feingold, but said "I don't support that" provision of it.

Oh? Why, then, did he file his own brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold McCain-Feingold, stressing Congress' especially "compelling interest" in squelching issue ads that "influence" elections?

Most lamely, Thompson takes credit for McCain-Feingold doubling the amount of "hard money" an individual can give to a candidate, which he says reduces the advantages of incumbency. But that is absurd: Most hard money flows to incumbents.

Ingraham asked why government should be telling individuals how much they can give to fund political speech by candidates they support. Thompson replied: "Why should the government ... tell a loan officer that he cannot accept money from someone trying to get a loan from him ... and then go ahead and give that person a loan? ... I mean, it's bribery in the real world."

So he believes, as zealous regulators of political speech do, that political contributions are incipient bribes -- but that bribery begins with contributions larger than $2,300.

Quote of the Day

2007-09-11T06:25:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I feel as if I must be one of the few people left in America who is not a military expert.

For example, all sorts of politicians have been talking about all sorts of ways we ought to "redeploy" our troops. The closest I ever came to deploying troops was marching a company of Marines to the mess hall for chow.

But people who have never even put on a uniform are confident that they know how our troops should be redeployed.

Maybe this is one of the fruits of the "self-esteem" that is taught in our schools instead of education.

Thomas Sowell

Presidential Debate in Spanish?

2007-09-10T08:49:00.000-07:00

I wish somebody could give me a good reason why this country needs a presidential debate in Spanish (here) .

I have made my opinion about English and assimilation issues clear here in the past, but this is silly for several reasons. First, we haven't had one in English yet. The debates (which I do my best to avoid) are centered around sound bites that have no bearing on policy. They attempt to create an image in 30 second increments which is foreign to reality if you ask me (and of course nobody asked me).

Secondly, if they are going to debate in Spanish then they should begin scheduling debates in Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian, French, German, Arabic, etc. There are around 300 languages spoken in the U.S. so there is a lot of scheduling ahead. We have to either operate in all languages or one. I vote for one...English. If these languages had a national television station would they have their own debates? It would be a wonderful mess.

This is not a matter of public policy and is only irritating, but I wouldn't spout off about it if there was a debate held in English first. Maybe in my lifetime. One can only hope.

Cry me a River Paul Bremer

2007-09-06T06:34:00.000-07:00

The New York Times editorial page today features a "don't blame me" article by Paul Bremer.

I don't even know where to begin. Lets start with the title: "How I Didn't Dismantle Iraq's Army". That is an outright lie. He did. While he is correct in saying much of the army had already dissolved, he doesn't mention the real reason they wanted to erase the existing structures: Baathphobia. The administrations heavy reliance on people like Ahmed Chalibi caused Baathphobia which went beyond reality. Chalibi had an ax to grind and we facilitated his singular cause. Many within the Baath party were simply ordinary citizens trying to make a living, not tyrannical dictatorship conspirators. Individuals within the party could be jailed for 10 years if they refused a party promotion. Would you turn down a promotion at work that offered more pay to be sent to jail? These people were supposedly the enemy.

He explains that other high ranking officials also supported disbanding the army. Sure he wasn't alone in the decision process, but it was his decision. Citing other sources who agreed with him does not erase culpability. The buck stopped with him. He was essentially the viceroy of Iraq.

Bremer then goes on to show why they dismantled the army. According to him it was dismantled because it symbolized the end of the Saddam era. Also most of the Shia conscripts wouldn't want to come back and serve under Sunni commanders. Wait a minute. This is an odd argument considering he first claimed he DIDN'T disband the army. In a true moment of narcissisms he even claims that what he did/didn't do was the correct decision?!

Lets parse this out. He claims that he didn't make the "right" decision of disbanding the army. An army that had to go. A twisted trail of logic to say the least.

We all make mistakes in life. At some point it makes sense to own up. In his case he just shouldn't make a terrible argument in the most prominent newspaper in the world to cover-up bad decisions. Move on.

Appalachian State Victory in Perspective

2007-09-04T12:15:00.000-07:00

Appalachian State has achieve the unthinkable: defeat a powerhouse division 1A team. There is no doubt about that, but was it the greatest upset ever? A few pundits have exclaimed so, but I have my reservations.

Appalachian State did not defeat a ho-hum 1A program. Michigan has several players that are (were) considered definite NFL prospects, were ranked 5, and playing at home. The entire city of Boone North Carolina (yes this is where Appalachian State is located if you didn't know) can fit into the Wolverines stadium....eight and a half times. Yes that is correct the town of Boone, population 13,000 can fit into the big house, capacity 110,000, 8.5 times!

It was no doubt a great accomplishment, but it still finishes second. I cannot rank Appalachian State above the Lake Placid U.S. Hockey victory. I just can't do it.

The U.S. victory over the Russian hockey team was more than a game. It transcended sports. The victory did end the cold war or help defeat the Soviets, but it did provide a much needed boost to the sagging American psyche. Appalachian State defeating Michigan had no such affect. Furthermore, it was not a global phenomenon.

Lake placid is still the site of the greatest upset in U.S. sports history.

Disturbing

2007-08-30T13:39:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of Hedgehog Report

Death of the Two Party System

2007-08-29T06:27:00.000-07:00

While the party system isn't dead, it is on life support.

A political party derives it power essentially in two ways: controlling both the nominating process and the money. The latter has been consistently weakened over the years. While rule changes have definitely hastened party control of the money, it is advancement of society which has cemented it. Candidates can now appeal directly to the people for money and the average American has more cash to give.

Party control of the nominating process has also been weakened in recent history, but it is now approaching code red. The Democratic party has already taken away Florida's delegate votes and now the Republican party is threatening to do the same to Florida, New Hampshire, Wyoming Michigan, and South Carolina (here). Essentially the system is in chaos.

The party may stave off this attempt but in the long run they will lose. If every state moves their primary forward will they take away all delegates? No. They can only hold the line temporarily. Also the party cannot control the Ned Lamonts and Steve Laffeys (Rhode Island) of the world from mounting primary challenges. Voter turn out in primaries have shrunk along with party enrollment making the primary electorates sufficiently extreme and polarized group to open the Lamont window.

How will this play out in the long run? Third parties will proliferate. The long run may be 50+ years, but in the end the two party system will crumble. A lot must happen to get there including loosening ballot access restrictions, redrawing ultra-gerrymandered districts, and a reversal of Buckley v Veleo (this limited individual contributions to candidates), but it is only a matter of time.

Ocular Penetration Act of 2007

2007-08-24T07:33:00.000-07:00

This is a wonderfully eloquent speech delivered on the floor of the house. Due to the level of pitched emotional oratory you probably should keep the volume low around delicate ears.

Live From Congress: The Skull Fucking Bill Of 2007

Banana Republic

2007-08-23T09:05:00.000-07:00

The trial of Lt. Col. Steven Jordan is a joke. He is being tried for what happened at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. It is too crazy a story to recount here but you should read it HERE.

It seems that the military brass has come to the conclusion that they have to bring some high ranking officer to trial for Abu Ghraib to silence critics. They found their goat in Lt. Col. Jordan. Regardless of what you think of him being tried, if there is a trial it should be real.

The prosecution called witnesses that sided with the defense and the judge shushed the prosecution in odd fashion. That is on top of the oh-so-convenient revelation that the Lt. Col. was never read his rights.

This is a sad day in the history of law.

Right to Violent Video Games Upheld

2007-08-21T06:26:00.000-07:00

According to the NYT here, courts around the country are protecting the right of minors to purchase violent video games.

This is good news for a couple of reasons. First, the government should not be telling parents what their children can and cannot consume. The anti-video game laws would make sense if there were hoards of children invading video game stores and bringing them home to their parent less abodes. The reality is that they may be able to buy the game without their parents, but they cannot play it without parental supervision. Maybe there are some kids sneaking their television and xbox into a dark alley to play but in most cases their parents know exactly where they are and what they are doing when they are playing. Mom and Dad can easily pull the plug. Lazy parents should not be allowed to abdicate their duties to a government for convenience sake.

Secondly, kids cannot be shielded from life. Maybe someday the government can turn us all into bubble boys but until then it doesn't make sense to nuder every kid in the name of "safety" or other undefined lofty goal. In the words of the Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals...

“Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low,” he wrote. “It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.”

Quixotic is a good explanation. He also said that if an outlaw of violence is constitutional then it must logically extend to books such as "The Odyssey" and "War and Peace". A slippery slope.

In the end it is simply a populist knee jerk reaction to a minor issue. Makes good headlines that politicians crave.

Headline of the Year

2007-08-20T06:39:00.001-07:00

"Bears Eat Man at Beer Festival"

This headline via CNN contains everything one could want: Bears, Bears eating people, beer, and a festival. I'll call it a headline novel. A headline that can be turned into a novel, or maybe a good story in the ADD media (Read: Maxim etc.).

Rove employs the only strategy that will put a Republican in the White House: defeat Hillary in the primary!

2007-08-16T07:57:00.000-07:00

Assuming Bloomberg does not run, there is no doubt in my mind that Hillary is the next president.

While my opinion and a dollar will get you a can of coke, somebody more important agrees with me: Carl Rove.

Why else would he attack her here? He either believes that Republicans should somehow ensure her defeat in the primary, or that she must be battered from now until Nov. 08. The former is most likely true because I don't see how saying she is unelectable will get Republicans to run to the polls to vote against her. I do see how Democrats may take a second look if they believe she can't win in the general election.

Making Democratic primary voters believe she is unelectable is essentially the only way she does not become the next president. Her 'negatives' which Rove (and every other Republican that has no other rational) cites are only a useful stat if there is an opponent. If Sam Brownback becomes the nominee does that matter? No. Who else could compete? Romney? No. Thompson? No. Gingrich? Hell no. McCain? Maybe, but he can't win the primary.

Secondly, Hillary cannot be attacked like a John Kerry. She is the first woman in the history of our country to have any chance whatsoever of becoming president. You will see a sizable backlash from Independents and women who don't necessarily like her when the campaign gets dirty. Therefore, Republicans will not be able to capitalize effectively on her vaunted negatives.

If Rudy is the nominee i would be willing to make a sizable wager that she wins, if anybody else is nominated i will bet everything i own on her.

Unmanned Military?

2007-08-15T06:45:00.000-07:00

An unmanned military may not be far in the future. Although there will always be a need for boots on the ground, the Navy is now experimenting with landing unmanned drones on aircraft carriers. This article from military.com breaks down exactly how the Navy intends to land the aircraft.

The benefits of an unmanned fleet of fighters may also be its weakness. Without a human pilot there is no danger of losing a life. The threat of losing just one life gives reason for pause before ordering a mission. Without that, the only barrier is cost. I don't think that it is unreasonable to think that political and military leaders would be become more willing to strike more targets.

Because the march of progress will go on there is no way to reverse it, but the unintended consequences should be pondered and somehow mitigated.

Economic Pain Forthcoming

2007-08-14T06:32:00.000-07:00

I am now completely divested from the stock market and I advise you to do the same if possible. Usually I don't make predictions because of the high probability of looking silly, but a downturn seems imminent.

Why? Because there isn't enough liquidity in the market. From the NYT...

"The pain for hedge funds and banks has been broad, starting in the mortgage market, spreading to the wider credit markets and ultimately the stock market.
The problems have been worsened by the debt that hedge funds have taken on and used to invest to amplify gains.
Now hedge funds are quickly taking off that leverage, responding to tighter lending standards from banks or redemptions from anxious investors.
The casualties have included investment banks like Bear Stearns, which witnessed the collapse of two hedge funds that were invested in mortgage-backed securities, and blue-chip quantitative funds, whose computer-driven trading models did not anticipate recent market movements.
Now the ripples have spread to Goldman, whose stellar results have made it the firm to beat on Wall Street in recent years."

The cheap cash the Fed was showering on us through low rates led to a predictable overextension. People bought houses they couldn't afford while businesses received loans they didn't deserve. If millions of people begin defaulting on their homes (Jim Cramer predicts 7 million possibly) and investment firms don't have money to invest there will be tough economic times ahead.

The saving grace may be that many good companies are sitting on large cash positions. Many corporations learned their lesson from the dotcom market bubble burst and began stockpiling cash. But there is no reason to predict that they would begin investing it if the entire credit market begins to implode. Instead, they may decide that the prudent move is to continue sitting on all the cash. Central banks around the world including in the U.S. have been fighting the situation by pumping cash into the system at an incredible pace (here).

I am not knowledgeable enough to break down the entire situation. I am knowledgeable enough to know that when central banks have to pump billions of dollars into the system to keep the credit market alive that it is time to get on the stock market sidelines. Sell and live to tell.

Week Break

2007-08-05T12:11:00.001-07:00

I will be most likely not posting until next week. My work has brought me to the home of the socialist revolution where the remaning guerillas are hold up: Boston.

Apprehensive about FISA expansion

2007-08-03T07:13:00.000-07:00

The latest "secret" FISA ruling is good and bad. They struck down the governments ability to intercept foreign calls being transmitted in the U.S. under the FISA law. Republicans were quick to react and claim that they have Democratic support for expanding the FISA law to allow for the wiretapping.

After reading this article in the Post it does make some sense. If somebody in Afghanistan is talking to somebody in Iraq and that call is being transmitted through the U.S. (and yes many international calls are somehow routed through the U.S. amazingly) then why shouldn't the government be able to tap it? They are not American citizens and not entitled to our constitutional protection. So why am I still apprehensive?

Because as we know from 200+ years of democratic governance, government only expands, it does not contract. It is only a matter of time (probably not long) until this is expanded. Its bad enough they can already intercept a foreign call to an American citizen. I guess I can even swallow this but the shadowy nature of the whole process is what really concerns me. I feel as if we are getting the "trust us" wink. Well big surprise, I don't trust them.

Unnamed judges in secret courts whose records are sealed are going to protect our rights? Conservatives arguments on this are honestly pathetic. They talk in generalities about "fighting terrorism" or about "preventing another 9/11" but the reality is they would have a much different opinion if Bill or Hillary were president.

This brings me to ask a similar question that I posed to "conservatives" about the enemy combatant label issue: Do you trust Hillary Clinton with the ability to use unnamed judges, in secret courts, with classified results to not abuse that power?

Fashion Timeout

2007-08-02T14:18:00.000-07:00

I am perplexed about how powerful rich men can't find suit jackets that fit. That jacket sleeve almost looks like its going up to his elbow. Same is true for his right arm which isn't extended.

All I can think about is Chris Farley singing "fat man in a little coat...fat man in a little coat..."

Shockingly Positive Article on Iraq

2007-07-30T08:35:00.000-07:00

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack have published a shocking editorial in the New York Times (here).

These two (especially Pollack who I follow more closely) have been against the war, and more importantly heavy critics, from the beginning. Today, they are reporting success on the ground in Iraq that cannot be ignored unlike the normal garbage at National Review/Weekly Standard.

They credit the new strategy in Iraq for reaching out to Iraqis on a local level (Pollack has criticized the administration for prosecuting a centralized war incapable of reaching out to locals in The New Republic previously), spurring local economic development through initiatives such as microloans, creating a more diverse Iraqi military, and raising U.S. troop moral levels.

It is saddening to think of the way the war was fought from the beginning. We wasted all this time, boat loads of money, and thousands of lives waiting for a coherent strategy. Sad.

Geopolitical Setback for U.S. in Japan

2007-07-30T06:17:00.000-07:00

The Liberal Democratic Party's electoral loss in Japan is a big blow to the U.S.'s geopolitical position in Asia, because President Shinzo Abe has been a bright spot as our ally.

His willingness to support the U.S.'s battles is admirable, but his push to amend the constitution would have strengthened our hand in the region. Currently, their constitution only allows the maintenance of a military for defense. Heavy spending over the years has built a military as capable as any in the world (I have seen their Navy personally and it is capable of a lot more than defense) and President Abe wanted to reserve the right to use it.

The thrashing that LDP took at the polls will not only make Abe a lame duck (and according to this article he will be pressured to resign), but it will nix any future talk about changing the constitution. His successor would have to be mentally ill to pursue such a course after this election. Thats a setback for us because A free Japanese military would have assisted the U.S. in containing China through the mere implicit threat of force. China knows they could not compete with the Japanese military, more specifically their Navy, which would make them think twice about ill advised conquests.

Maybe next decade.

Rapist goes free because he doesn't speak English

2007-07-26T12:24:00.000-07:00

I am too busy to write about how crazy this is but the details speak volumes.

A Liberian man was set free in Maryland because the court could not find an interpreter for his African language. The man raped and repeatedly sexually molested a 7 year-old girl.

You did not read it wrong. He was simply set free.....

Charter School Progress

2007-07-24T07:47:00.000-07:00

The education issue may be vast, but the solution is simple: competition.

Charter schools are a great way to challenge the government's monopoly on education with competition. This article is a good story about how the status quo is being challenged in Los Angeles by Steve Barr. Coincidently the article also contained the quote of the day:

“If the district doesn’t work with me, I’ll compete with them and take their kids”

This is exactly the intended attitude. Schools should be competing for kids. The schools producing the better students will receive more students while failing schools will be driven out of business. Mr. Barr is competing head-to-head with the government monopoly and, by this account, winning.

He is winning for two reasons. First, he is tenacious, even willing to "steamroll" competition. Most people don't associate this style temperament with education but they should. It is what drives innovation in every other successful industry and education is an industry like it or not.

Secondly, he has worked with the establishment. As the article states, the charter school movement is often associated with with the anti-union movement and resisted by the establishment. Mr. Barr took a very different tact. Instead he welcomed unionization. The contracts nixed tenure but gave the teachers more flexibility in how they structure their classes. Predictably the older teachers still resisted the change, but the younger teachers have embraced it. He also involved parents and the community at-large. The charter school movement there seems to be just that, a movement, instead of an isolated school opening.

Good for him. Hopefully other charter schools will adopt Barr's unorthodox style. We will all be better off if they do.

Why is Prostitution Illegal?

2007-07-17T07:02:00.001-07:00

With Senator Vitter back in the news today, I though this would be a good time to say what must be said about prostitution: it should be legal.

The United States has some of the strictest anti-prostitution regulation/enforcement anywhere in the world outside of the Middle East. Why? Moralistic impulse. I have never understood why one individual cannot pay another for sexual acts. While it may give us a nice little 'holier than thou' buzz to condemn it, condemnation accomplishes nothing.

Actually, I would argue the opposite. Because prostitutes must deal in the black market, they are a diffuse shadowy bunch. Why is that important? It is important because it attracts a criminal element. The lowly ranks are populated by the drug and disease infested dregs of society. If it were legal it could be regulated and contained.

Opponents of prostitution normally cite the spread of diseases as one of the reasons for making it illegal, but legalization would lessen the threat. Having a license regime could force prostitutes to be tested for STD's and AIDS. No paying customer in their right mind would contract a partner without this license because their risk of disease would be multiplied dramatically. Bordellos would be placed in designated areas (similar to strip clubs in red light districts) removing the need for 'street walkers' and 'pimps'.

It may be tough to look at the issue systematically because of Americans immediate impulse to take a moralistic stance, but the logic is undeniable. 'Prostitution is bad, therefore it must be illegal' is a horrible argument but it works on election day.

Politics as it should be

2007-07-16T13:22:00.001-07:00

Cure for World Aids Epidemic

2007-07-13T06:32:00.000-07:00

Although I have castigated Zimbabwe in the past, it is high time to congratulate them for making a large step forward in curbing the aids epidemic here.

It's not only the prices of bread and eggs that are out of control in Zimbabwe, land of 4,000 percent inflation. For the man inclined to cheat on his wife, these are trying times. Keeping a mistress, visiting a prostitute or even taking a girlfriend out for beers is simply becoming too expensive, men say.

But their strain is Zimbabwe's gain in its fight against AIDS. Alone among southern African countries, Zimbabwe has shown a significant drop in its HIV rate in recent years. A major reason, researchers say, is the changing sexual habits of men forced to abandon costly multiple relationships.

"Those extramarital relationships, they're getting tough to sustain," said Thomas Muza, 37, who is struggling to support his wife and a mistress on the shrinking value of a math teacher's paycheck.

So to you Zimbabwe I say congratulations. This story has spurred me to wonder how long the Gorite eco-socialists will take to implement similar policies to curb "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever its called today.

Senator Webb Gives a Good Example of How Not to End the War

2007-07-12T07:27:00.000-07:00

Note to Senator Webb: You are not the president and Congress is not the Executive branch.

In a 56-41 vote, Webb's amendment would have required troops in Iraq to have time at home equal to time served in theater. While it is a clever attempt to end the war, it is not the province of Congress to control the military. Congress has one true constitutional avenue to end the war: cut off funding. Anything apart from a cut in funding is simply an attempt at usurping power.

I understand the Democrats desire to end the war. Their attempts are simply a reflection of their constituents demands, but that doesn't mean they should do so in a way which will would alter forever how the U.S. engages in warfare. Imagine if congress could have voted on the storming of Normandy, or island hoping in the Pacific? It would have been a bureaucratic nightmare.

The bottom line is that if Jim Webb and his friends on the hill wish to end the war they should have the political courage to simply cut off funding. If they fail they should try again. Then again who ever let the pesky constitution get in the way of a good idea.

Quote of the Day

2007-07-10T07:13:00.000-07:00

"The same people who think it was wonderful that the Warren Court forbade government to assign children to schools on the basis of race think it is terrible that the current Supreme Court has recently stopped local governments from assigning children to schools on the basis of race."

Thomas Sowell

Trade Gap with China is Positive

2007-07-10T06:33:00.001-07:00

This may sound counterintuitive, but the trade gap with China is not so bad. Most people believe that it is a negative because they long for an age when products were "Made in America". The longing is based more on nostalgia than economics. Was working in sweatshops for peanuts really the good old days? I say no. Let the low wage, low skilled work go overseas to places where they have the people to fill those jobs. We don't need them here. We have a service based economy which relies more on skills and education.

Secondly, the trade gap misses many knowledge based products. Is a student who comes to an American university and then returns home an export? Yes. Is that counted? No. The same scenario holds true for medical treatment, and some research and marketing (among others). This may account for a small percentage but it is worth mentioning.

Thirdly, our ability to import extremely large quantities exhibits economic strength, not weakness. It is because of our great wealth that we are able to buy in such large quantities. Maybe an analogy will help make the point. Using the logic that the trade deficit is bad then one would also have to believe that a lawyer who lives in a big house with several cars, and a boat is in a bad position because he is buying more than he is selling. He is producing no physical product and only sells his knowledge and abilities. His surplus of products shows his economic strength.

This story today about the record trade deficit with China will no doubt increase calls for protectionist measures which will surely hurt our economy. I wish I could blame this all on the Democrats, after all they are the worst economic demagogues, but many Republicans are going wobbly. I believe that the debacle of a war in Iraq will only increase public support for isolationist policies. This is very unfortunate but regrettably predictable.

Another Defector

2007-07-06T08:39:00.000-07:00

Senator Domenici is the most recent addition to the GOP revolt over Iraq. He joins Voinovich and Lugar in just the last week.

This is slightly surprising. I thought they would have waited until the September report. After that they would be able to use it to 'prove' that progress in Iraq is too slow (or whatever else they want to 'prove'). While I am no fan of the Iraq situation, I am miffed by lack of a plan by the defectors. They make empty pronouncements about funding the troops and denounce timetables but what are they for? I haven't heard any coherent plan from them, and definitely not from the Democrats either.

Regardless how we got into Iraq, we cannot simply pull out. In short, it would be a recklessly irresponsible move. Some semblance of order, however slight must be established. What does that mean? It means that an Iraqi citizen can go to the market without wondering if he will return. It means that there is an agreement, however tenuous, which allow for a form of power sharing and oil wealth distribution. It means that foreign terrorists with a singular goal of instability are mostly driven out or contained. It does not mean that Iraq must look like a mini-America, which was the major problem from the beginning. Actually i would argue that is what got us into this mess, but that is another story for another day.

Regardless, exit will not be pretty. It will most likely look like a post-civil war Lebanon. Several groups involved in an uneasy power sharing agreement where each side distrusts the other. Such an arrangement will be fragile and easily disturbed. Read this for a more in depth analysis.

As is life. It is not pretty but its what we will most likely leave. Anything less is unacceptable.

The real problem I have with the defectors is their lack of vision. Actually I take that back. They do have a plan. They plan on winning re-election in 2008. But when it comes to an issue such as this there should be more than politics at play. The world is watching and we will either be more damaged than we already are diplomatically or we will reserve some semblance of legitimacy.

You can't be against the 'war' and be for an alternative.

Quote of the Day

2007-07-05T07:06:00.000-07:00

"[The] promise [from the Brown v board of education decision]-- a colorblind society -- has been traduced by the "diversity" exception to the Equal Protection Clause. That exception allows white majorities to feel noble while treating blacks and certain other minorities as seasoning -- a sort of human oregano -- to be sprinkled across a student body to make the majority's educational experience more flavorful."

George Will

The never ending haircut

2007-07-05T06:38:00.000-07:00

A story in the Washington Post today reveals that John Edward's infamous $400 haircut was actually a third of what he once paid. The self styled poverty pimp actually paid $1,250 for a cut in 2004.

His styalist to the stars, Joseph Torrenueva, would charge Edwards for airfare and hotel when he traveled outside of California. Torrenueva charged $1,250 for the 2004 session because he missed two days of work to fly out to meet Edwards in Atlanta.

There is no need to insert a punchline. This guy is ridiculous and a horrible politician to boot.

Quote of the Day

2007-07-03T06:23:00.000-07:00

"before every American boy gets out of high school, he should take a punch to the face. You take one punch, Dobler says, and you learn that you can handle pretty much anything, that nothing hurts as much as you might think"

From former NFL lineman Conrad Dobler (once named the dirtiest player in the NFL) in an ESPN article.

English Update

2007-07-02T07:58:00.000-07:00

Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander introduced an amendment to the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill which will restrict funds for anti-English lawsuits.

The amendment passed 15-14 late last week. His amendment was prompted because of a case in Massachusetts where the EEOC filed a lawsuit against the Salvation Army which was forcing its employees to speak English on the job.

If a business can't tell its employees what language to speak on the job then what can it do? Can it tell the employees to work? I'm honestly not certain of the answer. Speaking the same language as the customers is integral for an organization to conduct business. Isn't this common sense? Two employees speaking another language while on the job is more than inefficient, its also rude. The Salvation Army didn't surprise these employees wither with a new rule. They posted the regulation and gave the employees a year to comply.

If that is discrimination then I need to re-learn what the definition of discrimination. I should probably take that back before I land myself in a Hillary Clinton re-education camp in 2010 or so.

Why vote Republican in 08?

2007-06-29T06:52:00.001-07:00

If your like me, then you are in the process of, or have already lost faith in the Republican party. But, there is still one issue for which I will surely pull the R lever in 08: the Supreme Court. This week two cases in particular have reminded me that although Republicans have forgotten their small government promise, their Supreme Court justices have delivered in the clutch.

The first case is very well known by now. In a 5-4 decision the court decided that "public school systems cannot seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures that take explicit account of a student’s race." While this is somewhat ambiguous, it is a strike at race based criteria for school children. While I can already imagine (I try not to read their nonsense so i have to imagine) liberals crying about how this is some return to segregation, it is actually comeback for common sense and the constitution. The actual cases involved schools that were attempting to achieve some sort of perfect racial harmony (and of course any elite liberal knows the exact mix which constitutes harmony); they weren't trying to mix a segregated school. A child in one case was prohibited from transferring to a better school because it would have thrown off the balance. Was this the purpose of desegregation? Are we to micromanage the exact numbers of each race in every school? No. Well at least not any longer.

In another case which received much less attention, the court struck down a remnant from that pesky Sherman Antitrust Act which stopped distributors and manufactures from setting retail prices (hence the term suggested retail price). Actually the arguments were rather silly. One side argued that it will hurt consumers while the other side argued that it may draw down prices. When did the Supreme Court become a deliberative governing body? The prices of goods should have zero bearing on the decision while the constitution should have 100%. Although the script was flipped, they made the correct decision.

After tax cuts, rulings like these are the only thing that keeps my hand on the R lever. The next president will have AT LEAST one appointment maybe two or three. Ginsburg's years are numbered and Stevens is old enough to be my great great great grandpa. The possibility of three nominations leaves one slot open for surprises. Remember, Scalia has gone hunting with Cheney in the past...you never know.

If Ginsburg or Stevens (or both) are replaced with conservatives then we will hold the court for the foreseeable future. This is enough to vote R.

Immigration Bill Dead

2007-06-28T08:37:00.000-07:00

Final vote on cloture: 46-53

RIP

The REAL Problem with the Immigration Bill

2007-06-27T08:15:00.001-07:00

As we all know the immigration bill is back, and (in my opinion) will pass the Senate. I had deep concerns when this bill first surfaced over its impact on the labor market.

Essentially the bill would take the demand mechanism away from business and give it to government. It would make government the clearing house for workers under a point system. The system will fail because government cannot possibly sort through the price signals which make up the labor market. Neither can business. They can only do it for their market for which they specialize, which is why the system works so well. It is not possible for a central bureaucracy to sort these issues out.

My concerns were confirmed today here. Apparently Canada has a similar points system and it is cramping the labor market. Huge surprise! Labor shortages in blue collar jobs (especially the fast growing oil sector) and long waiting lines (backlog of 800,000 applications with a wait of four years or more).

Everybody is so scared of Mexicans, while I'm scared of the government.

Zimbabwe: Global Example for Economic Disaster

2007-06-27T07:01:00.000-07:00

Zimbabwe's president, Robert Mugabe, has set a wonderful example for how to destroy a country. I can only hope that when I am a benevolent dictator of some sleepy island in the pacific that I will have such foresight if i decide to rape my country.

His plan for developing the economy according to the NYT:

"[Mugabe's] legislation would establish a government fund to help citizens buy stock in public companies, and would allow the government to reject any corporate mergers, acquisitions, investments and other transactions in which so-called indigenous Zimbabweans did not hold a 51 percent stake. It was unclear, however, how Zimbabwe’s bankrupt government, beset by hyperinflation and a currency crisis, would finance the transfers."

What a wonderful idea. Rake the few remaining employers over the coals by essentially mandating a takeover and outlawing rational decision making. As any good politician would do, he is calling for patience. Thats because of the above stated hyperinflation problem. How bad is it? Comically bad.

"Prices change daily, if not hourly; one news report last week noted that golfers at a Harare country club were paying for their 19th-hole drinks before teeing off after discovering that prices were rising while they were on the course."

Yes, for only 400,000 Zimbabwe dollars you too can own a single American dollar.

I feel bad for the people of Zimbabwe. How do you rectify this problem? Elections? It is extremely difficult to defeat a person who has utilized such deep patronage politics for so many years and more difficult to find an honest candidate. Overthrow the government? Good luck.I guess the only answer is to move. A tough chore for a person with little money, education, and direction. The only positive is that it reinforces how lucky I am to live in the US despite the various faults.

Two Palestinian States

2007-06-26T08:29:00.000-07:00

A headline in the NYT today read "Quartet Meets on Israeli-Palestinian Relations". The headline should have read "Quartet Meets on How to deal with Palestinian Civil War Which Threatens to Create Separate Terrorist State in Gaza". Admittedly, this isn't a very good headline, but it would explain the reality of the situation.

No serious observer truly believes that peace can be brokered among chaos. On one side there is a terrorist organization taking control by force and elections. On the other side is corrupt organization led by an ineffectual leader that is too weak stave off insurrection. Classic lose-lose situation.

Honestly this is one area where i have no coherent policy suggestion. There is no credible solution I have heard that can be noted here, and that is without the inter-Palestinian chaos.

Give land back to the Palestinians that Israel has 'taken', and they will incite more attacks. Respond swiftly and decisively to provocation, and they will incite more attacks. Build barriers to slow the influx of potential terrorists and be condemned by the international community. I have no clue.

I you have a clue please forward your suggestion to me and please CC or BCC it to condelezza@state.gov. Thanks for helping save the world.

Headline: "Gas shortages experienced around the country, regulaters miffed while politicians promise to fix the problem"

2007-06-22T11:36:00.000-07:00

No this headline hasn't appeared yet, but it a distinct possibility if the current energy bill becomes law. I'm not certain about the bills chances in the house, but I am very hopeful the president will use the veto. It passed the Senate by a somewhat surprisingly large margin: 65- 27. Although there are a few annoying features in the bill, the price gouging issue is the worse.

Our comrades in congress will have the ability to throw penalties at oil companies whenever they feel unloved. This is crazy. In congress' ever expanding need for power they have decided to wade into the gray area of private pricing practices.

This is a de-facto price control mechanism. The threat of penalties will change the natural price signals mechanism. For those of you who have not been through Econ-101 (and it seems a majority of Senators haven't) that means shortages will follow. I wish I had some long technocratic jargon laced explanation backed with fancy math equations that nobody understands, but it isn't necessary. Price ceilings cause shortages. End of story.

So when there are gas lines and everybody is crying "why? why?" they can look back to the 2007 Energy bill for answers.

John Edwards exposed as fraud by main stream media

2007-06-22T06:27:00.001-07:00

The second part of the headline, not the first, is the shock. Any warmblooded mammal with a brain larger than a pea already knew that Edwards was a fraud, but now liberals will have a hard time refuting it after this article.

We all know about his $400 haircut (which he blamed on his staff as any true leader would) but now we learn that he was using his non-profit 527 group OneAmerica and the Center for Promise and Opportunity, to fund his political jaunts.

Because of his purely demagogue standing, I wont waste my time blasting him. He is useless.

What I do find interesting is his opening of Pandora's box. His utilization of tax free issue organizations that are not binded by donation limitations is the wave of the future. It accomplishes a few things. First, it obviously allows one to collect donations with no limit. One might say that this money can't be used for political purposes, but how is 'political' defined? Is a commercial featuring a politician that reads 'vote for me' political, while a commercial featuring a politician saying 'cure poverty' not political? They both can achieve name recognition and frame the candidates character.

The goal of any campaign is to create and control their candidates image. This is the genius of Al Gore's stealth campaign. He is the foremost expert on global warming. I am not saying that he actually knows what he is talking about or is correct, but I am saying that John Q. Public believes it. Perception is reality in politics.

Expect to see the Edwards model utilized in the future.

McCain on making English the official language: it is a "despicable influence"

2007-06-19T08:08:00.000-07:00

I know McCain is not fond of official English legislation, but I didn't know he went this far...

"I'm not sure why McCain would go along with [the official English amendment to the immigration bill]. Back in 1988, when Arizona voters were being asked to approve an English-only proposition, then-Rep. McCain and two other Arizona congressmen sent a letter to then-Sen. Barry Goldwater, an honorary chairman for the drive. They asked Goldwater to remove his name from the effort, which they said was spreading a "despicable influence into Arizona."

When asked at the time about efforts to make English our official language, McCain said, "Our nation and the English language has done quite well with Chinese spoken in California, German in Pennsylvania, Italian in New York, Swedish in Minnesota and Spanish throughout the Southwest. I fail to see the cause for alarm now.""

From the Arizona Republic.

Worker Intimidation Act of 2007

2007-06-19T06:30:00.000-07:00

Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has renamed the "Employee Free Choice Act of 2007" to the "Worker Intimidation Act of 2007" here.

The Democrats on the hill are desperate to hand their Union friends the ability to intimidate employees into voting to unionize by eliminating secret ballots. Although I know this is purely political, I would like to hear a logical reason why secret ballots must be banished.

Supporters seem to admit that workers will be intimidated into unionizing because they only talk about the benefits of unionization. Why would more employees vote for unionization if the ballots are made public? Would they have a sudden epiphany? Does the secret ballot blind them to the realities of the benefits of forming a union?

The secret ballot protects workers from being intimidated by their employer. Why relinquish this protection? To expose workers to intimidation from union bosses, hence the new name "Worker Intimidation Act of 2007".

Good news in Iraq

2007-06-18T13:27:00.000-07:00

I haven't said much about the situation in Iraq because I am actively involved in trying to have an analysis of the situation that I wrote published. It wont be in Foreign Affairs or anything of that stature but published is published. We'll see. But writing about it here after reading and writing about it for hours is not appealing in the least. After reading this article in the Washington Post, I decided to write something short.

I'm not sure how long it has been since I have read an article about U.S. policy in Iraq that I liked or agreed with; the long drought is now over. The military is now looking to co-op certain Sunni Arab groups in the fight against al-Qaeda. It is about time.

The real threat in Iraq is al-Qaeda.
Rhetoric surrounding al-Qaeda is often false or overblown. The case is often made that Iraq will become a "safe haven" or "breading grounds" for al-Qaeda if we "fail". Although this could happen a much bigger danger is a wider civil war which involves neighboring countries. This could be a catastrophic event that will greatly overshadow a few extremists planning attacks on the U.S.

How will this catistrophic event be realized? Through flaming sectarian hatred spread by al-Qaeda. They are small and relatively weak, but know how to cause trouble. The Sunni's have tolerated them because of their lack of power after the fall of Saddam (simplistic explanation but will due for now). This is essential because they need local support to operate. It seems that many Sunni tribal leaders have come to realize that a civil war is not in their best interest. Their minority status combined with lack of oil resources on their lands would give the Sunnis immediate underdog status.

Instead some groups have decided that al-Qaeda is the enemy (with the U.S. a close second and Israel a close third). Therefore, we should assist them in exterminating the biggest threat to stability in Iraq. To nobody's surprise the Kurds and Shiites don't like this idea. They claim that we may be arming people who have attacked the U.S. They also claim that these guns may be turned on them later. Both are valid concerns, but the need to defeat (or at least marginalize) al-Qaeda is more important.

Cato on Enemy Combatant ruling

2007-06-18T13:21:00.000-07:00

Cato has a good summary of the enemy combatant ruling in the al-Marri case that I have written about in previous posts. I am no lawyer, but maybe I should be. Cato's legal expert Tim Lynch gives a legal opinion here that is stunningly close to my assessment. I'll paste his brief opinion but there is more info here.

The Al-Marri ruling (pdf) this week brings the “enemy combatant” controversy back into the news. I addressed the Al-Marri case in this article (pdf) for the Cato Supreme Court Review (see pp. 37-39). In the article, I set forth a legal framework for analyzing the competing claims of security and liberty. I think factors such as citizenship and place of capture matter.

President Bush advances the sweeping claim that the entire world, including every inch of U.S. territory is a “battlefield.” He then argues that the “battlefield” is no place for police officers, search warrants, trials, and judges. There are no rights on the battlefield. Bush is the commander-in-chief and he’ll decide who needs to be killed or locked up. And his decisions are final. No “second-guessing” by the Congress or the judiciary.

Despite his sinking poll numbers, Bush’s dangerous legal claims are alive and well. This evening, Bush could have any American secretly arrested and put on a plane for incommunicado detention and interrogation at Guantanamo. This is what a federal appellate court ruled in the Padilla case. And just when it looked as if the Supreme Court was ready to overturn that case and declare Bush’s policy (at least with respect to citizens in the USA) illegal, the Bush administration suddenly moved Padilla from military custody to civilian custody where he is now on trial in Florida. Bush’s lawyers told the Supreme Court that there was no longer any need to hear the case–since Padilla was no longer in military custody. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court agreed. By declining to hear Padilla’s appeal, the lower court precedent approving Bush’s sweeping legal claim was left in place. If an American were to be sent to Guantanamo this evening, it would take several years of litigation before the Supreme Court would be ready to rule on the matter. It is thus no exaggeration to say that right now the liberty of every American rests upon the grace of the White House.

Al-Marri’s case is about non-citizens imprisoned in military brigs inside the United States. Al-Marri is a citizen of Qatar. He entered the U.S. one day before the 9/11 attacks and the government says he is a terrorist and his mission was to engage in follow-on attacks here in the U.S. He was initially arrested and charged with criminal offenses, but then he was declared an “enemy combatant” and was moved to a military brig. He has been imprisoned in a South Carolina military prison for four years while his attorneys challenged the legality of his imprisonment. This week a federal appeals court ruled that Al-Marri must be (1) deported; or (2) charged with a crime; or (3) released from custody. The U.S. military cannot continue to keep him locked up.

This outcome creates a weird situation in which an American can be held in military custody, but a legal immigrant cannot be. I don’t agree with everything in the Al-Marri ruling, but it does reject Bush’s most sweeping claims about his power. Excerpt: “To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country. … We refuse to recognize a claim to power that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.”

Mr. Bush’s lawyers say they plan to appeal the ruling.

McCain: Good, Great, Bad, and Awful

2007-06-18T06:34:00.000-07:00

If one person could ever be described in such a way it is John McCain. After reading government documents all weekend, I have decided to assign McCain an acronym: GGBA. Maybe BAGG. Yea thats better; McCain is a BAGG.

He confounds me. I would love to support him. He is truly a great war hero. It is impossible for any of us living our comfortable American lives to imagine what he went through. After being shot down over North Vietnam he was held prisoner for almost a decade (which must have seemed like centuries). His captivity began with him in a body cast lying in the mud being fed essentially flavored water. This would have been bad enough for anyone, but it was worse for him because his father was chief of all Naval operations in the pacific or CINCPAC for you acronym freaks. His father's position heightened his importance and intensified his cruel treatment. If McCain's story interests you then I highly suggest reading Faith of My Fathers. It is a truly inspirational book.

The good is commendable also. He has been a critic of Bush's handling of the war since before it was cool. Although his criticisms of the war were not heeded, it was the right thing to do. On earmarks and spending in general McCain is a hawk. Again here too he took a stance when it wasn't cool. Republicans were enjoying their raid on the bank while McCain was of the remaining fiscal conservatives left standing. Going against the popular political grain is tough enough, but it was his stance against the military industrial complex that is exemplary.

"Military industry lobbyists say they have long dreaded the prospect that Mr. McCain might ascend to the chairmanship of the committee, much less the presidency. He is the Senate’s most outspoken critic of military procurement policies, big Pentagon contracts, and especially earmarks — the Congressional add-ons to military spending bills that contractors crave.

“McCain has been a one-man wrecking crew,” said a prominent military lobbyist, speaking on condition of anonymity because he lobbies the committee." says the NYT

He has eschewed political expediency and fund raising (which may in the end sink his presidential campaign) for principle. I'm not sure there is a higher attainment for a politician than this.

The problem is when his stubbornness and political will is pointed in the wrong direction. This is where the ugly comes in. After the issues mentioned above, I can't think of a single issue that I agree with him. Not only has he been on the wrong side of many issue, but he has been the leader. He was not a sponsor for campaign finance; he did not simply vote for it; he is it. McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform is an abomination. Beyond being merely ineffective and reorganizing political campaigns (by shifting money towards independent 527's), it has pushed the constitution aside. Political speech is the target of the first amendment, not pornography or hate speech. That doesn't mean that I don't think that non-political speech shouldn't be protected. I do. But squelching political speech is in direct contradiction to what the founders intended. McCain should realize that all speech is equal. It is of no consequence if the person speaking has the opportunity and ability to speak more, i.e. rich.

Even his stance against earmarks and government spending is sometimes perplexing. The purpose of cutting spending should be to shrink the government. McCain has no desire to shrink the government. In fact he has seemed to support a larger government role in people's lives. At times he has even hinted at some sort of compulsory service requirement for all Americans. When he talks about service to country i sometimes can't hear what he is actually saying but instead hear the slight whisper of draft...draft...draft.

For these reasons, I cannot support him. For some odd reason though I still hate reading about his political downfall (the article cited above, and his recent poll numbers). Perplexing.

WSJ disagrees with Fourth Cuircut ruiling and I

2007-06-14T06:26:00.000-07:00

The opinion page of the WSJ today opined that the Fourth Circuit's ruling forcing the federal government to extend rights of habeas corpus to individuals who are either American citizens or in the U.S. legally. Their opinion was split into two parts. The first part predicts that the ruling will be overturned. I agree. They made broad sweeping proclamations that were not warranted.

"There's no doubt that the 2-1 Fourth Circuit ruling in Al-Marri v. Wright is remarkable and dangerous in its sweeping judicial claims. Judges Diane Motz and Roger Gregory, both Bill Clinton nominees, ruled that a person like al-Marri does not qualify as an enemy combatant, because the U.S. cannot be "at war" with a private group like al Qaeda."

I believe that the government can declare war against any foreign entity that threatens the security or sovereignty of the United States or any of American citizen. Furthermore...

"For the "enemy combatant" moniker to apply, the court said, a terrorist must have set foot in the soil "alongside" the forces of an enemy state--i.e., Iraq or Afghanistan."

As the WSJ states, this is odd considering that the modern terrorist organization does not necessarily have/need state sponsorship.

Where the WSJ goes wrong is their trust in the federal government. They trust that the government is an altruistic institution which would never misuse the "enemy combatant" label. Trust misplaced for sure. Why are we so scared of the American judicial system?

They, and others, claim that 1) plotting terrorists will get off (mainly through loopholes) and 2) sensitive information will be put out in court. Both legitimate concerns. Legitimate enough to scrap the constitution? I think not. Gangsters and mob boss trials threaten to also allow murderers to get off and out undercover informants or sensitive information, but do we hold them incommunicado without their rights of habeas corpus? No. Nor should we.

Furthermore the whole purpose of the enemy combatant label, or any suspension of habeas corpus, is meant for the battle field. It would be crazy to hold trials for combatants while we are still fighting a war. Although I am hesitant to do so, I will extend this to the war on terror although this should only hold for foreigners.

Under the WSJ's assumptions, Timothy Mcveigh could have been held as an enemy combatant. As despicable as his actions were, should he not have the protections of the constitution? Is somebody who conspires to shoot an FBI agent an enemy combatant? Where is the line drawn? I don't know and neither does the WSJ or the Bush administration. I will again ask conservatives who disagree with me one simple question:

Do you trust President Hillary Clinton with the power to hold American citizens incommunicado without rights of habeas corpus for alleged crimes against the state?

Pentagon confirms talks to build gay bomb

2007-06-12T14:28:00.001-07:00

This has to be the best story of 2007. The Pentagon has confirmed that it was in talks to fund the creation of a gay bomb. The bomb would release hormones that would entice opposition soldiers into wanting to have sex with their fellow soldiers over fighting the enemy.

I don't think I could have made this up if I tried.

Executive Overreach Smacked Down

2007-06-12T09:01:00.000-07:00

The Fourth Circuit federal court of appeals has ruled against the military detention of Ali al-Marri. Marri trained at a terrorist camp inside Afghanistan and was arrested in the United States for credit card fraud (he was preparing to eventually disrupt U.S. financial markets). He was held incommunicado for 16 months after his arrest in 2001 and is still incarcerated. The fourth circuit ruled that he could no longer be denied habeas corpus.

According to the NYT

The court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, said a fundamental principle is at stake: military detention of someone who had lawfully entered the United States and established connections here, it said, violates the Constitution.

“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians,” Judge Motz wrote, “even if the president calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.”

“We refuse to recognize a claim to power,” Judge Motz added, “that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our republic.”

I am hopeful that conservatives will embrace this court decision. Although conservatives and courts in general haven't been chummy, it would be a mistake to argue against this decision. If you are reading this thinking something like "Well how are we going to fight terrorism?" or "Why can't we hold terrorist who wish to harm this country?" I would like you to answer these questions.

1) Do you trust a distant federal government to use the title "enemy combatant" for only terrorists who are actually about to attack the United States?

2) Is somebody who attacks a federal building or federal interest (broadly defined) an enemy combatant?

3) Would you trust Hillary Clinton with such broad powers?

Immigration bill failure is a loss for Bush/Kennedy/Kyle but win for Madison

2007-06-11T06:36:00.000-07:00

Flipping between the Sunday political talk shows, I noticed a theme. Nearly all of the pundits (all from the main stream media) agreed that the political system is "broken" or "Washington is failing us" because the Immigration bill did not pass.

There was near universal agreement that the "loud voices" from the left and right dragged the bill down. Minority groups that don't represent "us" ruined the chance for "real" reform.

First, they all endorsed change without detailing exactly how the change is positive. Is change, regardless of the details, better than the undesirable status quo? I don't think so. Secondly, when were the rules of incramentalism banished? Any freshman political science or public policy student should know that major sweeping changes normally only happen in crisis i.e. major war or a depression. Why is the Polysci-101 truism not known in Congress? Make no mistake, this bill would have been that big a change. It would have changed the lives of millions (12, 14, 16?) from the northern tip of Maine to the southern portion of California. Furthermore it would have had a major impact upon the labor market and economy as a whole which affects everybody. Maybe career politicians should consult with pimple faced college freshman first. Just a suggestion.

Although these issues are important, the most important point is one made by James Madison in Federalist 51.

"In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful"

According to Madison's views, the death of the immigration bill demonstrates how the system should work, not a failure as the pundits believe. An impassioned minority should have the ability to overturn the will of the majority (that is assuming the majority favored the bill which i doubt).

Ahmadinijad has a blog?

2007-06-07T14:31:00.001-07:00

Its true. He is apparently too busy creating atomic weapons to update it too often but still click here for a hoot.

Make English the official language

2007-06-07T06:30:00.000-07:00

Last night the Senate thankfully voted to amend the immigration bill. They adopted Senator Inhofe's amendment to make English the official language 64-33.

Although making English the official language regularly enjoys approval ratings of 85% some people still think its somehow unconstitutional or racist. The fact is that it is simple common sense. If we are going to insist on having the nation state as our societal organization then there must be a common language. A common language is the most basic tool that can be used to gel a society.

The La Raza types who claim that it is racist are way off base. First, first-generation immigrants support official English. They do in polls which show 70+ approval nationwide, and at the polls (in Arizona exit polls showed that a majority of immigrants voted for OE). Secondly, to be racist means to show contempt or hatred. Official English simply codifies a common language. It does not in any way restrict or demean any non-English languages.

The ACLU types that claim official English is unconstitutional are wildly incorrect. The United States has somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 languages spoken within its borders. How many languages are printed? Maybe twenty at any given time. Lets be liberal and say 50. So does that mean that all the people who speak the other 250 languages are being denied basic constitutional rights? No. So if we reduced the number of languages printed to 1 would the people who speak the 49 languages that are currently printed be denied constitutional rights? No. The only area of our society that you are and should be guaranteed the right to interpretation is in the legal system. Past that your on your own.

Some Libertarians may feel as though societal cohesion is not important, but I do. A world devoid of states confined by hard boundaries not likely in the near future. While borders do exist, we must find a way to operate efficiently and somewhat peacefully.

If official English laws in any way restricted peoples right of free expression I would strongly oppose it, but it does not. OE laws instead restrict government, not people. The only problem with currently constructed OE laws is that it does not take away multilingual ballots. How someone can make even a slightly informed choice without knowing the language is beyond me.

Not withstanding the ballot issue, an effective OE law may lessen the welfare state burden by not allowing those who have not learned the language to collect. Although i don't think anyone should be collecting, any restriction of benefits is a net positive. This is not to say that immigrants are "draining" the system. The Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobb's types perpetuate this lie. Immigrants come here to work. They are also very entrepreneurial which is another plus.

The bottom line is that making English the official language is a good move. Too bad it is attached to the immigration bill which, in my estimation, has very little chance of passing.

Stem Cell Issue Thankfully Dead (almost)

2007-06-06T12:04:00.000-07:00

Nature online is reporting that scientists at MIT are now able to "switch" cells. They reprogram skin cells in mice to be used as embryonic stem cells. While this procedure may not be the end-all, it does prove a point about government funding.

Since the government has no need to respond to price signals, it should not attempt to reallocate resources. Stem cell funding is the perfect example. Once the government begins to offer greenbacks for research on stem cells then researchers will flock to that type of research. It distorts the market.

That doesn't even take into account the ethical issues. Is it ethical to forcibly take a persons money through taxes and allocate it to something that person believes is wrong? I'm glad that there is a possible replacement for embryonic stem cells, but i would be elated if government would stay on the sidelines of science.

Quote of the Day

2007-06-06T11:10:00.000-07:00

"Russia‘s not going to attack Europe."

This is from President Bush's attempt to calm tempers between Russia and the West.

I know he doesn't read newspapers but jeez. I would love to know what leads him to conclude this.

Sports News

2007-06-05T08:58:00.000-07:00

Gary Sheffield's comments yesterday were at best uncalled for and at worst racist. If you missed it, Sheffield said that Hispanics have taken over as the largest minority group in MLB because they are essentially push-overs. He claims that "his people" are athletically superior to "them" and that "they" are only being signed because they can be "controlled".

Sheffield insinuates that the control factor is money but also alluded to other personal behavior. He claims that "his people" must be spoken to as "men".

This is some of the kookiest stuff I've heard coming from a professional athlete in a while (and they say some stupid stuff). It sounds to me that he (and some of his friends) are on the decline and instead prefers to use race as an excuse. This is shameful. As with all athletes, he should stick to swinging bats and keep the social commentary to himself.

Under appreciated?

Asante Samuel has decided to skip mini-camp, training camp, and the first 10 games of the season because he is "under appreciated". Although I normally defend players requesting large contracts, this one is laughable. What is the offer that conveys "under appreciation"? $7.75 million!

FCC smacked down

2007-06-05T07:02:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the second circuit in New York has dealt the FCC a big blow. Although I don't think this story will get major play with main st. America, it is a big victory for freedom of speech over government bureaucracy.

From the people who may disagree with me I ask one question: define decency? What is decent to you may be indecent to me and visa-versa, so who gets to decide? Some guy who is appointed because his daddy is a general?

If somebody miraculously did present a concrete definition of decency that was specific enough as to not infringe on freedom of expression, it would be subject to change. The FCC decided that "fleeting expletives" were all of a sudden a burden on the moral creature that is an American. Their reasoning?

"the commission had found that the mere utterance of certain words implied that sexual or excretory acts were carried out and therefore violated the indecency rules."

WTF! I wouldn't have used the acronym but the actual words may have implied a sexual act?!

To those of you who are of the opinion that TV is "out of control" or crude language is now "acceptable" (or whatever) I would suggest watching movies from the 80's. This weekend I saw the original Ghostbusters movie again. Released in 1984, the movie has several expletives and an overt sexual innuendo. The rating: PG. Today it could be fined over $300,000 if it was shown on network TV.

Words to live by

2007-06-01T07:05:00.000-07:00

"Any bill that is 380 pages long is bound to have nooks and crannies reflecting private deals, quiet paybacks and ad hoc arrangements that you often don't learn about until it's too late."

Krauthammer

No more Coke?

2007-06-01T06:47:00.001-07:00

After years of pressuring the Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur, they are now hitting back. The Sudanese ambassador, John Ukec Lueth Ukec, has responded to charges of genocide and threats of divestment by warning that he will cut the world off from gum arabic.

I believe we should take his threat seriously. Think about how inflated coke prices will affect our society. Drink your coke now, because if Sudan has its way we will all suffer miserable decaffeinated lives.

Watch video of the Sudanese ambassador threatening the existence of the west here.

Libby Trial Out of Control

2007-06-01T06:32:00.000-07:00

The special prosecutor investigating the Plame leak case is now asking for a 30 month sentence for Scooter Libby. How silly is that? Libby's only crime was a white lie to investigators. Had he thrown them off the scent of a murderer or rapist then 30 months would be acceptable. The fact is that he lied to protect somebody that wasn't guilty.

What this really looks like is a prosecutor attempting to justify 3 1/2 years of investigating a non-crime.

A second issues that gets to me is the medias coverage of the trial. They have covered it to death when nobody outside of the DC beltway or moveon.org subscribers cares. Even now that the moveon crowd can't get to their real prize (either Cheney or Rove) they only nod their head in approval that a Bushie will go to jail instead of jump up and down in jubilation.

quote of the day

2007-05-31T08:05:00.000-07:00

"Romney is the most perfect iteration I've seen of the television-era candidate. At one point, I squinted a bit and saw him in the middle distance: blue suit, white shirt, red tie, high forehead, slick black hair, tan, tall and ramrod straight — he could have been an exhibit in some future Museum of Natural History: Politicianus americanus."

Joe Klein

Eco-Socialism

2007-05-30T07:13:00.000-07:00

The Eco-socialists in Europe are catching up with the United States. That may sound odd, but it is true. While the U.S. may not have a thriving green/socialist party, it does have green/socialist policies.

Chief among them are farm subsidies for bio-fuels. These subsidies accomplish two goals. First, it (in their minds) is a boon for the environment. They think that the extraction and use of carbon based fuels is "raping" the earth, yada yada. Secondly, they want to control the free market to create a better outcome. They mistakenly think that bureaucrats can create a society that is based on some fuzzy ideals of social justice.

According to the NYT, farmers in Europe are only now growing bio-fuel crops. They are replacing wheat and barley with rapeseed. Anyone with the slightest ability to think logically would immediately know that items made with wheat and barley would become more expensive. The main two products being pasta and (most unfortunately) beer.

The Eco-socialists are hurting the poorest people in the world the hardest. No bourgeoisie will suffer. Although I couldn't possibly understand the Eco-socialists, I will venture a guess. While the poor might suffer in the short run, the long run goal is to also control the means of producing food. Maybe they think that subsidies will lead to greater control (which they are probably correct about). Either way we will all lose.

Vacation?

2007-05-30T06:50:00.001-07:00

I disagree with anyone who says that going home for a long weekend is a "vacation". The definition of a vacation from thefreedictionary.com is "a period of time devoted to pleasure, rest, or relaxation, especially one with pay granted to an employee".

Driving 8 hours just to bounce around visiting people does not fit the rest or relaxation categories. The finial category, pleasure, is often ruled out also. There is never enough time to visit everyone or spend enough time with each person, which invariably leads to riffs. Although the riff may be silly and short lived, it would be non existent on a beach in Cancun.

To rectify the problem I will propose abolishing usage of the term "vacation" as a legitimate descriptor of time off from work used to visit family and friends. Hence forth the term vacation shall only be used when describing a time away from work that is devoid of entangling alliances or mandates which lead to strict limits on time and place.

Robert Rector is wrong

2007-05-24T08:35:00.001-07:00

The Wall Street Journal has effectively rebutted Robert Rector's claim that the life time cost of each immigrant legalized will strain the economy. The truth is that they provide an influx of young workers that will be necessary to sustain programs such as social security. For this reason, babyboomers should be encouraging copious amounts of immigration. The reality is that their future retirement in the sun will be financed by immigrants who are coming here now.

We don't want to reform social security; we don't want to scale back entitlements; and we don't want young workers to come here to replace an aging workforce.

What do we want then?

Serfdom: We're on our way!

2007-05-24T07:03:00.000-07:00

Why are Democrats like Senator Schumer insisting that Americans be put on the road to serfdom? Yesterday, comrade Schumer held a hearing to investigate if “Market concentration in the U.S. Petroleum Industry [is] harming consumers”. Instead of simply complaining, I will suggest topics for future Senate investigations.

“Does any legislator understand that it’s idiotic to accuse oil companies of inflating prices by under producing when you take away their incentive by dictating how fuels are produced?”

“An Investigation into how much worse off Americans are when government regulates?”

“Is economic freedom an outdated idea?”

“Why do we laugh at the founders principles?”

“Abandonment of Economics 101?”

“Demagoguery: the death of democracy?”

House Version

Here is a roundup of the bill that was passed in the house by Schumer’s comrades that was posted on Reason's blog, Hit & Run. It is so wonderful that congress is passing laws that create vague language that allow bureaucrats to control target companies and entire industries through fiat. Soon we will be able to break the hold of the bourgeoisie!

"Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act - Makes it unlawful for any person to sell crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillates at a price that: (1) is unconscionably excessive; or (2) indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage unusual market conditions or the circumstances of an emergency to increase prices unreasonably.

Declares unlawful: (1) intentional reporting of false price information concerning wholesale prices of such products; and (2) market manipulation regarding the purchase or sale at wholesale of such products.

Empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and State Attorneys General to enforce this Act.

Sets forth civil and criminal penalties for violations of this Act.

Requires fines and penalties collected under this Act to be deposited in a separate fund in the treasury to be known as the Consumer Relief Trust Fund to provide assistance under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services."

Sowell should know better

2007-05-23T09:24:00.000-07:00

I usually agree with Thomas Sowell (roughly 98.79% rate of agreement), but find one part from his argument on immigration disagreeable.

He claims that immigration now is different from previous waves. Sowell is correct to assert that the world is smaller (immigrants can communicate with and travel to their home countries) but seems to insinuate that Hispanic immigrants have settled differently.

“People who crossed an ocean to get here, many generations ago, usually came here to become Americans. There were organized efforts within their communities, as well as in the larger society around them, to help them assimilate.”

Both of his statements are unsubstantiated and (in my opinion) incorrect. First, how does he know that people “usually” came here to be Americans? Although there are boat loads (no pun intended) of anecdotal stories of the downtrodden traveling to the city on the hill, there are also piles of stories of criminals and vagrants migrating for less than altruistic purposes. A cursory review of opinion in the early 20^th century will show that they felt similar about the immigrants of their day. Imagine the consternation that sons of British immigrants (who came to America to become Americans!) had towards those Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans and who came to fill our cities with squalor, disease, and organized crime!

Secondly, I would like to know what communities did in the past to help assimilate their members. The major distinction here (missed by Sowell) is between assimilation and integration. Communities in the past would help their members integrate into society, but not assimilate. An integrated individual can function within the state with little or no language skills or cultural understanding. A short trip into any major city in this country will reveal a China town, Little Italy, etc. The inhabitants of these neighborhoods were assisted with integration but were not assimilated. In fact, these type of communities slow assimilation. They lessen the need for language skills, education, and cultural understanding through a lack of personal contact with assimilated Americans. Over time they too assimilate, but the process is retarded.

I felt compelled to write this because it exemplifies what I often see. People reminisce about a past they either do not know or have only a vague memory of, while also subtly implying that modern immigrants are inherently different. While I doubt this is Sowell’s purpose, it is still a problem.

Romney

2007-05-22T14:06:00.000-07:00

The most expensive hot dog in history?

"With his campaign gathering steam, Romney is in the midst of another intense burst of fundraising. On Monday, he started in Hartford, Conn., and traveled to Boston and then Houston. At Fenway Park, approximately 200 donors paid $2,300 apiece for a lunch of hot dogs with sauerkraut, chicken and potato salad."

here

Presidential race

2007-05-22T09:37:00.000-07:00

A column by Christopher Cooper in the Wall Street Journal shows why this year’s presidential race may change presidential politics forever. Many people have made similar grand pronouncements about this year’s election but most are false. Contrary to popular belief this presidential election is no more important than any other year. Politicians attempt to fire up their respective bases by explaining how, unlike past years, this year is the most important ever. “If the other guy gets in we’re all in trouble”. Both the Kerry and Bush campaigns were very good at explaining how the other guy would be a disaster.

The real reason why this year will change everything is because of the shifted primary schedule. While we have all heard about states moving their primaries closer to Iowa and New Hampshire (Nevada has officially moved before New Hampshire while Florida has officially moved to Jan. 29). Pundits have severely understated the practical effect of this movement. Institutional candidates with large war chests will now have an enormous advantage.

How big is this change? States moving up, including Florida and California, allow for early voting. In a heavily contested election, such as this year, voters will no doubt flock to the polls early. Not only do these states allow for early voting, they also encourage it. California has a permanent absentee-voter program which allows voters the choice to have a ballot automatically sent to them in the mail. “In the 2006 primary, 2.4 million California voters, or 47%, cast mail ballots”. That is a lot of votes. The ENTIRE COMBINED POPULATION (according to the 2006 census estimate) of Iowa Nevada and New Hampshire is 6.7 million.

Immigration: Part I

2007-05-21T12:24:00.001-07:00

While the immigration issue is debated (most of the debate is rhetorical nonsense) a larger issue is being missed: the bill will vastly increase the size and power of government. There are three ways that the proposed deal will extend the tentacles of government.

1. The government must be enlarge simply to comply with the logistics of processing the millions (10?, 15?, 20?) of illegal immigrants currently here. One day some poor soul in (presumably) Homeland Security is going to arrive at work (probably on a dreary Monday) and have a small stack of 10 million applications to sort through; and you thought your Monday was bad. On Tuesday this bludgeoned worker will come to work (thinking how could it get any worse) and be handed 400,000 applications from foreigners who want to be guest workers. Having not slept in 48 hours Joe worker comes to work pushing an IV bag pumping coffee into his veins. The caffeine helps, but after a morning meeting he is informed that they must establish a structure to implement the points system for approving the new visas’. This new visa must take into account education, English language knowledge, and personal attributes (the person must be an upstanding citizen). Needless to say, Joe is going to need help.

2. Homeland Security is being tasked with creating a national database that employers will be required to utilize in checking the status of new workers. First, businesses should not be tasked with sorting out who can and cannot work. If they are here they should be able to work. It is that simple. Businesses do not incorporate to do the work of immigration agencies. Secondly, (and more importantly) this database may be the precursor to a national ID. There may be a time when every citizen has an ID with a chip that contains all of their personal information (the military already does). If that day does come we can look back to the immigration reform of 2007 to find the origin.

3. David Isaacs, director of federal affairs for Hewlett-Packard, said that “a merit based system would take the hiring decision out of our hands and place it squarely in the hands of the federal government” in a recent NYT article. The proposed merit based system (that poor Joe Q. Worker will have to implement) takes away the need for a domestic sponsor. Immigrants will now be granted entry based solely on their level of education with no regard for their actual skill. For instance: the domestic need for educated workers may be for chemical engineers and computer programs (mainly from Europe, and Asia), but the preponderance of applications may be from immigrants with training in theology (mainly form the Middle East). Businesses, who are the benefactors of migrant workers, will no longer have a say in what workers they actually need. If the current bill (as I understand it) passes, it will allow the Federal government to decidedly change the character of the workforce. That isn’t even to mention the social ramifications of a law that favors Europeans and Asians over Arabs and Hispanics.

China amazes again

2007-05-18T06:44:00.000-07:00

“The central bank also ordered banks to hold 11.5 percent of assets as reserves, up from 11 percent. Many banks already have even larger reserves, however, as they have been swamped with deposits from China’s brisk economic growth and large trade surplus, and have had trouble finding ways to lend this money.” more here

I have to say that I am amazed by the economic growth in China. My prediction of slowing growth has not even come close to reality. The affect of the central banks order for banks to increase reserves had almost no negative backlash. The problem: banks are already awash in money and can’t find enough people to give it to. The only response to that is: wow.

It’s hard to believe that China’s growth is going to slow any time soon but when it does it may be devastating to the U.S. and the world.

Leviathan on the Right

2007-05-16T07:42:00.000-07:00

After reading Michael Tanner’s book “Leviathan on the Right” I would like to say that it is a very good book that should sharpen the debate about the divide between modern conservative thought (whatever that means) and libertarian philosophies.

Republicans have openly abandoned small government conservatism, as Tanner’s book further proves. The real question now is how to fix the problem. Without a strong Libertarian party, we must choose our course of action. Will we A) change support to the Democrats to send a message B) continue to support the Republicans who have abandoned social and most economic freedoms or C) split our votes between the two.

Option C would obviously be disastrous. Being a minority group, our power is already diluted. Splitting the minority in half would effectively cancel any sway we could have in major party politics.

Option A sounds enticing at the current moment. There is no better way to sting the Republican party for abandoning us than to move our registration to the Democratic party. They have consistently opposed indefinite detainment, supported immigration reform, and have pushed for a more federalist approach to addressing issues such as gay marriage and medical marijuana. The problem with option A is two fold. First, they do not believe in economic freedom. They generally believe that Government can create an ordered society if it just has enough resources. It doesn’t matter if the initiative doesn’t work because the line of reasoning is always that it doesn’t have enough resources. When it comes down to it, I simply just don’t trust them with taxes or free trade. Say what you will about the Bush administration and the Republican congress, but at least they have been good on these two bedrock issues. Democrats call for reforming the AMT is encouraging but in the end it is a shallow play for inner city votes and not a change philosophy. Voting for Democrats will only enable them to sink free trade agreements and fight the “I can spend more money than you” battle with Republicans.

The only reasonable course of action seems to be option B. While Republicans may have turned on small government philosophy, it has only been in the last 8 years. On the Democrats side they have been that way for almost the last 100 years. The Republican party needs a tune-up while the Democrats would require an engine overhaul. I also think that a reversion back to small government principles will happen almost naturally. It seems that losing control of congress in 06 wasn’t enough of a wakeup call. Will falling into a deeper hole in congress and losing the presidency in 08 turn things around? I don’t know the answer to that, but it must stand to reason that a party which loses (and I predict they will) two branches of government (and one could argue the third since the next president will almost assuredly be appointing a Supreme Court justice) in four years must do some soul searching. There was a superficial soul searching after the 06 midterm but the outcome seemed to be that Republicans were hurt by the Foley/Katrina/Iraq axes of evil and should elevate Reagan to idyllic levels as opposed to reinventing small government conservatism. So maybe then the answer should be to vote against Republicans in 08 so that they are forced to rethink their position after a miserable showing. So that means option A for 08 and then back to option B. If Republicans don't return to small government conservatism the only answer would be option D--move to Arizona (New Hampshire is too cold).

That might be the ticket, although I don’t think I could force my hand to check off a D. The possibility gives me the creeps.

Quote of the Day

2007-05-16T07:41:00.001-07:00

Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado said he had witnessed, in the course of his campaign, candidates move to more conservative positions on guns, abortion and immigration. “You know it’s beginning to sound like a Baptist tent revival meeting here,” Mr. Tancredo said. “And I’m glad to see these conversions. But I must tell you, I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus and not on the road to Des Moines.”

From the NYT

I'm Back

2007-05-15T07:59:00.000-07:00

I have had a long post vacation but I am back. Originally I stopped posting because work and school started to squeeze my time (somewhat) but now the semester is over. While I may never gain a strong readership, I will surely help myself. I have no doubt that my writing skills have been improved. The constant exposure to outside eyes (or simply the possibility) makes one concentrate harder on detail and content. It has been a good experience writing this blog so its about time I get back to it.