Renner's Here!

2011-07-01T10:40:00.001-04:00

Yes, he really did say this. 2 weeks before demonizing corporate jets, no less.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/270867/obama-i-have-better-plane-so-it-s-fair-trade http://amplify.com/u/a16cty

Earth Hour - I'm Glad I Missed It

2011-03-26T22:43:00.000-04:00

I guess I unknowingly left my lights on for "Earth Hour". Not that I'd have shut them off if I'd known the time in advance.

It's so unbelievably stupid to think that silly little gestures like this make a difference to the environment - they might make a slight dent in your electric bill, which is a good enough reason to do them ALL the time rather than just for an hour, like it's a silly religious ritual.

Which it is, for its practitioners.

Anyway, I'll share a quick story and a link.

The story - this week I had a big smile on my face, upon discovering the office where I work does NOT recycle anything but paper.

The link - this great piece (PDF), by a Canadian professor of economics, on the wonderful benefits of cheap electricity.

Left-wing "civility" in Australia and the U.S.

2011-02-08T15:07:00.003-05:00

The always insightful Tim Andrews, who hails from Australia, has a great post on the lack of civility among leftists there.

And by lack of civility, I mean death threats and a xenophobic, inaccurate Facebook group with personal attacks against Tim, because he committed the crime of organizing opposition to an updated, certainly Australianized version of the Johnstown Flood Tax.

I can't do any better than Tim's analysis here of what instills such fear in the Aussie Left. Substitute "America" for "Australia" and everything stays just as accurate:

the only explanation I can find for the hate-filled smears of the left, is that they are terrified of the people. There is a real, palatable of Australians getting engaged in the political process, and this scares the hard-left witless.

Why? The reason is simple. Because the multi-billion dollar left-wing industry relies on a quiet populace. The billions they receive are dependent upon the Australian people being docile. And I think it’s time for us to be frank about this fact. There really is a multi-billion dollar far-left industry out there, reliant upon our taxpayers, and I am sick of tip-toeing around the issue for fear of alienating a special interest group.

Let us be frank.

Whether it be fat cat public ‘servant” bureaucrats, safe and secure in their tenure, knowing they will never be able to get a non-taxpayer funded job in the real world. Or so-called “climate scientists”, who, without millions in funds for scaremongering would face the unemployment queue. Those reliant on sustaining a culture of welfare, so they can keep on leeching off the public purse, “helping” the less fortunate, despite all the evidence that their big-government plans never have worked. The artsy types, who live off taxpayer dollars to propagate their hate – sorry, “art”. “Multicultural organisations”, the ABC, Unions – the list goes on - I am only just scratching the surface. Australia has entire left wing industry entrenched through all levels of government, that up until now has never been challenged. And ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Read all the rest here or here (long version).

One of my two endorsements for "first black president", commenting on the other

2010-12-08T10:37:00.001-05:00

URL: http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/walt...

Thomas Sowell reviews Walter Williams's newly released autobiography, "Up From The Projects". I'll hold back my own comments until I've read the book myself, but I'm instinctively inclined to agree with Sowell's thoughts on blunt criticism, supportive families, and housing projects which were relatively safe, clean, and free of "moral squalor".

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/hx7r

Timothy Snyder (the New Republic) with a really original stupid idea

2010-12-06T21:47:00.001-05:00

URL: http://www.tnr.com/article/environment-energy/magazine/...

Hitler and Stalin killed millions of people for economic development? Sorry, no, they were totalitarian dictators who both wanted to conquer the world and enslave their own people. The lands they conquered were irrelevant to them other than as conquests.

Stalin didn't cause the Ukrainian famine to control the land, he did it to control the farmers there. Different in degree, but not in essence, from what today's leftists are trying to do.

I hope Mr. Snyder someday gains the ability to distinguish National Socialist and Communist propaganda about their economic "gains" from the reality - both ideologies held their countries back, and nothing illustrates this better than the destroyed West Germany's postwar economic growth under a relatively free market system.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/hsf5

Marxists Meet, Part III: Marxist Organizer Raps for Violent Revolution & Firing Squads | RedState

2010-11-29T06:43:00.001-05:00

URL: http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2010/11/28/mar...

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/gq4g

Saluting the 235th birthday of the Marine Corps, and American veterans generally

2010-11-11T20:35:00.004-05:00

What a day it is indeed. I don't mention my own service all that often in the context of politics (I would rather win over others to my views with universal truths than with biographical details), but I'm proud to have been a Marine for 7 years, to have been deployed to Iraq twice, and above all to have served alongside such fine men and women that I did.

Their courage and commitment to their honorable mission in that country is worthy of more praise than I could hope to give in a lifetime. The veterans of the military, in my experience, have continued to embody all of the greatest traditions of American culture that have led our country to the prominent position it stands in at this time, even when those cultural traditions have been eroded in the larger society that they defend.

It is not through the troops on the ground, the air, or the sea, in cold outposts all over the world, that we have to fear the decline of ANYTHING that has made America great, and I proudly salute them for standing up for freedom, and thank all the others, too many to name, who have recognized the service of our veterans and the birth of our Corps during the past 2 days.

This year, two things drew my attention to the sacrifice made by the veterans of the Korean War in particular. First, in going through old papers on my desk, I noticed a fundraising letter from Clint Eastwood on behalf of the Korean War National Museum.

Second, one of the traditions of the Marine Corps Birthday celebration is the annual message from the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Dating back to 1921 and John A. LeJeune, the message that all other Marines have heard since then is read; however in modern years the current Commandant and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps produce their own video message to the Marines. This year, Commandant General James Amos and Sergeant Major Carlton Kent recognized the heroism of Marines in Korea. Here is their video in full:

Happy 235th, Marines. And happy Veterans Day to all who've served. This veteran salutes you.

Deficits and Depression - National Review Online

2010-10-14T19:24:00.001-04:00

URL: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249694/deficits-...

The always awesome Victor Davis Hanson. My favorite quote: "...it does no good for Beltway technocrats to explain how deficits are good at “stimulating” the economy, or why they do not really have to be paid back. Voters know that such gibberish does not apply to their own mortgages and credit-card bills."

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/cp5z

Alan Grayson: WHORE. | RedState

2010-09-28T02:25:00.001-04:00

URL: http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2010/09/27/alan-grayso...

What an unbelievable douchebag. Seriously, what kind of candidate does an ad like this with his campaign funds? This is 10 times worse a smear than I've ever seen in a DCCC ad.

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bbk4

Random Readings, September 20

2010-09-20T16:29:00.004-04:00

Obamacare
Via Connie Hair at Human Events, "House Democrats Pass Bill to Grill School Children about Sexual Preference." (H/T to Clyde at LibertyPundits)

Dr. Scott Atlas, on ways the Democrats might modify Obamacare to forcibly implement single payer government-run healthcare, starting in the very near future.

2010 Elections
The Florida Democratic Party sends out a campaign mailer about Republican congressional candidate Allen West (incidentally, I've seen him speak at CPAC. He's a U.S. Army vet and a hell of a human being) including his unredacted Social Security number. Their spokesman Eric Jotkoff then issues a non-apology apology, complete with another cheap shot at West. Desperate much?

Civilization and Defense

58% of people in the Arab world think that the Ground Zero Mosque is a bad idea, compared to 70% in the United States. Fouad Ajami finds this unsurprising, and elaborates on the disconnect between the Arab-Islamic street and the prominent representatives of that culture to the West, including Faisal Abdul Rauf. I loved this anecdote:

There is a great Arab and Islamic tale. It happened in the early years of Islam, but it speaks to this controversy. It took place in A.D. 638, the time of Islam's triumphs.

The second successor to the Prophet, the Caliph Omar—to orthodox Muslims the most revered of the four Guided Caliphs for the great conquests that took place during his reign—had come to Jerusalem to accept the city's surrender. Patriarch Sophronius, the city's chief magistrate, is by his side for the ceremony of surrender. Prayer time comes for Omar while the patriarch is showing him the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

The conqueror asks where he could spread out his prayer rug. Sophronius tells him that he could stay where he was. Omar refuses, because his followers, he said, might then claim for Islam the holy shrine of the Christians. Omar stepped outside for his prayer.

We don't always assert all the "rights" that we can get away with. The faith is honored when the faith bends to necessity and discretion.

Also my favorite historian Victor Davis Hanson has this great post on civilizational decline and recovery.

Miscellanea
Randall Hoven at American Thinker has a great list of contradictory views that the ruling class believes. Some gems:

President Bush was bad for the economy because he spent too much. President Obama is helping the economy by spending a lot.

A jury is better informed if evidence is withheld from it.

The Boy Scouts are wrong for having policies that inhibit pedophilia. The Catholic Church was wrong for not having policies that inhibit pedophilia.

An economy in which government accounts for about 40% of economic activity, which owns a similar percentage of all land, and which enforces a stack of regulations the size of 64 Bibles (or 30 New Deals) is considered a radical laissez-faire free market.

Grabbing a person by his shirt and pulling him toward you is an "enhanced interrogation technique" not in the Army Field Manual. It is therefore "tantamount to torture" and out of bounds for any government agency or contractor to use when asking a terrorist what his plans are. Simply dropping a bomb on him, though, with neither trial nor tribunal, and killing him and anyone near him, including his wife, children, family and friends, is OK.

And Michael Moore expresses concern over McDonald's-related death.

This might actually be worth reading

2010-09-20T16:17:00.002-04:00

From Exurban Jon, this delightfully photoshopped cover of Meghan McCain's new book:

In other things Meghan McCain: Jenn Q. Public and Lori Ziganto have read her book so that you don't have to, as has Leon Wolf. And of course, if you're on Twitter and blocked by Ms. McCain, let me know so that I can add you to the illustrious list of other great conservatives!

Random Readings, September 19

2010-09-20T15:55:00.003-04:00

Kenny Solomon at RedState has this great post:
News of the day that does NOT include Ms. O’Donnell, but is all big-picture related…..

I'm going to shamelessly steal two of his linked stories - first, the British government wants you to anonymously report other drivers for...well, they say "inconsiderate driving" and "excessive noise". In practice, there's no way for the government to verify that the accusations aren't fabricated, but what the heck, they're issuing citations anyway! Gotta keep those roads safe, and the police can't do all the work!

Second, and this is worth a post of its own - President Obama deliberately leaves out "by their Creator" when quoting the Declaration of Independence. Repulsive.

Stacy McCain, on Congresswoman Debbie Halvorson's staff using Nazified pictures in a protest. Can't improve on this title: Democrat Halvorson’s Nazi-Smear Aide Is Lesbian Who Brags About ‘Gigantic Boobs'

Pete "DaTechGuy" on how his home state of Massachusetts is changing, for the better.

Random Readings, September 18

2010-09-19T01:34:00.003-04:00

2010 Elections

Erick Erickson at RedState rightly calls for Senate Republican leadership to remove Lisa Murkowski from the Energy Committee in response to her write-in bid against Republican primary winner Joe Miller.

Bill Whalen, on why he thinks Fiorina vs. Boxer in California is now the key race to determine which party controls the Senate after November's elections.

Michael Petrilli on why he thinks that almost-certainly-mayor-elect of Washington, D.C. Vincent Gray won't be able to undo all the progress in education made by outgoing mayor Adrian Fenty and D.C. Public Schools chancellor Michelle Rhee.

Also, Matt Welch at Reason points out that WaPo ~~resident crazy~~ columnist Courtland Milloy
(whose nauseating glee at the D.C. mayoral election outcome I mentioned briefly on Thursday) lives in Prince George's County, Maryland. Conveniently OUTSIDE the District.

Terrorism/National Defense

Stephen Breyer showcases liberal logic at its finest, with the gutless claim that burning a Koran is analogous to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, because Muslims apparently can't be expected not to violently stampede at the slightest insult.

Andy McCarthy at National Review takes on Breyer and points out the weakness of relying on laws as a substitute for cultural norms.

Several Iranian diplomats have defected to European countries this year. Also, the Iranian diplomatic corps endured a purge in 2005 after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office - I'd never heard of that.

Miscellanea

Andrew Breitbart gets spat upon and called a "homosexual" at a ~~2 Minutes~~ anti-Hate rally.

Victor Davis Hanson, on the current rehabilitation of George W. Bush.

"Overcriminalization"

2010-09-19T00:43:00.002-04:00

Former Reagan administration attorney general Ed Meese has a great piece in Wednesday's Washington Times on the expansion of laws, and the erosion of the Constitution in the past several decades:

Another sign that we have lost our sense of the Constitution lies in the phenomenon of "overcriminalization." Put simply, government is making too many criminal laws, creating traps for people who are doing their best to be law-abiding citizens. Consider: The Constitution itself identifies only three federal crimes - piracy, counterfeiting, and treason.

When the First Congress enacted the original Crimes Act in 1790, it stipulated only 17 federal crimes. Today, Congress own research service can't even count all the federal crimes on the books. Our best estimate is that the federal code now delineates more than 4,500 federal crimes. And federal regulations create tens of thousands more. Our Founding Fathers would recognize relatively few of these offenses as crimes.

At the time of the founding, almost all criminal law punished conduct that everyone would recognize as wrongful - offenses like murder, theft, and burglary. And virtually all crimes required proof that the accused had acted with a "guilty mind" - that is, with the intent to do a wrongful act. My, how things have changed.

Today, the vast majority of the crimes are regulatory offenses. They involve conduct that is not inherently wrong but has been made criminal only because an elite legislature - or unelected bureaucracy - has decreed it to be so.

To make enforcement of these new social norms easier, legislatures have often jettisoned the "guilty mind" requirement. As a result, people may be punished with jail time for doing things they had no idea were illegal, much less criminal...

...Hence, a 12-year old girl is arrested for eating a French fry in the Washington, D.C., Metro system. A 63-year old grandmother in Palo Alto, Calif., is arrested for failing to trim her hedges in the "officially approved manner." Four FBI agents, in SWAT gear and armed with automatic rifles, arrest an Alaskan inventor for shipping scientific material without a federally mandated sticker on the package. A retired orchid grower spends 17 months in jail for importing orchids without the proper paperwork.

As the list of criminal acts expands, it becomes harder for the average American to get through the day without unknowingly committing a crime. This situation creates an even more insidious danger. If everyone is potentially a criminal, then the government and its employees have vast powers to decide which people to charge. With so wide a scope of possible criminal charges, we now face a situation where little but the discretion of the government determines who goes to jail and who goes free.

In other words, you'd better not piss off government officials too much.

Meese doesn't use the term, but probably a majority of the federal crimes could genuinely be described as "victimless". I don't generally use that term to describe prohibited activities such as drug use and prostitution, because there's usually some element of coercion involved.

But it's a strenuous exercise in justification to claim that anyone is harmed by the prescription use of medications that have been found to work in Europe (but aren't yet FDA-approved), or by compensation being paid to organ donors or their families, or the installation of a toilet which uses more than 1.6 gallons of water in each flush.

Random Readings, September 17

2010-09-17T19:39:00.002-04:00

2010 Elections

Mattie Fein, running for Congress in California against Jane Harman, has this wonderful guest post at The Other McCain on the lack of support many candidates are getting from the GOP establishment, Karl Rove, and the personal attacks faced by outsiders like herself and Christine O'Donnell.

Henry Miller, writing at the Daily Caller, with a few interesting anecdotes about dumb politicians.

Morton Kondracke doesn't understand the fact that the Tea Party movement, and advocacy of limited government and fiscal restraint, are well within the mainstream of America (outside of Washington, at least).

Miscellanea

Paige Chapman in the Chronicle of Higher Education says that "most students think it's safe to hold unpopular views on their campus", downplaying the fact that nearly 20% say it's NOT safe. This choice of words reminded me about the "mostly peaceful" protests earlier this year. As in "mostly" being a grossly euphemistic adverb chosen to obscure the unpleasant reality of campus censorship/ violence among "pro-immigration" groups.

John Stossel has a great piece on the non-link between school funding and student performance.
Read the whole thing. 2 quick thoughts on this:

Stossel cites Andrew Coulson of Cato, who says that "Over the past 40 years, public school employment has risen 10 times faster than enrollment. There are 9 percent more students today, but nearly twice as many public school employees." Coulson mentions elsewhere the specific composition of that employment growth, more than a third of which has been support staff (i.e., people not directly involved in classroom instruction). Additionally, and most importantly, students' reading, science, and math scores have been flat over that time.
The idea that "insufficient funding" (however a district wants to define it) is an excuse for low student achievement is completely destroyed by many counter-examples of schools in the ghettos with high student achievement. In Stossel's piece, he mentions Ben Chavis and the American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland, CA - the only school in Oakland where ANY black and Hispanic students have passed AP Calculus this year.

There are numerous other examples of similar schools, which suggest that the largest problem with American education is less about funding and more about personnel/educational philosophy.

School Field Trips: Now Including Kids Prostrate To Allah

2010-09-17T05:04:00.001-04:00

It's hard to even start naming everything that's wrong with this situation. From Charles Jacobs at Big Peace:

My organization, Americans for Peace and Tolerance (APT), just released a video showing 6th graders from Wellesley, MA as they rise from prostrating themselves alongside Muslim men in a prayer to Allah while on a public school field trip to the largest mosque in the Northeast. Teachers did not intervene. Parents have not been told.

Let me repeat that: 6th grade kids in Massachusetts were taken, by their teachers, on a field trip to a mosque, and led to bow down before Allah.

More from Peters:

The video was taken inside the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center – Boston’s controversial Saudi-funded mega-mosque – during a Wellesley Middle School social studies trip to the mosque, ostensibly taken to learn about the history of Islam first-hand. Yet the video reveals that the students are being blatantly mis-educated about Islam. A mosque spokesperson is seen teaching the children that in Mohammed’s 7th century Arabia women were allowed to vote, while in America women only gained that right a hundred years ago.

And:

The mosque spokesperson also taught the students that the only meaning of Jihad in Islam is a personal spiritual struggle, and that Jihad has historically had no relationship with holy war. As far as we know, the school has not corrected these false lessons.

This is just unbelievable. Replace "mosque" in this story with "church" and imagine the reaction: "Separation of Church And State! Stop forcing your religion on our kids!" Think we'll hear that here? I doubt it.

Read and watch the whole thing. And if you're motivated to express an opinion - here's some contact info.

Wellesley Middle School, and its social studies department which organized the trip.
In case the site crashes, the school phone number is shown as 781-446-6250.

The Islamic Society of Boston is here - the phone number is 617-876-3546.

Cross-posted to RedState.

Random Readings, September 16

2010-09-17T02:16:00.003-04:00

This is a new thing I'm going to try to post.

I typically read at least a dozen articles/blog posts daily, keep the tabs open (right now I'm counting 34, including the window I'm typing in, and NOT including the tabs in the 2 or 3 restorable Firefox Sessions I had open days ago), slow my browser to a crawl, and never figure out how to share them with anyone who reads this blog.

So - I'm going to just share the links with minimal or no commentary. Here goes:

2010 Elections

A ~~peeping Tom~~ campaign staffer for Rep. John Adler (D-NJ) is accused of trespassing on the property of his GOP opponent, Jon Runyan, and taking pictures of Runyan's 8 year old daughter in front of the house.

Courtland Milloy, in a WaPo opinion piece, goes nuts with vindictiveness at the primary defeat of current D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty, complete with allusions to the Soviet Union, the Confederacy, and fascist Italy, because Fenty and D.C. Schools chair Michelle Rhee had the nerve to fire a bunch of government employees and stop abetting homelessness, and apparently didn't meet with Maya Angelou quickly enough. Really. No, really.

TheRightScoop shares a great monologue from Mark Levin.

Sean Duffy (via Allah at HotAir) has an absolutely awesome ad. Gotta love all the non-professional politicians running this year:

Rep. John Boozman is absolutely destroying incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln(D-AR) in the polls (as in left-leaning Talking Points Memo's poll average has him up by almost 30 percentage points.)

Frank J. at IMAO aims his delightful snark toward Harry Reid's calling Chris Coons(D-Senate Candidate, Delaware) his "pet".

C. Edmund Wright, at American Thinker, takes Karl Rove to task for hurting the conservative cause.

The Christian Science Monitor: "Could Christine O'Donnell Actually Win In November?" (HT to Stacy McCain for this one)

Exurban Jon offers his thoughts on how Christine O'Donnell can win the general election, after her victory in the Delaware GOP Senate primaries Tuesday.

Islam, etc.

IHateTheMedia has this analysis of zakat(usually translated as "alms-giving", one of the 5 pillars of Islam) and Barack Obama's remarks in support of facilitating it.

Molly Norris, who suggested (and later backed away from) "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day", has now been advised by the FBI to effectively disappear. DaTechGuy has a challenge to the scum who've threatened her and others.

Jimmie Bise schools Robert Wright of the New York Times on his ignorance of the Bible.

Miscellanea

Susan Sarandon thinks that "The nation mourned" when she and Tim Robbins ended their conspicuous non-marriage late last year. Greg Gutfeld helpfully (and humorously) destroys that notion.

Thomas Sowell, one of my intellectual heroes, points out the ways in which the terms "liberal" and "conservative" today connote almost exactly the opposite of their original meaning.

Erick Erickson gets hate mail. I'd like to receive this level of vitriol sometime soon.

John Hawkins at RightWingNews names his 40 favorite conservative blogs for the third quarter of 2010. Which reminds me, I need to do a post on BlogCon and the 9/12 march which I attended last week thanks to FreedomWorks.

A Screenshot Tour Of The New Twitter.

Cubachi on the United Kingdom's impending privatization of its Royal Mail postal service.

P.J. Gladnick at NewsBusters, on a conservative student group being kicked out of the campus club rush at Palm Beach State College, and the silence of the local newspaper.

John Bolton just might make an awesome president.

9/11 - beyond the numbers

2010-09-11T23:06:00.003-04:00

Some of us have a tendency to remember great historical events as facts and figures, tangible and quantifiable. This is completely necessary if we're to avoid inaccurate interpretation of these events. But it also presents an incomplete picture; any current or historical event is much, much more than a count of those killed and injured, a list of names of those involved, an estimate of financial cost, a beginning and ending time.

The Al-Qaeda launched attacks 9 years ago are no different. We can state empirically that 2,977 innocents died (among them 341 firefighters, 10 EMTs and paramedics, and 60 police officers), but that doesn't remotely capture the shock, the horror, the anger of that day.

WARNING: graphic images below. View them anyway.

We can easily remember that hundreds of people jumped thousands of feet to their certain deaths. We can and should also remember the unimaginable inferno that made that decision reasonable to them.

It's accurate history to say "United Flight 175 struck WTC2 at 9:03 AM". But those words don't remotely capture the sudden clarity to everyone who saw this happen in person or on live TV - that this was not an accident, that our country was under attack by evil men unknown to almost all Americans prior to that day.

No statistics can describe the awareness that other cities were targeted, and the worry about how many more attacks would occur before the day was over.

The courage of the first responders, who went towards the scene when others were running away, cannot be quantified and analyzed logically. Yet who among us doubts its existence?

3 men, 50 stars, and 13 stripes. And with them, a gesture of patriotic defiance amid the loss of a battle in a long fight.

Remember everything about that day. And fight on.

Arrested For Self-Defense?

2010-09-09T07:32:00.002-04:00

That's what it initially appears like, in the case of a man from Uniondale, NY. From New York's CBS2:

George Grier said he had to use his rifle on Sunday night to stop what he thought was going to be an invasion of his Uniondale home by a gang he thought might have been the vicious “MS-13.” He said the whole deal happened as he was about to drive his cousin home.

“I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?’ Grier said.

Grier said the five men dared him to use the gun; and that their shouts brought another larger group of gang members in front of his house.

“He starts threatening my family, my life. ‘Oh you’re dead. I’m gonna kill your family and your babies. You’re dead.’ So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass,” Grier said.

The rifle in question was an AK-47, which he owned legally; however he was arrested on charges of endangerment, since he apparently didn't see a gun in the hands of any of the gang members before firing.

AARP and alternatives, Part II

2010-09-04T23:01:00.003-04:00

I wrote a post some time ago on the dissatisfaction that many older conservatives have with AARP, primarily involving AARP's adoption of much of the progressive agenda, but also including kickbacks from companies wishing to use the AARP brand. Here are a few alternative organizations:

The 60 Plus Association, founded in 1992, seems to be the oldest group touting itself as a conservative alternative to AARP (which was founded itself in 1958).

The Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC), founded in 2007, and the American Seniors Association, founded in 2005 also claim to offer many of the same benefits as AARP offers, such as discounts, travel packages, and group insurance.

I haven't personally dealt with any of these groups, nor have any relatives who I've talked to, so I'd be interested to hear from anyone who's had personal experience, or from other groups I've missed.

Corbett vs. a Rohrer write-in

2010-07-28T01:15:00.003-04:00

I came across this question posed by Vonne Andring at Conservative Declaration:

Highly controversial has become the idea of a Sam Rohrer write-in this November. On one side are staunch party supporters that insist we must have a Republican in the Governor’s mansion–even if it’s Tom Corbett. They say, “vote for Corbett, the lesser of two evils” because a write-in campaign would split the Republican ticket potentially resulting in a win for the Democrats. They say a write-in for Rohrer does more harm than good.

On the other side of the issue, are loyal Sam Rohrer supporters who are invigorated and energized by the movement his message set into motion. These folks say they are done voting for the lesser of two evils, and that if they can write-in Rohrer, there exists no rationale for choosing between evils. They say they’re voting their conscience, and at the same time sending a powerful message to the Republican Party hi-jackers. This group feels they are taking a stand that is necessary and valuable even if the result is a win for the Democrats. This side feels a write-in for Rohrer will do more good than harm.

What’s your opinion?

I left the following reply as a comment over there, but I also thought it was good enough to share here.

Here's the cold hard fact that matters: Tom Corbett and Dan Onorato are the two major party nominees, and one of them is going to be the next governor of Pennsylvania.

Suppose, somehow, 1,000,000 PA conservatives are persuaded to turn out and write in Rohrer. What do you think the probability of that is?
Now guess what? You're still 600,000 votes shy of what Lynn Swann got in 2006, and he lost to Rendell big time.

And so voting for Rohrer out as a viable electoral strategy. So we're back to a choice between Corbett and Onorato as to who we realistically want to win.

If you're a South Park fan, you might recall this episode. And you might say at first that you're facing a similar choice in PA this year.

Stop and think about it, though. You really don't think Corbett is going to make "conservative" choices much more often than Onorato?

Yes, Corbett can be thin-skinned. Yes, he's made an idiotic comment or two about a living Constitution. Yes, Jim Cawley isn't any conservative's first choice as Lt. Governor.

None of that should sway your choice when you compare Corbett, who without prompting can name nearly a dozen taxes he'd like to reduce or repeal, with Onorato, who's never met a tax he didn't like.

Onorato, who's got all the principle and concern for the citizens of this fine Commonwealth that his patron Ed Rendell has.

Onorato, who's been actively evading the constitutional requirement of an Allegheny County property reassessment for the past 5 years.

Remember who your choices are.

It's great to see all the conservative energy behind Rohrer, and we can all wish that he'd won the primary, but that's over.

That energy needs to be channeled into things like getting the better nominees elected this fall, and rebuilding the local party organizations from within, via becoming precinct committeemen and other means. Let's not waste it on an effort that's going to fail.

Sam Rohrer's by all accounts a decent person and he's got a great future as a PA conservative leader. It's time for him to rest up for his next big fight, however.

AARP and alternatives, Part I

2010-07-13T10:00:00.000-04:00

I just got this e-mail forwarded to me. It's been going around since at least last fall, and Snopes has authenticated the authorship and identified the recipient as A. Barry Rand, CEO of the American Association of Retired Persons.

I'm going to just reproduce that in its entirety here, and follow up with another post on alternative organizations that some folks may want to consider joining. Feel free to add your thoughts.

Dear Mr. Rand,

Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. I know it is not what you were looking for, but this is the most honest response I can give you. Our gap in coverage is merely a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.

While we have proudly maintained our membership for several years and have long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse it’s abdication of our values. Your letter specifically stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.

Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama administration and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!

We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities.

This Presidential Administration scares the living daylights out of us.. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage. But even more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic.. I have never in my life endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don’t have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities it requires..

Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING??? Someone has broken into our ‘house’, invaded our home without our invitation or consent. The President has insisted we keep the perpetrator in comfort and learn the perp language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them.

I DON’T choose to welcome them.

I DON’T choose to support them.

I DON’T choose to educate them.

I DON’T choose to medicate them, pay for their food or clothing.

American home invaders get arrested.

Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get?

Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break & enter to be welcomed?

We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 7,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 7,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current administration. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America. Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than one which is power driven.

We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you.

I am disappointed as hell.

I am scared as hell.

I am MAD as hell, and I’m NOT gonna take it anymore!

Walt & Cyndy

Miller Farms Equine Transport

Al Gore Has A Problem With Happy Endings

2010-06-24T04:52:00.005-04:00

The former veep/perpetual teller of depressing environmental fairy tales seems to have made a Clintonian slip with a masseuse in Oregon in October 2006.

HT to The Other McCain, who's posted on it here, here, and here.

The Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office confirmed today that a woman who alleged unwanted sexual contact by Al Gore reported it to police in 2006, and the prosecutor’s office was briefed by the Portland Police Bureau in late 2006 and January 2007.
“We were told the woman was not willing to be interviewed by the Portland Police Bureau and did not want a criminal investigation to proceed,’’ Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk said, in a prepared statement.

And:

The masseuse told investigators about an evening massage session during which Gore allegedly became enraged at times and tried to gain sexual favors from the woman.
“I was shocked and I did not massage beyond what is considered a safe, nonsexual area of the abdomen,” she said. “He further insisted and acted angry, becoming verbally sharp and loud.”

My favorite comment about it so far comes from TOM commenter Paul Mitchell:

Goodness, the entire Clinton administration is guilty of rape. The law dogs better keep a sharp eye on Rahm and Hillary.

Cross-posted to RedState.

Thomas Sowell reading recommendations

2010-06-17T14:39:00.001-04:00

I’ve been asked by several folks to recommend specific books by Thomas Sowell, since I’ve read about 20 of them in the past year and a half. That number’s not so high because I’m such a voracious reader, but rather because Sowell’s such a phenomenal writer that his books can be read quickly.

The first thing that a new reader of Sowell should be aware of is that though he was trained as an economist, ultimately receiving a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago (Milton Friedman was one of his teachers there), he’s written great analysis of many different subjects that aren’t strictly related. This is important for 2 reasons.

First, it shows that possibly more than any other living American writer, he knows how to think. Before our educational institutions were dumbed down with feel-good nonsense unrelated to actual learning, teachers (ideally speaking) considered it more important that their students were able to think using logic and empirical evidence than that they knew particular sets of facts. Sowell’s ability to think has made his books troves of subtle wisdom, and is delightfully contagious as well.

The second, and more obvious reason that you need to care about Sowell’s diversity of writings is that what book you’ll want to read depends on your specific interest. Broadly speaking, his books can be classified in the following categories:

Elementary Economics
Race/Culture Issues
Late Talking Children
“Intellectuals”* and decision-making
Education
Economic Theory

I’ll make some recommendations here by category:

Elementary Economics

This would include Basic Economics, Applied Economics, and Economic Facts and Fallacies. I’d recommend reading Basic Economics thoroughly (as well as testing yourself with the questions Sowell helpfully has provided at the back of the book) if you’ve never read anything on the subject before or taken an econ course. If you’re more advanced in your knowledge of economics, it’s still worth reading through quickly for the specific examples.

Applied Economics and Economic Facts and Fallacies are, as the titles would suggest, a bit more advanced (and Economic Facts and Fallacies in particular gets into some of the other categories of Sowell’s writing).

Race/Culture Issues

I’d start here with Black Rednecks and White Liberals, Affirmative Action Around The World, or Ethnic America. If you’re motivated, you could read through his Race and Culture 3-volume work, each volume of which is between 400 and 500 pages of text. (The specific books are titled Race and Culture, Migrations and Cultures, and Conquests and Cultures, but it’s not necessary to read them in any particular order.)

Late-Talking Children

This includes Late Talking Children as well as The Einstein Syndrome: Bright Children Who Talk Late (my most recent Sowell read). These are obviously written for a more specific audience, but The Einstein Syndrome has some interesting insight into gifted children in general as well as the education system. Sowell actually started writing about this by chance (his son John was extremely bright but didn’t start talking until after age 3).

“Intellectuals” and decision-making

In this category I’d put The Vision of The Anointed, A Conflict of Visions, Knowledge and Decisions, The Quest For Cosmic Justice and Intellectuals And Society.

The Vision of The Anointed is possibly the best insight into the “thinking” of the intelligent leftist that’s ever been written, and if I absolutely had to pick one book from this post to recommend to everyone, that would be it.

Knowledge And Decisions is a great insight into the technical reasons that collectivism fails.

The others in this category contain many of the same insights, but I’d especially suggest Intellectuals And Society, the most current of Sowell’s books.

Education

Inside American Education is a great summary of many problems with the educational systems prevailing in the US. Choosing The Right College is fairly self-explanatory, and obviously of particular interest to parents of teenagers.

Economic Theory

In this category would be books like Say’s Law: An Historical Analysis, On Classical Economics, and Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. These, particularly Say’s Law, require background knowledge of economic theory and philosophy to be maximally edifying. If that doesn’t describe you, I wouldn’t categorically advise against reading them, but be aware that it won’t be a casual endeavor.

Other Miscellaneous

Sowell’s also published several collections of his syndicated columns, such as Is Reality Optional?, Barbarians Inside The Gates and Ever Wonder Why. Handy just to have them in book form.

The Housing Boom and Bust is good, but again hard to categorize.

Lastly, there are his more personal books: A Personal Odyssey and A Man of Letters.

That’s about all I can think of. Feel free to point out anything I missed, and happy reading!

*I’ve put “intellectuals” in quotes because when Sowell writes, he doesn’t really use the term generically to refer to someone who’s smart, well-educated, or working in an academic setting, but to someone who makes a living from ideas alone. The preface to Intellectuals And Society explains why this distinction matters.

Cross-posted to RedState.

Dan Onorato: Working Hard To Replace "Unrealistic" With "Ambitious" Everywhere

2010-06-10T00:43:00.004-04:00

I almost feel sorry for the poor staffers who have to come up with these non-achievements. From Allegheny County's website, via Pittsburgh Business Times:

Allegheny County recognizes the importance of reducing our energy consumption and the associated carbon footprint of County Government. We're pleased to publish our first benchmark inventory of our carbon footprint, along with an action plan for reducing our carbon-equivalent emissions and greenhouse gases. The County established reduction goals via the Executive Order decreed in October 2009. These ambitious goals call for:

* Reducing the County’s greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption by 20% from their 2008 levels by 2015
* Converting the County fleet vehicles and motorized equipment to technologies with higher efficiency and lower emissions by 5% annually from 2010 through 2014 and
* Improving water efficiency by 20% by 2015, which will also impact regional energy usage and carbon production

I'm reluctantly going to move on to more exciting things, but it's worth sharing the Executive Order as well as the full energy use report (both PDF). They're kind of perversely amusing, being chock-full of grandiose ideas and devoid of action. Though there might be a few new positions created by the Executive Order somewhere amid all the other dry language.

Reason 1,345,247 why I read Sowell so much

2010-06-06T17:49:00.003-04:00

His unhesitating willingness to slaughter sacred cows, as exemplified by this quote from page 136 of The Einstein Syndrome:

Too often the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is cited as if it represented scientific certainty, rather than a committee-written compendium with widely varying mixtures of hard facts and fashionable speculations.

Bill Maher: I Want Obama To Bust A Cap In The Asses of BP Execs

2010-06-05T14:11:00.003-04:00

In case you missed this last week. I did, but Stephen Kruiser and Streiff didn't.

I thought when we elected a black president, we were going to get a black president. You know, this [BP oil spill] is where I want a real black president. I want him in a meeting with the BP CEOs, you know, where he lifts up his shirt where you can see the gun in his pants. That’s — (in black man voice) ‘we’ve got a motherfu**ing problem here?’ Shoot somebody in the foot.

The best part starts around 1:30.

Obama shunned in western PA?

2010-06-04T03:13:00.003-04:00

Brian O'Connor thinks so, based on this Trib article. I'd tend to agree, given Obama's reverse Midas touch this year.

WTAE has semi-objective reporting on the presidential visit.

Cross-posted to PAWatercooler.

PA-12: Quick thoughts

2010-05-18T16:21:00.003-04:00

Weather's looking good here. Maybe light showers in Greene County (at the far southwest corner of the state) before the polls close.

Earlier there was a report that 175 people double voted in one particular precinct. At this time that seems more like an honest mistake - Fayette County isn't really strong Critz territory.

I'll be slightly off for a few hours, tweeting what I can.

PA Unofficial Election Results

2010-05-18T15:01:00.004-04:00

Figured I'd link this for those interested in watching as they come in.

Here are the PA-12 Special election results.

Legislative special elections: 20th(Allegheny County), 138th(Northampton), 147th(Montgomery).

Statewide primaries(governor, lt. governor, U.S. Senate).

U.S. Congress primaries.

PA Senate primaries.

PA Representative primaries.

Democratic state committee.

Republican state committee - may be an interesting write-in in this category :)

PA-12: Tim Burns votes

2010-05-18T10:58:00.007-04:00

In Washington County, PA, there's a town with a distinctive name: Eighty-Four. This town's probably best known for its namesake lumber company.

This morning, though, Eighty-Four has gotten attention as the home of Tim Burns, probably the next congressman for the 12th district. Burns went to Wylandville Elementary School a few hours ago to cast his vote in today's primary and special election, accompanied by his sons and a gaggle of cheerful volunteers.

Burns is traveling throughout the sprawling district today rallying voters and volunteers.

More updates to follow. Stacy McCain should also be on the ground shortly in the district with his talents, and Brian O'Connor of Red Dog Report may have updates as well.

For some reason I can't get Twitter to open right now, but you can also watch the #PA12 hashtag if you aren't already.

Vote!

2010-05-18T07:02:00.004-04:00

What Midnight Blue said. And Red Dog Report. It's election day in PA. I'm off to the polls in a minute myself.

Don't know where your polling place is? Find it here!

PA-4: VERY last minute candidate interviews

2010-05-18T05:18:00.003-04:00

Yeah, I know. The primaries in PA are today. I almost literally ran into Mary Beth Buchanan last night, though, and asked her a few questions. Please forgive me my imperfections with the camera:

Later in the evening I talked with Keith Rothfus on the phone:

Cross-posted to RedState and PAWatercooler.

PA-4: What if Mary Beth Buchanan held a press conference...

2010-05-15T01:28:00.001-04:00

and the majority of the local press apparently didn't think she said anything newsworthy?

Buchanan promised a "significant campaign announcement", which turned out to be simply an accusation that her GOP primary opponent Keith Rothfus voted as a Democrat throughout the 1990s. Interestingly enough, county election officials promptly refuted that claim:

Republican congressional candidate Mary Beth Buchanan accused her primary challenger Friday of voting as a Democrat throughout the 1990s, but election officials said the data she used is unreliable.

And:

At a news conference this morning outside the County Office Building, Downtown, Buchanan's aides handed out a printout of Rothfus' voting history. The printout shows that Rothfus registered as a Democrat in 1990 and voted in 18 elections as a Democrat before voting in the 2004 general election as a Republican.

"What I learned is that (Rothfus) wasn't just trying to hide his lack of experience, but that he was hiding that he was a registered Democrat for 13 years," Buchanan said.

But Mark Wolosik, head of the Allegheny County Elections Department, said the party history data is unreliable because the county switched computer systems in August 2003. Whatever party the person was registered as at that time was assigned as the party for all previous elections.

WPXI reported this announcement as well, but at last check KDKA, WTAE, and the Post-Gazette didn't mention this "significant campaign announcement" at all.

Not that they're, of course, the only local media.

Cross-posted to PAWatercooler.

Update: Tim McNulty of the Post-Gazette advises that he did indeed write a blog post and a regular article on Buchanan's press conference.

Folks driving 300+ miles to support Tim Burns

2010-05-14T21:08:00.010-04:00

Late on a Friday night at Burns campaign headquarters in Washington, PA, the campaigning continues. These enthusiastic volunteers are sparing no effort to get the votes for Tim on Tuesday.

Danielle, Kyle, and Alex doing their part to get out the vote:

George Faulds is gushing with enthusiasm for Tim:

Allison Gilliland, and Brad Marston, who took time out of his own campaign to drive to Washington and make calls for Tim Burns:
Duste Craig drove all the way from Baltimore:

Simply an outstanding effort, just like many other folks in Johnstown have been doing.

Cross-posted to RedState.

Quick PA-12 update

2010-05-14T16:03:00.002-04:00

Right now I'm at Burns for Congress HQ with Robert Stacy McCain, Brian O'Connor, and John LaRosa.

Scott Brown's event went well. Check out Stacy's coverage here.

I've never heard of anything like a local TV station pulling a campaign ad for factual inaccuracy. Wow.

The Susquehanna poll that Neil Stevens mentioned isn't anything to fret too much about. Folks I talked to from the Burns campaign weren't stressing over it when I stopped by his HQ yesterday. It's a close race and GOP folks need to work our asses off calling and canvassing this weekend, but you absolutely should not make any conclusions, inferences, or judgments based on that poll.

I've called and e-mailed the Russell campaign asking for them to reply to this question. Haven't got a personal reply, but they have sent out an (incredibly unenthusiastic) e-mail urging their supporters to vote Burns in the special and Russell in the primary. About the best they'll do I suppose.

Can't say enough how important it is to support any GOP candidate against a Dem.

Cross-posted to RedState

Interesting observations about offended Muslims and car bombs

2010-05-12T03:30:00.002-04:00

I've come across two interesting articles pertaining to the recent South Park depiction of Muhammad and the possibly-related Times Square bombing attempt.

First is this Time piece on what the damage would have been had Faisal Shahzad's bomb worked as intended:

If the bomb planted in a green 1993 Nissan Pathfinder SUV on the evening of May 1 had exploded, here's what would have happened, according to retired New York police department bomb-squad detective Kevin Barry. The car would have turned into a "boiling liquid explosive." The propane tanks that the bomb comprised would have overheated and ignited into "huge blowtorches" that could have been ejected from the vehicle. The explosion, lasting only a few seconds, would have created a thermal ball wide enough to swallow up most of the intersection. A blast wave would have rocketed out in all directions at speeds of 12,000 to 14,000 ft. per sec. (3,700 to 4,300 m per sec.); hitting the surrounding buildings, the wave would have bounced off and kept going, as much as nine times faster than before. Anyone standing within 1,400 ft. (430 m) — about five city blocks — of the explosion would have been at risk of being hit by shrapnel and millions of shards of flying glass. The many who died would not die prettily. A TIME reporter familiar with the ravages of car bombs in Baghdad describes how victims appeared to be naked because a fireball melted their clothing onto the surface of their skin.

Next, a fascinating article from Raymond Ibrahim at Pajamas Media, on an Arabic satellite TV station that regularly goes a bit beyond simply depicting an image of Muhammad. Worth your while to read in full, but here's the first couple of paragraphs:

Which is more likely to elicit an irate Muslim response: 1) public cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, or 2) public proclamations that Muhammad was a bisexual, sometime transvestite and necrophile, who enjoyed sucking on the tongues of children, commanded a woman to “breastfeed” an adult man, and advised believers to drink his urine for salutary health?

Based on the recent South Park fiasco — where an animated episode depicting Muhammad in a bear suit sparked outrage among various Muslim groups, culminating with the usual death threats — the answer is clear: cartoons, once again, have proven to be the Muslim world’s premiere provocateur. Indeed, just yesterday, during a university lecture, Swedish artist Lars Vilks, whose life is in jeopardy due to his depiction of Muhammad as a dog, was violently assaulted to undulations of “Allahu Akbar!” (Islam’s primordial war cry).

Ibrahim goes on to describe how the Arabic-language satellite channel makes such statements about Muhammad on a weekly basis, and faces far less threatening behavior than Western cartoonists get now. Amazing what happens when you stand up for yourself, isn't it?

Mike Pence comes to PA-12 to support Burns

2010-05-10T23:22:00.015-04:00

Congressman Pence, chair of the House Republican Conference, who's been mentioned as a potential 2012 presidential candidate was at the Richland Township Fire Department near Johnstown yesterday, campaigning for Tim Burns in the May 18 special election.

A quick aside: I don't know if it strikes anyone as strange to see a political event held at a fire station, but volunteer fire companies in Pennsylvania are a unique institution - so much so that a common joke says "You know you're from PA when you can say 'firehall wedding reception' with a straight face". Yes, I've been to several, and Googling the term shows there's more than a grain of truth in that joke.

Back to the event: Pence is a fantastic speaker, and by all accounts the crowd left this event with even more motivation to send a message to the rest of the country in this important election.

Mike Pence and Tim Burns share a word after the rally

After leaving Richland, I went down the road to the Burns' Victory Office, set up in the Cambria County GOP headquarters.

Inside was a warm, welcoming environment, a far cry from my previous experience at a phone bank (making calls for McCain in '08 in an office 4 or 5 times as big, with bare walls, dozens of unmanned phones, and a palpable lack of enthusiasm. And fewer people there during evenings than were calling for Tim Burns on a weekday afternoon.)

Burns for Congress campaign manager Tad Rupp told me that the campaign made close to 50,000 phone calls last weekend alone.

Among those making calls was Tim Burns's aunt, Melanie Cowan, who said she's been there at least every other day for the past month:

This coming weekend, according to Rupp, is "the most important weekend before November" for the U.S. House, and if you're interested in making calls yourself, the Burns campaign has offices in Greensburg, Washington (PA), and Johnstown. You can make calls from home as well. as well.

PA-4: "He has been outworking her"

2010-05-10T11:12:00.003-04:00

The quote is from Jason Altmire, incumbent Democrat in the 4th Congressional District, referring to GOP primary candidates Keith Rothfus and Mary Beth Buchanan. (H/T PA2010.com.) This is an interesting matchup:

Party strategists list Buchanan among the marquee candidates they've attracted around the country.

But Rothfus, 48, of Edgeworth won't go away. He raised twice as much money as Buchanan last month -- $30,400 to her $14,400 -- and got support from Melissa Hart, the last Republican to hold the seat. And he attracted at least one unlikely compliment.

"He has been outworking her," said Rep. Jason Altmire, the McCandless Democrat they're trying to replace. Altmire is unopposed in the May 18 primary.

Buchanan, as the U.S. Attorney for the past 8 years, has much better name recognition, but Rothfus is convincing many, including Glen Meakem, that he's the better conservative candidate to take on Altmire, who may have the most credible "centrist" claims of any House Democrat.

Cross-posted to PAWatercooler.

PA-12: More on Critz' highly elastic claims

2010-05-09T23:16:00.003-04:00

Continuing on this post, discussing the latest ad from the Critz campaign, and the very, very indirect attacks on Tim Burns. The claim:

Tim Burns laid off his own workers in PA, and got tax breaks for outsourcing

Critz's camp cites this article from the Pittsburgh Business Times to show Burns's "indifference" to the prospect of layoffs at the company he founded. The "incriminating" quote:

Tim Burns, TechRx co-founder and vice president of product innovation, said the transaction is good news for the company and its investors. He said there may be a few layoffs in Pittsburgh because of consolidation of like business units, but he doesn't expect a major staff reduction.

"NDC acquired the business because they like what we're doing, not to completely disrupt it," Mr. Burns said.

It's worth noting also that any layoffs would have been done by the buyer NDC, and not by Tim Burns himself.

This article in the Post-Gazette, also cited by the Critz campaign as "proof" of Tim Burns-related job losses in western PA, reads as follows:

According to 2003 filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission -- first researched by the DCCC -- by NDC Health, the company that bought TechRx, the merger resulted in the elimination of 58 management jobs companywide. It's unclear how many of these jobs were in Western Pennsylvania, as the company had operations in Atlanta; Dallas; Birmingham, Ala.; Rockville, Md.; and Vancouver as well, Burns campaign spokesman Kent Gates said. But Gates, though he didn't have specific figures, said the operations in Moon near the Pittsburgh International Airport actually grew after the merger.(Emphasis added.)

The last claim, that Burns personally benefitted from outsourcing jobs, is supposedly shown by this article from The Hill:

Burns was an executive at NDCHealth Corp. from January to June 2003 after the company bought his start-up business, TechRx.

NDCHealth coordinates the flow of information between pharmacies, insurance companies, doctors and hospitals, according to a company release. It does business internationally and during the time Burns worked there the profit it made overseas was classifies as a "deferred tax liability."

In 2003, the company took in close to $407 million in revenue in the United States and $21 million abroad, according to its Securities and Exchange Commission filing. It paid a total of $1.55 million in taxes -- 40 percent of which was at the foreign tax rate of 1.2 percent as opposed to the 35 percent federal statutory rate.

Democrats argue that this means Burns was condoning the use of a tax "loophole."

This accusation is more plausible than the others at first glance, but like the claim that Tim Burns himself laid people off, it's faulty unless Tim Burns can be blamed for absolutely anything that NDC did. Two details worth noting here:

There's no hint that what NDC did was illegal. Tax mitigation strategies do not constitute tax evasion, and in my opinion it's foolish to blame a corporation (or an individual, for that matter) for minimizing their tax burden. If it's in fact too easy to classify income as "foreign", then the burden is on Congress to fix that, as they've done before with other "loopholes".
The Pittsburgh Business Times article linked above mentions this fact: "NDCHealth plans to acquire the remaining interest in TechRx in May 2003 if certain business objectives are met." Given that and the fact that Tim Burns left the company in June 2003, it seems far more likely that he was overseeing details related to the merger than planning tax mitigation.

The substance of these claims is further refuted by this letter from a former employee of TechRx, the company that Burns founded:

I don’t know where Mark Critz is getting his information about Tim Burns, but people need to know that a lot of it is just plain WRONG.

I worked for the company that Tim Burns started, and I never saw any form of outsourcing to foreign companies. In fact, when I started at TechRx, there were fewer than 30 employees; by the time I left in 2002, the company had grown to more than 400 employees. Tim sold the company to the larger corporation that helped fund that growth. And that “growth” meant jobs for Pittsburghers!

Eight years have passed since I left Tim’s company and I am still working on and supporting “his” software at another company (a mail service pharmacy that is a former client of Tim’s pharmacy software company). In fact, Tim’s statement that he created 400 jobs is actually an understatement because many more jobs resulted, both from the sale of the company and the sale of the source code to former clients.

Tim is a person of high integrity and knows what it takes to build businesses and create jobs. He is the kind of intelligent, non-career politician that we need in Washington to begin to change the irresponsible overspending and redistribution of wealth mentality that exists there now. If I lived in his district, I would, without a doubt, vote for him.

Dr. Diana L. Repack (and Dr. William F. Repack)

Former TechRx employee (1998-2002)

Moon Township, PA

Cross-posted to PAWatercooler.

PA-12: Is Mark Critz a fan of Spandex?

2010-05-09T19:36:00.013-04:00

Mark Critz seems to have an affinity for Spandex, with the stretching claims he makes in this ad:

Looking at this a claim at a time:

Burns wants to privatize Medicare and Social Security

Critz's claimed sources for this? The fact that the House Conservatives Fund has endorsed Burns, and Burns' claims in a candidate forum on April 28.

This is dubious as a source in the first place, and Critz doesn't even try to claim that Burns explicitly endorsed everything the HCF stands for. But suppose Tim Burns gave up thinking on his own entirely, and taken every single position of his directly from this organization endorsing him? Here's what the House Conservatives Fund's own website has to say about Social Security. Doesn't sound like privatization to me:

House conservatives tend to understand that Social Security provides a critical foundation of income for retired and disabled workers. Social Security is safe for today's seniors. However, the government does not save our Social Security taxes for future retirees. Congress borrows this extra money and uses it to make up for deficits elsewhere in the budget. Thus the Social Security trust fund contains nothing but IOUs the government has written to itself. For this reason, House conservatives should be encouraged to act now to seriously investigate long-term, structural reforms to Social Security.

And on Medicare:

Improving our nation's health care system is a priority for all American families. House Conservatives support competitive reforms designed to lower costs and ensure quality access to care. Policies that will increase competition and individual choice in the healthcare marketplace are essential in achieving greater efficiency and eliminating the rising costs of healthcare. It should not be the goal of government to subsidize health care but to seek solutions that will reduce the costs of procedures, consultations and medications.

Medicare is a vital program for America's elderly and disabled citizens. We believe in working hard to secure the program's future while strengthening the program to better meet the changing needs of today. House Conservatives are committed to securing adequate and affordable health care for seniors while stabilizing the burden placed on the American taxpayer

.

As for the April 28 forum? Here's the specific question Critz is alluding too, and Burns' answer. You be the judge if he supports privatization:

More to follow on the other claims made in this ad.

Cross-posted to PAWatercooler.

UPDATE(10:07PM): Critz also claimed that Tim Burns wants to "cut guaranteed benefits", citing the same sources. As with the claim of privatization made above, the sources don't support that claim.

Has Peg Luksik ever actually won an election?

2010-05-06T16:49:00.003-04:00

Just curious, but I'm pretty sure the answer's no. She's like the Harold Stassen of PA local politics. She's, uh, challenging Pat Toomey in the Senate primary on May 18.

I thought of that question after reading the last quote in that interview:

Toomey is considered the front-runner in the race for the Republican nomination, with the May 18 winner to face either Democrat Rep. Joe Sestak or Sen. Arlen Specter in the fall.

An April Quinnipiac University poll incorrectly said that Toomey was running unopposed.

Luksik said that many Republicans were "very insulted" by the oversight.

"It's like the moguls have decided for them," she said.

Despite the omission, Luksik said she would continue to run her campaign in her own style.

"It's quiet in that it's a people's campaign," she said. "I've always campaigned that way. No one sees me coming until Election Day."

We'll see. I wonder if she would have more of a chance if she wasn't also managing Bill Russell's campaign. Or what that would do for Russell, for that matter.

Post-Gazette endorses Burns, Bucchanieri in the PA-12 primaries

2010-05-05T17:30:00.005-04:00

From yesterday's editorial page. The key stuff:

Mr. Bucchianeri sees his lack of a government career as a plus and believes he can bring new energy and fresh perspective to the office. While both candidates were well-informed, Mr. Bucchianeri was direct and straightforward in his answers, while Mr. Critz, on controversial topics, was hedged and cautious. Ryan Bucchianeri may be the underdog in this matchup, but he has earned the Post-Gazette endorsement.

On the GOP primary:

Mr. Burns has the backing of party officials in the primary and is advertising heavily to make his candidacy known. Mr. Russell, at last report, raised more money but is waging a less visible campaign. That suggests Tim Burns would make a stronger candidate for the party in the fall, and on that basis he has earned the Post-Gazette endorsement.

I'd add too that Burns was chosen over Russell by almost 2/3 of the GOP conferees from PA-12, all of whom reside in the district.

Cross-posted to PAWaterCooler.

Michael Bloomberg and Contessa Brewer are idiots

2010-05-05T16:53:00.002-04:00

Contessa Brewer was "hoping [the Times Square bomber] was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country."

Brewer continued, "...There are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry."

The News live host didn't explain which ethnicity or religion she had been hoping the bomber would have been affiliated with. She did defensively mention members of a Michigan militia group arrested in March and asserted that they were "from far different backgrounds than what this guy is coming from."

On the positive side, MSNBC didn't try to edit bombing suspect Faisal's ethnicity or religion like they did to show this "white" guy with a gun "threatening" the president last year. Take a wild guess which anchor was involved there.

In other out of touch elitist news, Michael Bloomberg made this stunningly accurate guess into the bomber's motives as well:

“If I had to guess, 25 cents, I would guess exactly that. Somebody whose homegrown maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something.”

Good guess.

Victor Davis Hanson asks the question that those who share the Vision of The Anointed can't bear to: "Is there a pattern here?"

Times Square bombing suspect arrested

2010-05-04T00:27:00.007-04:00

MSNBC reports:

NEW YORK - Authorities arrested a suspect in the attempted weekend car bombing in Times Square, NBC News' justice correspondent Pete Williams reported early Tuesday morning.

A U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, Shahzad Faisal, was arrested Monday night on Long Island, Williams reported.

Earlier, an official told The Associated Press that the potential suspect recently traveled to Pakistan. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the case was at a sensitive stage.

If you haven't read much on this yet, the above MSNBC link is pretty good background.

My thoughts?

1. The fact that the truck was parked at the front door of the Viacom building (Viacom owns Comedy Central) should strongly suggest, to anyone with a modicum of sense, that the recent South Park controversy might have had something to do with this.

2. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's warning against dismissing the threats of "nobodies" was spot-on.

3. I wonder if the idea of blaming "Hateful Racist Teabaggers" for violence will be slowed down at all by the arrest of a perp from a country that's 96% Muslim?

4. No one should take that much comfort in this guy's incompetence. All he needed was a little bit more skill with detonators to succeed in his mission, and then you'd have hundreds of dead New Yorkers.

5. If he bought the SUV before the South Park episodes aired (the MSNBC article describes it as "weeks ago", which doesn't make this clear) then what other targets did he have in mind?

UPDATE(1): Melissa Clouthier posts more details and analysis.

UPDATE(2): Dan Riehl suggests Faisal may have been selling real-estate on Craigslist.

UPDATE(3): And The Other McCain, with the fantastic title "NYC Bomb Suspect Faisal Shahzad Arrested at JFK; Glenn Beck Still at Large"

Russell campaign coordinating with PACs?

2010-05-03T14:47:00.004-04:00

From National Journal via Dan Riehl:

A political action committee connected to a controversial GOP consulting firm is running ads on behalf of one of the firm's major clients, raising questions about coordination between groups that are required by law to operate independently of each other.

The PAC, Freedom's Defense Fund, is running an ad on behalf of Iraq war veteran William Russell (R), the '08 GOP nominee against Rep. John Murtha (D). Though he raised and spent nearly $3.5M, Russell was not the party's choice to run for Murtha's seat when the long-time Congressman passed away earlier this year.

Instead, PA GOPers picked businessman Tim Burns (R) to carry their standard in the May 18 special election. But that wasn't the end of Russell's hopes; May 18 is also the date of the regularly scheduled primary, in which Russell is competing against Burns.

The competitive primary could put Burns in an awkward position of having to defend his right flank while simultaneously appealing to the Dem voters in the overwhelmingly Dem district as he faces a special election and a primary on the same day. Russell, after all, has been on a ballot before; he won 42% of the vote against Murtha in '08.

Enter Freedom's Defense Fund, which late last week dropped $20K into an ad buy on Russell's behalf. The ad calls Russell a "true conservative," a "tireless campaigner" and a "proven fundraiser."

Freedom's Defense Fund, a PAC founded just before the '04 elections, lists as its address in the ad the same downtown DC address as Base Connect, a GOP direct-mail firm that has helped Russell raise millions through direct mail solicitations.

More on this to come.

Cross-posted to RedState.

Horrible Skittles commercial

2010-05-03T02:30:00.003-04:00

Randomly stumbled across this. It's kind of making me hungry for some, just because I haven't had any in a while, but updating the tragic tale of Midas doesn't seem like a good way to sell anything, really:

PA-12 Update

2010-04-30T16:22:00.004-04:00

I'm going to keep posting on this race. Next Wednesday Tim Burns and Mark Critz will debate each other without the other 3 candidates from this week's forum. At this time I plan on being at that debate as well.

Robert Stacy McCain writes more about this race here and here.

Also, here's a map of the district, indirectly via Govtrack.us.

View PA-12 in a larger map

Cross-posted at RedState.

More of Burns and a flustered Critz

2010-04-29T16:09:00.002-04:00

I made a further edit of my video from last night's PA-12 debate. This clip shows the notable closing statements*, including Tim Burns's linking of Mark Critz and Nancy Pelosi, and Critz's bizarre and stunning apology to the Burns camp for ads he'd run attacking Burns's position on taxes.

*I've left out Bill Russell, Don Mackell, and Ryan Bucchanieri who are running in the primary on the same day but not the special election.

Cross-posted to RedState.

PA-12 candidates debate

2010-04-29T14:44:00.004-04:00

I took this video last night at the debate between the PA-12 candidates on the ballot May 18 at Westmont Hilltop High School near Johnstown. Robert Stacy McCain was on hand, and here's a bit of his reporting on the race.

If you haven't been following this race, there are actually 2 separate elections: first, the more prominent special election between businessman Tim Burns and John Murtha staffer Mark Critz to serve the remainder of Murtha's term, and second, GOP and Democrat primary races for the November general election. (The GOP primary is between Burns, Bill Russell, and Ron Mackell, and the Dem primary is between Critz and Ryan Bucchanieri.)

Below are the candidates' closing statements. Burns is on from about 3:30 to 5:05, and Critz from 6:10 to 8:15. Critz's apology for positions he'd attributed to Burns, which stunned members of the Burns campaign, starts at around 6:50.

Also, I've got some Q&A sessions for the candidates uploaded here and here.

Thoughts on Organ Sales

2010-04-28T10:12:00.004-04:00

This article on a proposal by a lawmaker from New York caught my eye:

ALBANY, N.Y. - A New York assemblyman whose daughter is alive because of two kidney transplants wants his state to become the first in the nation to pass laws that would presume people want to donate their organs unless they specifically say otherwise.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky believes the "presumed consent" measures would help combat a rising demand for healthy organs by patients forced to wait a year or more for transplants. Twenty-four European countries already have such laws in place, he said.

It goes on:

Brodsky's interest in organ donation is personal; his 18-year-old daughter, Julianne "Willie" Brodsky, received a kidney four years ago from a donor who was struck by lightning and an earlier transplant from her mother.

"People's survival should not rest on acts of God alone," said the elder Brodsky, a Westchester County Democrat.

Advocates say the availability of healthy donor organs is low just about everywhere nationwide, where 106,000 people are on a waiting list that averages three to four years for each type of organ. (emphasis added)

I'd add that in 2008, in the U.S. alone, 5000 people died waiting for a kidney transplant. This isn't a theoretical problem by any means, and it's personal to me because a friend of mine died 2 months ago as an indirect result of the faulty system for organ allocation that we have today.

I'm much more inclined to support allowing compensation for organ donors or their families, which has been against the law since the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984. Though presumed consent could reduce the shortage of organs, it's got moral problems of its own - people are going to be offended that their relative's organs are taken without their consent.

I've discussed this issue with many people who tend to recoil at the idea, because it's viscerally repugnant to think about people buying and selling body parts. I've had one friend say it "incentivizes murder", and I can't recall a single instance where the reply was "yeah that's a great idea!".

Usually, though, people have found it persuasive that it's not wrong for families of the deceased to be able to better pay funeral expenses or medical bills, or for a living organ donor to receive compensation given the pain and risk of undergoing surgery. And the estimated costs of a donor organ are far less than the cost of continued dialysis, as Alex Tabarrok's op-ed linked above points out.

And as mentioned above, this issue is not abstract to me. My friend was on the waiting list for a kidney transplant. She also worked in a doctor's office, and was well aware of how donor organs are allocated, and that a cancer diagnosis would move her to the bottom of the waiting list. So she hid the lump on her shoulder as best she could, figuring that she'd get her transplant and then treat the cancer.

She was in one of the top 5 slots on the waiting list when she collapsed, had to be taken to the ER and couldn't hide the cancer any longer. 2 months later she was dead at 35. I can't help but wonder how many others have had their lives cut tragically short by the same misguided law.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the South Park censorship

2010-04-27T19:39:00.003-04:00

If you're not familiar with her, she's a native of Somalia, former member of the Dutch Parliament, and outspoken critic of Islam. I've read her book Infidel, which was quite eye-opening (few passages in any book that I've read are more graphic and painful to read than her description of undergoing genital mutilation.) She also co-produced "Submission" with Theo Van Gogh, who was later murdered by an Islamist for making said film.
Ali has an op-ed in today's WSJ on the South Park Muhammad controversy.

I recommend reading in its entirety, but her argument could be summarized as follows:

Though RevolutionMuslim seems like a fringe group making idle threats (I described them that way in my previous post on the matter), previously obscure Islamists killed Theo Van Gogh and instigated riots over the Danish cartoons published in 2005.
RevolutionMuslim's threat isn't just the rants of a lunatic, it's an informal fatwa using the basic principle in Islamic scripture of "commanding right and forbidding wrong", which is an obligation on all male Muslims.
Since there are a sufficient number of male Islamists to carry out this threat, Parker, Stone, and Comedy Central should take it seriously and protect themselves.

She offers suggested responses including, interestingly enough,

...to do stories of Muhammad where his image is shown as much as possible. These stories do not have to be negative or insulting, they just need to spread the risk. The aim is to confront hypersensitive Muslims with more targets than they can possibly contend with.
Another important advantage of such a campaign is to accustom Muslims to the kind of treatment that the followers of other religions have long been used to. After the "South Park" episode in question there was no threatening response from Buddhists, Christians and Jews—to say nothing of Tom Cruise and Barbra Streisand fans—all of whom had far more reason to be offended than Muslims.

A bunch of folks have decided to make May 20 "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day". I think that's a great idea and I'd participate myself if I could draw worth a damn.

Thanks to Stacy McCain and Bob Belvedere for linking my previous post.

UPDATE: The Jawa Report with a reason to keep laughing at Zach Chesser, aka Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee: "Confirmed: Guy Who Threatened South Park Creators Lives in Mom's Basement"

Also, the always hilarious Frank J. offers his thoughts.

Comedy Central surrenders to petty thugs

2010-04-22T16:20:00.005-04:00

I'm a huge South Park fan. It probably helps that the creators' generous streaming of every episode online works well for someone like me who doesn't DVR or watch TV as scheduled very often. So naturally, I find it absolutely appalling that Comedy Central has censored the most recent episode.

What disgusts me even more with this incident is that the group "Revolution Muslim" "warning" South Park creators that they'll end up like Theo Van Gogh are absolute nobodies. They're nothing but talk. And Comedy Central's creators have given into their threat, which is absolute cowardice, especially considering that these clowns are 5 or 6 steps from being willing and able to do actual harm to anyone.

If anyone's interested in letting these fools know what you think, contact info for Revolution Muslim (their website is down, I got this from the cached version):

Phone: (212) 203-7606
E-mail: revolutionmuslim@gmail.com

Contact info for Comedy Central:

Viewer feedback form
Phone: (212) 767-8600
Fax: (212) 767-8592
E-mail: mail@comedycentral.com

Some links I like

2010-04-12T01:30:00.001-04:00

I've been trying to blog more, and these recent sites have been open in Firefox for basically the whole weekend. I thought I was going to make an individual post on each but I don't have the time and other work and school requirements are beckoning, so I'll share quickly.

Walter Williams has a great syndicated column this week, "Parting Company". Worth reading in its entirety but this might be the key paragraph:

The problem that our nation faces is very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows. Of course, the marriage can remain intact and one party tries to impose his will on the other and engage in the deviousness of one-upsmanship. Rather than submission by one party or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.

I'd add (and Dr. Williams seems to share the sentiment in the last sentence of his piece) that the best alternative of all is restoration, as hard as it might be.

Andrew McCarthy criticizes David Petraeus for statements he recently made about Israel.

A fascinating new phenomena: the "retrosexual." Apparently it's now cool for guys to dress so as to evoke the men their grandfathers were. (This link came via my friend Adrienne Royer who amusingly described this style as "Guys playing dress-up.")

Going through my bookmarks, I came across the opinion of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Bradshaw v. Unity Marine. No idea how I found this, but it's absolutely hilarious.

Last, a video from Caleb Brown, a George Mason University Econ student, describing the risks a couple in Alexandria, VA took to start a business. (HT Don Boudreaux)

BREAKING: Men eager to view topless women

2010-04-07T05:04:00.002-04:00

No, this isn't from the Onion:

About two dozen women marched topless from Longfellow Square to Tommy's Park this afternoon in an effort to erase what they see as a double standard on male and female nudity.

A group of women and men who had shed their tops march down a Congress Street sidewalk from Longfellow Square to Tommy's Park. They were promoting the freedom of women to be topless in public. The group attracted many amateur and professional photographers.

The women, preceded and followed by several hundred boisterous and mostly male onlookers, many of them carrying cameras, stayed on the sidewalk because they hadn't obtained a demonstration permit to walk in the street. About a thousand people gathered as the march passed through Monument Square, a mix of demonstrators, supporters, onlookers and those just out enjoying a warm and sunny early-spring day.

I loved this reaction from one of the organizers, too:

Ty McDowell, who organized the march, said she was "enraged" by the turnout of men attracted to the demonstration. The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around topless as it does to men without shirts on.

Right. Because there's no difference between male and female anatomy, is there? None that I can think of, at least. Theoretically.

Dr. Helen and Instapundit have commented on the same. (HT to The Other McCain for the links.)

And the children shall lead them

2010-04-02T23:31:00.004-04:00

I was going to make some kind of reference to The Emperor's New Clothes, but my friend Alexa beat me to the punch. So I'll just share my favorite pic of the day and get my blogging drought over with:

You can read the article here, but the pic pretty much says it all.

The Wall - my memories and thoughts

2009-11-09T14:48:00.004-05:00

This is a little more serious than I usually am when posting here, but I feel like it's appropriate today.

20 years ago, when the Berlin Wall ceased to imprison a nation, I was 8 years old. I didn't understand how the Cold War came to be, but the earliest times I remember hearing of the Cold War, Communism, and the wall itself they were facts of life to the adults who talked about them. There wasn't any sense that the situation would ever change, much less that it would do so imminently. Knowing what I do now I think that my family's attitude toward the Cold War was fairly typical.

I was probably aware of the existence of Communism and of the Berlin Wall at some point in 1986 and 1987. I was much too young at the time to understand the ideologies behind the conflict; however my parents vividly imparted to me that behind the Iron Curtain the people had a fundamental lack of the freedom that we Americans enjoyed. They also told me of the Wall, the most prominent symbol of the bondage of millions - and I was happy that I lived in a free country, though I didn't completely understand what made us free and the East Germans not so.

I remember when the Wall was breached, watching the jubilant German people on the evening news, and thinking that those people were now free too, just like me. I still didn't understand entirely what it meant to be free, but I knew that it was better than the alternative - and the people on the TV looked like they thought so too.

I'm asking myself now, what were those people on the TV 20 years ago seeking to be free from? What were they seeking to get away from, and why? What, ultimately, was so bad about Communism that millions would want to escape it, would embarrass its administrators in dozens of nations with this desire, would result in those governments constructing fortifications to keep people who shared their language and cultural heritage from fleeing?

As easy as it would be to think of it as a conflict between good and evil people, I've come to the conclusion that the real battle was, and is, between good and evil systems of government. Not that the systems of government "forced" people to do various good or bad deeds; but that on one side of the Wall 20 years ago was a system that resulted in behavior beneficial to others, and on the other side a system existed that promoted the more undesirable tendencies of humanity.

On one side of the Wall, the system effectively restrained the desire of the people to force their preferences onto others; on the other side the system enabled those harmful desires.

On one side of the Wall, loyalty to one's family was generally treated as a virtue; on the other side, it was more likely an impediment to career advancement.

On one side of the Wall, a candidate winning 60% of the votes in an election was an extraordinary success; on the other, "winning" 90% or more was routine.

On one side of the Wall, goods and services were sold for whatever the market would bear, and the people generally prospered; with time and money for leisure and less basic concerns, many took an interest in the environment and started one of the most prominent Green parties in the world. On the other side, government officials enforced "fair" prices on everyday staple items, which however were frequently unavailable. The environment wasn't nearly as much of a concern for the workers, and it deteriorated to a great extent.

The people on one side of the Wall could cross to the other side almost anytime they wished, unmolested. Relatively few stayed for long.

Those on the other side, until that day 20 years ago, risked being shot for trying to cross to the West, and could never return. Yet they continued to attempt to escape.

I think the Wall was so memorable because it illustrated, like no other barrier in existence, the differences between the Free World (markets, open elections, and relatively limited government) and the Communist world (lacking all of those). This was not a barrier between hostile ethnic groups or nations, imposed by both sides to keep peace. It was built by one side alone, and separated people who shared 1000 years of a common language and an illustrious history in commerce, the arts, and craftsmanship. It showed the failure of one system and the success of another.

We must be constantly vigilant not to forget that lesson.

Christopher Renner Is Presumptuous And Thinks He Can Explain Twitter To You, Assuming You're Unfamiliar

2009-10-22T00:23:00.017-04:00

I like Twitter, which I think is pretty well evidenced by the Twitterfeed on the right side of the page here. I also think that it's highly polarizing - opinions I've heard can be neatly divided into "it's awesome!" and "it's the stupidest thing I've seen! You're on it too much". Additionally, the social networking benefits aren't as immediately visible as, for example, MySpace and Facebook with their many pronged user interface, and the fraction of new users who remain on Twitter is significantly lower.

So I've decided to share a few thoughts (and improve my screenshot skills) on what exactly Twitter is all about, and why I think it's useful.

Also I think it's worth noting at this point - every service I mention here is FREE to the user.

Here we go:

What's in a Tweet?

The individual 140-characters-or-less Tweet is the basic element of Twitter. Below is a screenshot one of my recent Tweets; I'll talk more about the specific parts of it momentarily. You can click this image and any other for a full-screen view.

This looks pretty simple, but there are quite a few cool links within that tweet that aren't noticeable until you move the mouse over them. I'll start with the first, the "@reply" (spoken as "at-reply"), which I've highlighted here.

The "@ reply" magically transforms my tweet from a boring blurb about my breakfast to a delightful public conversation, welcoming all the world to join in. Well that's a slight exaggeration on my part. "@ replying" does, however, go a long way in making one's tweets less of an expression of vanity and more of a means of communication.

Here's how - when I include the @, followed in this case by "emdesign" (my friend Erin's Twitter username), anywhere at all in the Tweet - the Tweet becomes specifically addressed to her. It's still viewable by everyone else, but Erin can also view a list of @ replies addressed specifically to her, which will now contain my Tweet. (To see what this looks like in practice, here's a feed of Tweets that have mentioned me.(@chris_renner))

I think the @ reply is probably the best feature of Twitter - it easily enables you to communicate directly with other users in an amazingly simple fashion. And unlike Myspace, Facebook, and instant messaging, you can address more than one person simultaneously this way.

On to the other features of a Tweet:

In this photo I've highlighted the timestamp. This actually does more than simply illustrate the time that I sent it, it contains the permalink to the specific tweet.
I didn't notice this feature for the first several months of using Twitter, but it's useful to know if you want to share a specific tweet, particularly with someone who's not on Twitter yet. For example when a breaking news event happens. Or your favorite celebrity posts something even dumber than usual. Or in a much less inane use, you've got a cause to rally people for.

Next, the method of updating:

This shows how the Tweet was posted; at other times it might say "from web"(i.e. from Twitter.com), or "from txt"(i.e. sent via text message from a mobile phone).

2 important features of Twitter are shown here. First, there are multiple methods of posting a tweet. This is quite handy, since poor cellular coverage or an internet outage alone won't interfere with your communication - a fact which may have saved lives during the Iranian election protests earlier this year.

The second feature is the availability of separate applications for use with Twitter; in my case I've posted this tweet via TweetDeck. Twitter's API allows programs such as TweetDeck, developed by third parties, to download others' tweets, view Twitter profiles, and post new tweets.

This last link appears when you reply to a specific tweet, either from the web or from a third party app such as TweetDeck. Like the timestamp it links to one tweet - the tweet which I was replying to. This makes it easy to view complete Twitter conversations.

Another Tweet Examined

This tweet of mine illustrates a few more Twitter fundamentals: the Re-Tweet, the hashtag (#XXXXXX) and the shortened URL.

Here, the Re-Tweet is highlighted. The RT wasn't developed by Twitter but the community of users accepted the format long before I joined. It's a beautifully simple way of passing along someone else's tweet, when you want to share it with your followers (apologies if I'm insulting your intelligence here - the people who receive your tweets are called "followers" as opposed to "friends").

The Hashtag:

Putting the "#" before a string of characters in Twitter turns that into a link which will search for that character string. In this case, "thebcast" will probably bring up a feed related to their show, and tweets from fans. (If you're thinking, "wow, couldn't someone use a hashtag for spam or mild vandalism?" the answer is yes, and they were especially inclined to do that when the homepage of Skittles was displaying a Twitter search feed for the brand(Linked page contains foul language, etc.).)

Last, and certainly not least:

The shortened URL(as always, apologies if I seem to be condescending - the URL is what gets you to a particular place on the web. The long string of characters you might type at the top of your browser that include "http", ".com", and a bunch of slashes. The "web site number".)

Jokes aside, since tweets are limited to 140 characters, the URL shortener makes it possible to share a web link in a Tweet without using up those precious characters. More happily still, the shortening process is automated: Twitter's web site entry automatically shortens any URL longer than 26 characters with bit.ly, and TweetDeck now shortens any URL in the Tweet and allows you to choose between several URL shorteners.

That's really about all I can think of - Twitter, again, is a delightfully simple, and yet profound tool for communication and socializing. I hope I've been enlightening here, feel free to leave comments, and by all means please follow me if you join and/or start tweeting in earnest.

Hitler can be funny! (To normal people, not to those who think mass murder is funny.)

2009-10-05T14:37:00.004-04:00

I never realized this until now, but there's a great meme that's been on YouTube for over a year now - clips from "Downfall", with the subtitles altered for humorous effect.

Here's one recent example:

And another(warning: Though the audio is entirely in German, the English subtitles on this are NSFW):

Thanks to Caleb at RedState for his effort to promote Hitler-parody awareness, and to the commenters as well.

Horndogs in Government, Part II

2009-09-29T17:28:00.003-04:00

And another great example, from Vladimir at RedState.

William "Freezer" Jefferson, the former Congressman(D-LA) is alleged by the FBI to have taken $100,000 in cash from an informant; $90,000 was later found in his freezer. Informant Lori Mody wore a wire during meetings with the Congressman, and the resulting tapes were essential to the prosecution's case. Vladimir's comments:

Now comes news that Mody’s FBI “handler” (double entendre intended) left the Bureau last December rather than answer questions about his relationship with Mody. The Bureau kept the relationship quiet, rather than telling the judge about it, and has thereby handed Jefferson one more issue to pursue on appeal.

Great job, FBI.

The original news article can be found here.

Horndogs in Government, Part I

2009-09-29T17:19:00.002-04:00

From the Washington Times, reassuring news that the National Science Foundation is completely focused on their core mission and rigorous in screening out fraud among their grant recipients. Or not...(bolding is mine)

Employee misconduct investigations, often involving workers accessing pornography from their government computers, grew sixfold last year inside the taxpayer-funded foundation that doles out billions of dollars of scientific research grants, according to budget documents and other records obtained by The Washington Times.

The problems at the National Science Foundation (NSF) were so pervasive they swamped the agency's inspector general and forced the internal watchdog to cut back on its primary mission of investigating grant fraud and recovering misspent tax dollars.

The records lay it bare. And what a wonderful defense this guy offers!

The budget request doesn't state the nature or number of the misconduct cases, but records obtained by The Times through the Freedom of Information Act laid bare the extent of the well-publicized porn problem inside the government-backed foundation.

For instance, one senior executive spent at least 331 days looking at pornography on his government computer and chatting online with nude or partially clad women without being detected, the records show.

When finally caught, the NSF official retired. He even offered, among other explanations, a humanitarian defense, suggesting that he frequented the porn sites to provide a living to the poor overseas women. Investigators put the cost to taxpayers of the senior official's porn surfing at between $13,800 and about $58,000.

"He explained that these young women are from poor countries and need to make money to help their parents and this site helps them do that," investigators wrote in a memo.

G20 Summit and Protests

2009-09-24T01:08:00.003-04:00

As of right now, I'm planning on going to observe some of the protests tomorrow and Friday - but no definite plans on a location just yet. At the very least I'll be Tweeting extensively - follow me!

With more luck, I'll get a bunch of good photos/video to share, and possibly some interviews. This ought to be an interesting couple of days to say the least.

In remembrance of Gayle R. Greene (d. September 11,2001)

2009-09-11T03:58:00.000-04:00

Gayle R. Greene was 51 years old, a vice-president at financial services company Marsh & McLennan, an enthusiastic Christmas decorator, and a young-at-heart woman who enjoyed spending time with her close-knit circle of friends.

Though she was heartily committed to her work, almost always having her laptop at hand, Gayle was also widely traveled, and took her expeditions seriously. She loved Alaska, having stood on a glacier there, and Hawaii - her ashes were scattered off of the Na Pali coast on Kaua'i several months after her death, as she had asked for.

Her brother-in-law Don Welch writes this on the Legacy guestbook in her memory:

Gayle will be greatly missed, not only by Eileen, Donna and Janel, but many others who's lives she touched. Gayle was very special and caring for others. This is evidenced by the life long impact that she has made on these 3 women's lives. We will miss you Gayle, but never forget you.

On September 11, 2001 Gayle Greene had planned on finishing her work in advance of another trip with her friend and roommate Eileen Carey. Sadly, she would never get the chance to make that journey; her office was on the 100th floor of 1 World Trade Center, which was shortly to be struck by American Airlines Flight 11.

Let's celebrate the life of Gayle Greene, and the lives of the other 2,996 which were cut short 8 years ago, and remember the evil men and those behind them who perpetrated this crime. Let's remember, and have the resolve to keep this from happening again.

Gayle Greene, you are loved and missed, and I hope honored by this as well.

Constructive criticism and free markets

2009-09-09T00:50:00.000-04:00

This post is inspired by a draft blog post that I've read, by Jason Robb. He designs user interfaces - and in the interest of not horribly misportraying his skill by elaborating on a subject which I have no expertise in, I'll say that it primarily involves web sites - and please check his site out.

The post of Jason's in question is basically a suggestion on how a specific incident of criticism, well known to his readers, could have been better handled had the person doing the criticizing been "constructive" and not antagonistic towards the subject of his complaint. Now it's not as though I'd never heard of constructive criticism before; it's one of those things that everyone's mother told him or her to practice. For some reason today the aspiring economist in me thought about this bit of common sense and the following bold conclusion emerged:

Constructive criticism in a work environment is much more common when the work is part of a free market.

At first glance, this seems like a complete non sequitur. But think this through...

First, let's take a hypothetical situation. Alan has some kind of work interaction with Bobby(this could be direct supervision/subordination, contractor, vendor/client, etc.), and is dissatisfied with some nontrivial aspect of Bobby's work. Alan at this point has several choices:

Not mention the dissatisfaction.
Politely complain about the problem(i.e., constructively criticize).
Rudely complain about the problem,
Tell himself and others that "it's not a bug, it's a feature", so to speak.

The next question we have to ask is "Which choice is Alan likely to make?"

Here's where the economics come in. Possibly the most basic principle in economics is "People respond to incentives." So what incentives does Alan face here? Possibly Bobby is a good friend or family member of Alan's, which will significantly affect their work interaction. More likely, though, their work relationship is dominant*, and the set of incentives facing them is determined by this.

What are the incentives for Alan and Bobby? This is where the bolded hypothesis above is significant. The set of incentives in a free market work environment are very different from those in a government workplace, or a regulated monopoly(e.g. a local utility company), or some other organization such as an educational institution which is not subject to market pressures.

When Alan and Bobby operate in a free market, Alan has an incentive to maximize the value of his work output whenever he's able to do so. By proving his ability to add value, he can increase the demand for his labor and thus get a higher income or a broader customer base. And of the 4 choices listed above, the one which will add the most value to Alan's work is constructive criticism of Bobby. Leaving the problem alone or claiming that it's not a problem won't work for long, and being rude to Bobby is less likely to solve the mutual problem than courtesy would. Giving constructive criticism to solve a problem is thus the most beneficial solution in a free market.

Now if Alan was working for a government, or at a non-profit institution, or in a regulated industry, he no longer necessarily has an incentive to demonstrably add value to his work's "customers", for several reasons. First, he probably won't be rewarded monetarily for doing so - salaries in these workplaces are determined generally by a fixed schedule based on Alan's rank (or specific position) and time of service, or by credentials amassed. Second, he won't pay any price for failing to add value to the customers unless he does so in such a flagrant manner as to embarrass the organization. Third, it's simply hard to define a measure of "value" in these workplaces, whereas the free market organization has profits or losses which are quite a clear indicator of how much its services have been valued.

So how will Alan deal with Bobby in this case? It's anybody's guess. His personal pride in his work might motivate an effort to effect a change in Bobby - but suppose they both work in a government bureau, and Bobby's on the verge of retiring and couldn't care less what Alan asks him nicely to do. In this case Alan's logical decision might be to annoy Bobby continually until Bobby agrees to change something.

Suppose Bobby is Alan's superior, and can exert significant influence on Alan's career prospects. Is Alan more likely to criticize, and receive a negative evaluation if he's seen as insufficiently polite? Or will he swallow his pride and tolerate the inefficiency?

What if Alan is an admissions officer at a university, and Bobby is touring the campus with his teenage daughter? Alan knows that the school's football program loses money on the whole, and distracts many students from their academic work. When Bobby and his daughter mention the team, is he likely to discuss these facts that he knows quite well or will he emphasize the team's Bowl game appearances?

In a non-market workplace, "constructive" criticism may indeed exist - but only because of the courtesy and professionalism of the individual, not the inherent behavioral incentive in the organization.

That is all.

*U.S. Census statistics show that in 2006 approximately 82% of employees were in workplaces of 2o people or larger. I'm not aware of any figure on how many close friends or family members the average person has, but for purposes of this post I've assumed that the number is sufficiently small as to not affect the general conclusions about workplace incentives.

Who the hell are the U.S. Justice Foundation?

2009-09-01T14:43:00.000-04:00

I've gotten a bunch of fundraising e-mails from them lately, and they're about the looniest things I've ever seen - even by the standard of Things Forwarded By WorldNetDaily And Other Birthers. Here's probably the best example, in all its "glory":

Obama's Biggest Con ... A Constitutional Convention‏

From: WorldNetDaily (alerts@newsalerts.worldnetdaily.com)

Sent: Mon 8/31/09 9:34 AM

To: Christopher Renner (krazychris81@hotmail.com)

Dear Christopher:

People are always asking me what they can do to further the eligibility issue. The answer? Support the groundbreaking and relentless work of the United States Justice Foundation, a public interest law firm with high principles.

Below, please find an important update from their Executive Director, Gary Kreep.

Joseph Farah
Editor and Chief Executive Officer
WorldNetDaily

BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES ARE TRYING
TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:

HELP US STOP A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!

Dear Friend,

Barack Obama and his allies are trying to change the U.S. Constitution WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE AMENDMENT PROCESS -- in fact, they're trying to rewrite the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION -- and they're close to succeesing!

What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, which repealed the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Free Speech?

What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which repealed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Keep and Bear Arms? (A right that the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld!)

"That could never happen," you say. "No one would allow it!" Right? Well...

Did you know that there are TWO ways that our Constitution can be changed? And did you know that Pelosi, Reid and Barack Obama are using the less well-known way, without having to actually introduce amendments?

IT'S TRUE -- and WE have to stop it NOW!

One way to change the Constitution is to go through the amendment process -- a long and tedious process requiring two-thirds of both houses of Congress to pass an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states to ratify it.

That means a "super-majority" of our representatives at the National and State levels would have to be in favor of the amendment -- which safeguards us from the possibility of really "bad" amendments.

BUT... there is one other way that our Constitution can be changed... and it DOES NOT require all of those elected representatives to be in favor of it. It's called a Constitutional Convention, and all that it requires is 34 states to ask Congress to call one.

In fact, right now, all that is needed is for two more states to ask for a Constitutional Convention... and the basic law of the land could be changed forever by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid!
WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
CLICK HERE NOW!
Most people don't realize that Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention (a "Con Con") if two-thirds (or 34) of the states request it. We've only had one other "Con Con" in our history: the one where the original Constitution was written in 1787!

The language of Article V is mandatory: it says that Congress "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" whenever requests are received from two-thirds of the states. Note that the word "amendments" is used in the plural. These are the only instructions we have about a Constitutional Convention. There are no other rules or guidelines.

We don't know how a Constitutional Convention would be apportioned, or how the delegates would be elected. We don't know what rules the Convention would operate under. We don't know whether changes to the Constitution could be proposed by a simple majority, or would require a super majority, of those attending. We don't know if the agenda could be limited or would be wide open to any proposal.

We don't know ANYTHING about how a Con Con would work -- which means that it will come down to Congress setting the rules!

And Congress is controlled by the most radically liberal Democrats in American history! Is that who we want to be in charge of a new Constitutional Convention?

Do we want BARACK OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI, and HARRY REID to completely rewrite our most basic document of law?
WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
CLICK HERE NOW!
The fact is, under the vague language of Article V, a Constitutional Convention cannot be limited. It would be wide open, and able to consider ANY change in the Constitution that was proposed!

Former U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once said, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."

The Stanford Law School Professor whose case-book is used in the majority of U.S. law schools, Gerald Gunther, said that, even if Congress tried to limit the Convention to one subject, the delegates could decide for themselves that the Convention "is entitled to set its own agenda."

This means that, even if supporters of a "Con Con" claim that the convention would only cover one issue -- whether it's a balanced budget amendment or removing the requirement that to be eligible to serve as President, one must be a "natural born citizen," or anything else -- there is NO WAY to stop the Convention from changing EVERYTHING that we hold dear in America!

Barack Obama and his far-left supporters would be able to get THEIR people appointed as delegates to the Convention, so that THEIR agendas would be the Convention's agenda, and THEIR plans for socialism in America would come to pass.

Say BYE-BYE to the First Amendment's freedom of speech -- Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity could be taken off the air.

Say BYE-BYE to the Second Amendment's right to bear arms -- a total gun ban could be the law of the land!

Say BYE-BYE to the Constitution's requirement that to serve as President a man or a woman must be a "natural born citizen"!

You KNOW that's what they'll do if given the chance -- and we're only TWO STATES AWAY from seeing a Constitutional Convention convened!

You see, Article V says that it takes a request from two-thirds of the states to force a "Con Con" -- but it doesn't say there's any time limit on getting to that total!

Thirty-two states have already issued a call for a "Con Con" over the last few decades, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

It only takes 34 states to REQUIRE a Constitutional Convention be convened!

Some states, like Georgia, Virginia, and others, have since voted to "rescind" their call for a "Con Con" -- BUT no one is sure whether those "rescission" votes are actually Constitutional...so the danger is REAL!
WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
CLICK HERE NOW!
The United States Justice Foundation is launching a major campaign to STOP a "Con Con" from taking place -- WE MUST CREATE a tremendous outpouring of publicity and public scrutiny to be given to this danger, so that Barack Obama and his radical liberal allies can't "sneak this past us" without anyone noticing, until it's too late. Right now, our staff is conducting legal and historical research, and preparing legal opinions, to submit to every state legislature, if necessary, and we'll be offering to represent any state, or state legislator, in fighting the Con-Con based on those documents.

We're also going to be leading a grassroots effort to attack this issue at both the state and federal levels: At the state level, leading the charge in every state to either NOT VOTE for a "Con Con" (if they haven't voted yet) or to RESCIND their past vote in favor (if they have). And, at the federal level, we'll be mobilizing citizens across the country to contact their Representatives and Senators to DEMAND that they come out, NOW, and announce their support for a state's right to rescind, and that they won't support a call for a "Con-Con." In addition, we'll be calling on the Attorney General of the United States, and the Attorney General of each and every State that has passed a "Con-Con" resolution, to issue an official Opinion on the legality of rescission.

THIS DANGER IS REAL. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called for the exclusive purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Once the Founding Fathers assembled in Philadelphia, however, they threw out the Articles of Confederation and wrote an entirely new Constitution, and even changed the ratification procedure so they could get it adopted more easily. The 1787 Convention is the only precedent we have for a national Constitutional Convention.

There's no guarantee that all of the changes to our Constitution passed at a Constitutional Convention would need to be ratified by 34 states this time -- if a "Con Con" can change our structure of government as defined in Articles I, II, and III, of the Constitution, then it can also change the Article V requirement that three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify any changes. The Convention of 1787 reduced the number of states required to ratify a change from 100% of the states to 75%, and a Convention today could "follow their example" and reduce it further, to 66%, or 60%, or even 51%!

WE MUST NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!

There's very little time to ramp this project up to FULL SPEED -- we need to raise at least $100,000 to prepare and distribute legal opinions, lobby state legislators and begin our grassroots activism campaign this coming month. Please, CLICK HERE NOW to make your best possible donation, and let's STOP Obama, Pelosi and Reid from ripping our Constitution to shreds, and re-writing it to their own socialist goals!

Sincerely,

Gary Kreep, Executive Director
United States Justice Foundation

P.S. President Barack Obama has already expressed his belief that the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events. Can you imagine what he and his supporters would DO to that document if given the chance to re-write it completely? Our Bill of Rights could disappear overnight!

In fact, all the way back in 2006, Obama already had his lawyers researching how someone could get around the eligibility requirements to serve as U.S. President -- these people simply don't CARE about whether we preserve the supreme law of the land!

Remember -- when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a whole new Constitution.

That's EXACTLY what Obama, Pelosi and Reid would do this time -- but this time, the result would destroy our freedoms. Please, CLICK HERE NOW to help us STOP them. Thank you!
WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
CLICK HERE NOW!

To donate by check, make payable to:
United States Justice Foundation
932 D Street Suite 1
Ramona, CA 92065

If you are unable to see images in the message above, click here.

This email was sent to krazychris81@hotmail.com as a subscriber to WorldNetDaily's Carefully Selected Offers from Third Parties email list. To manage your email delivery preferences, click here.

To immediately and permanently unsubscribe, click here.

If you are interested in advertising with WND.com, the leading independent news source on the Net, email advertising@wnd.com

WorldNetDaily | 2020 Pennsylvania Ave NW, #351 | Washington, DC 20006

Copyright 1997-2009 WorldNetDaily.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Seriously...would anyone actually give money to these people? The far left is planning a new Constitutional Convention, and 32 states have at some point requested this!...Righhhhhht. Well I hope Obama at least has the decency to get GWB's advice - this will go over a lot better if the people who pulled off 9/11 are involved.

Jon Henke's also got a great idea in regards to WorldNetDaily.

Why Health Care is so complicated - part I

2009-07-20T14:10:00.000-04:00

American health care has been widely talked about lately, not least because of proposals by the President and Congress to radically alter the current system. Some thoughts of mine on the subject follow - I expect this will be a multiple posting topic, as I'll continue to discuss it with others.

Terms

First, we need to define terms properly, which is much harder than it seems at first, and too seldom done. As Thomas Sowell says, for example:

The biggest of the big lies in the "health care" hype is that a lack of insurance means a lack of medical care. The second biggest lie is that health care and medical care are the same thing.

"Health care" is simple enough to define - any action, taken by an individual or another party, that affects the individual's health. If the definition sounds broad, it is; try thinking about something you do which never has any effect on your health.

"Medical care" is a bit tougher to define exactly. I think it works to define it as professional services rendered by doctors, nurses, any medical specialists(including but not limited to opthalmologists, oncologists, urologists, orthopedists, Lasik surgeons), paramedics, EMTs, first responders, and any similar person, performed generally with the expectation they will be paid for their services. (Some EMTs and first responders are volunteers, but this is uncommon and even in this case the EMS service/fire department will often bill for medical supplies and transport expenses.)

"Health insurance" is tougher yet because the term usually describes far more than is meant by "insurance" in any other area, namely the payment of a premium in exchange for the guarantee that a third party will pay a specified sum in the event of certain nonroutine losses/expenses. For reasons to be mentioned below, the U.S. tax code has given a strong incentive for routine expenses such as prescription drugs, annual physical checkups, and dental cleanings to be included under the rubric of "insurance", whereas for example car insurance does not commonly cover an oil change or a trip to the detail shop.

I think for my purposes of explanation, health insurance can be defined as any contractual system by which medical care for a given patient is directly paid for, in full or in part, by a third party(i.e. a party other than the medical professional and the patient). This can include systems like Medicare/Medicaid which are paid via tax revenues, employer-based coverage, or personally purchased policies; but the most important and relevant detail is the third-party payment system. The incentives for conduct of patient and doctor are much different when a third party is paying, as opposed to when the patient is paying out of pocket, and this is the fundamental source of administrative complication in modern medical care.

Next to come - a brief history of modern medical care.

Being "new media" savvy: not a requirement for a Congressman

2009-06-24T00:07:00.000-04:00

I recently received an e-mail from my Congressman, Mike Doyle(D, PA-14); like any good elected representative he updates his constituents on a regular basis. I found this a bit amusing, however(...

"One of these new Facebook pages", huh? Come on Congressman, you don't have to make it that obvious you've never used the site before! And telling the reader to search, using your full title? Nope, Facebook's search isn't as smart as Google, and won't get them any results if they do that.
Before you send the e-mail, it's really not too much to ask that you include a hyperlink to the page!

That's all. I wonder if any other local reps are any better with their interweb communication.

Standard American English is right for everyone

2009-05-30T18:39:00.000-04:00

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review recently published an excerpt from this letter:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Letter writer Erin Donnelly(Friday May 29) has given Trib readers a piece of thoroughly academic, well-cited nonsense. Teaching African-American students in vernacular English is a waste of valuable class time, promotes ethnic separatism, and adds nothing whatever to the knowledge demanded in the highly competitive adult world.

Frederick Douglass, Paul Robeson, W.E.B. DuBois, Martin Luther King Jr., (and undoubtedly Ms. Donnelly herself) were educated in what she derisively refers to as "Standard American(white) English". These could certainly speak in the vernacular among fellow African Americans, but they understood the need to interact with the larger society, using a standard tongue.

It's a shame that modern academics reject that unfashionable truth for teaching fads with no track record of success, and in doing so place a phenomenal handicap on the futures of so many bright young African Americans with so much potential.

Sincerely,
Christopher D. Renner
West Mifflin, PA

The letter which I wrote in response to can be found here.

White House quietly trying to shut people up?

2009-05-30T13:39:00.000-04:00

Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner reports.

Michelle Malkin has also covered this matter.

The White House blog reads as follows:

Friday, May 29th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Update on Recovery Act Lobbying Rules: New Limits on Special Interest Influence
Another update from Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, in the spirit of transparency as always:

I am writing with an update on the President’s March 20, 2009 Memorandum on Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds. Section 3 of the Memorandum required all oral communications between federally registered lobbyists and government officials concerning Recovery Act policy to be disclosed on the Internet; barred registered lobbyists from having oral communications with government officials about specific Recovery Act projects or applications and instead required those communications to be in writing; and also required those written communications to be posted on the Internet(this, and all other emphasis in this post, is added). That Memorandum instructed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review the initial 60 days of implementation of the stimulus lobbying restrictions, to evaluate the data, and to recommend modifications.

Following OMB’s review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making.

First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest –after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact.

OMB will be consulting with agencies, outside experts and others about these principles and will publish detailed guidance, but we wanted to update interested parties on the outcome of the initial review. We consulted very broadly both within and outside of government (including as reflected in previous posts on the White House blog) and we are grateful to all those who participated in the process.

There are several alarming details in this post, but what most disturbed me was the barely reworded admission("restriction on oral communications") that the executive branch is attempting to restrict free speech and the right to petition government, both rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Of course the White House can be expected to reply that the restrictions only apply to lobbyists and special interests, but the Constitution protects their rights to free speech and petition as much as it does anyone else's.*

Also, if the rules Eisen lists here aren't more specific in practice, they're basically worthless to the cause of transparency. The requirement to "post on the Internet" could be satisfied by a comment on the MySpace page of the lobbyist's 14-year old child.

Additionally, this and any other restriction on communication with government officials will inevitably handicap the average citizen more than the big K Street lobbying firm, which has armies of lawyers keeping track of new rules that apply to them.

Last thing - though transparency is usually preferable to secrecy, it says nothing at all about the wisdom or foolishness of any government act. It's far too easy to forget this.

*A brief thought on this matter - "lobbyists" and "special interests" are frequently misunderstood political bogeymen, just like "hedge fund managers", "big business", and to some extent "rednecks". Whether or not such people are inherently evil, it's in the politician's advantage to treat them as so because the majority of voters will never closely examine the bogeyman in question enough to know that the politician has misled them.

Lobbyists are good villains because they've apparently always got their hands out, ready to corrupt another otherwise virtuous government official. Who can't be sympathetic to the official when the situation is portrayed this way? But if you think one step further and ask why the lobbyist exists in the first place, the obvious answer is that government officials are extremely profligate with the revenues they receive in taxes, to say the least. More on this matter to come in the future.

On the rule of law(and not of men)

2009-05-15T00:44:00.001-04:00

Todd Zywicki, of the Hoover Institution and George Mason University, writes this excellent article on the ideal of the rule of law, and the economic and political dangers of its recent breach with the Chrysler bankruptcy settlement.

I'd only add a bit in one way. Zywicki states:

The rule of law, not of men -- an ideal tracing back to the ancient Greeks and well-known to our Founding Fathers -- is the animating principle of the American experiment. While the rest of the world in 1787 was governed by the whims of kings and dukes, the U.S. Constitution was established to circumscribe arbitrary government power.

The ideal goes even further back than that, to the Mosaic Law. For example, Leviticus 19:15(New American Standard): You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.

Update: Richard Epstein(also of Hoover) also discusses the Chrysler bankruptcy here, with focus on bankruptcy procedures.

Sowell on "torture"

2009-05-12T06:53:00.000-04:00

From NRO. My favorite part:

Whatever the verbal fencing over the meaning of the word “torture,” there is a fundamental difference between simply inflicting pain on innocent people for the sheer pleasure of it — which is what our terrorist enemies do — and getting life-saving information out of the terrorists by whatever means are necessary.

$2 trillion in healthcare "savings"

2009-05-12T03:52:00.000-04:00

From Philip Klein, of the American Spectator, reporting on a conference call with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. To summarize it, there was a remarkable lack of details on where exactly the alleged savings were going to come from.

Perhaps the most revealing passage:

"Well the discussion today was if we were able to achieve the significant success that the stakeholders today felt was very achievable(emphasis added), we're talking about cutting 1.5 percent out of the rising cost of health care, about $2 trillion over the next decade," Sebelius explained. "So, that would achieve the kind of individualized savings of $2,500 per family."

In other words - we "feel like" we're going to save $2 trillion dollars, and that's all the evidence we need.

New blog

2009-05-12T03:23:00.000-04:00

I've started another blog, located here.

The new blog will be primarily focused on transportation and emergency response issues. I'll be posting more regularly on this blog, and focusing on general political commentary, from a conservative/libertarian/classical liberal POV. (Not that I'll apply one of those labels categorically to myself anytime soon, though.)

Happy reading, feel free to e-mail me with questions, gripes, etc.

On Air Force One

2009-05-01T23:13:00.000-04:00

I can't believe I've not posted anything in 10 days. What a slacker I am! Anyway, this speaks for itself:

Sowell on Health Care

2009-04-21T16:18:00.000-04:00

A quickie. Thomas Sowell reiterates the fact that "health care" and "medical care" do NOT mean the same thing, nor are "insurance" and "medical care" interchangeable.

Probably the best quote from the article:

When it comes to things where medical care itself makes the biggest difference — cancer survival rates, for example — Americans do much better than people in most other countries.

No one who compares medical care in this country with medical care in other countries is likely to want to switch. But those who cannot be bothered with the facts may help destroy the best medical care in the world by falling for political rhetoric.

More on high speed rail

2009-04-21T06:14:00.000-04:00

From the New Republic yesterday. The writers there tend to be much more concerned about greenhouse gases than I am, but it seems to be widely accepted that some of the inputs required to achieve "high-speed" are:

separate rights-of-way(in other words, tracks shared with freight rail are out of the question)
broad curves
elimination of steep grades, whether by earth removal or tunnels.

Author Plumer thinks that the trade-offs are manageable, but as I mentioned previously, the terrain of western Pennsylvania would result in a very high cost to build a track with the above qualities(the Tribune-Review says $13 billion), and I really think the money could be better spent elsewhere, particularly on upgrading highways.

That same Trib article, interestingly enough, mentions the current speed of current trains between Harrisburg and Philadelphia as being "up to 110 mph" according to a PennDOT spokesman. Again, though, that part of the state is relatively ideal terrain for transport, as shown below.

The Fredericktown Ferry and the Mon-Fayette Expressway

2009-04-18T00:41:00.000-04:00

From the Trib. I've never heard of this ferry before, but it sounds interesting. Its existence is somewhat threatened by the Mon-Fayette expressway, so it seems. The location is shown below.

View Larger Map

The article states that the ferry carries about 130 people/cars a day at $2 each, which adds up to $95,000 a year in revenue; however Washington County and Fayette County also pay about $100,000 per year for its operation.

The ferry is more or less a curiosity in the larger scheme of western PA transportation. What primarily interested me here was the Mon-Fayette Expressway(aka Route 43, Turnpike 43). In 2012, the Brownsville-to-Uniontown section of the expressway will be complete, which means that the entire PA 43 would be finished - except for the glaring lack of progress from Jefferson to Pittsburgh/Monroeville.

I'll be writing more on this in the near future, but it will suffice to say now that I think the incomplete Pittsburgh section of the MFE is the single most urgent transportation project in western PA.

Further reading on the Mon-Fayette plans in general(here) and the Brownsville-to-Uniontown section in particular(here).

High speed rail to Pittsburgh?

2009-04-16T23:03:00.000-04:00

Obama's stimulus plan includes $8 billion for a "start on establishing high-speed rail corridors nationwide". One of the 10 corridors identified for possible service is the "Keystone" corridor between Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia.

I'm really skeptical of this for a number of reasons, most of which are technical.

Flying is cheap and readily available between Pittsburgh and Philly(as an example Expedia is showing a roundtrip for $119.20*, fees included). Unless the proposed high-speed fares are heavily subsidized I don't expect they'll be any less.
Even allowing for airport security hassles it's possible to fly from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia in about 2 hours. To match that a train would have to average 150 mph, counting waiting times.
For a train to be considered "high-speed" by Amtrak standards it has to average only 90 mph. I'm not a railroad engineer, but I'd imagine that given the terrain between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg it would take several hundred billion dollars to build a dedicated track that would allow for those kinds of speed.
Achieving "high speed" with shared rail lines is generally out of the question. As mentioned in the linked article, the Acela Express over the Northeast Corridor has to slow down almost constantly because of all the slower passenger and especially freight trains on the same tracks. And again, that's on relatively flat terrain. Freight trains in the Appalachians undoubtedly run slower than on the flat lands near the coast.

Basically I think it's well demonstrated that it will be impossible for high speed rail, without subsidies, to be competitive with air travel on the basis of price or travel time.

Obama's justification for the subsidies, which is fairly consistent with what other politicians say in justifying high speed rail, is that it will relieve congestion(both in the airways and on the road), help clean the air, and save energy.

I don't have hard data on these matters, but anecdotally I've never found the PA Turnpike to be particularly crowded. It's probably busier than the average rural Interstate, and does have heavy truck traffic, but I think it could be upgraded to 3 lanes each way, for its entire direction, for a small fraction of what a new rail line would cost.

PIT and PHL do not usually make the list of airports lacking capacity. A frequent concern viced about PIT is that the airlines are offering fewer flights into it, which suggests that congestion there is not a great problem.

As far as cleaning the air, the high speed trains in other countries generally run on overhead electric wires - which means they appear "clean" because they shift the dirty power generation elsewhere. This doesn't of course rule out that high-speed rail usage could result in a net reduction of pollution - but this would depend on the local means of electric generation(coal, nuclear, natural gas) being "cleaner" than the jet engines, diesel buses, and gasoline engined cars that would be used alternatively.

Pollution reduction would also depend on high speed rail being a sufficiently viable alternative to other methods of long-distance mass transit to attract their current users, which as I've demonstrated above isn't likely. (I haven't mentioned the private automobile, but in general the idea that mass transit will 'get people out of their cars' is fallacious. The convenience of always ending up exactly at your destination, making stops at the store on your way home, and making your own schedule outweigh the inefficiency for most private car owners).

*The fare was calculated today(April 16), departing April 30, returning May 5, with flexible times(9 unique departing flights were available at that price). For comparison, Amtrak's current cheapest roundtrip fare for the same dates is $94.00, with a train that leaves once daily. Greyhound ticket with a 14-day advance purchase is $60.00.

An absurdity on veterans and the "right wing"

2009-04-16T16:32:00.000-04:00

Fox News interviews Janet Napolitano about the Mexican violence and the controversial memo issued to law enforcement recently, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment".

On the matter of the memo itself, it's suspect whether "rightwing extremism" was chosen as a label to actually help law enforcement or just to subtly bash the administration's political opponents(As an example on page 4, xenophobia and antidemocratic ideals are described as rightwing, which is utter nonsense. Are the unions who vehemently oppose illegal immigration now 'rightwing'? And does the right advocate legislation by the judiciary or the administrative agencies, probably the biggest internal threat to democracy?).

A footnote(p.2) elaborating on rightwing extremism, which has been rightly criticized:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

This definition is basically useless. The groups mentioned have nothing whatsoever in common, other than that so-called "liberals" oppose them. Sometimes. Depending on the specific race and religion of the extremist.

In the video, the most absurd statement of all from Ms. Napolitano came at the 4:46 mark, where she said that "Timothy McVeigh was a veteran, that's where he got his training." There is absolutely not one shred of evidence that any military training he had was the least bit relevant to the Oklahoma City bombing.

The only reason this idiotic statement can be made(and to be fair, Ms. Napolitano's not the only one who I've heard say it), is because there's a stereotype of veterans as being brainwashed, programmed to kill, desensitized, &c.; but it only takes one look at the hard facts to realize how untrue it is.

McVeigh, as a Bradley gunner, was probably taught good gunnery and marksmanship, use of various handheld weapons such as grenades or anti-tank rockets, basic military/outdoor skills, and Army tradition. Perhaps he even operated the Bradley. I challenge anyone to explain what aspect of this training, in the late 80s or now, or ever, has anything to do with creating a 5000 lb. ANFO with a Ryder truck, and placing it next to a building in order to demolish it.

Crash Data for Pittsburgh Highway Corridors

2009-04-15T20:44:00.000-04:00

The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, I've just discovered, has a great deal of transportation data for our region. Among other things they have a Congestion Management Process which is supposed to collect data on highway congestion so that transportation planners know where it needs to be alleviated.

Of interest to an emergency responder, the SPC posts data on crash location and severity for the regional highway corridors. This I found to be particularly enlightening. For example, here(as a PDF) is the data for I-376 between the Turnpike and Downtown. Some points I thought were interesting:

There are noticeably more crashes on Fridays and Saturdays, and I'm wondering why. Instinctively I'd say late night DUI drivers, but that's belied by the next point.
The peak hours for crashes appear to be(in descending order) 14:00, 8:00, 13:00, 15:00, 16:00, and 2:00. Mid-afternoon doesn't seem to me a very accident-prone time, but if these data are correct that obviously needs to be rethought.
76% of crashes are in non-adverse conditions, which suggests, since Pittsburgh has 152 days annually with rain, snow, sleet, &c., that drivers are less competent or careful when the sun comes out.
43% of the collisions on 376 were rear-end collisions, and 40% were vehicle into a fixed object(barrier, sign post, and much more).

A couple of notes on the data:

The crash data are from PennDOT's CDART crash tracking system. These are "reportable" crashes only, defined by PennDOT and the SPC as "a traffic accident where someone was injured or where one of the vehicles had to be towed from the scene".

The "severity index" they have listed is a weighted average, with the following weights given to each crash type:
Fatal crashes = 12
Major injury crashes = 12
Moderate injury crashes = 3
Minor injury crashes = 2
Unknown injury crashes = 2
Property damage only crashes = 1

On basic chemistry

2009-04-14T15:17:00.000-04:00

Al Gore's Repower America project, which I registered for some time ago and receive e-mail updates from, asked me to write letters to the editor supporting the idea of a cap on carbon emissions. I happily obliged them with the following:

Subject: Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant, and cap-and-trade restrictions on it will kill the economy.

The Alliance for Climate Protection is currently trying to stir up more hysteria about the "pollutant" carbon dioxide, calling for a cap on "emissions" immediately. This is nonsensical.

First, anyone who knows basic chemistry understands that incomplete, inefficient combustion of hydrocarbon fuels(coal, oil or gas) creates real pollutants like carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen.
Complete combustion produces that bogeyman, carbon dioxide, and the horribly toxic compound, water vapor(incidentally many times better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide).

Second, carbon dioxide is as necessary for plant life as oxygen is for animals. Without it, photosynthesis cannot occur and the plant will die. A GE commercial within the past year showed an anthropomorphic tree embracing an "energy efficient house" with it's limbs, but a more accurate depiction would have had the tree gasping for the precious carbon dioxide that the house was no longer emitting.

In the end, it's rather unfortunate that most of the folks in Washington and in the anti-AGW movement don't seem to be in the category "anyone who knows basic chemistry", for then the ridiculous plan to restrict a compound so essential to life, and handicap future economic growth in the process, would be found strictly on the lunatic fringe where it belongs.

Sincerely,
Christopher Renner

Some thoughts on this blog's purpose

2009-04-09T01:50:00.000-04:00

I expect that I'll be posting various random things here - have a Twitter feed, but it's obviously not long enough to explore anything in depth. At this point in my life I don't have a particular focus or area of expertise apart from perhaps car electronic systems, and I can't see limiting this page to one subject.

Transportation has always fascinated me(as an example I think I had almost memorized the general routes of every Port Authority bus by age 11, along with the interstate highway system), and I expect it to be a subject of a number of my posts here.

Also economic and financial issues - economics is relevant to just about anything in life, and arises in a good number of conversations I have as of late.

Other than that, I'm open to write about just about anything.

Comments should be open to anyone. Feel free to offer your input.

Condi on the Tonight Show

2009-03-26T03:43:00.001-04:00

Rather interesting...I hadn't watched her speak in a while. She discusses George W. Bush and his ability to grasp ideas very well, even if he's simply horrid at explaining them to others. I can't recall ever hearing otherwise from anyone who knew the former President.

Also she mentions the progress in civil rights, and asserts that the country has come a long way from 50 years ago when her friend Denise McNair was killed in the Birmingham church bombing, to electing a black president.

To be fair, I have to nitpick the factual accuracy(as I do to everyone) of one statement she made, that "we were considered three-fifths of a human being in Thomas Jefferson's original Constitution" - what's wrong with that assertion is that Madison wrote most of the Constitution(Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence).

And hasn't the "three-fifths clause" (found in Article I, Section 2 of the constitution) been a thoroughly overused, inaccurate inducement to guilt for long enough? I guess it would have been better if the founders had counted all the slaves as "full" human beings for Congressional representation. They'd still have been enslaved, vulnerable to abuse, and disfranchised, and their masters would have more representation in Congress relative to the free states, but hey - at least the free descendants of said slaves wouldn't feel so bad!

In any case, my distracting rant aside, I have a hunch it'll be at least 5 years until the Bush administration can be evaluated rationally.

Venezuela's Chavez - he's not Marxist, but fascist(in the original sense of the word)

2009-03-25T16:13:00.000-04:00

In this excellent article in the New Republic, Enrique Krauze discusses the philosophical background of Hugo Chavez, his successful appropriation of the personality cult surrounding Bolivar, his contempt for liberal democracy, and the anti-Semitism of Argentinian sociologist Norberto Ceresole, a longtime Chavez adviser. Also mentioned are the importance world oil prices have had in allowing Chavez to buy the affections of the masses, and the potential consequences if they remain at their current levels or lower.

The one thing I'd take issue with is that Krauze follows the conventional practice of describing fascism as "right-wing" and Marxism as "left-wing". This distinction usually seems to be made on the basis that Marxism is supposed to be internationalist in its outlook whereas Italian fascism and German National Socialism were obviously nationalistic. While true, I think that these ideas all had in common socialism, commitment to revolution, and contempt for liberal democracy, and that generally the label "right-wing" precludes at least the first two common traits.

It's interesting for me as well to think about what differences exist between the USA and Latin America that could be traced almost entirely to the fact that the 13 colonies had George Washington leading them to independence, and Ibero-America had Simon Bolivar.

A lot of revisionist history has criticized Washington and some of the other founders primarily on the basis of their continued ownership of slaves, and raised Lincoln far above him in the pantheon of American presidents; but this obscures Washington's real contribution to American politics. The office of the Presidency was created specifically for a reluctant Washington, and the precedents he set gave the position the stability which has lasted 220 years uninterrupted, with peaceful transitions of power throughout.

In contrast to this, Bolivar enthusiastically sought to be president for life, and to unite all of the former Spanish empire under his leadership. I suspect that his actions justified more than a little the many future Latin American dictators, presidents-for-life, etc. who desired similar positions for themselves.

Mark Bowden(of Black Hawk Down fame) on torture

2009-03-25T06:15:00.000-04:00

Originally published in the Atlantic Magazine, October 2003.

This is definitely the most thorough analysis of the subject that I've ever read - Bowden has interviewed several former interrogators from such diverse organizations as the Vietnam-era USMC, Israel's Shabak[General Security Service], and the NYPD; and he properly distinguishes torture from "enhanced interrogation" and the like, and effective from ineffective interrogation methods; also he cites a few actual examples of the much-hypothesized "ticking time bomb" scenario where extracting information has literally been a matter of life and death for others.

He's more optimistic than I am, however, when he says that "no interrogator is ever going to be prosecuted for keeping Khalid Sheikh Mohammed awake, cold, alone, and uncomfortable. Nor should he be." I think of the "Wall" between intelligence and domestic law enforcement that existed pre-9/11, and I can't rule out the prospect of government lawyers being similarly overzealous in the near future.

What a hard question - can murderers and rapists be good doctors?

2009-03-25T03:10:00.000-04:00

From the NYTimes. I am really, really amazed that some people actually had to think this one over. Also I was amused by the headline - "A Quandary in Sweden: Criminals in Med School". I got the initial impression they were worried about street level drug dealers or something of that ilk, but these cases are just a bit more severe.

A year ago, Sweden’s most prestigious medical school found itself in an international uproar after it unknowingly admitted a student who was a Nazi sympathizer and a convicted murderer, then scrambled to find a way to expel him.

It is hard to imagine how the case could get any more bizarre. But it has.
The 33-year-old student, Karl Helge Hampus Svensson, having been banished from the medical school of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm on the ground that he falsified his high school records, has now been admitted to a second well-known medical school — Uppsala, Sweden’s oldest university.

It goes on:

And in still another case, a 24-year-old medical student at Lund University was convicted last April of raping a 14-year-old boy while he slept. A district court sentenced the student to two years in prison, but a higher court reduced the sentence to two years’ probation and medical therapy.
When the dean at Lund sought to expel the student, a national board that reviews expulsions blocked the action, saying that although the man had committed a serious crime, he was not considered a threat to people or property. The decision was then reversed by an administrative court, which upheld the expulsion; the student did not appeal.

Hmm...2 years probation for raping a 14-year-old boy. And a guy who's already raped "isn't a threat to people or property". Seems reasonable to me! Don't we have courts in this country which state similar nonsense?

The lowest point, though, is when they interview some of the other med students:

But another Uppsala student, Karl-Wilhelm Olsson, 23, said that “the important factor is whether a person is a risk to another human being, and it’s hard to draw a line.”
He added that while there is no law requiring a university to bar prospective students because of a criminal past, “a student should be expelled if he or she is viewed as unfit.”
But Gustav Stalhammar, 25, said Mr. Svensson should be allowed to become a doctor. “Who is to say that he might not become a great doctor, even if it in some ways would feel wrong or awkward to have a murderer for a colleague?” he asked. “It is not fair to have preconceptions about his character.”

Some nonsense from the Secretary of Homeland Security

2009-03-24T05:12:00.000-04:00

Janet Napolitano is interviewed by Der Spiegel. What caught my eye:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Uhh...no. The Johnstown Flood, or New Orleans after Katrina, or the various "famines" that Communism produces - those are "man-caused disasters". They are also things that the secretary shouldn't be worrying about when real threats to the security of the homeland exist.

SPIEGEL: You would like the German authorities to share personal data of terrorism suspects, such as fingerprinting and DNA?

Napolitano: That is exactly right. We will also want to share some experiences with counter-radicalization, how the radicalization of young Muslims in our countries can be prevented.

SPIEGEL: Europe has a problem with just such people, young Muslims who grew up in the West and are still susceptible to radical messages. The terrorists responsible for the July 2005 attacks in London are an example.

Napolitano: In some ways, the problem in Europe is greater than in the United States. But the questions are the same. How do you identify a youth who is susceptible to becoming radicalized? How do you work with that youth, his family and community to give them alternatives to radicalization?

I can't help but think that before the USA became so sensitive to other cultures she had a wonderful solution to this problem, called "Assimilation", or "The Melting Pot".

What do you really know about the AIG bonuses?

2009-03-24T02:21:00.000-04:00

Maybe this is just wishful thinking, since the country has an abundance of people who get angry in Pavlovian fashion at whatever the charlatan du jour tells them to, and who successfully evade actual thinking on any subject whatsoever(the real critical thinking that isn't taught in schools anymore - it's been replaced by endless blather about feelings and such nonsense).

I would really love to see people take the tiniest bit of interest in actually understanding the economic and political happenings of late. Granted, you've all got a finite number of hours in every day, but can you really say that you can't take a half hour away from your drinking schedule to actually understand what you think you should be mad about?

Getting to some specific questions I'd like to see everyone answer to themselves:

1. About the bonuses paid to AIG employees. Do you understand that a "bonus" is just another name for variable compensation as paid to some people in the financial industry? Surely most of you know someone (a salesperson, or a business manager, or a restaurant server perhaps) who is paid in some way other than hourly or salaried. So why get mad about a bonus, per se?

But, you say, "They're being paid with my tax dollars!", and you're right. The ordinary wages and salaries of the employees are being paid with your tax dollars as well, so why not be angry about those as well? What's the difference between hundreds of thousands of dollars in "salary" and the same amount as a "bonus"? Can you answer these questions to yourself?

2. As to compensation in general. If your taxes are paying for a restaurant which has just spent $1000 on spoiled food, why are you worried about the $1 that they paid to the cook who does oil changes on the side and doesn't wash his hands at either job?

But then that's not the same, you'll assert. Some people deserve $100,000 a year but no CEO or commodity trader deserves $10 million! How about Oprah, or your favorite movie star, or athlete? Can you describe the typical workweek of Tom Cruise, or Albert Pujols, or Tiger Woods? How about the CEO or trader I've just mentioned? I know that I don't have the foggiest idea what any of those people's work consists of. If you don't know either, on what basis do you say that they're overpaid?

3. Government deficits. If I drink 10 beers in an hour, I'll be quite drunk. Does that mean I can't tell you that it's not a good idea for you to drink 30?

Getting much more serious, where do you think $1 trillion is going to come from to finance the deficit of this year alone? And how can the deficit become smaller between now and 2026, when the last of the 1946-1964 Baby Boom begins collecting Social Security? And are those separate withdrawals on your paycheck "Fed Income Tax" and "FICA" really not paying for some of the same things?

4. Perquisites. What are these corporations thinking, giving their executives access to a private jet? What similarities can you think of(assuming a Pittsburgh perspective here) between the 911th Airlift Wing's location at the PIT Airport, which is used by the U.S. President during visits to the area, and the Allegheny County airport? (Hint: think about what you DON'T have at either.) Answer the second question, and you've answered the first.

From:	WorldNetDaily (alerts@newsalerts.worldnetdaily.com)
Sent:	Mon 8/31/09 9:34 AM
To:	Christopher Renner (krazychris81@hotmail.com)