February 2009

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. (attributed)

-James Madison

August 28, 2006

North Korean Counterfeiting

Okay, let me get this straight...

For those who have handled them, North Korean "supernotes" are virtually indistinguishable from the $100 bills they mimic - near-perfect forgeries of the most widely circulated American bank note outside the United States.

But the fakes are more than just beautiful examples of criminal craftsmanship. They may also be the biggest hurdle to the resumption of six-nation talks meant to persuade the North to abandon its self-described nuclear weapons production program.

(Albuquerque Tribune, also see here)

So one of the main issues that is stopping our negotiations about North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and intercontinental delivery systems is the fact that they are printing millions of dollars of fake US currency. For nearly two decades.

Sigh. If only we could get them to the negotiating table, surely they would promise not to make any bad, bad weapons. And not to use the ones they do make. A good, hard promise from Pyongyang - that's what we need.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

August 27, 2006

Bob Smither, Netroots, and Name Recognition

Netroots activism has had a few impressive showings, including the recent victory by Ned Lamont over incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman in Connecticut’s primary elections. The Nation magazine summed it up thusly :

Ned Lamont's victory was driven by two triggers: First, the war elicited a primary opponent; then Internet activists convinced voters that he was a viable alternative.

In other words, there was a demand for change. There was somebody willing to supply that change. Internet activism simply got the message out.

Now, I don’t want to overstate the effect of the blogosphere on a campaign, but clearly blogs are able to get the message out and generate a lot of attention. If a politician has a message that resonates with voters, then a netroots campaign is exactly what he or she needs in this day and age. Name recognition, media coverage, and the buzz of the old-fashioned grassroots movements can help to bring down unpopular incumbents, or draw attention to a candidate who might not otherwise be seen as viable.

Can you see where I am going with this?

In an excellent post at WatchBlog, Richard Rhodes wrote:

The fact is whether many people want to admit it or not is that name recognition does matter. And this is the one thing that third parties lack.

Richard is correct that this problem will certainly burn “third party” candidates in the next presidential election. Congressional elections, however, are a different matter. Name recognition is easier to achieve in a single congressional district. But even in a congressional race, third party candidates generally lack name recognition because most people just don’t care. The real race is between the Democrat and the Republican… if there is both a Democrat and a Republican. I would like to suggest that in any race where there is not already both a Democrat and a Republican, there is a potential for a third party candidate to make a very strong showing and possibly even win a seat. Of course, trying this against a popular incumbent, this would present quite a challenge for even the most savvy and enthusiastic netroots activists. But what if the incumbent is unpopular… or what if there is no incumbent?

A netroots movement may be trying to build up around Libertarian Party candidate Bob Smither for Tom DeLay’s old congressional seat (District 22 in Texas). With Republicans unable to field a candidate, voters face a choice between the Democrat Nick Lampson and Libertarian Bob Smither. Will Republicans vote for a Libertarian just to spite the Democrats? Well, considering Smither’s promise to caucus with House Republicans if elected, and considering that Republican voters tend toward fiscal conservativism similar to that of Libertarians, they might be persuaded.

Jon Henke at QandO calls it the the Ron Paul option.

Other bloggers picking up the cause include Stephen VanDyke at Hammer of Truth, James at Swing State Project, and they’re arguing about it at Daily Kos.

A full read of the article by Lance at Inactivist.Org may spell out the best argument for pushing a netroots campaign. He asks for help in getting Bob Smither elected:

First, we have one more vote against big spending…
Second, we have the opportunity to send a message; most importantly Republicans have the chance to send a message that we as a citizenry are unhappy with the course our representatives have taken.

Hey, Lance, I'm on board. I can't vote for Bob Smither, but I can support his candidacy. I will direct people to his website. I will encourage netroots activism, not only among Libertarians but among all "third party" supporters, and independents. If you are reading this, please look into Bob Smither and see if you can support him and/or his candidacy.

Let's get the word out. Bob Smither for Congress.

(This article was originally posted at WatchBlog)

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Notes on the NSA Wiretap situation:

This article is cross-posted at Inactivist, with slightly altered formatting.

So how about that NSA anti-terrorism program of eavesdropping and data mining? It’s a pretty contentious issue, isn’t it? Heck, I may have managed to upset both sides with just the first sentence of this post. One wrong word and the Right might identify me as a terrorist sympathizer who doesn’t understand the dangers of al Qaeda. One wrong word and the Left might identify me as a fascist thug who is completely unaware of the Bill of Rights. Despite the danger, I plan to lay out a position on the issue that can engender reasonable discussion on the issue.

Allow me to start with a January ’06 statement from the White House:

The NSA's terrorist surveillance program is targeted at al Qaeda communications coming into or going out of the United States. It is a limited, hot pursuit effort by our intelligence community to detect and prevent attacks.

Now, who could be upset by such a program? (Besides al Qaeda, of course.) Surely every reasonable American wants the government to surveil terrorist organizations. Surely every reasonable American supports hot pursuit of terrorists, and the prevention of terror attacks. In fact, I have never seen it argued otherwise. So why is this issue contentious?

Well, there are some who feel that the Fourth Amendment requires a court to issue a warrant for such a program. And that is where reasonable people separate into opposing camps. There are some who are certain that this is the first step down a slippery slope. These people generally recognize that not every warrantless search is unwarranted. Nor are they necessarily a violation of the Fourth Amendment. But trying to equate, for example, most of the examples given in this oft-cited Andrew McCarthy article to the program in question is not helpful – it simply does not address the substantive concerns that exist, even if it makes for good soundbite material.

Along the same lines, it must be recognized that those who support the NSA program is necessary as-is are not actually seeking to raise the presidency to a dictatorial level. They simply recognize that valuable information is passed between terrorists through channels that we have the power to monitor, and they want the NSA and other government agencies to have the freedom to act for the safety of Americans. To accuse these people of disregarding the rights of the individual is to neglect the depth of thought that goes into weighing personal freedoms against national security.

I think the most overlooked point on this issue is that no reasonable person is arguing that the government should not be able to conduct this program with warrants. At the risk of oversimplifying the situation, it seems to me that whether the warrants are technically necessary or not, obtaining them would be very easy, and would allay the concerns of opponents.

Allow me to highlight a few of my favorite arguments regarding the issuance of a warrant:

Kip, Esquire responds to several media outlets:

OpinionJournal, a/k/a Wall Street Journal:In this environment, monitoring the communications of our enemies is neither a luxury nor some sinister plot to chill domestic dissent.

--But how do we know they're our enemies? Do we have, um, probable cause to think so? Or even just the less onerous standard of "reasonable suspicion"? Or, um, anything specific enough to get a FISA warrant?

New York Sun:Yesterday's ruling follows the disclosure in December of an NSA program to listen in on calls between suspected terrorists abroad and those on American soil who might be communicating with them.

--But why do we suspect that they're terrorists? Because we have, um, probable cause or reasonable grounds to suspect it? Enough to get a FISA warrant?

NRO:The lone judge in American history to order a president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program that has undoubtedly saved lives probably sympathizes with the journalists, and others, who are suing to stop the Terrorist Surveillance Program in which NSA intercepts foreign-U.S. terrorist communications.

--But how do we know that they're terrorists? Because we have, um, probable cause to know it? Enough to get a FISA warrant?

USA Today:The NSA program applies only to international calls, and only those intercepted while tracking known or suspected al-Qaeda operatives.

--But how do we know or suspect that they are al-Qaeda operatives? Because we have, um, probable cause? Enough to get a FISA warrant?

It's not the wiretapping. It's the warrantless, stupid!

Similar thoughts from defcon:blog.

Jib Halyard (my good friend and co-blogger at Atlas Blogged) expressed the civil libertarian viewpoint when he asked:

Where does this presidential power end? Warrantless wiretapping is the legal equivalent of unlawful search and seizure, which is clearly prohibited by the 4th Amendment. If the administration’s argument affirms that, because we’re at war, it can contravene the 4th Amendment, then why doesn’t that same argument have the capacity to circumvent the entire Bill of Rights?

Obviously, some see this as very unreasonable in the face of the threat to national security that is posed by ~~IslamoFascistsany terroristsany criminals~~ our enemies. But it doesn’t have to be a slippery slope – a point Jib argues to Xrlq in the comments section of that post:

I want our law enforcement to be able to practice surveillance using the best technology available. The objection I have is to warrantless wiretaps, not to the practice of wiretapping altogether. All I desire is for our system of checks and balances between the branches of government to remain intact while doing so.

As I'm sure you know, FISA was enacted to address this very circumstance. Instead, the executive chose to ignore this law, claiming that (i) it is too cumbersome for their needs, and (ii) they have the authority to, based on its Article II powers.

I'm challenging these two claims:

First, if FISA is out date for whatever reason (it's insufficient, anachronistic, too cumbersome in a modern environment, simply can't apply to our newest prevention technologies, whatever), then the executive should go to the legislative and say so, and ask for what they do need. Congress was united in supporting what was needed to protect our country - at least when this program started - and would have done what was necessary to update the FISA system; but, it's beyond the executive's purview to simply ignore the existing law.

Second, as I asked in my article, if the administration's interpretation of the executive's war powers is correct, then what does stop the executive from expanding their powers further, infringing on our other civil rights as outlined in the Constitution? From my perspective, this is the true scary part of the equation.

Thomas Eddlam at Lew Rockwell:

I’ve got no problem with tapping the calls of people who are al Qaeda, and Congress authorized the President to do this under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). All that Bush has to do is follow the same Constitution he swore an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" by seeking a warrant. There’s even an emergency provision in FISA that lets the President tap a phone call before getting a warrant, which is similar to the common law doctrine of "hot pursuit" with regard to warrants. If all the President has to do is get a warrant within 72 hours after conducting the phone tap, it doesn’t slow down the NSA one bit to get the warrant.

So, other than the argument that it is not necessary (which may or may not be true), why shouldn’t the NSA go ahead and get the warrants for these searches? Are we worried about a slippery slope that would greatly restrict the federal government? If so, is that a concern held by conservatives, or by liberals?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 26, 2006

Inquiring Minds

Yesterday, my son said that he would point his yellow National Geographic junior binoculars at the moon “and see if those dark spots really are mountains”. Unfortunately, we are just past the New Moon, so he was not able to perform his observation. Give him a couple of weeks. Oh, and those binoculars are not powerful enough to see much of anything. But still, consider the implications of his thought process. This five year old has had a Galilean breakthrough on his own. Technology and natural, childlike inquisitiveness are what drive science. And these in turn drive technology. Which means that I will soon be purchasing a starter telescope on eBay.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

August 25, 2006

Pluto Promoted*

* commercially, that is.

A little follow up to Rick’s article Pluto Demoted from the other day. In the comments section, I joked:

They're just doing it for the money, of course. Now everybody has to buy new T-shirts and placemats and whatever else we all own that has pictures of the nine planets. It's the same as when a sports franchise switches jersies - it's about revenue.

Well, thanks to "feminist mom" for pointing us to this article:

Scores of Web-savvy sellers hoping to support — and cash in — on Pluto's demotion to a "dwarf planet" bombarded the Internet hawking Pluto memorabilia worthy of a presidential candidate, from T-shirts and mugs to bumper stickers and mouse pads.

Okay, these people are taking a different approach to the situation than I had jokingly taken, but it’s still pretty funny imho. And in the spirit of having some fun, I am presenting a design for a T-shirt or perhaps poster. Any other ideas?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 24, 2006

Pluto Demoted

There are now eight planets in our solar system.

After much debate, astronomers of the International Astronomical Union today demoted Pluto from planet to dwarf planet.

"Dwarf planet" is defined as "any round object that has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite."

Makes sense to me. Pluto was only originally classified as a planet after its discovery by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930 because it was thought to be similar in size to Earth. It's actually about one-fifth the diameter of Earth.

August 18, 2006

Damn the Torpedoes - Updated 8/20/06

This graphic comes from an article at the Economist on the “painful political debate in rich countries” over asylum-seekers.

What the article does not discuss, and what I would like answered, is why the number of refugees worldwide is now at the lowest since 1980. Anyone?

I'll start it off by suggesting that it has little or nothing to do with the policies of the rich countries.

Updated below the fold...

Updated at 22:45 on August 20: I am sharing some of what I have looked up on this subject since it was originally posted.

I have taken the liberty of arranging specific parts of some of the pdfs from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) into jpgs. I apologize if it looks sloppy. This table shows the nation of origin for refugees in 1993 and 1994.

Today, roughly 40% of the refugees today are in Asia, while Africa accounts for roughly a quarter. See the pie chart.

In 1993, by my reckoning, the numbers were about 35% for Asia, 37% for Africa. The UNHCR archives are available here in pdf if you are interested. Without doing any more math than that, it’s clear that a huge difference is the number of refugees in Africa.

I want to understand why that is.

Possibly more instructive is this table that shows the new arrivals of asylum seekers between 1993 and 1994. Note the combined million refugees arriving in Tanzania and Burundi… from Rwanda. Remember Rwanda?

This may be a much more significant factor than the collapse of the USSR. That collapse caused a lot of migration, but doesn’t seem to have created many refugees.

If you look at the graphic at the top of this article, the number of refugees worldwide looks to decrease by ~2 million between 1996 and 1997. According to the FAO, ~2 million Rwandans returned home during that time.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Book Tag Meme - Rammage

Okay, since everyone's doing it:

One Book That Changed My Life: Carl Sagan’s Cosmos. This was my gateway drug into reading science books for pleasure.

A book I have read more than once: If we're counting “books on iPod” then I've 'read' Bernard Goldberg’s Bias, Ann Coulter’s Godless and How to Talk to a Liberal, and Peter Schweizer's Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy hundreds of times while mowing the lawn. If we're talking strictly meatspace, then the only book that I've read more than once as an adult is William Gibson’s Neuromancer (can anyone understand this book in only one reading?) As an aside, the only book I had ever read more than once pre-adulthood was Vonda McIntyre's The Entropy Effect, but I would never openly admit that in a public forum such as this.

One Book I would want on a desert island: The Great Mussel and Clam Cookbook (okay, okay, point taken. I’d have to go with Tolkien for its escapism.)

One Book that made me laugh: Now this is a toughie. I suppose anything by PJ O’Rourke. Or maybe Rex Pickett's Sideways? I don't know if this would count, but if I had to list the book that has elicited the most laughs from me, then I'd have to go with The Onion's Our Dumb Century. Read the fine print.

One Book that made me cry: Timothy Zahn’s Star Wars, Heir to the Empire Trilogy, The Last Command. Grand Admiral Thrawn died too young. Stupid Noghri.

One Book I wish I had written: Andrew Chaikin’s A Man on the Moon, the bible of early U.S. space flight. How much fun would it be researching and interviewing the historic figures from the birth of space exploration?

One Book you wish had never been written: 2061, Arthur C. Clarke. Bleh. Runner-up: Eric Berne’s Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy. I chose this book as the topic of a high school book report for the sole purpose of being a smart-ass. It was a decision I regretted.

One Book I am currently reading: One? I have the unusual habit of being in the middle of reading many different books at the same time, choosing which one to continue reading based on the whim of the moment, much like flipping through the channels with a remote control. Currently I am halfway through Edward Rutherfurd's Sarum, Patrick O'Brian's Post Captain, and Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks And White Liberals.

One Book I have been meaning to read: Atlas Shrugged (Shhhhh – yes, it’s the great, dark secret of Atlas Blogged to my eternal shame. I do, however, place Anthem and Fountainhead as runners-up to books that have changed my life.)

Now Tag Others: I tag Atlas Blogged's Jib Halyard, Boon, R*ck, and G-Dawg.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

August 17, 2006

Federal Judge Rules NSA's Domestic Wiretapping Program Unconstitutional

Today, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program (that’s the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” to the Fox News audience) is unconstitutional, and ordered that the program be halted immediately.

Of course, the White House disagrees. The U.S. Justice Department has appealed the ruling, issuing the following statement:

In the ongoing conflict with al-Qaida and its allies, the President has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people.

The Constitution gives the President the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties.

The same old rhetoric we’ve been hearing for months…

My question to the supporters of this program is: Where does this presidential power end?

Warrantless wiretapping is the legal equivalent of unlawful search and seizure, which is clearly prohibited by the 4th Amendment. If the administration’s argument affirms that, because we’re at war, it can contravene the 4th Amendment, then why doesn’t that same argument have the capacity to circumvent the entire Bill of Rights?

What, then, keeps a wartime executive from disrupting our freedom of speech? Our right to bear arms? Our right to assemble?

Of course, this must be a tough question because the Attorney General of the United States, Antonio Gonzales, had some trouble answering that basic line of questioning himself during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on wartime executive power:

SPECTER: Well, then, let me ask you this: Under your interpretation of this, can you go in and do mail searches? Can you go into e-mails? Can you open mail? Can you do black-bag jobs?

And under the idea that you don't have much time to go through what you described as a cumbersome procedure, what most people think is a pretty easy procedure, to get a FISA warrant, can you go and do that of Americans?

GONZALES: Sir, I've tried to outline for you and the Committee what the President has authorized, and that is all that he has authorized.

LEAHY: Did it authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens? That you can answer yes or no.

GONZALES: There is all kinds of wild speculation about...

LEAHY: Did it authorize it?

SPECTER: Let him finish.

GONZALES: There is all kinds of wild speculation out there about what the President has authorized and what we're actually doing. And I'm not going to get into a discussion, Senator, about...

LEAHY: Mr. Attorney General, you're not answering my question. I'm not asking you what the President authorized.

Does this law -- you're the chief law enforcement officer of the country -- does this law authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens, yes or no, under your interpretation?

GONZALES: Senator, I think that, again, that is not what is going on here.

We're only focused on international communications where one part of the communication is al-Qaida. That's what this program is all about.

LEAHY: You haven't answered my question.

And he never did.

Posted by Jib.Halyard | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Book Tag Meme

Lone Pony is playing the blog-tag game, but it’s about books. Now, I take books seriously. I have a framed quote on my bedroom wall that reads, “I cannot live without books.” (Thomas Jefferson). Mine is a readin’ household. So count me in on this particular game, the better for my readers to know me.

One Book That Changed My Life: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand. This was the book that brought mature individualism out of the world of fiction for me. It brought economics into the real world for me. By the way, the only Rand I had read before this was Anthem.

A book I have read more than once: Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card. I use it in my physics course for students with poor math skills, because it is a compelling read and describes very nicely the physics of a rotating space station and Newton’s Laws. But aside from all of that, it is just a great story.

One Book I would want on a desert island: Robinson Crusoe? No, no… that’d be funny, but no. I think I would want Survival On Land and Sea by the Ethnogeographic Board and the Staff of The Smithsonian Institution. It was written for the Navy during WWII. Perfect.

One Book that made me laugh: Dave Barry Slept Here.

One Book that made me cry: Where the Red Fern Grows. I was a kid. Sniff.

One Book I wish I had written: A History of Physics by Isaac Asimov. If that book doesn’t knock your socks off, you simply are not a scientist.

One Book you wish had never been written: Mein Kampf. I'd like to think that if this book had never been written, history would have been different. This was the most thought-provoking category for me.

One Book I am currently reading: The Sun Also Rises

One Book I have been meaning to read: Gravity’s Rainbow. Pynchon has been in a holding pattern with me for years. I will read that book. Eventually.

Lone Pony didn’t tag anybody, and I won’t either. But Matt Armstrong of People Covered in Fish has picked up the game, and I am particularly interested in his answer for the book he wishes had never been written. Check him out. Oh, and I’d love to know your thoughts – either comments here, or let me know if any of you pick it up and play along.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

That Cushy Government Job

WSJ recently ran a Chris Edwards editorial titled “Welcome to Club Fed”.

The closest thing to a lifetime sinecure in America is a federal government job, and now it turns out that it's also a very lucrative way to make a living.

New data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis confirm that the average federal civilian worker earns $106,579 a year in total compensation, or twice the $53,289 in wages and benefits for the typical private worker. This federal pay premium costs taxpayers big bucks because Uncle Sam's annual payroll is now $200 billion a year. No wonder that, with a per capita income of $46,782 a year, Washington, D.C. is the fourth richest among the nation's 360 metropolitan areas.

(also available here)

Edwards also discussed the issue back on August 2 at Cato at Liberty, when he noted:

The data for 2005 shows that compensation for the average federal civilian worker ($106,579) is now exactly double the average compensation in the U.S. private sector ($53,289).

The federal pay advantage has been soaring in recent years. The ratio of average federal to average private compensation increased from 1.51 in 1990, to 1.68 in 2000, to 2.00 today.

Holy cripes that’s alarming. This nation needs a political party dedicated to smaller government. Don’t you dare say the Republicans, you fool.

The Cato at Liberty piece was linked by Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of… As Kip and I noted in the comments section, the numbers being presented by Cato at Liberty are only telling a very small part of the story. What exactly are these federal jobs? How do they compare with the compensation for state or local government jobs? I’m not playing Devil’s Advocate here; It’s just that I would really like to know. It might better paint the picture for me.

These are federal civilian positions. What low-paying federal civilian positions are there that might pull down the average? Could it be that the federal government contracts out all of the menial stuff, both raising its own average salary and lowering that of the private sector? Perhaps playing Devil’s Advocate isn’t such a bad idea…

Well, Edwards does address that:

The structure of that workforce has also changed over time. There are fewer low-pay typists and more high-pay computer experts in the government today than there were a generation ago. But that doesn't explain why, as the BEA data show, federal wages have risen 38 percent in just the past five years, compared with 14 percent in the private sector…

Federal workers receive generous health benefits during work and retirement, a pension plan with inflation protection, a retirement savings plan with generous matching contributions, large disability benefits, and union protections. They often have generous holiday and vacation schedules, flexible hours, training options, incentive awards, flexible spending accounts, and a more relaxed pace of work than private-sector workers.

Perhaps the most important benefit of federal employment is extreme job security. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the rate of layoffs and firings in the federal workforce is just one-quarter the rate in the private sector. All these advantages in worker benefits suggest that, in comparable jobs, federal wages ought to be lower than private-sector wages.

One sign that federal workers have a sweeter deal than they acknowledge is the rate of voluntary resignation from government positions: just one-quarter the rate in the private sector, the BLS data show. Long job tenure has its pros and cons, but the fact that many federal workers burrow in and never leave suggests that they are doing pretty well for themselves.

The numbers just don’t lie. Edwards also linked to the Bureau of Economic Analysis website for those who would like to parse the numbers.

Says Radley Balko at The Agitator:

I'm sure there'll be a flury of letters to the editor from federal bureaucrats defending their existence. But the vast majority of them are parasites. Not only do they add nothing to the economy, they actually slow it down, both by sapping tax dollars for their salaries, offices, and benefits, and by the very nature of their jobs, most of which raise the cost of doing business in America. Not to mention the amount of money American individuals spend on lawyers and tax accountants, either to lobby to make sure the sea of regulations are more to their liking, or merely to help them understand the law so that they can comply with it.

And that's not even touching the damage the ever-expanding army of federal law enforcement officials is doing.

Okay! I’ll quit the Devil’s Advocate thing. This is the antithesis of what America is supposed to be about. This isn’t how we think of ourselves, and I can’t imagine who would defend this, except for those sucking at the government teat. And I don’t foresee it being undone. Sharing the information far and wide would be a good start. Again, the numbers just don’t lie.

Edwards was further quoted by Cato’s own Greg Garner:

In the May 2006 edition of Cato's Tax & Budget Bulletin, Edwards urges Congress to "restrain federal compensation by freezing federal wages for a period of years and examining fringe benefit programs for possible savings." He writes, "In the longer term, the coming surge in federal worker retirement as baby boomers enter their sixties offers an opportunity to downsize federal agencies without problematic layoffs or buyouts. As government air traffic controllers, space scientists, and others retire in coming years, these activities should be handed over to the private sector so that they can be better managed and have more efficient compensation policies."

Hear, hear!

More on the subject of federal unions at PowerBlog:

Labor union membership in the private sector has declined steadily and stands at about 8%. By contrast, in the government sector labor union membership stands at around 37%.

This is itself a huge disparity, and one that I would think has large effects on issues of pay, benefits, and job security. Thus, I think there has to be a link between the rates of union membership and compensation between the public and private sectors.

As Dr. Charles Baird notes in a radio interview, “In the government sector there is no declining unionism, none at all.”

Bingo.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Wasted Votes

I have never missed an election, and I have never voted for a Democrat or Republican presidential candidate. That means my vote is wasted. I am told this every time. To vote for an Independent, Libertarian, or other "third party" candidate is to throw one's vote away, especially in the "big" elections.

Right?

I would assume that anybody writing in the center column on WatchBlog would feel otherwise. But allow me to lay out the argument that my vote is indeed meaningless - and yours is, too.

Take yourself back to the controversial US presidential election of 2000. I live in Virginia. I walk in to the voting booth and see the following tickets:

Bush / Cheney - Republican
Gore / Lieberman - Democrat
Nader / La Duke - Green
Browne / Olivier - Libertarian
Buchanan / Foster - Reform
Phillips / Frazier - Constitution

I don't remember the order in which they were presented to me, but these were my options. Bush / Cheney are projected to win the state by more than 7% over Gore / Lieberman. So, how do I cast a meaningful vote? Whether I vote for Bush or not, he's taking the 13 electoral votes from the Commonwealth of Virginia. It's just not close enough to dispute. Think about that. No matter which chad I punch, Bush wins Virginia – nothing I could do would change the outcome of the election. This is the definition of my vote being meaningless.

Right?

I have several friends who are libertarian Republicans. They talk the libertarian talk, and then - frustratingly - they vote GOP, every time. In 2000, they tried to persuade me to vote for Bush just to ensure that idiot Gore doesn’t get elected. The LP was polling under 2% and had no chance of winning (they argued) so you have to cast your vote for the candidate who is closest to your ideology among those candidates who are legitimate contenders. Even if the closest isn't very close. Otherwise the vote is wasted. The same argument was made in '04 to keep Kerry out of office. I expect it again in the next cycle.

I also have several friends who are libertarian Democrats. They have very libertarian philosophies, but always vote Democrat, for reasons similar to those I gave above. Their hatred and fear of the Republican Party (usually the Christian Right in particular) brings them to vote for candidates like Gore or Kerry, who don’t actually represent them at all. Because otherwise, the vote is wasted.

Right?

Except that my one vote could not affect the outcome of the election anyway. If I had voted for Bush, he wouldn’t have won harder or something. If I had voted for the Democrat, it wouldn’t have swung Virginia – the gap was nearly a quarter of a million people. In a closely contested state, I can at least understand why Greens, Libertarians, and Reform Party types would feel that they had to engage in tactical voting. But in most states, no individual vote is any more meaningful than my vote for the LP. I can accuse the libertarian Republicans or the libertarian Democrats of casting "wasted votes" as assuredly as they can accuse me.

Also, consider that third-party voters are often given credit / blame for splitting the vote. In particular, Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2000 are sometimes considered effective spoiler candidates, responsible for the election of Clinton and Bush, respectively. So voting Republican isn’t the only way to keep a Democrat out of office, and vice versa. I would argue that the 1992 election demonstrates exactly why voting “third party” is better than the tactical voting method. In that election, Independent candidate H. Ross Perot carried 18.9% of the popular vote, leaving Bill Clinton to win the presidency with the support of only 43.0% of voters. As a result, the Republican Party reevaluated what voters dislike about Democrats, and played to that in 1994. They did this well enough to get Perot’s support for their 1994 Contract with America, which held specific promises of fiscal conservativism. We all know the result – the Republican Party controls Congress.

The way in which this is an argument for voting third-party is that the Perot voters of 1992 were able to explain clearly what it was that they found lacking in the Republican Party, and they have had concessions in future elections. People who did not support Bill Clinton, but voted for him as the lesser evil, explained nothing to the Republican Party, and were not courted as effectively. What concessions have libertarian voters won from either major party by voting for them over the last decade or so? None, because so many vote Democrat or Republican. The Libertarian Party does not represent me perfectly, but it is closer to me than the two major parties, and I want them to know that. I want the Democrats to know exactly why I am not voting for them. I want the Republicans to know exactly why I am not voting for them. If any “third party” can significantly muster more than 5% of the vote, or if alternative parties are able to approach 15% collectively, their positions will be taken more seriously than they are now.

(This article was originally posted at WatchBlog)

Posted by Wulf | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

August 16, 2006

(H.R.) 42 is Not the Answer

Here’s a little story that didn’t receive too much press:

Americans Now Free to Display American Flags at Their Homes

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett Present When President Bush Signed H.R. 42 into Law - First American Values Agenda of House Republicans to Become Law

On all things political there sits atop my shoulders a little angel and a little devil, one representing libertarian ideals, the other Republican (I’ll leave it to the reader to decide for himself which is the angel and which the devil). While the two agree on many issues (such as their mutual contempt for all things Democrat), every once in a while they run across a topic to which they are diametrically opposed. This American flag issue is one of them.

Now, far be it from me to criticize my Maryland Congressman Roscoe Bartlett. Indeed, if I were ever to enter the political arena, I’d like to think that I’d model myself after him. That is, his sole purpose in life seems to be voting down anything and everything put before him. That’s a politician who I can get behind.

Furthermore, I include myself among those who feel that homeowner’s associations are beginning to outgrow their usefulness, both in scope and expense. Short of a neighbor opening a salvage dump next door, I can’t imagine too many infractions that would drive me to lodge a complaint with an HOA. The thought of any HOA in the United States implementing covenants against flying the American flag is repulsive to me. I agree with Congressman Bartlett when he said “I was alarmed when I learned that some homeowners associations and condos all over the country prevent Americans from flying the American flag. It's hard to see how flying an American flag could depreciate the value of a condo.”

At first glance, this is reminiscent of the flag burning debate. But flag burning was an issue of government versus the citizen. Bartlett’s bill, on the other hand, is business versus citizen with the government acting as a third-party intervenor. And this is where the libertarian angel/devil begins to whisper in my ear. Is this the best solution?

U.S. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) stated:

"Every American should be able to display the American flag on their own residential property. Simply put, homeowners associations and condominiums should not be able to restrict the rights of those wanting to display the flag at their homes. Displaying the American flag should be the right of each and every citizen and I'd like to thank Rep. Bartlett for his work on this important legislation and the values it represents for our country."

The diminutive Republican tutelary on my shoulder strenuously agrees. Every American should be able to display an American flag on his or her own property. The libertarian counterpart reminds me that citizens who enter into an agreement to live under the conditions of a homeowner’s association do so under their own free will. If a group of citizens want to move into a development together and maintain covenants, no matter how ridiculous, then they should be able to do so free of government intervention.

Is there a free-market solution to Americans overcoming these petty HOA covenants that does not involve government involvement? Actually, there are two. First, the homeowners can petition the HOA to get the restriction(s) reversed. Second, homeowners can choose not to move to developments with flag restrictions. If enough people opted for the latter, then eventually restrictive HOAs would be weeded out.

I like Joe Kelley’s take:

Some people claim that [HOAs are] un-American by banning American flags. In reality, HOAs are perfectly American because they define self-rule. HOAs are not governed by some foreign body of iron-fisted tyrants. They are controlled by the people who make up your community - your next door neighbors.

A homeowner’s association is made up of like-minded individuals who all seek to maintain (and increase) the value of their most-prized investment.

Everyone who moves into a community governed by a HOA agrees to live under the guidelines established by the community. Those guidelines are routinely fluid and can change with public sentiment.

Much like the restaurant smoking bans, if enough faith and time is allotted, then the market will provide solutions without government interference and without restricting anyone’s rights, whether it is a citizen’s right to hang the Stars and Stripes or an HOA’s right to operate without Uncle Sam on its back.

And that would make my angel and devil happy.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

AOL Goes Stark Ravin' Mad

Avast, ye hearties!

AOL finally cracks; plans to dig for alleged buried treasure on private property (not their own).

AOL believes a renegade Internet spammer buried gold and platinum on his parents' property in Massachusetts and wants to bring in bulldozers to search for the treasure and satisfy a $12.8 million judgment it won in federal court.

The family says it knows nothing about any buried treasure and will fight AOL's gold-digging plans.

Wow.

Read the whole story here.

Posted by Rick | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 15, 2006

NASA Announces Dark Matter Discovery

Well, they announced that they will announce it, anyway.

Astronomers who used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory will host a media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT Monday, Aug. 21, to announce how dark and normal matter have been forced apart in an extraordinarily energetic collision.

[...]

Shortly before the start of the briefing, images and graphics about the research will be posted at: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/

Briefing participants:
- Maxim Markevitch, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
- Doug Clowe, postdoctoral fellow, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.
- Sean Carroll, assistant professor of physics, University of Chicago, Ill.

A video file about the discovery will air on NASA TV at noon, Aug. 21.

Audio of the event will be streamed live on the Web at: http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio

That's all they're giving us so far, but it sounds intriguing. I'll be watching.

Posted by Rick | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Gym Thoughts II - A Counterpoint

Wulf wrote:

Did I really get stuck today in the parking lot behind a car that was blocking the lane and waiting for a parking spot close to the door? Seriously? At the gym?

This reminded Mrs. Rammage of the time I complained about the number of stairs that I had to climb at Bally’s. She almost posted a comment about it - but thankfully I'm getting to publish my side of the story first.

Hear me out on this. The Bally’s was situated on the top floor of a shopping center, with the entrance on the ground floor. You had to walk up two flights of stairs to get to the main Bally’s work-out area, and then walk to the back of the gym and walk down two flights of stairs to the locker rooms on the ground floor at the back of the shopping center. It was the most screwed up thing I’d ever seen.

So, a typical Bally’s session for me would be to:

Enter [stage left], Ground Floor
Walk up two flights of stairs, and walk to the back of the gym
Walk down two flights of stairs to the locker room to change
Walk up two flights of stairs and work out
Walk down two flights of stairs to change
Walk up two flights of stairs to get back up to gym area
Walk down two flights of stairs to get to the exit

Now, I feel goofy just typing this about a gym, but it was really exhausting. And you members of the Rockville Bally's know what I'm talking about. After hitting the treadmill for 30 minutes and doing leg exercises, nothing was worse than the thought of having to navigate the many flights of stairs just to get out of the gym. At least I crack myself up about all of this.

I ended up cancelling my trial Bally's membership, and I'd like to believe that it had nothing to do with the stairs. I'd like to believe.

On the positive side, since my Titan wouldn’t fit in any of the parking spots at the shopping center, I had to park about 200 yards away at a nearby restaurant. So, Wulf would have never been stuck waiting for me to park.

Update: Boon wrote: "I think at some point you need to just stop paying your Ballys membership and just do the stairs thing. Much cheaper."

Indeed.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Gym Thoughts

Did I really get stuck today in the parking lot behind a car that was blocking the lane and waiting for a parking spot close to the door?

Seriously? At the gym?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 14, 2006

The Direction of the Democrats

I like this Henry Payne cartoon because it is a reminder that each party has its left wing and its right wing keeping it aloft. Libertarians and others in the United States are dissatisfied with the current two-party system. But the LP will never get off the ground with the narrow orthodoxy it currently espouses. I sometimes wish for system of proportional representation, with a smörgåsbord of political parties. Of course, to some degree we already have that, since the two viable parties are themselves coalitions of narrow interests. And it is healthy to keep in mind that those interests will jump party if it serves their interests - most voters care for their pet issues much more than loyalty to a particular party, especially if they do not see that the party is loyal to them.

Any thoughts on the future of the Democratic Party without Joe Lieberman? What level of loyalty will he have to the DNC if he is elected this fall as an independent? What is his future if he does not win the election?

10:20 Update: Ironically, McQ is also discussing libertarian orthodoxy today.

As with most purges, the attempt isn't to make the tent bigger, but instead smaller. Any indication of impurity is grounds for ouster, even though, as you'll see, a claim of "tolerance" will be made at a later point. In reality, those who possess "the truth" have little patience or tolerance with others who don't toe their line.

I would agree with McQ completely, if I didn't follow his link to this article and actually read what it says. But I did, and Mona does have a point, which is that calling oneself "libertarian" does not make it so. I mean, I guess xrlq is free to call himself neolibertarian, but from what I have seen of him, he is a small-government Republican. His calling himself otherwise doesn't change my judgment. The same for Noam Chomsky, who is a socialist... not a "socialist libertarian".

Unfortunately, Mona is one of the most divisive regulars at QandO, and she probably couldn't call the sky blue without many of the regular commenters jumping her case - and they are true to form today.

It reminds me a little bit of an old friend who was a member of the Gay Republicans. Most Republicans felt that he wasn't really a Republican, since he was openly gay and atheist. But the fact is, there are two simple GOP litmus tests; one formal and one informal but no less real. He passes the formal test - he was in fact a Republican, as evidenced by his voter registration card. He would not, however, pass the informal test of getting support from other Republicans if he ran for office. He was not a real Republican in that sense.

The libertarians are such a politically disorganized group that we do not have any effective litmus test, though we have some strong indicator issues.

Is Mona wrong to ask the questions;

1. Should any of these be ostracized and shunned from the libertarian ranks?

2. On the basis of what litmus test(s)?

How ironic that she should be ostracized for even asking. My answer is that there are some self-identified libertarians who should be called out. Maybe not ostracized from discourse, but I certainly won't claim them all as my ideological brethren. And daring to ask questions is not my litmus test.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)

August 10, 2006

Email Exchange on Islamic Fundamentalism

I wanted to share the following email exchange with the world (or at least our readers):

Rammage:

You honestly don't believe that Islamic Fundamentalists would have had to eventually deal with an isolationist United States?

Wulf:

I honestly believe that Capitalism and Classic Liberalism would undermine the base for Islamic Fundamentalism if our nation had any damned confidence in our own ideologies and didn't feel the need to try to force democracy into Iraq. Post Cold War, we have no reason to play with the politics of the ME except
1) Manifest Destiny, which has no place in Classic Liberalism
2) Concerns about a ME dictator or theocracy gaining an oil monopoly - which wouldn't be a concern if we really believed in Capitalism anyway.

In other words, our every action over there is contrary to what we claim is the basis of the United States of America.

The conversation is open to comments.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

Updated 15:30
I got this email today thanking me for my support in helping to pass the Child Safety Act. I don’t believe that I actually provided any such support, and I don’t know why I got this email, but it immediately made me think of Kip’s comments on “sex-offender mania”. He has written on red-lining, recidivism rates, and the obvious direction for registries after the sex-offender precedent. This is all worth some deep pondering in the face of the “for the children” march.

His most recent post on the topic is here and contains links at the bottom to some of his previous articles.

The body of the mysterious email in its entirety is below the fold:

Thank you for support in helping pass The Child Safety Act.

A message from John Walsh - July 27, 2006

This is an incredible week for myself, my family and other parents of murdered or missing children, and I want to thank all of you who have supported us to make sure The Child Safety Act got through to the President.

I'm incredibly thankful to the members of the House and Senate for passing the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act" - and to President Bush for signing it.

My wife Reve and I are honored that it has been named for our son on the 25th anniversary of his abduction and murder.

There are so many people who have worked so hard to get this bill passed -- their work will impact and save lives.

-John Walsh

Some information about the Adam Walsh Act that you - our Safe Side friends - helped to pass:

Of the 550,000 registered sex offenders nationally, the whereabouts of at least 100,000 are currently unknown.

The Adam Walsh Act creates stricter requirements for sex offenders registration -- to prevent offenders from slipping through the cracks and hurting our children.

One of the most important features of the bill is the creation of a national sex offender registry that will be available on the Internet. The legislation also calls for stricter prison sentences for offenders who fail to register and keep their information current. The offender will be assigned to one of three tiers; the worst offenders will have to check-in more frequently, and all offenders will have to register in person.

Some highlights of the bill:

* Establishes a comprehensive national system for the registration of sex offenders

* Establishes three tiers of sex offenders

* Requires all jurisdictions to enact criminal penalties for sex offenders who fail to comply with registration requirements

* Requires sex offenders to appear in person to verify their registration

* Imposes a fine and/or term of imprisonment for up to 20 years on sex offenders who knowingly fail to register

* Makes registration as a sex offender a mandatory condition of probation and supervised release

* Eliminates the statue of limitations for prosecutions of child abduction and felony sex sex offenses against children

Thank you so much for all of your support along the way! Our Safe Side friends helped generate over 16,000 letters to Senator Specter.

The Safe Side Team

www.thesafeside.com
====================
The Safe Side Company is a proud financial supporter of The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

www.missingkids.com

As The Safe Side creates more safety products for children and adds new safety information to our site, we will be sending out important news and information via E-mail.
If you would like to be removed from our E-mail list, please read the unsubscribe information below.
As always, we will not share, sell or give your E-mail address to any other organization. Ever.

If you would like to unsubscribe from our list, visit:
http://list-manage.com/unsub.phtml?id=EoYJ5hFuboclyCDHG7Pc0

I’d like to know more about the "three tiers" part. I am not as familiar with this legislation as I ought to be. Time to go a-researchin’… please drop me a line if you know anything much about it.

Update: I haven't found much on the three tiers, but I did find an article that notes that the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children recognizes some problems with red-lining.

South of Houston, so many municipalities have passed similar ordinances that surrounding communities worry that if they don't follow suit, they will become dumping grounds for sex offenders.

"The key is to know where they are and what they're doing, not to limit where they can live. Because, by doing so, you may be inadvertently pushing them into a situation where we no longer know where they are," says [NCMEC President Ernie] Allen.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Everybody Funny... Now You Funny Too

Scott Stein is a writer and blogger whose site I linked recently. He is putting together the syllabus for a course he will be teaching at the University of Pennsylvania called "What's So Funny?"

It's a critical writing course that focuses on understanding humorous writing. Students will be reading essays, articles, reviews, plays, stories, maybe a couple of novels, Internet sites, whatever else I can find, and then discussing the use of humor and writing papers analyzing the whole thing. Maybe we'll also view a couple of good standup routines or sitcoms. Toward the end of the semester I might give students a chance to do a little creative writing and construct their own short humor pieces (which is what we do for the entire term in the Writing Humor and Comedy course I started at Drexel University, named one of the "Ten Best Things about Drexel" in the book Drexel University Off the Record).

He is asking for suggestions as he tries to create an extensive list of the best humorous writing. I don’t have much to offer him, but if you do, drop him a line. I get nothing out of it, except that I am interested in any answers that might come up.

Personally, the best humor writing I have read in the last year was unintentionally funny, and I wouldn’t feel right sharing it.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 9, 2006

ZooBank

I wrote about ZooBank in March:

...a group called the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) at London's Natural History Museum has begun planning a definitive, open-access, web-based catalogue of species - the comprehensive, peer-reviewed Wikipedia of all living things scientists have discovered. The project is called ZooBank.

Today, "Peter" left a message on the article. It reads,
We have launched ZooBank today (www.zoobank.org).

What a great tool for biologists of all stripes. I had to share.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

New NFL Commissioner Elected

There’s a new sheriff in town. No, his name is not Reggie Hammond. But ya’ll can still be cool. Right on.

His name is Roger Goodell, and he was the heir-apparent to succeed Paul Tagliabue as the Commissioner of the National Football League (NFL). Yesterday it became official as the NFL Owners unanimously picked Goodell as their new leader. It was a logical choice, as Goodell has worked for Tagliabue and before that Pete Rozelle, considered two of the best commissioners in all of sports.

Goodell is only 47, which may lead to believe that if he does a good enough job, he will be around for quite some time. Personally I think that’s a good thing for the NFL. Stability at the top usually makes it better all around. And his most recent position? Since December of 2001 he has been the Chief Operating Officer of the NFL. Among his duties was serving as president of NFL Ventures, Inc. (which oversees the NFL's business units, including media properties, marketing and sales, consumer products, international, stadium development, special events, and strategic planning). He also ran the league's football operations and officiating departments (exact job description taken from espn.com). He’s got some big shoes to fill in Tagliabue and especially Rozelle. Luckily he’s been in the NFL offices for more than 20 years so at least he has a handle on what’s going on over there.

Okay, enough about him. Let’s talk about us. How will this affect us as fans? Hopefully, it will be a seamless transition. The biggest issue could be with the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). In 2008, both sides (players and league) have the option to opt out of their current contract. There’s been talk already from owners and the players that they won’t hesitate to take this option to garner a new deal. That could be ugly.

Also on the plate is Los Angeles. The City of Angels have been a city without an NFL team since both the Raiders and the Rams bolted out of town back in 1994-1995. Obviously that is a huge market which anyone would love to tap into. The issue is now, like buying a house out there, it’s just crazy money. Figures have been estimated between $1.5 and $2 billion just to get a team off the ground. Yes, billion. Not saying it can’t be done, but that’s a lot of risk to be taking.

I wish you good luck Mr. Goodell. I hope you succeed and keep the league going strong for the next 20 years. Football is a passion for many, and you will be judged daily. With your experience, I think you will do just fine. Just don’t screw with it too much, okay? I kinda like how it is now.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)

August 4, 2006

For Everything Else, There's Ned Lamont's MasterCard

Universal preschool.....................expensive.

Universal health care...................very expensive.

All-day schools...........................New Haven real estate-expensive.

"A transportation strategy which interconnects cities and suburbs, inner cities and jobs and affordable housing, and ports and airports" ......................really quite ungodly expensive.

"A serious, long-range infrastructure plan to upgrade our schools, public transportation, highways, our sewage treatment and our levees in below sea-level areas" .................expensive beyond the realm of absurdity.

The Washington Post suggesting that Connecticut's Ned Lamont is a "fiscal conservative"..................Priceless.

Cato's David Boaz pokes fun here.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

2006 is Year of the Dog

A few months ago I wrote

China is well on the way to being, if not already, the most egregious environmentally harming country in the world. How can the Left, with their chosen religion of Environmentalism, reconcile that their beloved China is "desecrating" the earth?

So when I came upon this story about how China is beating more than 50,000 dogs to death, I immediately wondered how this was being received by PETA.

Dogs being walked were seized from their owners and beaten to death on the spot, the Shanghai Daily newspaper reported. Led by the county police chief, killing teams entered villages at night creating noise to get dogs barking, then beat the animals to death, the reports said.

To their credit, PETA resoundingly condemn it with a link off of their main page:

China’s long history of animal abuse is back in the spotlight as one Chinese county indiscriminately massacres every dog in sight—more than 50,000 in total-some right in front of their families. This and other appalling atrocities—such as feeding live sheep and chickens to tigers in zoos and skinning conscious animals, including dogs and cats, for their fur, which is then exported to the West—take place because China has no animal protection laws.

What's this? A PETA statement without a broad-sweeping condemnation of the United States and her associated evils? Never fear, PETA does not disappoint:

China supplies more than half the monkeys imported to the U.S. for experiments, and that number has increased sevenfold in the last 10 years.

Ah, there it is. Because indiscriminately and savagely beating dogs to death with wooden canes is morally equivalent to performing controlled medical experiments on monkeys for the sole purpose of saving human lives. It's too bad that the same beloved Communist countries that Leftist organizations like PETA yearn for are not prosperous enough, economically, to be able to afford a more humane way of putting down dogs suspected of rabies.

Update: Wulf says "Most of the news articles I have seen on it were focusing on the word rabies and the number 50,000 more than any photos of dogs being beaten. For some reason.

H/T: JunkyardBlog

Posted by Rammage | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 2, 2006

Commerce Not Good for Children

Updated 17:25
Which should concern me more: Sponge Bob on a box of macaroni and cheese, or the possibility that my child will be abducted? Well, seeing that I don’t really give a rat’s ass whether Sponge Bob is on the box, it should be an easy question. But the message of this NPR story is that I am a fool for failing to recognize the insidious dangers of letting my children watch television in a society where there is no government regulation of Sponge Bob on food boxes. You see, if my children watch TV and see Sponge Bob Squarepants, Cinderella, Dora the Explorer, or any of the other so called “children’s programming”, then they will desire bedspreads and cereal and clothing and bicycles and whatever else some evil bastard slaps a cartoon character on and sticks on a store shelf.

It is disturbing, the NPR story says, that a 4-year-old recognizes the logo for Coca-Cola. Stop and think about this: We sing and use flashcards and read books to our children in an attempt to get them to recognize and use symbols to communicate with other people, including across barriers of language and space and time. And the Coke symbol is one of the most widely recognized symbols in the world. But this NPR story presents it as lamentable when a child joins the rest of us in knowing what that symbol means. This knowledge is bad. To desire Coke is also bad. That is the message NPR is pushing.

Some of you [stare at Rammage] will say that this is typical of NPR. Fine, but I have a point beyond complaining that NPR is a bunch of anti-market liberal weenies (especially since I don’t believe that is generally the case).

Mayo Clinic pediatrician Dan Broughton is interviewed in the story. Speaking for the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Broughton is the one who says that I worry too much about child abduction (after all, it’s statistically improbable), and not enough about having my children see Sponge Bob on a box macaroni and cheese in the store (statistically certain). I guess it doesn’t occur to him why, exactly, I worry about child abduction. First of all, the two concerns are not mutually exclusive. What if an abductor exposes my child to the Sponge Bob m&c? Now the kid has been stolen and corrupted by advertising! It is clear, after all, that there is no escaping from advertisers. Better to keep the kid safe from abduction, in my mind, just on the off chance that it would be better for the child to be with me than with an abductor.

But I do get Mr. Broughton’s point. Even while my children are with me physically, they can be mentally abducted right before my eyes by what they are watching on television. Don’t dismiss this as hyperbole – hours upon hours of children’s programming have a serious impact on what your kids believe. They can be pushed a socialist agenda, or a message of rugged individualism… many shows indicate that might makes right, and as a parent I sometimes have to address that. Parents do need to be aware of what their children are exposed to at school, on line, on television… everywhere. This is a legitimate concern. In fact, I have addressed the possibility that the messages in these kids' shows are a means of positive social engineering (see here).

Having said that, I don’t really care if my children are watching commercials. I am one of those parents who are capable of saying "no" to my children. And my kids don’t have money, and they don’t have cars, so they won’t be making any purchases for themselves for quite some time. In the meantime, they learn by example. I do not feed them crap, and I do not buy them whatever they ask for. My shopping habits are shockingly similar to those of my parents when I was a child, and shockingly dissimilar to what I was asking for when I was five years old. Despite all of the Smurf-watching I did as a kid, I turned out okay. And that wasn't nearly as educational as Dora, or my personal favorite, Little Einsteins.

But we all know that there are people out there who don’t think that parents can handle raising their kids without regulatory help from the government. Some of those people are parents like the ones the NPR story talks about. So the question for any level-headed lover of liberty is, How can I get these people to leave me alone? How can I keep them from pushing more regulations onto the industry – how can I stop that slippery slope? The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood is a group that wants to end marketing of junk foods to children under eight. [Insert libertarian joke about black-market junk food ads]

But in all seriousness, how exactly would such a ban be enforced? The answer is, sweepingly.

If you listen to the NPR story, you will hear the president of Nickelodeon trying to explain the basic concept of supply and demand, but it’s a futile effort. The story even notes that there is a demand for healthy food to be associated with these cartoon characters, so we see the creation of things like Dora Carrots. But still, in the minds of the media and child psychologists, there is a failure to let parents raise their own children.

Update: The NPR piece I discussed was the first in a series of three. The others are here (on 'tweens) and here (teens).

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (1)