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

Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than they already have.

-Rene Descartes

April 29, 2007

Melted Steel

(Click on image for link to slideshow)

Do you really expect me to believe that the I-beams and steel girders of this freeway could be melted by a simple gasoline fire? Hide your ignorance! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

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

Got Vouchers?

If I were a contestant on Jeff Foxworthy's Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?, then I would give the incorrect answer to the following 1st Grade level social studies question:

What is the largest expenditure of the U.S. Federal Government?

Remembering back from my earliest grade school days of civics and government, I clearly recall seeing a pie chart that roughly resembled a Pac-Man where the defense budget was swallowing every other sliver of government spending. And until I had read McQ's Entitlements and Political Will over at QandO, I would have confidently answered that our country's defense was still its primary expense. And I would have subsequently had to admit that I was definitely not smarter than a 5th grader as I walked off the show in shame.

This article of McQ's, and the original Robert Samuelson article to which it refers, has haunted me since I first read it. How have we gotten to this point? If there is one topic on which the Republicans, Libertarians, and at least some of the Democrats can agree upon, it's that, if the federal government should be spending money on anything, then defense of its people should be the primary concern. And yet, the defense budget was down to 20% of federal spending in 2006.

In roughly that same period, what other spending trends can be analyzed? In Mona Charen's Do-Gooders, she points out:

In 1965, the average per-pupil expenditure for primary and secondary schools students was $3,000 per year. By 1995, it had more than doubled to $6,500 (in constant dollars). Performance (i.e., test scores) did not improve. Indeed, in many areas, performance has declined. Spending rose in every category—salaries, equipment, special programs, transportation, and administration. Spending also rose at every government level—local, state, and federal. By 2003-2004, local, state, and federal governments spent half a trillion dollars on elementary and secondary education.

It should be noted here, as well, that the 2001 national average per-pupil expenditure was $8,745, while, at the upper end of the scale, Washington DC topped out at $15,122 in the same year.

So what's this got to do with our Defense budget? Well, if you'll forgive the apples-to-oranges comparison (federal vs. federal/state/city), Charen goes on to say:

It tends to put into perspective that 1980s slogan, emblazoned on thousands of hippies T-shirts, that read: "Wouldn't it be great if the schools had all the money they needed and the Pentagon had to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber?" In 2003-2004, the United States spent $375 billion on defense, so education spending far outstrips defense spending.

Well, at the very least, the kids nowadays can be spared the propagandized and evil Pac-Man pie chart gobbling up the rest of the federal budget. School vouchers, anyone?

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

April 28, 2007

Hippocrates Shrugged

I don’t read the Volokh Conspiracy, mostly because I find his format unwieldy and distasteful. And that’s a shame, because my understanding is that Mr Volokh puts out some good content. But I sometimes run across his work by proxy, as was the case today. Inspired by one of Mr Volokh’s posts, Coyote Blog ponders, Does the Hippocratic Oath Make Doctors Our Slaves?

(The text of the Hippocratic Oath can be found here, if you’re the type to do research from the primary source.)

Coyote’s post is one that explains well the general libertarian philosophy as it applies to a specific situation. Libertarians (as he notes) are often written off in policy debates, because our positions come across to the average person as extreme and unworkable. And in our society, in the short term, maybe they are. But these aren’t knee-jerk, anti-social obstructionist positions. They are principled positions, stemming directly from classical liberalism. Most of our opponents are not willfully authoritarian, e.g. monarchists or the like. They are simply ignorant of how to draw political conclusions from philosophical values. They don’t recognize their own inconsistencies. And occasionally, when confronted with the issue in the simplest of terms and with the underlying philosophies and values, they recognize what’s going on.

So here it is: Just because a person has something that you want, or even something that you legitimately need, does not mean that you have a right to it. The only way to deny this fact is to reject egalitarianism* at its core – and who is willing to do that, explicitly? Most people – even those who support government medicine – will not. The failure of the collectivist philosophy that is so popular among intellectuals is not a failure to recognize that all men are created equal, but a failure to understand that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and that your right to life is not to come at the expense of my right to liberty.

Often, I feel like I am preaching to the choir here at AtlasBlogged. Occasionally, I figure there is little value in doing so. But sometimes people are able to break down an issue so clearly that it is of great value to share it. Does the Hippocratic Oath make doctors our slaves? I know people who have taken that oath and believe in government health care – a “right” to medical treatment. They would never advocate their own slavery, if they recognized it for what it was. But they don’t see the issue in those terms, and they don’t fear for their own liberty. They just feel overwhelmed by hospital administrators and insurance companies. They feel badly for sick people. They know there is a better way than the current way, and they want to bulldoze everything that impedes their ability to give the absolute best treatment to everyone. What better bulldozer than the federal government?

My father would never count himself a libertarian. But he understands this issue very clearly. He took the Hippocratic Oath, and he took it seriously. And when the hospital administration asked too much of him, and he felt that the insurance companies limited him, he faced a serious clash of values. He is a man who gives of himself relentlessly. He has literally given the shirt off his back – to strangers. But he will not be enslaved, and he knew his slaver when he saw him. He quit medicine several years ago. He wasn’t eligible for retirement, but he stood by his principles and shrugged the expectations (and chains) right off. I’ve been proud of him my entire life, but never more than on this issue.

* I use the term “egalitarianism” to mean a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges, definition 1 at Merriam Webster. The term is sometimes ignorantly hijacked to mean equality in results – redistribution of wealth or something even more reminiscent of the short story Harrison Bergeron. People who do so are jackasses.

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

Liberty and Limbo

I’m glad to see that the Catholic Church has finally declared that limbo does not exist.

So… if limbo no longer exists, where exactly are the prisoners who have been held for five years with no legal status at Guantanamo?

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

April 26, 2007

33 Stones

Ah, the 33rd stone has finally hit the front page. It was on the radio today, and the newspaper (a great story in the Richmond Times-Dispatch), and in the blogosphere. I was hoping we wouldn’t have to do this.

You see, in the wake of the massacre at Virginia Tech last week, 32 memorial stones were placed in front of Burruss Hall – one for each person killed. A student named Katelynn Johnson added a 33rd stone – one representing the gunman, VT student Seung-Hui Cho, who ended the killings when he committed suicide. And that 33rd stone is proving controversial – at least, among people who have no apparent connection to Virginia Tech.

For example, Richmond talk-show host Mac Watson likens this 33rd stone to a Hitler shrine at the Holocaust memorial. McQ at QandO likens it to listing and memorializing the 19 hijackers among the victims on 9-11.

I couldn’t disagree more. As I heard a 19-year-old VT student say last week, the stones don't bring anybody back from the dead. They aren't for the dead. They are for those who were left behind - the friends, family, coworkers. Seung-Hui Cho was a sick young man. Yes, he committed a horrible, evil act. But I can’t equate him to Mohamed Atta and Hani Hanjour. It’s just not the same. I find it mind-boggling that McQ thinks it is.

Katelynn Johnson is simply among the people who are able to recognize that Cho will be mourned, as any person should be. His family mourns him, as does some part of the university that feels that they let him down by not being able to intervene on his behalf before it went this far. But it must feel really good to get on the radio or post comments to QandO mocking Ms. Johnson for being a sociology-psychology major – a very substantive argument, folks. Her major.

I’m sure a lot of my friends won’t agree with my point of view on this. But of all the actual VT students I have spoken with since the shootings, none are wasting their youth stewing in hatred. They want to move on. And they do want to understand Cho – “What could make him do something like that?” It’s not a worthless question, and there is more value in remembering him as a sick human being who needed help than in remembering him as a caricature, an animal-demon.

No, I don’t memorialize him. I haven’t read his writings or seen even one second of his movie. But neither do I think that I am better than those people at Virginia Tech who need to better understand him in order to cope with this tragedy. Shame on those of you who do. When Ms. Johnson identified herself in a letter to the editor in the Collegiate Times, the response from the VT community was supportive and positive. Think about that for a minute.

The rest of the world has no business trying to insert themselves into the VT grieving process with your hissy fit over a 33rd stone. The last thing anybody at VT needs right now is your hubris and your bullshit.

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

Barbarism and Beheadings

I’m not sure whether you have seen the reports of the Taliban kidnapping and beheading a Pakistani man they accuse of being a US spy. Video of the beheading was posted online this week, and the knife-wielder is, reportedly, a boy of approximately 12 years of age.

The good news is that this action is being condemned by Afghan tribal leaders and (as far as I can tell) average guys on the Muslim street. Pundits sometimes ask why the millions of peaceful Muslims around the world have allowed their religion to be hijacked by extremists and terrorists, so I hope they note this sort of statement:

"It's very wrong for the Taliban to use a small boy to behead a man," religious teacher Mullah Attullah told Reuters on Thursday.

"I appeal to the Taliban to please stop this because non-Muslims will think Islam is a cruel and terrorist religion.

"The Taliban do not follow the laws of Islam. They are taking advice from foreigners."

The situation over there is complicated. Of course, it’s easier for many people to think otherwise and paint all of Islam as a faith of hatred and murder. Some even go so far as to have a binary view of the Muslim world – “our Muslims” vs. the terrorists. Well, on some issues, maybe it really should be that cut-and-dry. This is one of them. It’s important to remember the true nature of this conflict, this “Global War on Terror”. It is not about Christianity vs Islam, or religion vs secularism. Before anything else, it’s about civility vs barbarism. Let’s not lose sight of that.

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

April 19, 2007

Mean Martin Manning

Okay. I have neglected this topic for far too long. I have ordered my copy of Mean Martin Manning by the Scott Stein.

Now, I am a fairly busy guy. I don't have as much time to read these days as I used to - certainly not as much time as I would like. Especially for fiction. So what makes this book so special that I would find time for it, and pay for it? And blog about it?

I can sum up my powerful interest with one line from Scott's blog:

Characters from the novel and sites will be blogging and will be visiting other people's blogs to comment on threads, leaving links back to the sites.

Oh, that's just cool. Check it out and tell me it's not just that damn cool. Brad Warbiany thinks it's cool. I can't believe I have left this on the back burner for so long, because I was completely fascinated with this since I first read his explanation of it. I will be sure to share more about the actual book after it arrives, but in the meantime I am focusing on this novel means of promoting a book.

Pun intended.

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

Great Horny Toads!

Some stories are too bizzarre not to share. For example, this one.

Amorous toads have caused the deaths of scores of fish at a lake near Scarborough. In one incident around 70 carp, worth about £3,000, were lost after male toads tried to mate with them on the Wykeham Estate.

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

April 17, 2007

VT

This is just a quick thank you to a few people who have asked how things are. Yes, many of my former students attend Virginia Tech - some of my favorites, frankly. Yes, they are all safe - I heard from a few yesterday via text messages and Facebook. I do appreciate everybody who has been keeping me in mind.

I really don't have any thoughts that I would feel comfortable sharing with the world on this right now. I'm just spending some time reaching out to some people in need, and being thankful that none of my kids were injured or killed.

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

April 13, 2007

The Cost of Innocence

My parents always warned me about being at the wrong place at the wrong time, especially when I was in college. They tried to keep reminding me to use my best judgment on doing certain things. As a college kid, obviously what I thought was my better judgment might not have been what they thought was my better judgment. But for three young men in North Carolina, it didn’t matter.

The other day the three Duke students that were charged with sexual assault a little over a year ago were declared innocent by the judge and the case was thrown out. It was a farce to begin with and some prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself with this big case. The problem is these young men will be forever linked to something that never happened. This whole thing affected so many more as well. A partial list of the consequences:

- Two of the three students were suspended from Duke. Luckily one of them graduated before they were indicted. When it was clear earlier this year that this case was falling apart and it was “made up,” the university invited the two suspended ones back. Neither returned.
- The head coach of the lacrosse team they played on resigned under fire since the accusation took place at a party held by the team members. The coach has repeatedly stated that the students were innocent from the beginning.
- The university cancelled the whole 2006 season for the lacrosse team. I’m not sure how many they have on the team, but it is probably close to twenty. Twenty kids not able to compete in the sport they love, most of them on scholarship I would imagine.

I feel sorry for these three men. They (and their families I would imagine) spent who knows how much money on their defense. I wouldn’t be surprised if it topped the million mark. They will never be relieved of the stigma from this case against them. All for no reason.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Official PC Radio Hit List

Who is next, now that Don Imus has been fired?

Keith Olbermann has made a partial list:

Where's the other outrage? Rush Limbaugh calls Barack Obama 'Halfrican-American.' Michael Savage says the Voting Rights Act means 'a chad in every crack house.' Neal Boortz says Cynthia McKinney looks like a 'ghetto-slut.' Why have none from the racist right been protested, boycotted or fired?

Please note that I do not listen to any of these shows. But how disturbing is it that Olbermann would start calling for his ideological opponents to be taken off the air? How offensive is that mentality? (Offensive enough to call for Olbermann’s dismissal? I’m sure some on the right would miss the irony and do exactly that.) As Glenn Beck noted on air yesterday, Olbermann appears to be unaware that an atmosphere so charged would jeopardize Olbermann’s career, too. Remember: The Frankenstein monster sought to destroy its creator. This is no different, Keith.

As a side note, I do want to point out that the word “ho” clearly isn’t very offensive, as it has been casually repeated and batted around the airwaves, blogosphere, and print media nonstop for over a week. If it were truly offensive, it would be elevated to the level of those special words that go by their first initial – the “N” word, the “B” word, etc. If “ho” is so hurtful, maybe it should be called the “H” word from now on. The furor over this word is reminiscent of the Macaca flap, where commentators, bloggers, and jackasses around the world said over and over, “the use of the word ‘macaca’ is highly offensive! ‘Macaca’ compares ~~blacks~~ Indians to monkeys! The use of the word 'macaca' is enough to bar one from public office! Don’t ever say ‘Macaca’! Macaca, Macaca, Macaca!”

(Actually, this point was also made by the Jon Henke at QandO last December.)

For our amusement, let's imagine the following conversation:

Pundit: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "ho".

Al Sharpton: You're only making it worse for yourself!

Pundit: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Ho! Ho! Nappy-headed hos!

Al Sharpton: I'm warning you! If you say "ho" one more time…

(Sharpton gets suspended from radio show)

Al Sharpton Hey! Who did that?

Media Gaggle: She did! She did! He! He did! He!

Al Sharpton: Was it you?

Media Exec: Yes. Well you did say "ho".

(Media Exec gets barraged with criticism and is fired)

Al Sharpton: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! All right, no one is to fire until Jesse Jackson or I blow this whistle. Even if... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "ho"

(Sharpton gets permanently fired from radio show)

So, is there an official “PC Radio Hit List”? Yes, I believe there is. Media Matters has published it. After our airwaves have been ~~purged~~ ~~cleansed~~ (sound too genocidal?) tidied up, we can next focus on the filthy internet.

I can only hope this site doesn’t attract too much attention with its snappy, threaded prose. Think we will be safe?

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

April 11, 2007

Milk and Pacman, Perfect Together

I ran out of milk last night. I know that may not be a big deal to most of you, but I like milk in my coffee in the mornings. Sure I could drink it without milk but I just like it better with milk. I was too lazy to run to the Quik-E-Mart (*nod to The Simpsons) last night so when I got up this morning, I put the coffee on and ran to the store while it was brewing. Why am I telling you all this? If it weren’t for the lack of milk, I would not have listened to the radio to hear a great statement by Colin Cowherd on ESPN Radio. I don’t normally have a radio on in my house so this worked out for me well.

He said (forgive me for paraphrasing, I’m going by pre-coffee memory here) “Unions would be better off giving the most support to the top 90% of their members instead of the bottom 10% which usually get the most resources.” Interesting.

For those of you who don’t know the NFL has issued serious suspensions yesterday. Adam “Pacman” Jones of the Titans was suspended for the full 2007 season, while the Bengals’ Chris Henry was suspended for eight games. These were for numerous violations of the league’s personal conduct policy. Both players have either been arrested or interviewed by police a combined 14 times. Not Boy Scouts by any means.

The great part about these suspensions is that they are being supported not only by the teams, but the NFL Player’s Association (NFLPA) as well. Gene Upshaw, their executive director, reportedly is supporting Roger Goodell, the NFL Commissioner on these suspensions. Why is this important?

As Colin Cowherd alluded to this is sending a message to the NFL players by their own union boss that they need to keep the image of the NFL player a good one or they may not get the “full support” from the Union. The NFL is the most watched event on television besides American Idol. To allow that to dwindle because of a few bad apples would be a big mistake for the league and the players themselves. It’s obvious that Goodell knows it since he is the one handing out the suspensions. It’s pretty clear that Upshaw gets it too, unless he gets pressured into appealing these suspensions.

Quoting ESPN.com’s Len Pasquarelli from his article here:

At the annual NFL meetings two weeks ago, Kansas City coach Herm Edwards, a noted hardliner, opined that the only remedy for repeat offenders like Jones and Henry was to deprive them the opportunity to play. Not to deprive them of their paychecks, mind you, although that will also be a part of their suspensions. But to take away from them the privilege of being able to compete.

For Jones and Henry, the next several months will reveal just how much the game means to them. It is a privilege, not a right, to play in the NFL. And now it's a privilege that the two players will be forced to earn back.

Nicely put Len.

I would like to think that the other players are supporting this decision. The ones saying, “why should these guys causing problems get the same treatment as me, who does things the right way?” Hopefully this will put some fear into the “bottom 10%” of the players who are the ones who get into trouble off the field. The NFL is too good to be ruined by few.

All this because I needed milk in my coffee. Sheesh.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Context and Perspective regarding Don Imus

“Nappy-headed hos” ?

Don Imus has made a career out of making inappropriate remarks. It’s part of the gig. So why has the latest situation turned into an international, up-to-the-minute, two-week-suspension and race-baiting fiasco? Sure, there are the usual hypocritical scumbag opportunists who would make mountains out of molehills. But this is also Imus’s first time doing this in the YouTube era, and the New Media is fanning the flames because we bloggers think somebody cares about what we have to say. If everybody is talking, it doesn’t matter whether anyone is listening – the spark becomes a conflagration.

There are two important things to keep in mind about this whole situation.

1) Don Imus and his team were out of line. Some of the comments that are made on the show were in fact inappropriate. Not criminal, not unforgivable, but certainly ill-conceived. While I don’t think much need be made of the comments, I certainly won’t defend them on their face. The overall context is a mitigating factor, sure – it’s the kind of show where somebody is insulted every single day for no reason than cantankerousness, irascibility, and attempted humor. But as Mr. Imus himself has said, "Our agenda is to be funny and sometimes we go too far. And this time we went way too far. Here's what I've learned: that you can't make fun of everybody, because some people don't deserve it." Just so. Taking pot shots at politicians and pop stars is one thing, because they put themselves out there in the public spotlight with the expectation that this sort of thing is coming their way. But the young women on the Rutgers basketball team do not deserve the same treatment. It is important to keep that perspective.

2) It’s just Don Imus. These comments weren’t made by the president or the governor, or by anybody who should be expected to have a high level of maturity and restraint. He does some wonderfully charitable things. He can also be a curmudgeon and an asshole. Everything he says needs to be kept in that context. MSNBC knew what they were getting when they started televising him, and while they do need to create the appearance of having punished him until the firestorm dies down, there is no reason to expect that he should be fired outright. In fact, he’s getting more press now than any time in the last 11 years – since that infamous 1996 Radio and Television Correspondents Association speech, actually. The women on the Rutgers team (and their contemporaries) probably didn’t even know who the hell Don Imus was a week ago. It won’t hurt him that they now do.

A little context and perspective are always helpful, and especially so in cases like this, where mountains are being made of molehills. My mind boggled this morning when I heard CNN’s Soledad O'Brien say to Rutgers coach Vivian Stringer: “If *you* had said something like that, you would lose your job, period!” Perspective, Soledad! She’s the coach. He’s an entertainer. Judging them by the same standard is meaningless. It’s like noting that Don Imus would lose his show if he spent the two hours on-air making his staff run fast-break drills. Context, Soledad! Focus!

In fairness to Soledad O’Brien, I will try to keep her comment in context. She may have job loss on the fore of her mind these days, according to reports.

[CNN chief Jon Klein] plans to stick to American Morning 's hard-news format while replacing anchors Soledad O'Brien and Miles O'Brien with former Fox News anchor Kiran Chetry and CNN's John Roberts.

The move comes as CNN, the onetime cable news leader, continues to place second to Fox News and to feel pressure from third-place MSNBC, especially in prime time. Though CNN boasts viewership is generally up double digits from last year at this time, so too are numbers for Fox and MSNBC.

MSNBC? What the hell kind of morning show do they have?

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

Rabid, Rabid!

No surprise here… Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, is upset with her neighbor – some guy by the name of Monty Johnson. She refers to him as a “rabid, rabid Republican”. She once saw him brandishing a gun. She says he keeps his property “slummy” just to spite her. She wouldn’t be nice to him if she ever met him, according to the Charlotte Observer and a host of other news agencies who are pouncing on her hurtful remarks. See also the Raleigh • Durham • Cary • Chapel Hill • Podunk News & Observer, which reports:

Monty Johnson was heading home Monday with a cooler full of catfish when he learned his new neighbor had turned him into a minor celebrity.

I love the imagery.

Nothing about this situation is especially surprising (except that it was carelessly spoken aloud and giving the Edwardses bad press). Nor is it unique to Podunk, NC where these people live. But since it’s been thrown out there into the news, I’d like to highlight the parts of the story that really frame my view of the situation:

Johnson said he has lived his entire life on the property, which he said his family purchased before the Great Depression.

Johnson, who has posted a "Go Rudy Giuliani 2008" sign on a fence just 100 feet from the entrance to the Edwards' driveway, has criticized Edwards for the scale of their nearby home. The property and home, which includes an indoor basketball court, an indoor handball court and an indoor pool, is valued at $5.3 million.

The Edwardses are still putting the final touches on the property, which they purchased in 2003.

It’s a pretty familiar story. It really highlights the difference between the haves and the have-nots. It’s almost like there are two Americas or something.

I don’t say that as somebody who hates Jon Edwards or his family. I don’t hate him for his wealth or his politics – in fact, I don’t hate him at all. I’m just somebody who can’t stand it when people expect their neighbors to “keep up” – especially since Mr. Johnson has lived there for more than half a century longer than the Edwards family. If they wanted to live in an exclusive Democratic haven with covenants against Guliani signs, they should have purchased land in that kind of community. If they wanted to live someplace where you could have your neighbor’s run-down childhood home destroyed, they should have picked New London, CT. If they wanted to live someplace where their neighbors would never be brandishing firearms, they should have purchased in Washington, DC (hahahahahahahaha! Come on, that was funny!)

As Rammage notes via email: “I'm instantly reminded of:

“Political tags—such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal conservative, and so forth—are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.” ~ Heinlein

Which would you rather have as a neighbor?”

Indeed. Good call, Rammage.

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

April 8, 2007

The Enemy of my Enemy is not my Friend

A Reminder to libertarians that the Democrats are not pro-liberty:

As unlibertarian as Republicans can be, the case for the libertarian Democrat is far from well-made, despite what Markos Moulitsas says.

You lovers of liberty who feel betrayed by the Republican Party and conservatives in general: How do you feel about those Democrats? Did you vote for this? The next time you find yourself thinking that the Democrats may be a libertarian option, remember these words by John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee (and Pelosi’s choice for House Majority Leader): "I think everybody ought to be obligated to serve."

Let that ring in your ears.

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

Personalized Pork

How can I not bring attention to an article titled, “Congress should terminate its Edifice Complex”?

…ego-driven pork-barrel projects protect incumbents, fuel their vanity and cost taxpayers real money. And they should stop.

This problem is bicameral and bipartisan.

The fact that it is bicameral and bipartisan should be disheartening to all citizens, but it also means that the practice is firmly entrenched and loved by politicians. It’s a great op-ed that Deroy Murdock has written on the topic. I would love to see this problem taken seriously by legislators.

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

April 7, 2007

AtlasBlogged Open Debate on the Electoral College

It has been more than two years since our last presidential election, and (believe it or not) we are nearly two years from the next one. It’s the perfect time to question the value of the Electoral College, and expect rational, non-partisan discourse. So, what good is the Electoral College?

Walter Dellinger wrote an article that appeared on Slate.com back in November ‘04 called In Defense of the Electoral College. But the article was not a complete defense of the EC as is, as Dellinger himself says early on:

There are very substantial arguments for [revising the Electoral College], and I might ultimately find them persuasive. The important point for the present moment, however, is that a president chosen by the present system has a fully legitimate claim to govern.

In fact, upon re-reading the article, I don’t feel that Dellinger defends the EC at all. He merely deflates the asinine arguments that arose in 2000 and 2004 about whether a presidency could be considered legitimate if the EC winner did not achieve a majority of the “popular vote”. Even if the EC were a horribly stupid idea, the time to offer legitimate criticism would not be just after your candidate lost the election but got more votes nationally. It’s like arguing that your team should win the World Series because they had more runs over the total 7 games. Hey, that’s not how the Series works – it goes by the number of games run, with no concern for the margin in each game. Deal with it.

So, how about a real defense of the EC? What good does this system serve?

John Samples of the Cato Institute wrote an article back in November ’00 that was also titled In Defense of the Electoral College. In it he writes:

James Madison’s famous Federalist No. 10 makes clear that the Founders fashioned a republic, not a pure democracy. To be sure, they knew that the consent of the governed was the ultimate basis of government, but the Founders denied that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule. In fact, nothing could be more alien to the spirit of American constitutionalism than equating democracy will the direct, unrefined will of the people.

Recall the ways our constitution puts limits on any unchecked power, including the arbitrary will of the people. Power at the national level is divided among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Power is divided yet again between the national government and the states. Madison noted that these twofold divisions -- the separation of powers and federalism -- provided a “double security” for the rights of the people.

Yeah, yeah… so we’re a republic, not a democracy. How is the EC a part of that? If the populace decides to vote for Hugo Chavez, Taylor Hicks or Tom Brady, how does the EC prevent that? This question is not rhetorical – I hope somebody will answer in the comments section below.

Back to Samples:

What about the democratic principle of one person, one vote? Isn’t that principle essential to our form of government? The Founders’ handiwork says otherwise. Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. That’s why a state like Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, with 33 million people. Consistency would require that if we abolish the Electoral College, we rid ourselves of the Senate as well. Are we ready to do that?

I believe this is the only legitimate defense of the EC that I have seen – and I have seen it in several places. I understand and agree. I am certainly no advocate of straight democracy, for reasons that should be obvious. Democracy is the first tool of socialists. Democracy is one of the worst protections of individual liberties. But it’s not as though the only alternative to the EC as is would be a direct national popular election. Is there no room for improvement?

Mr. Samples:

The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.

I’m not so sure about that. Some states clearly have unbalanced importance in the elections. They are called “swing states”. Who campaigns worth a damn in Wyoming? How much attention does Massachusetts get? As Jon Henke said in an email this week, the EC makes some states functionally ignorable, because it's just not worth campaigning for votes when it only changes "lose by 20" to "lose by 15". How does that help defend individual rights? How does it support the legitimate functions of government?

Mr. Samples:

Second, the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections.

How? Again, this is not rhetorical.

I will now share some excerpts from an email exchange that occurred this week on the Atlancio email list. First, one from November 2004 that Rick forwarded this week:

Rick: Is there any rational reason for all states not at least splitting their electoral votes to reflect their popular votes?

Wulf: No. There is no rational reason. I am totally in opposition to the winner-take-all EC system.

Rick: As it is now, if 51% of a state's popular votes go to one candidate, all their electoral votes go to the winner, whether it's 3 electoral votes or 20. (I think there is one state who splits their electoral votes.) It just doesn't make sense to me.

Wulf: Maine and Nebraska can legally split their electoral votes, though I have read that they never do - for some reason they go winner-take-all as well. Another thing that is a problem with the system is that there are 21 states where electors are not legally required to vote for the candidate for whom they were selected. Since the founding of the Electoral College, 156 Electors have not cast their votes for the candidates they were designated to represent. WTF? It's never swung an election, but the potential for problems is HUGE, obvious, and as far as I can tell, pointless.

(a little related reading can be found in last August’s post Wasted Votes, which I suspect could be used against me in some way.)

Email from Rammage:

this is a debate that I respectfully welcome, as I think there's a lot to be learned here on both sides. However, the bottom line of this debate - and one that's empirical and incontrovertible, is that the electoral college has performed marvelously for over two (2) centuries. With all of the things that are currently broke in the system, and adhering to the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" adage, there's only one group of people who are generally in favor of altering the Constitution, and that's the group the also benefits from allowing felons to vote.

I did not address this at the time, but I don’t believe that to be true. Third parties would benefit from several of the possible alternatives to the EC as is. As Jib emailed,

The "winner take all" EC system actually discourages minority voices. It is too hard for a third party to get any EC votes at ALL... thus minimizing their political impact. If every state switched to a by-state proportional EC vote system, the third parties would all of a sudden get 10-20% of the EC votes.

The two major parties would take notice of that *very* quick and try
to assimilate the new ideas to win some of those votes back.

But I agree that the biggest hang-up in this debate may be one of motivation. Anybody who wants to change the EC is probably trying to change it to something that benefits them. Heck, I asked right out loud how the EC in its current state is benefiting me. Wariness is warranted, and the argument can be made that the EC ain’t broke. In fact, I’m almost willing to take that as axiomatic.

As Rammage said in a later email,

But this whole Electoral College Abolition movement has ruffled my feathers from the beginning. It really all comes down to motive. Why are there forces at work here trying to alter this system after working reasonably well for so long? Who benefits from this, and who loses? What consequences have we not fully hashed out yet? What sort of prescience did the Framers have in implementing this system? What did they write about it in the Federalist Papers?

To reiterate some of my own personal thoughts, I don't like the winner-take-all that goes on in each state, because I feel that it lowers voter participation and breeds a sense of detachment from the government. I honestly believe that breeds a sense of powerlessness in the face of government, which tends to authoritarianism and even shades of oligarchy.

Most people who "get involved" are people who want to spend more money on new projects. They are collectivists. The individualists don't even bother to vote, and therefore they don't matter one lick.

Some seem to think that the elimination of the winner-take-all system would disenfranchise rural voters, but I don't see how it would. In fact, it might highlight that the real divide in this country is not north-south, or east/west vs middle, or "red state" v "blue state", but largely rural mindset v urban. A rural voter in NY often has more in common with a rural voter in Virginia than either has with the urban voters in either state.

How is it bad to allow - nay, require - each elector vote as his/her district voted, instead of this winner-take-all system we currently have?

Again, I am not interested in a direct popular vote. But right now in each election, the focus is on a few swing states. There are states that are completely out of contention, as Jon mentioned and as I wrote in the article I sent. It would bring more meaning to those votes, instead of having Ohio and Florida really settle each election.

Rammage definitely took issue with some of my points, as seen in this email:

Rammage: Knowing the Framers wanted a buffer - like Cicci - between the population and POTUS, why does this surprise you that the Electors aren't legally bound to casting their vote for the elected candidate?

Wulf: I didn't say there should be a federal law requiring it. I said that there is a great potential for controversy/abuse in those states who do not require it. In fact, they are setting themselves up for a call for federal laws requiring it - Congress would try to step in and "do something" if an election were swung by it.

Rammage: Cheese and rice. Are you reading Utne again? None of the Electors should be legally bound!

Wulf: Um, why exactly? Who are they to decide anything for themselves? They aren't anybody special, i.e. they are not necessarily more qualified than the general populace. I don't see any reason to support a system that bothers to involve them at all. How does the current system serve that purpose of guaranteeing that the POTUS is not a just rube with a cult of personality? [glances at the last 2 presidents]

It's great in theory to remove the election from the general population, but I don't see that the EC in its current state (NPI) is able to serve the wishes represented by the following quotes:

- "A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787

- "The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787

- "The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

I don't see that the EC as it currently exists is necessarily serving the purposes you think it does - certainly not in the best possible way.

Rammage: If you are all about "The States," as I could have sworn you've pledged yourself to in the past, then why do you support stripping away the states' involvement in this?

Wulf: The states' involvement at this time is limited to making rules governing their electors. What else do they do? How does the winner-take-all EC system empower my state? Or me?

Concluding sentence: Somebody explain to me how the Electoral College in its current state (no pun intended) could be improved, or give me some concrete arguments for the winner-take-all system in each state. Please.

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

The Waxing and Waning of AtlasBlogged

One of the ongoing themes here at AtlasBlogged is the way our post frequency varies like a cheap ham radio. Despite several people having author privileges, the site sometimes goes several days with no sign of life. I’ve discussed it before. More than once.

I think I just got booted from being an author at WatchBlog, for not meeting the rule that all authors post at least twice a month. I’m okay with that. David Remer specifically invited me to provide a Libertarian point of view at the site, but I don’t much like the LP. I prefer the term “libertarian” be an adjective more than a noun. I wasn’t really able to fit in at WatchBlog, even though I like the idea for the site.

We’re probably on the verge of getting dropped from Kip’s Elite Eleven, as we violate one of the four criteria. I blame Rammage and Jib. Hopefully Kip is too distracted by real events to bother with demoting us.

But I will see if I can reverse the trend – at least turn this week's inactivity into a local minimum. I have a few things that have sat on the back burner for a long time, and I will try to put some of them on the table this week, as I am on spring break.

As usual, my co-bloggers have no excuse.

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

April 1, 2007

Charting Global Warming Hysteria

AtlasBlogged reader Flounder makes an interesting observation about Yahoo's Associate Press science news:

I use MyYahoo as my home page. I track stocks and sports and news about aviation etc. I also track technology and science…the Jpeg here shows the Science panel as it looked 2pm on April 1st. Seems like the only science today is global warming.

Did someone say 'agenda?' Nah, couldn't be with our objective press.

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

Wulf at the Ukrop’s Monument Avenue 10k

Yesterday morning, as promised, I ran the Ukrop’s 10k race in Richmond. I and over 25,000 other people. It didn’t quite go according to plan - I lost track of my coworkers very early, as the guys got competitive and took off. A few of them didn’t even start in the same wave as the rest of us – the race was split into 16 waves, the last being walkers. I probably should have been in the 6th wave, but instead registered for the 13th and started in the 15th, thinking that our group might stick together at least for the first couple of miles. Then the two female teachers I thought I was pacing just disappeared. I’m sure that at some point I “took off” from their point of view.

But still, the race was fun. Since I wasn’t fretting about hitting any particular time, and since most of the race was along beautiful Monument Avenue, I slowed down in several places to take some pictures. I even stopped for a couple of minutes to talk to a coworker who wasn’t running but had come out to show her support. Actually, that happened twice – once at the beginning of the 4th mile and once just before the end of the 5th mile. Those happen to be the only two miles where my split time was over 9:30, so I estimate that my official time of 64:11 should have been a little under an hour, even with the picture taking. Definitely not the 45 minutes I wondered about in the last post, but as I said that’s not what I was there for.

Here is a photo of the starting line, seconds before my wave was released:

Each runner’s official time is kept by a chip we tied to our sneakers. Crossing the start line gives an official start time for each runner, and obviously there are monitoring strips at the finish line as well. Note that the race winner had been done for nearly half an hour before I even got to start. That’s all I could think about while the sea of runners around me stretched and waited to go – “There are people finishing right now.”

And then we started. A little more than a mile into the race was the Stonewall Jackson monument. On the bottom left you can see people from earlier waves who were approaching the 5-mile mark coming the other way:

The only other photo of a monument that came out well was that of Arthur Ashe, taken just after the 4-mile mark.

The inclusion of an Arthur Ashe monument on Richmond’s historic Monument Avenue has always made for a good story, imho. It was unveiled in 1996, and is the only monument to be added to the avenue since 1929. The other monuments are all of white men involved in the Confederacy, so it’s easy to see why the decision to include Ashe’s statue was controversial. It is my understanding that everybody opposed putting the statue here, so the city put the statue here.

Also, it has been noted by many that the visual message of the statue is somewhat unclear. Dale Franks explained it well in this hysterical article from a few years ago. Anyway, I think I got a decent photo of the Ashe monument.

All along the course there were people cheering and bands playing music, which was really nice.

There were probably more than 20 different bands, including several who set up on the grassy median. Since the race went both directions on Monument, we got to enjoy those acts twice. In this shot I am past the turnaround point, and on the left you can see runners/walkers from later waves heading the other way.

The bands were great – I can’t imagine what the run would have been like without them. In fact, I’d really like to thank all of the race volunteers - the musicians, those supplying water and sports drinks along the way, those handing out food at the end, those collecting timing chips, and the ones behind the scenes who I don’t even know about. I look forward to doing it again next year.

One last photo… here’s the finish line from a runner’s point of view:

Afterwards, my fellow teachers joined me for some lunch in Carytown, which is a hip and artsy little section of Richmond just a few miles from where this race was held. In fact, it is the site of my next race, the Carytown 10k on May 20. I think I am going to take my time on that one more seriously.

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