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

The said Constitution shall be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

-Samuel Adams

August 31, 2008

Regarding Education

To kick off the school year, I would like to share several quotes I find very insightful.

Albert Einstein:

Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.

(source)

Thomas Young, in a letter to his brother:

Although I have readily fallen in with the idea of assisting you in your learning, yet [there] is in reality very little that a person who is seriously and industriously disposed to improve may not obtain from books with more advantage than from a living instructor… Masters and mistresses are very necessary to compensate for want of inclination and exertion: but whoever would arrive at excellence must be self-taught.

(source - I transcribed that paragraph from my copy of the book.)

Ludwig von Mises:

It is not generally realized that education can never be more than indoctrination with theories and ideas already developed. Education, whatever benefits it may confer, is transmission of traditional doctrines and valuations; it is by necessity conservative. It produces imitation and routine, not improvement and progress. Innovators and creative geniuses cannot be reared in schools. They are precisely the men who defy what the school has taught them. (Human Action, c15, s11)

(h/t lowercase liberty)

Socrates:

I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.

(source)

See you kids in the classroom.

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

Trivia Question of the Day

In Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, he writes:

The passage of the Patowmac through the Blue ridge is perhaps one of the most stupendous scenes in nature. You stand on a very high point of land. On your right comes up the Shenandoah, having ranged along the foot of the mountain an hundred miles to seek a vent. On your left approaches the Patowmac, in quest of a passage also. In the moment of their junction they rush together against the mountain, rend it asunder, and pass off to the sea. The first glance of this scene hurries our senses into the opinion, that this earth has been created in time, that the mountains were formed first, that the rivers began to flow afterwards, that in this place particularly they have been dammed up by the Blue ridge of mountains, and have formed an ocean which filled the whole valley; that continuing to rise they have at length broken over at this spot, and have torn the mountain down from its summit to its base. The piles of rock on each hand, but particularly on the Shenandoah, the evident marks of their disrupture and avulsion from their beds by the most powerful agents of nature, corroborate the impression. But the distant finishing which nature has given to the picture is of a very different character. It is a true contrast to the fore-ground. It is as placid and delightful, as that is wild and tremendous. For the mountain being cloven asunder, she presents to your eye, through the cleft, a small catch of smooth blue horizon, at an infinite distance in the plain country, inviting you, as it were, from the riot and tumult roaring around, to pass through the breach and participate of the calm below. Here the eye ultimately composes itself; and that way too the road happens actually to lead. You cross the Patowmac above the junction, pass along its side through the base of the mountain for three miles, its terrible precipices hanging in fragments over you, and within about 20 miles reach [X] and the fine country round that. This scene is worth a voyage across the Atlantic. Yet here, as in the neighbourhood of the natural bridge, are people who have passed their lives within half a dozen miles, and have never been to survey these monuments of a war between rivers and mountains, which must have shaken the earth itself to its center.

For today's Atlas Blogged Trivia Question of the Day, name the city that Thomas Jefferson was standing in while making these observations. [Note: Contest not open to residents of Maryland, Virginia, or West Virginia.]

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

August 30, 2008

What Right to Privacy?

Via Wil Wheaton’s blog, Bruce Schneier writes a thought-provoking essay on privacy at Wired.

The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

No, those “clever” answers will get you absolutely nowhere with those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining, etc. Right now, believe it or not, there are people around the nation doing things to endanger the lives of others. That’s not even debatable. And to the vast majority of people, it is reasonable to place some safeguards and restrictions on everybody in order to figure out who those bad guys are. The government would be negligent not to violate the absolute privacy of citizens in an effort to mitigate those dangers to the rest of us. If the government can violate your privacy without you even being aware of it, so much the better, some would say. Others would argue that no, it needs to be explicit and obvious or else it isn’t an effective deterrent. To anybody making either of those arguments, Mr. Schneier’s “clever” retorts are just silly. Privacy advocates need to step up the game well past that type of thing if they expect to make any headway.

Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Here Schneier is correct. The issue is all about who can be trusted to violate the privacy I construct for myself. The issue is about who would have the right to circumvent the privacy I take the time to build. It’s not a matter of an inherent right to privacy, because such a right does not actually exist.

Now let’s get this next part out on the table and out of the way: I am well aware of the fact that the Constitution does not specifically enshrine a right to privacy, but that’s definitely not what I am talking about. Please have the Ninth Amendment tattooed to your forearm.

Okay, what I do mean is that your right to privacy can only exist to the degree that you have bothered to create privacy. You do not have a right to have privacy out of thin air, if you haven’t taken the time and effort to create it. It’s like an intellectual property issue.

As Murray Rothbard said when discussing property rights in The Ethics of Liberty (emphasis original):

Is there really such a right to privacy? How can there be?

…as in the case of the “human right” to free speech, there is no such thing as a right to privacy except the right to protect one’s property from invasion. The only right “to privacy” is the right to protect one’s property from being invaded by someone else. In brief, no one has the right to burgle someone else’s home, or to wiretap someone’s phone lines. Wiretapping is properly a crime not because of some vague and woolly “invasion of a ‘right to privacy’,” but because it is an invasion of the property right of the person being wiretapped.

Wil Wheaton says, “We deserve privacy, and we don't have to give it up to have security.” We don’t indeed--in fact, we need each to make the other. If a man is stripped entirely of either of privacy or security, he can have none of the other. But it is important to keep straight the reasons why we ever have privacy. As one Wheaton commenter so wonderfully notes, “I find it comedically ironic that those that rail for nationalized healthcare, carbon credits/taxes, forced morality of affirmative action and other altruistic nightmares, et al., are often times the very same folks railing against ‘privacy’ violations.”

If you create privacy for yourself, then you can have it. But if you destroy it or give it away, you will have none.

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

John McCain is 72 years old! [laughter, applause]

Happy birthday to Senator John McCain, who turned 72 this week. His age is playing a huge factor in the current presidential race, or so we are told and told and told and told and told again. His age is such an issue that Conan O’Brian begged John McCain to give us something else to pick on him about (see this vid, especially around 1:20 – 2:20).

It got me wondering about the Republican Party and their nominees over the years. Age has been a recurring theme for the GOP. Not counting George W. Bush, the Republicans haven’t nominated a man younger than 60 years of age since Nixon. In the entire post-WWII era, the Republican candidate has been older 12 out of 16 races, and by an average age of 12.9 years. The last time the Democrats ran a candidate who was more than three years older than his opponent was Truman’s upset over Dewey in 1948. This just isn’t new territory for the Republicans, so I’m not surprised that they don’t seem very bothered by it – even with McCain being ten years older than the post-WWII Republican average.

Interesting, no?

Of course none of this addresses whether or not McCain’s age is a legitimate concern. I think in general we would be fools not show some concern about the health of any candidate, and more concern is warranted for older candidates. But John McCain appears to be vigorous, healthy, and in control of his faculties. It wouldn’t surprise me if he outlived John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton. No, my concerns about John McCain will remain substantive and issue-based. Until I see evidence to the contrary, the issue of his age appears to be mostly of concern to late-night comedians.

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

Bug Braaaaaaaaaains!

Discover Magazine presents an article on (and I quote) Zombie Animals and the Parasites that Control Them.

The gallery of pics includes short descriptions (with links to longer articles) of the strange abilities of certain animals to gain control of others.

Examples:

The caterpillar, still alive, behaves as though controlled by the cocooned larvae. Instead of going about its usual daily business, it stands arched over the cocoons without moving away or feeding.

The caterpillar – now effectively a zombie – stays alive until the adult wasps hatch.

and,

Eventually, the crab begins to change into a new sort of creature, one that exists to serve the parasite. It can no longer do the things that would get in the way of Sacculina's growth. It stops molting and growing, which would funnel away energy from the parasite... and while other crabs mate and produce new generations, parasitized crabs simply go on eating and eating. They have been spayed by the parasite.

Personally, I am opposed to these behaviors. I find them completely immoral and unacceptable. Yech.

But they're definitely interesting enough to share with you.

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

August 29, 2008

Sarah Palin

Gregg Erickson (a columnist at the Anchorage Daily News and Editor-at-large of the Alaska Budget Report) did a Q&A this afternoon regarding Sarah Palin.

That is, Mr. Erikson provided the "A"s for a few "Q"s regarding Governor Palin, who has been named the VP candidate for the Republican ticket. The Washington Post carried the transcript of the session. I'd like to highlight one Q & associated A that really caught my eye:

Arlington, Va.: Do you think Hillary supporters will vote for McCain now just because there's a woman on the ticket -- even though she's about as opposite as Hillary as a candidate could be?

Gregg Erickson: As i replied to another question, the only way I can figure that it makes sense is that McCain believes his campaign is in big trouble, and hopes this very unconventional choice will give his candidacy much needed appeal women voters and those from the religous right who have been not quite comfortable with his credentials as a social conservative.

Appealing to Hillary supporters by choosing someone opposed to any abortion, rights seems odd to me.

I can't agree. First of all, I don't see why we should suppose that John McCain thinks his campaign is in big trouble. In fact, it's close to a dead heat. Both sides admit that there is no indication that this will be anything other than a very, very close race that will be decided by a handful of swing states. By the way, Alaska ain't one of them. If McCain thought he was in big trouble, he would try a gimmick that would lock up one or two of the swing states.

Secondly, I don't think the votes of most women are really that up-for-grabs. The concern at this point is appealing to undecided women who are likely voters. And at this point, it seems silly to think that Palin does not do exactly that. I have seen no evidence to support that idea, and I have personal anecdotes to the contrary.

Third, if Mr. Erickson think the religious right has been not quite comfortable with McCain's credentials, he ought to hear how they feel about Senators Obama and Biden. I think McCain's concern with the religious right was essentially not pissing them off so much as to interfere with the get-out-the-vote program. No religious right voters are going to be sitting at home on Election Day, saying to each other "Let's stay home just to spite that John McCain fellow! We'll see how he likes it when the Lord ushers Barak Obama into the White House!"

McCain simply does not seem to be taking them for granted, and Sarah Palin is not a panic move to shore up the religious right.

As for myself, my first thought regarding Palin is that if she is elected, we may see Julia Louis-Dreyfus return to Saturday Night Live. Watch the video again and tell me I'm wrong.

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

August 27, 2008

Reich's advice to Democrats

American Public Media's Marketplace asks, What aren't the Democrats proposing that they ought to be?

Robert Reich answers that Democrats ought to advocate changing affirmative action from race-based to income-based.

Of course the point of affirmative action is identity politics, and not bald-faced redistribution of wealth. While I suspect that most Americans would support Reich's point, I wonder what Reich thinks would happen if government-mandated affirmative action were simply done away with, and not replaced with anything. I mean, he's been a college professor at a few prestigious schools. Surely he recognizes that merit is a better predictor of academic success than race or socioeconomic status. And surely he recognizes that universities would continue to recruit students who look different, in the name of diversity and education.

Closing thought... would he mean to apply this new brand of affirmative action to government hiring policies? After all, affirmative action covers a lot more than college admission policies.

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

August 26, 2008

Women's Lib

Today marks the 88th anniversary of the 19th Amendment: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Of course the words “to vote” should not need to be there, because the state and federal governments should not be denying or abridging any rights on account of sex. But such is our history.

88 is a very special number. When turned sideways, it looks like infinity divided by infinity. Any mathematician can tell you that infinity over infinity equals unity. To commemorate this, Hillary Clinton will speak a message of unity (er, among Democrats) at the DNC tonight, on this 88th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. The primary message we can take from her tonight is that in 88 years, women have repeatedly voted for men - i.e., turned the spirit of Women's Lib completely sideways.

Okay, maybe none of this post makes any sense. But then, neither does the roll call vote for Senator Clinton. And neither does all of the focus of Michelle Obama’s wardrobe (on this, the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage!). And neither does it make sense the way Democrats seem driven to keep themselves out of the White House.

It’s just what I’m thinking about over a couple of drinks this evening, that’s all.

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

August 24, 2008

On Barak Obama and Joe Biden

My thoughts on Barak Obama picking Joe Biden as his VP candidate can be summed up pretty nicely with a couple of links.

First this AP article by Ron Fournier:

The candidate of change went with the status quo.

In picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate, Barack Obama sought to shore up his weakness — inexperience in office and on foreign policy — rather than underscore his strength as a new-generation candidate defying political conventions...

So the question is whether Biden's depth counters Obama's inexperience — or highlights it?

This is exactly what I have been waiting months to say. The Obama buzz has been about youth and change. But for all the talk of "youth and change" and being opposed to Washington insiders, and for all the talk of somebody like Tim Kaine on the short list, I think it was obvious that Obama would play into the criticisms about his inexperience by going to somebody old and experienced (just like Bush did in 2000). This campaign is not actually about "youth and change", it's about power--just like any political campaign. "Youth and change" was a vehicle, and the Obama camp has exited that vehicle like a commuter arriving at the train station.

If Obama had actually believed his own "youth and change" hype, he would have selected some young outside-the-beltway type like Tim Kaine or I don't know who else, and he would have faced head-on the charge that he is too inexperienced to be the President (a charge made not only by the GOP, but also by Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and many Democrats).

By dodging that attack instead of taking it on directly, he admits its validity. Period.

Link #2 is to Dale Franks, who has a few great quotes from Joe Biden that you really have to see. It's possible that Obama thought it was too obvious to have to tell his vetting committee to avoid candidates who love McCain and have criticized Obama's qualifications. Oops.

The bonus link in today's post goes to Patrick Ruffini at the Next Right, who points out that Biden is the longest-serving legislator ever on a national ticket, for any party.

Vehicle for sale: Make: Audacious Hope; Model: 2008 Youth and Change; runs great!

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

August 21, 2008

Late Night Punchline Imbalance: the details undermine the headline

Oh noes! Late-night comedians are making fun of John McCain more than they are making fun of Barak Obama!

While conservatives queue up to complain about media bias and liberals smirk that it's just because John McCain deserves it, allow me to make three quick points.

1. The study analyzed all jokes from January 1 through July 31. Show me how the trends have looked since Hillary dropped out and it became a two-candidate race, and it will mean a lot more.

2. The study focused on monologues by Jay Leno, Conan O’Brien, David Letterman, John Stewart, and Stephen Colbert. If there is evidence of liberal bias in the gag-writers for these shows, that is not the same as a bias in "the media".

3. There were more jokes targeting Hillary Clinton than John McCain. If Obama had been forced to drop out of the race a few months back, would you even care about some study that showed late night comedians making fun of Clinton more than McCain? Would that still be a liberal media bias?

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

August 17, 2008

Better questions about climate change

I really don't care whether or not you believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. That's beside the point.

All but the fringe biblical literalists do agree that the Earth has undergone massive climate change throughout its history -- without input from mankind. Viewed locally, some of these changes have happened very quickly. So whenever I see people arguing about whether or not the science is "settled" with regard to Anthropogenic Global Warming, and whether it's really happening, I just want to knock their heads together and demand their attention long enough to ask what they think we as a species can do about any climate change, whether it's completely natural or not.

Because realistically, even if it were proven conclusively that human activity has contributed to global warming, you simply couldn't stop those practices that are blamed. All around the globe people want to live a lifestyle that is supported by those very activities that are blamed for global warming (emissions from autos, industry, cattle, etc.). They aren't going to forgo a better lifestyle across Asia and Africa just because you don't like how hot it is. While it is not moot to discuss the validity of AGW theories, or how it could be mitigated through new technology, I think it would be more productive for those who worry about climate change to address how the world could respond to changes that could not be directly stopped or mitigated through any amount of lifestyle sacrifice.

So... forget about AGW. If the oceans were to rise a meter for natural reasons, how would people respond? If ocean currents and wind patterns changed to bring lasting drought to Western Europe, what would Europeans do about it? If glaciers covered the NFC North as they did just 20,000 years ago, would we just surrender that territory without a fight? What kind of a fight would be feasible or even possible?

100,000 years ago, humans would simply have moved their homes away from the water, drought, or glacier as necessary. I suspect we might not be so blasé about it in modern times. But we don't seem to put a lot of thought into the reality that these catastrophic extremes are possible and even likely to occur in cycles in the coming millennia. Maybe that's too far away for you to care about, but stories like this one get me thinking about it quite a bit. Are we willing to be an essentially nomadic species in the long term, just so long as things seem constant within our lifetime? Aren't we too obsessed with history and archeology to just meekly accept that certain areas are habitable now but won't be forever?

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

Best. Video. Evar!

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

August 16, 2008

David Paterson and a hint of fiscal responsibility

David Paterson is the governor of New York State. He is a Democrat. And he recently gave the state legislature $1 billion worth of suggested budget cuts and told them to agree on $600 million worth from that list - something Republicans like to claim is their forté, despite the way government continues to grow on all levels, even when under Republican control. Paterson has ruled out tax increases ("for the time being"), including a proposal by Democrat legislators to hike income taxes of those making over $1 million. Even to talk the talk on this point is a big deal for a Democrat in the Empire State. But he's facing the reality that the budget deficit is an even bigger deal.

From BusinessWeek:

Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said Paterson's proposed cuts come when "New York State is facing serious fiscal challenges and spending well beyond our means."

Always a problem, right? And the solution is pretty obvious, right? What would your business or household do?

So Paterson's proposed cuts are going over about as well as you might think they are, meaning that lawmakers have ranged between opposing him and being shrewdly mum, while special interest groups and various unions have been outraged.

It's been suggested that "The pieces are in place for a big deal or near-big deal" in Patterson's emergency economic session that will begin this Tuesday. I don't know how promising to find that, considering that the state Assembly has gone for "no deal" before.

Who would feel the brunt of the cuts Patterson proposes?

He seeks cuts across the board in most funding areas including health care, nursing homes, the City University of New York, economic development, aid to local governments, and anti-crime programs. Exempt is school aid.

Even despite that last point, the teachers union is incensed over a property-tax cap that would limit annual increases to 4% or 120% of the consumer price index, whichever is lower.

I'd like to offer my encouragement to Governor Paterson, because he is proposing steps in the right direction, and he is doing so in the face of fierce opposition and at his own political peril. New York legislators seem to be completely out of touch with reality on where the money will come from. Consider the following points from the Newsday/AP article I linked:

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos also wants the state to collect state taxes on cigarettes sold by Indian tribes to non-Indians. He says it's worth at least $400 million.

They've tried that before, and they couldn't make any headway because the tribes won't cooperate. You can get all internet-tough-guy if you like, but we're not about to build a fence around the reservations. Enforcement would be more costly than it would be worth.

The Assembly wants to keep New Yorkers from choosing between heating their homes this winter and eating. That will cost $550 million to increase the Home Energy Assistance Program to meet the rising cost of heat for low- and moderate-income families. The Assembly would make oil companies pay for it.

Out of their profits, I assume? Sigh. Corporations don't pay taxes, you morons. Customers do. Always. Every time. Period.

Maybe Governor Paterson can give the legislators a quick lesson in basic economics. Maybe he can convince them to face reality. If so, I hope politicians across America are taking notes.

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

August 14, 2008

Fairness Doctrine and Blogs

Via Slashdot, Rasmussen reports that

31% [of Americans] believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary.

31%? Are you kidding me? How would that even work? By what mechanism could this possibly be enforced? [insert Gulag references here]

Democrats oppose government-mandated balance on the Internet by a 48% to 37% margin. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans reject government involvement in Internet content along with 67% of unaffiliated voters.

Only 48% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans oppose the application of the Fairness Doctrine to blogs and other websites?

O'RLY?

Well, then in the interest of fairness, here is a detailed and articulate rebuttal from an opposing point of view, you bastards.

What should be the truly key point from the Rasmussen article: "Voters in all categories agree by sizable margins that it is possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media."

In other words, as much as the Fairness Doctrine is a heap of bullshit, it's especially so with regard to the internet. But just because something is blatantly unConstitutional, unworkable, and unnecessary, don't expect it to go away without a lot of "discussion".

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

Will Obama win Virginia?

There has been a lot of speculation that Red Virginia is turning Blue. There has been a lot of population growth in Northern Virginia, which leans Left more than the rest of the state, and the thinking goes that this can swing the presidential election for Barak Obama. Personally, I don’t quite buy it. But I think the Obama camp does, because they are focusing some attention this way. Let’s take a quick look at who’s right.

Two years ago, Virginia elected Democrat Jim Webb to the US Senate over incumbent Republican George Allen. Governor Tim Kaine is a Democrat who is frequently mentioned as a potential VP candidate on the Obama ticket. Our former governor Democrat Mark Warner is a shoe-in for the Senate seat being vacated by the retirement of Senator John Warner. Mark Warner is the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention – an indication that he and Virginia are seen as important to the Democrats.

So to recap: the last two governors are Democrats, and we will have gone from two Republican Senators to two Democrat Senators in the span of two years. Yeah, it looks like this red state is turning blue.

But wait.

Mark Warner and Tim Kaine are conservative Democrats. Senator Webb is also conservative by Democratic standards, and he barely won his seat despite international media furor when Allen shot himself in the foot in the “Macaca” incident. This does not actually extrapolate well to support for an inexperienced Senator Obama, who is not exactly the type of conservative Democrat that appeals to Virginians. This may matter quite a bit. As Republican Congressman Tom Davis told NPR,

What you have is some changing demographics but most of it is just the Republican brand name being in the trash can, enabling wide-awake Democrats to take advantage of that. And in Virginia they've done that.

If he is correct, it may not be so much that Virginia is turning blue as that the red lights have been getting dimmer because of weak candidates and the failure of Republicans to deliver on conservative promises.

In addition, let’s keep in mind that Virginia isn’t quite the bastion of Republican voting power that it’s sometimes been made out to be. While it’s true that the state hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since LBJ in 1964, it’s also true that since 1964 the state has had five Democrat governors--Chuck Robb (’82), Gerald L. Baliles (’86), L. Douglas Wilder (’90), plus Warner and Kaine.

Let’s also consider that Wilder was the first African American to be elected as governor in the USA. That didn’t happen in California or Massachusetts or some other traditionally Left state, but here in the supposedly conservative state of Virginia.

And let’s further consider that the Senate seat currently occupied by Jim Webb had actually belonged to the Republicans only for two terms since 1964. George Allen held it for only one term (’01-07) and Paul Trible for only one term (‘77-‘83). Since 1964, those are the only two terms that seat has been Republican. Again, hardly the deep blue state we thought.

So what I’m trying to say here is that I don’t think we’re seeing a major shift in Virginia voting habits, or at least not on the scale and pace that has been suggested by many of the articles I’ve seen. Yes, Democrats will hold the governor’s office and both US Senate seats. But no, that’s not indicative of Virginia joining the New England voting block. Virginians have always been willing to elect Democrats, but they have to be our kind of Democrats. That means no John Kerry, no Al Gore, no Bill Clinton... and potentially no Barak Obama. Senator Obama is going to have to work very, very hard to carry Virginia this fall, and it may not be enough to throw us a bone by putting Tim Kaine on the VP short list and inviting an obvious rising star to speak at the Convention.

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

August 13, 2008

The Veteran Demographic

Mark Nickolas complains at Huffington Post that the media has generated a myth regarding John McCain having strong support from veterans.

Nickolas starts with anecdotes, and then tries to get deeper. Initially he fails. He claims that FactCheck.org “took McCain to task” for statements regarding support for him from veterans’ groups. In reality, FactCheck indicates that McCain’s statements were partly correct and partly overstatement, but at no point do I see McCain taken to task. It was hardly a refutation – they don’t say that he lied. And when you’re talking politics, that’s the standard.

But then Nickolas actually gets into some interesting points.

But much more egregious is that the media hasn't bothered assessing the exit polling from the primaries that they paid for to determine whether McCain was actually excelling with this group… Turns out that McCain was barely overperforming with veterans in the contested Republican primaries…

That’s very interesting. I’m initially a little surprised to see that McCain’s support among veterans is only negligibly higher than his support in the general population. And it would make an interesting narrative for the media or for Democrats to harp on.

However, when reading Nickolas’s post I had a thought that I really wanted to share. Veterans shouldn’t be expected to support McCain in particular, any more than they should be expected to support Kerry or Gore or any other veteran. After all, who are “veterans”? They are men and women of every race, every religion, and every age. Some were volunteers, some were drafted. Some joined when America was hot at war; others when the war was very Cold and impersonal; others yet during long periods of peace. Attitudes toward the military were not the same in the late 1990s as they were when John McCain attended the United States Naval Academy. Even for contemporaries, their jobs and duties were very, very different. There is no reason to expect that a female medic in the Army today would have the same political views as a white Navy attack pilot from Vietnam or a black electronics tech in the 1980s USAF or a Hispanic Marine who fought in the Pacific Theatre more than half a century ago. Why is there an expectation that there should be a general consensus in such a diverse group?

It’s not that it should be a story that McCain didn’t have notable support of the demographic group known as “veterans” during the Republican primaries. It’s not even that it should be a story if McCain doesn’t get notable support from veterans in the general election. It’s that it should be a story if any politician ever does.

And if there currently is a narrative that McCain has been overperforming with veterans, then Nickolas is correct in saying that it should be either proven or debunked.

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

August 12, 2008

Cleaning up the Big Easy - Corruption Charges in the New Orleans Affordable Homeownership Corporation

New Orleans has long (always?) had corrupt government. So it is no surprise that FBI and HUD investigators are finding taxpayer money is being paid out to certain well-connected contractors for work that was never done.

According to the Times Picayne, contractors were paid for “remediating” blighted homes that were never actually “remediated”. Some contractors were paid for gutting homes for demolition, but the work is known to have been performed by volunteer groups.

[The mayor’s office] has said that city staffers visited sites to ensure the work invoiced was actually performed. But it is not clear what efforts the city has made to ensure that the contractor who billed taxpayers actually did the work, as opposed to a volunteer group.

Similarly, in cases where a house the city paid to gut has since been demolished, it's not clear how, or whether, city staffers are attempting to verify the work.

It's also unclear how the administration sought to determine whether grass-cutting was performed. That was the only service provided at about 110 of the 870 addresses where remediation work was done, according to city records.

Grass cutting? Seriously?

Right now would be a great time to make the argument that this is an outrage and a travesty. And that it was completely predictable. But instead, I will take this opportunity to note that the FBI and HUD investigators seem to be on top of the issue. This kind of corruption is being dragged out into the light for close scrutiny, and people in New Orleans will learn that local corruption is one thing, but corruption with federal dollars brings serious consequences. The US taxpayer will not stand for this kind of financial irresponsibility and chicanery!

Incidentally, how much do you suppose it costs to have all of these federal agents collect evidence, issue subpoenas, and carry out a full investigation? How much will it cost to prosecute the wrongdoers? Probably a lot more than the value of the disputed work--$103,517, according to the article. Even if they get the money back, there is no way to come out ahead on this. It may just be that there's just no amount of money that could clean up this town.

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

August 11, 2008

How on Earth would parents know which schools are best?

Thank you, Jon.

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

Who would elect "an unfamiliar and dangerous other"?

There was a great deal of debate on TV and around the media last week regarding the McCain TV ad that compared Barak Obama to Paris Hilton – aren’t they both empty celebrities who are famous for being famous? (My previous)

Even putting aside the ridiculous accusations of racism, some of the reactions from Obama supporters don’t make sense. Consider this question:

How can someone being portrayed as "the biggest celebrity in the world" also be painted as radical and out of the mainstream? Either Obama is like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton: a fluffy, substanceless, mass-consumed but empty celebrity-for-celebrity’s sake, or he is an unfamiliar and dangerous other with a hidden anti-American agenda.

Setting aside questions of whether we agree with the assertions themselves, I really don’t understand what is self-contradictory about asserting that Obama is both a celebrity and “an unfamiliar and dangerous other”. Is this guy is asserting that the basis for celebrity is familiarity and normality?

Maybe his family and his neighborhood are a little different from mine, but Paris Hilton is very much an "other" to people like me. I always thought the fascination with celebrities had to do with the various ways in which they are different from us. You know, the athletes who play better than we do, the actors who are better looking, the people who are just bizarre by the standards of the average American Joe. When somebody is famous for being famous (like Paris Hilton, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Kevin Federline and Kato Kaelin), it’s because they are not a part of mainstream America.

Perhaps the article is asserting that by being celebrities, these people become a part of the culture, and thus help to define “mainstream”. After all, we all know who these people are, even if there is no reason to. But I would hardly call that a reason to feel more comfortable with having a president who is mostly famous for being famous. I would much rather have somebody whose political track record is clear.

Again, this just doesn’t in any way negate the charge that Barak Obama is “an unfamiliar and dangerous other”.

By the way, allow me to point out that every presidential candidate tries to paint himself as a Man of the People, and his opponent as inherently unlike the average American Joe. John Kerry was constantly attacked as elitist (remember the Wendy’s episode, or the Teresa Heinz Kerry fortune?), as was Al Gore (policy wonk, elitist, unhumanly robotic). Hillary definitely remembers these episodes.

While Media Matters has complained that George W. Bush avoided charges of elitism, I think it’s clear he didn’t, as there were plenty of allegations of elitism when he ran in 2000. The problem for Democrats wasn’t that the media wouldn’t play along, but rather that it wasn’t a consistent message. Yes, he went to Yale and had a privileged political childhood, but Gore’s background was comparable. While some Democrats were complaining that Bush was elitist in avoiding Vietnam and having a history with drugs and alcohol, others were complaining that he was too much a hick, a huckleberry, and a cowboy—undoing the elitist tag with a partyboy buckaroo tag.

And think back to Bill Clinton’s campaigns. While Republicans tried to focus on how unscrupulous Clinton was in his personal life, he beat George H.W. Bush by being the guy you’d like to have a beer with. He played saxophone and spoke easily while Bush was derided for not knowing the price of a gallon of milk. Clinton managed to be more likeable than Dole, as well, painting Bob Dole as a likeable, respectable old guy who should go on now and retire while Bill had another beer with the country. Which, figuratively, he did.

We can keep going back. Reagan sauntered and joked easily. Kennedy upstaged Nixon on TV. Hell, go back nearly two centuries to when Andrew Jackson harped for four years about the “Stolen Election”, where he had won the popular vote but lost because of “elitist” political intrigue by supporters of John Quincy Adams.

The point is that both campaigns tried to assert that their opponent was an atypical American man - an elitist "other" in some way. Right now, Democrats are busy telling us that McCain is too old and too angry to be reliable. Republicans are telling us that Obama is too new and too slick. Neither narrative strikes me as being dominant yet, but they are both as ever trying to emphasize that the other guy is “an unfamiliar and dangerous other”.

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

Does Hollywood support violent cartels of illegal immigrants defiling US national forests?

Yes, according to US Drug Czar John Walters:

“Illegal immigrants connected to Mexico's drug cartels are growing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of marijuana in the heart of one of America's national treasures, authorities say. It's a booming business that, federal officials say, feeds Mexico's most violent drug traffickers."

"People who farm now are not doing this for laughs, despite the fact Hollywood still thinks that.”

Hollywood still thinks that? Mr. Walters, the Corsican Brothers was a quarter century ago. Rumors of a Cheech and Chong reunion notwithstanding, I think the Drug Czar sounds very, very out of touch. Hollywood (like most of America) may not think it’s a big deal to grow a little bit of recreational marijuana and get high occasionally, but Hollywood is also known for being very environmentalist. While I haven’t heard any official Hollywood spokespersons discussing the issue, I suspect that the entertainers Mr. Walters is talking about are as a group fairly protective of national forests, and wouldn’t like international cartels using them for anything (including commercial cannabis farms). This is a bit different from this (NSFW language warning). Equating the two seems about as silly as, well, that second clip I just linked.

A quick aside on my comment that most of America doesn’t think that recreational use is a big deal: A CNN poll a few years back showed that 80% of Americans support decriminalizing medicinal marijuana. I couldn’t find a poll stating what percentage of Americans favor decriminalization for recreational use, but reports indicate that 25% of Americans admit to having used marijuana before, and that same CNN poll showed that only 19% of Americans support jailing recreational pot smokers. 72% favored fines over jail. And given that the difference between a fine and a tax is largely a matter of the participation rate, I find it hard to believe that most Americans would be upset to see recreational marijuana legalized, regulated, and taxed.

But all of this is beside my main point, which is that I think Mr. Walters was off base to invoke Hollywood as somehow feeding the problem. Am I wrong?

If Hollywood and Washington were ever to cooperate on these issues as Mr Walters implores them to do, I would hope that the goal might be decriminalization. To quote Robert Guest of the NORML legal committee,

Last time I checked Mexican drug cartels were not using illegal immigrants to growing tobacco, or run moonshine stills. If you are really want to end these drug cartel pot farms in national parks, legalize pot.

And I hope you know this old tune, and can join me in the chorus:

Replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation similar to that used for alcoholic beverages would produce combined savings and tax revenues of between $10 billion and $14 billion per year, finds a June 2005 report by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University.

The report has been endorsed by more than 530 distinguished economists, who have signed an open letter to President Bush and other public officials calling for "an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition," adding, "We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods."

Chief among the endorsing economists are three Nobel Laureates in economics: Dr. Milton Friedman of the Hoover Institute, Dr. George Akerlof of the University of California at Berkeley, and Dr. Vernon Smith of George Mason University.

You don’t need to be a Nobel Laureate in economics to realize that the War on (some) Drugs is a failure. It is not only based on an immoral premise that what I inhale, inject, or ingest is the legitimate business of the government. It is also grossly impractical. It doesn’t work, and that’s not some piece of Hollywood fiction.

Costly and ineffective. That's a poor track record compared to Cheech and Chong's body of work. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Walters.

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

August 8, 2008

The Failure of the Conservative Movement? Really?

Let me see if I’ve got this straight. We start with a quote from this Washington Post article,

Low-wage workers in the United States are gripped by increasing financial insecurity as they inch along an economic tightrope made riskier by pervasive job losses and rising prices. Many struggle to pay for life's basics -- housing, food and health care -- and most report having virtually no financial cushion should they stumble.

Still, they remain inspired by the American dream, with most saying they are more apt to move up economically than slip backward even if they are frustrated now. Most also expect better for their children.

Optimism and self-reliance - that's really what the American dream has been about since 1776... heck, since Plymouth Rock. It's inspiring to see, isn't it? But the liberal response is

For too long in our country work has not been rewarded as well as investment income has. And our system has become a zero sum game where winner takes all rather than an acknowledgement that we are all in this life together.

And therefore, the Conservative movement is a failure.

Wait… what?

Okay, let’s double check that train of thought:
1) Low-wage workers are poor. I’m with you so far.
2) Low-wage workers believe in the American dream and the virtue of hard work. From the WaPo article: “the vast majority said they like or even love their jobs and they believe in the power of hard work to transform lives.” I’m still with you.
3) Again from the article, the presidential candidates are promising economic “help” for America’s middle class, which will also help the poor. True enough.
4) Therefore we can now realize that the Conservative movement has failed.

Okay, that’s where you lost me. That last one. Let’s inspect that more closely. Karen, the liberal blogger I linked above, agrees with Greg Anrig’s attack on the GOP from last Sunday’s Washington Post. While Anrig is correct in noting that the public's attitude toward government has changed quite a bit since the Reagan administration, he is wrong to assert that this is a failure of Conservative ideals.

To quote Anrig:

The single theme that most animated the modern conservative movement was the conviction that government was the problem and market forces the solution. It was a simple, elegant, politically attractive idea, and the right applied it to virtually every major domestic challenge -- retirement security, health care, education, jobs, the environment and so on. Whatever the issue, conservatives proposed substituting market forces for government -- pushing the bureaucrats aside and letting private-sector competition work to everyone's benefit.

So they advocated creating health savings accounts, handing out school vouchers, privatizing Social Security, shifting government functions to private contractors, and curtailing regulations on public health, safety, the environment and more. And, of course, they pushed to cut taxes to further weaken the public sector by "starving the beast." President Bush has followed this playbook more closely than any previous president, including Reagan, notwithstanding today's desperate efforts by the right to distance itself from the deeply unpopular chief executive.

But in practice, those ideas have all failed to deliver on the promises the conservatives made…

But Anrig has engaged in some sleight-of-hand, and Karen the liberal blogger fell for it. Yes, Conservatives have advocated these things, but they have not come to pass! We do not have health savings accounts, school vouchers, or privatized Social Security, so how in the hell can we conclude that these ideas have failed?

(It’s like he’s saying that since the Buffalo Bills went to four Superbowls in a row without winning, we can clearly see that it was bad for the NHL to go to the shootout format.)

Neither market forces nor competition has actually been brought to bear on these issues. They have only been advocated. Take a look again at that last sentence that I quoted from Anrig. “But in practice, those ideas have all failed to deliver…” In practice? Does Anrig even know what that term means?

Let’s be clear. President Bush’s administration bears little resemblance to President Reagan’s, who himself was less of a Conservative than many people realize. Even in 1994, when Republicans took control of the House with the relatively conservative Contract with America, Conservative ideas were never implemented on any scale in the federal government. As I pointed out three years ago, the current administration has had the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and LBJ. Don’t you dare cite this administration as an indictment of Conservativism.

Karen the liberal blogger says that “people who work hard and play by the rules should indeed have a basic social safety net below which they cannot fall. Their children should enjoy adequate health care and access to a decent education.” But as is noted in the comment section of her post, that social safety net already exists. American children do have access to adequate health care, a decent education. We already spend 21 percent of the federal budget on Social Security alone, according to FactCheck.org. “Even more went for health care, including 16 percent for Medicare and 7 percent for the Medicaid program for low-income persons.”

We don’t live in a Dickens novel, Karen. And the fact that some middle class Americans might suffer a bit because they overstretched and undersaved back when houses and gas were cheap, does not mean that the free markets failed, or that government needs to save us.

Shame on those Republicans who did not adhere to true Goldwater Conservative ideals, because they are the ones who have set us up for this kind of abuse.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Presidential Race (and by "race" we mean, you know, skin color, athletic strengths, and cuisine)

Jon Stewart on the "racist" tones in John McCain's infamous "Paris Hilton" ad spot:

What a great clip, especially the first 5:45, as I didn't find the "Race Genie" especially humorous or insightful. Thank you Theo for bringing the clip to my attention. It's this kind of abuse that needs to be heaped more frequently and thoroughly on anybody who tries to make race an issue in this election.

By the way, Jason Kenney makes the interesting observation that McCain wasn’t even the first to compare Obama to Hilton. It was, in fact, Sen. Obama himself.

What a racist.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 6, 2008

Household jetsam

Thank you AlanDP for showing us a great Cracked article: 6 Technologies That Don't Know They're Dead.

#2, 3, 4, and 6 take up a lot of space at my house.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Election 2008: the old devil we know versus the handsome devil we don't

McCain said he’d balance the budget by the end of the year, and Barack Obama said would bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I don’t know who not to believe.
-Jay Leno

That’s exactly the concern that should be facing Americans in an election year. To trust a politician’s promises is dangerous, because they are trying to be all things to all people during the campaign. Not everything that a candidate says during a campaign is a lie, but nothing that a candidate promises when he is campaigning can be taken at face value. Therefore, any attempt to become an educated voter necessitates a look into the records and histories of the candidates.

Now, I don’t know which I find more worthy of concern; That Americans may look at John McCain’s record in politics and deem him worthy, or that Americans may look at Barak Obama’s lack of a record in politics and deem him worthy.

Senator McCain’s record concerns me for many reasons. Let’s start with McCain-Feingold… and really, that should be more than enough. This man-who-would-be-President actually did say “I would rather have a clean government than one where quote ‘First Amendment rights’ are being respected that has become corrupt.”

But if we need more reasons, let’s look at his commitment to the Second Amendment… remember the McCain/Lieberman gun show bill? When the NRO says that the Republican candidate has a ”questionable commitment to Second Amendment rights”, that should be a little unsettling. Simply put, he is far too authoritarian for my tastes, (“We are fast becoming a nation of alienating individualists, unwilling to put the unifying values of patriotism ahead of our narrow self-interests,” he says. How is a libertarian to take that?)

Meanwhile, Senator Obama’s inexperience is legendary. Senator Clinton highlighted it in the 3 a.m. phone call ad and in many interviews during the primaries, and Chris Matthews highlighted it very nicely in this interview:

Even if we grant that Senator Obama inspires hope and is a great leader, he simply hasn’t been in national politics long enough for voters to judge him on his record, so we don’t know to where he would lead us. That’s dangerous, and I don’t imagine that Democrats would be so blasé about this fact if there were a young, charismatic Republican this close to getting elected with this skimpy resume. I hope none would be so boldly ridiculous as to assert otherwise.

Now, it’s true that some hard core Obama supporters (and opponents) may become familiar with his record in the Illinois state senate, where among other things he
- Voted to raise the minimum wage,
- Voted to end $300 million worth of tax breaks for businesses,
- Worked toward statewide universal health care system,
- Voted against giving tax credits to parents who send their children to private school,
- Voted against letting people attempt to argue self-defense in court when using a gun in their home,
- Voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang, and
- Sponsored limit of one handgun purchase per month.
(source)

But that’s simply not the reason he’s on the verge of becoming the President of the United States of America. It’s well known that he is currently successful for no reason other than the fact that he is brimming with platitudes and good looks – hell folks, that’s a punch line at this point. And people are acting like it's endearing. This is what the Democratic Party seems to have learned from the elections of 2000 and 2004: if your candidates of wood and stone (Gore and Kerry respectively) are defeated, then find one made of air. America loves pretty.

So that's where we are. Obama, like McCain, has big plans, big plans. And really, what presidential candidate doesn’t? Fred Thompson is the only one I can think of, but look where that got us.

So, which of these two guys is more worthy of concern? The answer is, Whichever one of them will play most nicely with the Democrat-controlled Congress. Gridlock is good, and considering that John McCain has co-sponsored more legislation with Democrats than Obama has, well, we don’t have a libertarian option. Either one of these men can be expected to be more concerned with doing great things than with leaving us alone so we, the People can do great things.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Gas Prices and Party Lines

It's like watching an auction for something that isn't for sale.

I just wonder if Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) could articulate the reason for his objections. Or if a rank-and-file Democrat could. Because on the surface, that sure looks like a Democrat saying that $10.00 per gallon isn't an unacceptable price for gasoline.

How it would go over if Dick Cheney were to say the exact same thing?
Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 4, 2008

Why the Right should not champion Fox News

Says Billy Beck:

I expect the mindless appeal to sensations that you can find on CNN or MSNBC, essentially because their politics are so stupid. There is a great deal of stupidity in conservatives, too, but their intellectual heritage is a lot richer -- and a lot more true -- than the Left, and it's too bad that its principal popular media presence in America exists on the level of things like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.

I can stand the disgust of putting up with specimens like Wolf Blitzer and that fucking stupid cow Mika Brzezinski: I don't expect a thing in the world from them except cheerleading for more of the whip, and they let me know just how that project is going from day to day. What I can't stand is the pretense of intellect from people who make cheap noise about freedom and blow it at me with the hokey-ass tastes of Fox News. They're really just insufferably pathetic.

This is where my co-blogger Rammage and I might diverge. He seems to enjoy (with a hearty guffaw) the antics of partisans like those on Fox who are more concerned with teasing and taunting the American Left than with either just reporting the news, or providing a consistent and coherent philosophical basis for analyzing and criticizing policies and organizations in our political system.

Personally, I have no stomach for it. Like Billy, I think it does more harm than good to hear those commentators on the Right spew their drivel in the name of "freedom". They are overall every bit as bad as their counterparts on the Left. I'd just like to hear more people recognizing how little value either side is contributing to the actual cause of freedom when they play these games.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Olympic reporters in China

Some things speak for themselves:

In 2001, when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the 2008 games to China, Wang Wei, the leader of China's bid told reporters: "We will give the media complete freedom to report when they come to China."

But for many reporters there now, it’s still unclear how free they will be able to report or not, as the restrictions and red tape seem almost endless, and they never know whether they've covered all their bases. "We already have to tell the Chinese everywhere we want to be in August, and what time," one TV broadcaster, who preferred to remain anonymous, recently told the Associated Press. "We have to provide a list of the guests who will be interviewed and the content of the interview."

That is, some things speak for themselves where permitted. Which is to say, if you are reading the article I linked, you are probably not doing so in China.

That the Chinese government will frustrate and limit the international press during the Beijing Olympics is a given. What remains to be seen is whether the international press will show itself to be a greater force than the Chinese government in the long run.

It is possible that the Chinese government will make the situation so untenable and intolerable that reporters will never forgive the transgressions, and will draw ever greater worldwide attention to the oppression that the Chinese people have undergone for years.

Or it is possible that the international press will complain a lot during the games and immediately afterward, but then fail to provide any sustained or cohesive effort to bring freedom to the Chinese people, who--unlike the international athletes and press--will still be living in China after the games.

A.J. Liebling once said "People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." That's still true today, though television news has dethroned the newspaper. Blogs are still reactionary, focusing mostly on the "news" that is published by papers or broadcast on TV... by reporters. While they do not decide what is news and what is not to the extent that they once did, the traditional media still has the power to shape narratives and focus the world's attention. I can't think of a cause that should be a greater motivation to them than worldwide freedom of the press.

Let the games begin...
Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 2, 2008

Striped Iceberg

I try not to do a lot of "Oh this is so cool!" posts, but wow, this is so cool:

Those are layers of sediment embedded in an iceberg.

I find it interesting that people are so wary of doctored photographs that this would need to be covered at Snopes, but it is, and their article includes a few other pics. I can't say it caused any skepticism on my part, but it did inspire a lot of awe.

The Austrailian government's Antarctic Division has some more excellent pics of striped icebergs posted on their website, if that kind of thing floats your boat.

[wince]
Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Atlas Blogged
Powered by Movable Type 3.31 · Hosted by LivingDot
Designed and written under heavy influence of Macallans