Return to main page

Return to Archives 1

Archives 2

    Everything posted in the 'blog' space on the right of the main page will be stored here so the main page can load easier. Popular bloggings are grouped together or occasionally have their own page: The Minimum Wage, Farm Subsidies, New Government Food Pyramid, US Government Health, Canadian Health Care, British Health Care, Government Kidnapping, Humor, Unions, Environment, China, Government Condescension, American Heroes, USA and Freedom Abroad, Chavez, Constitutional issues (including EU vs US Constitution), Charitable Corruption, Supreme Tyranny (Supreme Court on Property rights), The Internet, A question of Rhetoric, Academic Bias, Inequality, Aid, and the Nature of Governments, Voting with your Feet (Las Vegas Vs. Detroit), Transportation Socialization, Wal-Mart, Aiding America's Poor, Club For Growth; Defending Liberty, Secondary Problems of Socialism, Guns and Crime, Gasoline and Government, French Riots, Post Office, Israel and Palestine, Optimism, FDA Tyranny, Communist Musings, College, RIP Carrie Largent, Medical Lobbying, The Bureaucrat In Your..., Amnesty From Government, Media Freedom, Nevada Politics, Social Conservatism, The Israeli Lebanon Conflict, Ebay, Tax Cuts, and Capitalism, Fee Trade, Ideology, Emotion, and Reason, Bad Karma, Good Karma?, Airbus vs Boeing, Personal Responsibility, Mental Responsibility; Milk, It Does A Government Good, Ron Paul 2008, Settling the Small Business Hype, Personal Responsibility, Mental Responsibility, Part II Christ In Life, New Leadership on HealthCare: a Presidential Forum, Restricting the Body, Elevating the Mind, DO Day on the Hill, Round 2..

For Excerpts from the larger research papers click here. 

For earlier posts visit Archives 1 or later posts Archives 3. latest 'Archives 4'

Posted 2/10/06

Bogus rights

Posted 5/25/06

3 Wall-Street Journal Articles (FDA)

2005 WSJ Found this group of articles from the Abigail Alliance. Contained therein is the usual: terminally ill patients refused access to medications they desire, bureaucratic FDA incompetence and foot dragging, and on and all. However, of especial interest is this blurb:

    While it came too late to save Mrs. Karnes, our reporting of her plight certainly generated a lot of attention. Bayer and Pfizer -- developers of two investigational drugs showing much promise for this particularly deadly cancer -- both contacted her doctor almost immediately to discuss the appropriateness of providing the compounds. Mrs. Karnes's family was also contacted by the FDA and told that the agency stood ready to approve such treatment on an emergency basis. All encouraging steps. But isn't it a national scandal that cancer sufferers should have to be written about in The Wall Street Journal to be offered legal access to emerging therapies once they've run out of other options?

    This is further evidence of what I have always maintained: the FDA is a political institution, under political control, and, as with all government agencies, is more concerned with not 'shaking the boat', generating positive media coverage, and attaining more funding, and expanding its own power, than it is with accomplishing its ostensible goal of 'protecting patients'. If the FDA was the omnipotent, benevolent, scientific, objective type of agency that its proponents make it out to be, then its decisions would not be influenced by public opinion.

    When people are killed by the FDA, as in when a beneficial new drug that would have saved many lives is delayed many years, there are no headlines because the victims are nameless, faceless, and unseen. However, when one, let me repeat, ONE, person dies in gene therapy trials, there is a person and therefore a name and face and thus media coverage and hence:

    The National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration opened hearings to explore the safety of gene therapy treatment after a teen died while receiving the experimental care. (As an aside, more people have died in Gene therapy trials, although I'd guess nearly all probably would have died anyway, but this particular case, for whatever reason, seemed to galvanize the political health establishment.)

    This lack of context and imagination is how asinine policies develop, such as the creation of an agency like the FDA . Politicians, government officials, and agency bureaucrats are moved to actions by names and faces, causing the exponentially greater number of nameless and faceless to perish or suffer from their actions. However, in their defense, the actions of these folks merely reflect the contextless media coverage and the misguided reactions of equally emotional constituents. 

    This pattern is not unique to healthcare, although, since 'lives are at stake', the emotional appeal of such cases are strongest in this field and represent a primary reason for the prevalent hurtful socialism of healthcare in the United States and other countries. But, this trend can also be seen in other policy arenas, such as free trade vs protectionism and often poses barriers to the lifting of other government imposed economic burdens. For example, sad sob stories can be created about steel workers loosing their jobs if tariffs are removed, but who can gin up an equally emotional story about the prosperity (and added jobs) gained by all Americans via lower prices of a vital commodity? Similarly, when public industries (schools, roads etc..) are privatized, or when deregulation of various industries are undertaken, new businesses/companies are guaranteed to spring up and prosper in the given industry, yet these are faceless and nameless as they exist only in the future. In contrast, Teachers Unions, Unions in general, parasitic private companies using government for their protection, and a host of other 'special interests', all exist in the present, have employees with families, names, faces, and, perhaps most importantly to politicians, posses political power and contributions that will likely outweigh those of the apathetic populace. 

    One of the biggest obstacles to school reform, aka, school choice, is the fact that the private schools, charter or otherwise, that would replace our horrid public schools do not yet exist to have a voice. 

    In the end, liberty can only be assured when the populace itself is louder in their advocation of the faceless and nameless, than the special interests are with their agenda of perpetuating stagnation; or, in the case of the FDA and the Abigail Alliance, when names and faces are given to the nameless and faceless by activist citizens. 

    (Added to 'FDA Tyranny')

Posted 5/23/06

Your 'Robber Baron,' my American Hero

6/5/06 National Review

    A pretty good article, although I really just like the title :). I wish they had written a bit about Standard Oil. I also like how she qualifies who the true robber barons were - companies that used government to obtain monopolies or to fund projects. Some highlights:

    In 1870, Britain was the world’s chief steel producer; by 1900, Andrew Carnegie alone made more steel than all of Great Britain.

    Addressing some workers in 1886, Atkinson tried to explain how everyone gained from a free market. Cornelius Vanderbilt, Atkinson observed, made a profit of 14 cents from every barrel of flour shipped over his railroads. His efficiency lowered the price of flour for consumers. “Did Vanderbilt keep any of you down,” challenged Atkinson, “by saving you $2.75 on a barrel of flour, while he was making 14 cents?”

Posted 5/23/06

Mayor calls housing plan 'communist'
5/20/06 South Florida Sun-Sentinel

    An interesting story describing how a mayor is opposing attempts by heavily democratic Broward country to pass 'measures' designed to alleviate a 'housing shortage' and high prices of homes. Mentioned are 'developer fees', more commonly known as 'taxes'. 

    Lol, so if you're in short supply of something then tax it! Just like our friends on the left want to tax oil companies when the price of gas goes up. Of course, when you tax something you discourage it's production, so this effort only makes things worse. 

    "The city is under pressure from Broward County to pass a law; otherwise, the county says it won't allow another wave of construction of thousands of condos downtown."
    Lol, so county government will cause a housing shortage if city government doesn't comply and cause a housing shortage... all in the name of preventing a housing shortage!

Posted 5/21/06

Corzine pushes tax on hospitals

5/21/06 Newark Star-Ledger 

    The newly installed chairman of the New Jersey Hospital Association yesterday assailed the Corzine administration's proposed $1,424-a-month bed tax and urged both suburban and urban hospitals to stand in solidarity.

    What do you suppose the results of this policy will be? Hospitals will reduce their number of beds, new hospitals will be discouraged from opening. Supply will shrink and Healthcare will suffer. 

    D'Agnes [the NJHA chairman] said the majority of New Jersey hospitals find themselves in the same boat, with most expected to end this year in the red again.

    These hospitals are in the red and therefore government decides to hit them with another tax?! So, why are they doing this?

    The tax is expected to generate a total of $430 million, half of which would go toward the general state budget. (for what?) Gov. Jon Corzine would use the remaining $215 million to qualify for matching federal funds under the Medicaid program. Those dollars would be returned to hospitals treating the largest numbers of uninsured patients, with most being situated in urban areas.

    The Federal government has incentives in place to encourage states down the path towards socialism.

    (Added to 'Government Healthcare')

Posted 5/16/06

The High Price of Cheap Drugs / Why Low Drug Prices in Canada are too Good to be True

2004 Summer Issue Hoover Digest by Russel Roberts

    I recently an across this article, which I think is very well written and is a must read for anyone following the Canadian prescription drug debate. 

    (Added to 'Canadian Healthcare')

Posted 5/14/06

HUD chief: Right list leads to government cash

5/8/06 Dallas Business Journal 

    Getting on the right government list can make you wealthy. That's the gist of what Alphonso Jackson, U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, told a group of influential minority business leaders in Dallas on April 28.

    The housing secretary told the group that HUD provides "business opportunities for many in this room to get rich."

    "My task is to help you do work with and for the federal government," he said. "Whether it's HUD or another agency, the opportunities are there. The most amazing thing I've ever seen is the amount of contracts we give out every day. One contract can make you wealthy."

    How is government supposed to choose these contracts?

    In the government's competitive bid process, federal agencies including HUD are required to get at least three responses before awarding a contract.

    "They're supposed to consult three bidders and decide what's the best value," Murphy said.

    How does it actually work?

    "After about six months on the job, I had a person come in and say, 'I don't think you understand how government works. We don't bid out anything in government.' I said, 'What do you mean? That's illegal.' He went on about the lists people get on.

    "The strange thing about the situation is all you have to do is pick three people off the list, then you can decide which one you're going to use, as long as they're on that list."

    How do you get on 'lists'? By donating campaign money, supporting whatever political party is in power. 

    He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'
    "I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'
    "He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

    This is how business is done in Washington DC. The criminals in government are stealing your money and trying to stay in power. And, for what? What does HUD do? What does it accomplish? It is a poverty perpetuator. Their $28 billion in looted dollar bills would be better off burned in a bonfire than spent to hurt the poorest and most destitute of the American people. 

Posted 5/14/06

Grants Flow To Bush Allies On Social Issues /Federal Programs Direct At Least $157 Million

3/22/06 Washington Post 

    Similar to the above post, let's examine how government works:

    For years, conservatives have complained about what they saw as the liberal tilt of federal grant money. Taxpayer funds went to abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood to promote birth control, and groups closely aligned with the AFL-CIO got Labor Department grants to run worker-training programs.

    In the Bush administration, conservatives are discovering that turnabout is fair play: Millions of dollars in taxpayer funds have flowed to groups that support President Bush's agenda on abortion and other social issues.

Among other new beneficiaries of federal funding during the Bush years are groups run by Christian conservatives, including those in the African American and Hispanic communities. Many of the leaders have been active Republicans and influential supporters of Bush's presidential campaigns. <.>

   Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said the grant-making is "corrupting."

    "The danger is that any group that gets money from the government will end up serving the interests of the state rather than the constituencies they are trying to serve," he said. "The guy who writes the check writes the rules."

    Whether it's Democrats or Republicans, those in power will attempt to expand their power base, and the easiest way to do so is to increase the money, scope and power of the Federal Government. 

    President Bush, a 'compassionate Conservative', ie a Liberal Conservative,  is no different. And they wonder why his popularity is in the low 30s... 

The GOP is Now the Party of LBJ . . .and McGovern, Waxman, and Gore

5/12/06 National Review Online

Posted 5/11/06

Dr. Snyder and Dr. No

5/11/06 Club For Growth

    The Club For Growth picked up my recent piece on 'DO Day On the Hill' and ran part of it on their blog.

Posted 5/11/06

    The following two stories will be added to their respective post groupings mainly because they reiterate the theme of those postings.

The College Rejection Bonanza: Ivy League Schools are Over-rated Compared to Less Selective Colleges

3/7/06 The American Thinker 

    2. Having a son or daughter accepted at a selective college has become one more badge of honor and prestige for the very large group of Americans who can buy pretty much everything else they desire.

Is Thinking Obsolete?

5/9/06 Thomas Sowell

    In other words, those who supply oil are being denounced and demonized by those who have been blocking the supply of oil.

    Sowell also mentions the growth of the developing world, China and India as a reason for the high prices. While I agree with this, on the demand side, and perhaps should have mentioned it more in my analysis, the supply side would, IMHO, have more than kept pace with this surging demand had oil across the world been free of government theft and coercion. 

(Added to 'College' and 'Gasoline and Government' respectively)

Posted 5/10/06

Spoilers Win Seats on Rights Council

5/10/06 Herald Sun

    FIVE nations seen by rights groups as among the world's worst abusers have been elected along with 39 other countries to the United Nations' new Human Rights Council in a first round of voting.

    Russia, China, Cuba, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, identified by New York-based Human Rights Watch as unworthy of membership on the new UN body, were among those winning seats. But two others on the group's list, Iran and Azerbaijan, failed to win membership on the first ballot.

    Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth said it was inevitable some rights foes would win seats but "the important step is that we have made real progress" over the discredited Human Rights Commission, shut down in March.

    That this is considered 'real progress' is illustrative of what a joke the United Nations has always been and continues to be. 

Posted 5/10/06

Store owner arrested for shooting at gas theft suspects

4/29/06 George Town Times

    The owner of an Andrews-area convenience store, accused of taking the law into his own hands after he witnessed an alleged gas drive off Wednesday, is charged with two counts of assault and battery with intent to kill. Dennis Cooper, 52, the owner of Cooper’s Six Mile Crossing Convenience Store allegedly chased and then fired shots at a vehicle after the driver reportedly drove off without paying for $28 worth of gas.

    Deputy Kevin Holt was the first officer on the scene. When he arrived he saw Cooper holding the two men on the ground at gunpoint.

    The owner of this gas station is charged for the crime of protecting his own property. Government does not have the same incentives to protect his property as he does. While I cannot condone all his actions, I can at least respect this idea of a 'citizen' arrest. 

Disabled Red Bank Man Gets Off 4 Shots At Home Invader

4/27/06 The Chatanoogan

    A disabled Red Bank man foiled a home invasion early Thursday morning by getting off four shots at a man busting in his bedroom window.

    I always like stories where the weakest (physically) members of society are protected by their right to bear arms. 

Local resident shoots bank robber in leg

4/10/06 Paris News

    Piper said he first knew of the manhunt near his house when his girlfriend called him at work about 8 p.m. to tell him a bank robber was loose in the area and police had instructed her to keep the kids in the house and the doors locked.

    Upon arriving home, Piper said he said “hi” to the four kids, got his shotgun out of the closet and proceeded to lock vehicles and secure outside buildings.

    “I told him, ‘you are not one of my neighbors, you are the bank robber,’” Piper said. “I told my girlfriend to call 911 and I told him to lay face down on the ground.”

    Instead, the man threw his arms back and “started coming at me busted out like he was going to hit me,” Piper said.

    Piper pulled the trigger, sending a 20-gauge shotgun shell through both of Hammonds’ legs, ending a five-hour manhunt involving several law enforcement agencies, a Texas Department of Public Safety helicopter and tracking dogs from the Choice Moore State Jail in Bonham.

    Piper says he is anxious about possible charges being brought against him, but said he believes he was justified in what he did.

    (Added to 'Guns and Crime')

Posted 5/10/06

Scientist Seeks Quicker Tamiflu

5/5/06 BBC

    However, a new process would require extra investment in chemical equipment; and any drug produced in the Corey fashion would have to be separately licensed by the medical authorities.

    Which, in the US, takes an average of 12 years. Imagine if you discovered a new cure, something that would save millions of lives. How many would die before the FDA, even if they 'fasttracked it', allowed consumers the choice of using it? 

(Added to 'FDA Tyranny')

Posted 5/8/06

In a Dentist Shortage, British Do It Themselves

5/7/06 New York Times 

    Since moving to Rochdale, a working-class suburb of Manchester, he has been unable to find a National Health Service dentist willing to take him on.

    Every time he has tried to sign up, lining up with hundreds of others from the ranks of the desperate and the hurting — "I've seen people with bleeding gums where they've ripped their teeth out," he said grimly — he has arrived too late and missed the cutoff.

    Here is a question, I wonder if these folks who practice Dentistry on themselves can be charged for practicing without a license? Lol, wouldn't that be a hoot. However, where socialism fails, capitalism provides hope:

    "I saw it on the Internet," said Josie Johnson, 42, of London, describing how she heard about a company called Vital Europe, which offers dental-and-vacation packages to Hungary. "It's a quite small country, and I thought, they specialize in dentistry — so that's what I might do."
    (Added to 'British Health Care')

Posted 5/7/06

The Bureaucrat in your Internet phone (not the real title)

5/6/06 Fox News In the current case, Edwards appeared especially skeptical over the FCC's decision to require that providers of Internet phone service and broadband services must ensure their equipment can accommodate police wiretaps under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, known as CALEA.

Another Bureaucrat in your Internet phone (not the real title)

5/19/05 Washington Post The Federal Communications Commission gave companies that offer Internet-based phone service 120 days to certify that their customers will be able to reach an emergency dispatcher when they call 911. Also, a dispatcher will have to be able to tell where a caller is located and the number from which he is calling. 

    The 4 to 0 vote came after FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin invited families affected by the inability to reach emergency-response centers over Internet phones to tell their stories. A Florida woman described how her infant daughter died while she was unable to reach an emergency dispatcher through her Internet phone. "By moving quickly, we will save lives," Commissioner Michael J. Copps said.

    Harry Browne said:

    If government had taken over the auto industry in 1920, today we'd all be driving Model-T cars -- and saying, 'If it weren't for the government, we'd have no cars at all.'

    In this case, it is because of government and their stupid, silly, asinine regulations and meddlings that we do not have free internet phones at the present time.

    The technology is there and has been there, but then again, so has government. Expand this across nearly every industry and you can begin to realize the harm our own government propogates on society in the name of 'protecting us'. 

    (Added to 'The Internet' and 'The Bureaucrat In Your...')

Posted 5/5/06

Court Backs Experimental Drugs for Dying Patients

5/3/06 Washington Post 

    Saying that dying patients have a basic "right of self-preservation," the court held that drugs that have passed the first phase of FDA review -- which determines whether a product is safe -- should be made available if they might save someone's life.

    Why does it have to pass the 'first phase'? How much time, money, and bureaucracy stand in the way of a drug passing this 'first phase'? And why is this limited only to terminally ill patients? 

    However, the best is yet to come:

    In its opposition to the challenge, the FDA had said that the agency already has programs that make potentially lifesaving drugs available before final approval. In addition, it said that allowing large numbers of patients to take unapproved drugs could put many at unacceptable risk, even if they are terminally ill.

    Glad to see, yet again, the FDA is doing its best to protect those irresponsible incompetent terminally ill patients... from themselves. 

    If you can believe it, the Washington Post came out with a doozy of an editorial that actually argued against this court decision:

    But since when did access to experimental therapies become a "fundamental right" -- defined in Supreme Court case law as a right deeply embedded in the fabric of American tradition and without which ordered liberty would not be meaningfully free?

    Heh heh... where do the editors at the Washington Post get this 'ordered liberty' from? The Constitution mentions liberty at every turn, but never 'ordered liberty'. From the Declaration of Independence we get a more eloquent depiction:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    The WP editorial continues:

    If this right is real, it potentially calls into question the whole fabric of drug regulation.

    Well, I agree, as it should! The whole fabric of drug regulation does not square with the Constitution. But then again, why should one respect the Constitution and such a concept as 'liberty'? 

    The FDA's balancing of the competing interests of patients, public health and science may not be perfect. But the cure does not reside in the Constitution.

    (Added to 'FDA Tyranny')

Posted 5/2/06

    I've created a 'Medical Lobbying' group post, which is subdivided into 'DO Day on the Hill' and 'AOA Advocacy' posting links. 

Posted 5/2/06

    This past week/weekend I attended the AOA (American Osteopathic Association) sponsored 'DO (Doctor of Osteopathy) Day on the Hill' and the SOMA (Student Osteopathic Medical Association) convention in Washington DC. It was a great experience and we had a blast. I thought some of you might find a little write-up on it interesting and, since this is largely a political site, I'll stick to that aspect of it. :)  

    I have been to DC before, curtesy of ABC (Alternative Break Corps), lobbying on behalf of the National Homeless Coalition, which was somewhat of an irony considering that our experiences, sleeping on the streets etc..., only served to solidify my belief that a good initial measure to combat homelessness in this country would be to eliminate the National Homeless Coalition, a bloated taxpayer funded agency with a socialist agenda that, in my opinion, perpetuates and increases homelessness rather than reducing it. They did not take too kindly to our not supporting their bills. 

    However, the AOA was much more welcoming and presented us with a number of bills they supported and then gave us the leeway and choice to lobby our representatives on the bills and issues we were passionate about. Shawn Martin, our head lobbyist, gave us good information about the bills, is a great guy, and works hard to represent DOs on Capital Hill. 

    The night before our 'DO day on the Hill' we heard from a number of great speakers, including Tom Price, MD (R-GA), who spoke eloquently about the problems resulting from government control of physician salaries and of medicine in general. 

    Another interesting speaker was William Prentice, Associate Executive Lobbyist from the American Dental Association. He spoke with pride about how dentists in the United States, unlike those of, say, Great Britain, are lucky enough to be the least regulated of all health care professionals:  patients typically pay out of pocket for a high percentage of their bill, dentists have little to do with Medicare and Medicaid, and consequently, the result being, in his and my concurrent opinion, increased access and quality of care, along with low costs for patients and high salaries for dentists. Indeed, our friends on the Left often seek to chisel cohabiting groups into artificial categories: rich against poor, worker against business, doctor against patient, without the understanding that the end result of a policy generally affects all involved parties similarly, with little exception. What is good for docs is good for patients and vice versa. I would like to learn more about how the free market and dentistry have resulted in such positive results. I rather wish the AOA and the AMA would follow in their footsteps. 

    But, I must say I was disappointed to hear some of our lobbyists extol the virtues of the free market and capitalism, but then begin to hedge their opinions with regard to Healthcare. A common statement I always hear is, "Healthcare is too important to be left to market forces." In reality, precisely the opposite is true, Healthcare is too important not to be left to market forces.

    There was one common theme I heard over and over throughout the week, from every single doctor, every single lobbyist, and every single politician, Democrat or Republican. They all agreed that Medicare and Medicaid were broken, especially that the physician payment/reimbursement formula was convoluted, contradicting and ultimately, unworkable.

    Now, I doubt this is any surprise to regular readers of this site, who probably yawningly view this as merely another predicable government debacle, but I was a bit surprised at how willing those with Liberal leanings were to admit this. But, most surprising of all was that no one, well, perhaps besides the dentists, seemed to comprehend that these problems were only the natural result of socialism. By definition, the system has to be broken! Yet, what we heard was the need for new formulas, smarter calculations, and the 'proper adjustments' and, even with all of these 'patches', they all admitted none of the fixes could make the system 'properly functional'. 

    Despite all this, the AOA and, I'm assuming the AMA (American Medical Association), and most of the Medical Students in attendance went out and lobbied for increases in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. To be perfectly frank, and in my opinion, this whole approach is a useless and counterproductive exercise. The pervasive socialism of the Healthcare industry must be ended, pulled out by its roots. Medicaid and Medicare must be abolished. By abolished, I mean 'phased out', because, misguided thought they were, government promises need to be honored for current enrollees of these programs. Even such 'drastic' and 'extreme' measures as totally ridding ourselves of these harmful programs are really only the first step in reducing the massive government entrenchment and hurtful involvements in Healthcare.

    As previously mentioned, Medicare is an especially egregious program, considering it is essentially a government sponsored, mandatory, pyramid scheme, which increasingly takes money from younger people, who tend to be poorer, and gives it to older people, who are, demographically, the richest segment of society. 

    My grandparents' generation thought being on the government dole was a disgraceful, a blight on the family honor. Today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right [to as much] 'free' stuff as the political system will permit them to extract.

- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

    However, the arguments against Medicaid, the health program for the poor are the most insidious, as opponents usually state as fact that poorer citizens will loose their health care and die or become ill and then the debate often shifts from a rational policy discussion to an evaluation of your personal intentions. Of course, this was the same line used with welfare reform and in fact, as documented, the repealing of socialism and the taking away of government benefits from the poorest Americans resulted in an increase in their prosperity, not a decline. In fact, the well intentioned government programs were found to be the very reason for the poverty!

    In addition, both Medicare and Medicaid, being government programs, are racked with fraud, theft, waste, and, being government programs, offer incentives for poor care and disincentives for excellence, entrepreneurialship, and humane care. 

    In arguing for increasing physician reimbursement rates for both Medicaid and Medicare (H.R. 3617), the AOA tells lawmakers that physicians will stop accepting Medicaid and Medicare patients, thus decreasing patient access, if the compensation is not increased. Do you see the problem with this? Imagine if instead the AOA encouraged its members not to accept Medicaid and Medicare programs and urged Congress to phase out the programs. Don't hold your breath on that one... :)

    Another bill  we could choose to advocate for was a bill (H.R. 1380) which would help us lower our rather substantial debt as we emerge from medical school. It involves special tax breaks and more subsidies and who knows what other forms of measures that are, in my opinion, nothing less than outright theft. Unfortunately, as one can imagine, this was a relatively popular topic among many of the students. Most times, this brought smiles of understanding and something along the lines of "We'd like to work with you on that." or, "I understand that is quite a burden.", from the various legislative aides and/or Congressmen we met with. 

    The correct rebuttal came from, Senator Tom Coburn, MD (R-OK), incidentally my favorite Senator, who, according to second hand information, tartly asked a student: "Ok. So who do you want to pay for this?"

    Of course, Senator Coburn's refreshing response is the correct response; as William E. Simon said:

    If you would not confront your neighbor and demand his money at a point of a gun to solve every new problem that may appear in your life, you should not allow the government to do it for you.

    In fact, the government already subsidizes our tuition and loans through various programs. But, more importantly, it also dramatically increases our tuition, via the aggregate effect of the massive regulation and meddling the government inserts throughout all US Medical Education, from the beginning of medical school all the way through residency and CME (Continuing Medical Education) programs. Yet, again, our lobbying focus appears to be in the wrong place. The battle is not being fought with government in the proper role as enemy, but rather as some sort of corrupting friend, who, with a wink and a nod, will help us loot the American people.   

    Another bill (H.R. 4403/S 2071) actually did address some of this, and tried to remove some of the regulation of residency programs from rural health care programs. I commend the AOA for their work on this bill. 

    Proponents of the subsidized tuition bill sometimes opined that a doctor's education needed subsidizing because their work was much more important and critical than a lawyer's or engineer's or psychologist's, or any other graduate program, or, apparently, any other education program. First, I'm not sure how one judges how 'important' someone's work is; we certainly don't want government to be doing this sort of 'evaluating'. Secondly, even if a doctor's work is that much more important, than it is all the more critical that government be kept out of the profession. Again, these constant attempts to treat medicine differently than other businesses has, in my humble opinion, resulted in the very problems which more hurtful government expansion has been proposed to treat. 

    So, seeing as I disagreed with the AOA's approach on many of these bills I did not bring them up in conversation. But, the bill or subject I discussed with nearly all the legislators I met, and indeed, was stated as the highest priority for the AOA, was a Medical Malpractice bill (S. 22), sponsored by Senator John Ensign (R-NV), who, by the way, has a great Senior Health Policy aide in Michelle Spence. :) Basically, this bill would nationally place a cap on non-economic damages in Medical Malpractice cases. There was some confusion about what exactly this bill does, as we heard variously that if States had a cap that was below this, then the State cap would stand, but higher State caps would be preempted by the new Federal law, and we were also told by different sources that this new national bill would only apply to states that did not have some form, with higher or lower caps, of Medical Malpractice reform. So, I tried not to get into the meat of this, and mostly just talked generally about the need to reduce Medical Malpractice. 

    Interestingly, did you know there is no such thing as 'Lawyer Malpractice'? There is no 'standard of care' that car mechanics are held to. Neither are engineers or electricians or any other non-health profession. Also, all are free, unfortunately only within 'reason', to make legally binding contracts with their customers. Yet, health care is different we say, lives are at stake we say, the free market cannot properly regulate health care we say. A bunch of rot I say. :)

    One of the funniest moments, although to remain polite, I didn't laugh, came when a Democratic staffer brought up State's Rights as reason enough to vote against this national Medical Malpractice law. Now, I wasn't laughing at their argument; it was actually relatively sensible; I don't believe Federal power should be expanded except in what was previously termed, "negative power", whereby the Federal Government limits the power of the States, preventing them from committing acts of tyranny on their citizens, yet it, the Federal Government, is not empowered to garner 'positive power' or 'do anything' itself. I'm not sure quite where Malpractice falls in this framework, however, I suspect upon closer analysis we might find the root of the Malpractice problem is related to government's violation of one of the most basic human rights: the right to freely contract. All States currently do not allow a patient, if they so choose, to waive their right to partake in the current Medical Malpractice legal system. In other words, even if a patient wants to, they cannot sign a legally binding contract pledging not to sue their doctor, regardless of medical outcome. From my perspective, this is a violation of the Constitution, the right to liberty, and States that willfully violate the liberty of their citizens in this way, should be subject to Federal oversight. 

    In any case, returning to the moment of humor, my inner laughter was directed at the capricious irony of a Democrat talking about State's Rights regarding Medical Malpractice, when they are simultaneously in favor of expanding the Federal Government into nearly all other areas. Let's talk about State's Rights with Medicare or Medicaid! Just give us somewhere to run! 

    Another argument we frequently encountered was less humorous, as it was more indicative of a fundamental ignorance: the attacks on the companies that insure doctors for Medical Malpractice. Just like Big Phrama, Big Oil, and Big Wal-Mart, Big Insurance has been delegated resident villain by those on the Left, and demonized as responsible for at least some of the Medical Malpractice woes (same with workers comp). However, the facts are that insurance companies flee states with skyrocketing Malpractice verdicts, and flock to those with lower more stable rates, giving doctors greater choice of provider. The idea that insurance companies would just increase their profits, leaving rates unchanged if Malpractice reforms were enacted, can be dismissed even before checking the validating historical record. If an insurance company, or group of insurance companies, conspired to do such a thing, their profit margins would be high for only a very short amount of time, as their actions would create ample incentives for new insurance company startups, or for existing outside companies, to enter the market in order to take market share from the 'excessively profiting' companies. Incidentally, this same sort of reasoning will show why there can be no such thing as price gouging, or monopolizing. 

    In conclusion, I wouldn't want to leave out the highlight of the trip, which was meeting Rep. Ron Paul, MD, (R-TX), the utmost defender of liberty in all of Congress, an unabashed libertarian, and whom I didn't even know was also a doctor until just now. 

    We were walking the halls of Congress and we passed by his office and I thought, "Wow, Ron Paul's office, I wonder if he's in." So, later on we went back and asked his staff if we could steal just a minute or so of his time to meet him and maybe get a quick picture. It turned out he was in and he came out and shook our hands and posed for some quick pics:

    I mentioned to him I had run across and appreciated his accurate root diagnosis of the campaign finance reform debacle and had even found a prominent space (required reading) for it on my blog. 

    As we were leaving, I told him I was very glad to meet him as he was the only politician I knew who actually worked to shrink their own power. 

    His response? 

    "Damn right."  *(ok, maybe it was "that's right") :)

(Further pictures, articles, and updates can be found at 'DO Day on The Hill')

Posted 4/26/06

    If you recall, in my previous 4/21/06 post regarding Unions, I posted an article containing the following:

    One of the ugliest consequences of the loss of economic freedom and respect for property rights is that it makes such spinelessness and gutlessness on the part of businessmen — such amorality — a requirement of succeeding in business. Business today is conducted in the face of all pervasive government economic intervention. There is rampant arbitrary and often unintelligible legislation. There are dozens of regulatory agencies that combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the enforcement of more than 75,000 pages of Federal regulations alone. The tax code is arbitrary and frequently unintelligible. Judicial protection of economic freedom has not existed since 1937, when the Supreme Court abandoned it, out of fear of being enlarged by Congress with new members sufficient to give a majority to the New Deal on all issues.

    For another example of this see:  

History of the Wright Amendment

    Brought to myself and Bagert's attention by our wonderful friend Becca, a flight attendant of SouthWest Airlines. Reading through this will help yield an understanding of why the above excerpted statement is true. Southwest Airlines battled legal litigation, regulation, and direct political intervention as its penalty for doing the unspeakable: saving consumers big bucks in air travel. It is really a wonder the airline even got off the ground. But despite this, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if SouthWest Airlines today uses government to do to others what was once done to it. 

    The point of this is to highlight the battle nearly all new businesses and start-ups must face. Even worse, using government to squash competition, to restrict new ideas, to rob consumers, to prevent the prosperous creative destruction that has made this country great has, in fact, become a requirement of doing business. In a perverse sort of way, business is incentivised to act immorally. The 'market' albeit an artificially created one, dictates that a successful business must use government to protect itself and attack its enemies. 

    And it's not only businesses that are corrupted, professions meet a similar fate; Doctors, Nurses, PAs, OTs, Chiropracters, Plumbers, even lawyers, must focus their efforts not on attaining the voluntary choices of their customers, or improving the quality of their services and members, but rather they must utilize the despotic power of centralized government to outregulate, outlegislate, and outlitigate their competition and maintain their monopoly on a public service. And if they do not? With a wink and a nod government will 'give' their 'market' share to their competition. 

    This is why Janice Rogers Brown said:

    Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible. 

    And this is why I post this quote throughout this website. Another example:

Google Joins the Lobbying Herd

    Started less than a decade ago in a Stanford dorm room, Google has evolved into a multibillion-dollar business, its search engine ubiquitous on the Internet. Its sprawling growth, fueled by a public stock offering in August 2004 that created a market behemoth, has now thrust it into the glare of Washington.

    As lawmakers and regulators begin eyeing its ventures in China and other countries and as its Web surfers worry about the privacy of their online searches, Google is making adjustments that do not fit neatly with its maverick image.

    It has begun ramping up its lobbying and legislative operations after largely ignoring Washington for years, in a scramble to match bases long established here by competitors like Yahoo and Microsoft, as well as the deeply entrenched telecommunication companies.

    Google has hired politically connected lobbying firms and consultants with ties to Republican leaders like the party chairman, Ken Mehlman; Speaker J. Dennis Hastert; and Senator John McCain; and advisers say the company may set up a fund-raising arm for political donations to candidates. And in a town where Republicans hold the levers of power, Google has begun stockpiling pieces of the party's machine.

    To some, Google is a novice arriving late to the table. To others, the company's embedding on K Street, which serves as home to many of Washington's top lobbyists, represents a new and not necessarily welcome sign of sophistication.

    "It's sad," said Esther Dyson, editor of the technology newsletter Release 1.0 and former chairwoman of Icann, a nonprofit group that plays a role in Internet administration. "The kids are growing up. They've lost youth and innocence. Now they have to start being grown-ups and playing at least to some extent by grown-up rules."

    In doing so, Google provides another example of how Internet companies, no matter how unconventional their roots or nonconformist their corporate cultures, increasingly find themselves wrestling with the same forces in Washington that more traditional industries have long faced. Google's executives consider the moves necessary as they achieve a prominence that allows them to elbow their own interests onto the political stage.

    With its stock price closing on Monday near $370 a share and its vaulting onto the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index this week, the company also cannot afford to be caught flat-footed by regulatory agencies or its competitors.

    "They are brilliant engineers," said Lauren Maddox, a principal in the bipartisan lobbying firm Podesta Mattoon that was hired by Google last year. "They are not politicians."

    And why should they need to be? Or need to hire any of these people? The only reason is because government has given itself power to interfere and meddle with their business. 

    Because some Republicans still view the company as Democratic-leaning, citing the 2004 election analyses that showed nearly all its employees' contributions went to Democrats, the company will be careful, Mr. Clark said, to spread its wealth around.

    Mr. Clark also predicted that Google would name a political director, probably a Republican.

    So, by necessity, by the unspoken blackmailed threats of a twisted 'market' reality, a company is forced to support a political party, which the vast majority of its employees do not support. While I can't sympathize with the political leanings of the Google employees, I can sympathize with how this is similar to the how Conservative voters routinely have their compulsory tax money used by teachers unions and such entities as the post office to finance the Democratic party. 

    And despite the climate of indictments and investigations that pervades K Street right now, industry experts say Google has no choice but to get into the arena.

    Rhett Dawson, president of the Information Technology Industry Council, admonished that lobbying was not "a dirty word." Google, Mr. Dawson noted, "is quickly going through a maturation phase that a lot of companies have gone through that shows it pays to pay attention to Washington or it can hurt you in ways that don't reflect well on you."

    He added, "It doesn't have to be a system that makes you embarrassed to talk to your mother about."

    Well, perhaps it isn't embarrassing to these entrenched lobbying types, but you'd think it would be outrageous to your average grounded American.         

    When will a company or a profession stand up against the entrenched powers and interests of the Federal Government of the United States? When will a company or profession act morally and state that government should not have the power to pass whatever laws all of these lobbyists concoct and connive to pass? My guess is that it won't happen until company employees and professionals in member organizations stop supporting the Democratic party, and all but the libertarian wing of the Republican party. Currently, if a company or profession dared raise a finger against the Big Government types, they would get squashed like bugs. And how easy would it be? Just think of all the laws one could make. In the name of 'public safety' or, failing that, 'the children' we will: X, Y, Z...  c ya!

Posted 4/23/06

Bush promotes fuel cells, rides his bike on Earth Day

4/21/06 San Francisco Gate I have to write a bit about this because of the way the media is covering it and the reactions of our government officials. 

    The first sentence of this article is:

     Unable to drive down high oil prices, President Bush is spending Earth Day promoting futuristic hydrogen fuel technology as a way to wean Americans from gas-guzzling vehicles.

    Why would anyone want a President who was able to drive down high oil prices? Why would anyone, reporter or otherwise, want government to have this kind of power? In fact, a government that could control gas prices with that much ease would probably unleash the the highest prices and greatest shortages etc... on its populace, caused by the very virtue of that control. 

    However, we need to ask, why is Bush trying to 'wean Americans from gas guzzling vehicles'? Rather, one would think we should be trying to wean him and others in government from again trying to spend/steal hard earned tax dollars from the populace to waste on another grandiose hydrogen initiative, despite the fact that, as documented on this website and others, hydrogen is currently both more costly and more polluting than regular gasoline. 

    So why do many environmentalists keep pushing for government funding/thieving for programs that produce more pollution? Your guess is as good as mine. They are literally clueless, and not just in this regard... 

    Another argument for hydrogen fuel, despite the higher costs and increased pollution, is this need to be 'energy independent', a term increasingly coined by President Bush and other 'Republicans' in reference to Middle Eastern supplies. But, of course, this government invented goal of 'energy independence' is just as shallow and ridiculous as a goal of 'automobile independence' or 'toilet paper independence', and has become little more than the vogue political jargon of these meddling elites. What would really help our energy problems is 'energy independence' from government! 

    We also need to address President Bush again talking about 'price gouging': But to address the immediate problem, Bush offered only a pledge that "if we find any price gouging it will be dealt with firmly." He didn't say if government would also continue to heavily fine those who sell gas too cheaply...

    Even worse, 'Republican' leaders in Congress are saying the same thing:

    Congressional leaders yesterday planned to ask President Bush to order investigations into possible price gouging by oil companies as crude oil prices hit new highs on world markets and average gasoline prices in the nation's capital blew through the $3-a-gallon mark.

    House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) are preparing to send a letter to the president Monday asking him to direct the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department to investigate alleged price gouging and instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to issue waivers that might make it easier for oil refiners to produce adequate gasoline supplies, Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said.

    Of course, the only problem with all of this is that, by definition, there is no such thing as price gouging! The phenomenon does not and cannot exist!

    But, it is interesting they mention the burdensome EPA regulations and requirements for the formulation of gasoline. From another article:

    According to Michael Ports of the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of Americas, "Twenty years ago, there were two blends of gasoline offered in three octane levels, and essentially one blend of diesel fuel. Today, there are more than 18 unique blends of gasoline mandated across the nation -- again offered in three octane grades [57 total] -- and at least three different blends of diesel fuel." 

    Mandated? By whom? To whom? Why? What does it cost us?:

Pumps go dry at some gas stations

4/21/06 Philadelphia Inquire 

    Catherine Rossi, spokeswoman for AAA, said she knew of eight stations in the region that were out of fuel yesterday.

    Areas of Virginia and Texas, also going through the ethanol conversion, have experienced similar supply disruptions, said Jeff Lenard, spokesman for the National Association of Convenience Stores.

    I've always maintained whenever there is a shortage of something people are willing to pay for government is to blame. Indeed, this is the case here:

    As if rising prices weren't enough, the tanks have run dry at some Philadelphia-area service stations in the last few days as the refining industry stumbles through a change in the formulation of gasoline.

    Oil refiners are phasing out a petrochemical that makes gasoline burn cleaner but which also has been found to contaminate groundwater. Refiners are switching to corn-based ethanol.

    The conversion to ethanol was prompted by the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, which left refiners vulnerable to groundwater contamination suits and mandated greater use of renewable fuels.

    Is it any surprise that the 'Federal Energy Policy Act' served to screw up energy? If there was a law passed called the 'Stop the Children from Starving Act', the first result I would expect to see is more children starving. 

    The article goes onto describe the burdensome changes government has foisted upon private industry, including replacing the 'deadly carcinogen' MTBE with ethanol. Now, I don't know this, but it would not surprise me in the least if the 'concern' about the 'safety' of MTBE was rooted in junk science, just like most of the rest of the stuff government tells us we should be afraid of and tries to 'protect' us from and that this initiative was pushed for and passed mainly at the urgings of the powerful farm and ethanol lobby in Washington. 

    The maintenance-related shutdown of one area refinery, production problems at another, and the change from winter-blend to summer-blend gasoline are exacerbating the problems.

    We've already documented the reasons for this too. There is a shortage of refineries because environmentalists, regulators, and politicians won't let any more be built: 

    In the US, getting a permit could involve years of navigating local, state, and federal regulations and protests from environmental and community groups, analysts say.

    But, if all this isn't enough, by far the most disgusting occurrence of the past few weeks have been the attacks by pandering politicians, 'Republicans' no less, going after ExxonMobile CEO Lee Raymond's $150 million retirement bonus:

    Hastert also took aim at the rich pay package for Exxon Mobile Corp's retired chief executive, which he called "unconscionable."

    For some background, Raymond has been the CEO of Exxon and then ExxonMobile for the past 13 years. When Exxon merged with Mobile in Dec of 1998, their combined stock price was worth $237.53 billion. Eight years later the company is worth $362.53 billion, giving it the highest market capitalization of any company in the world. This is an American success story to be celebrated, not criticized!

    Obviously, Lee Raymond didn't single-handedly generate this wealth, but he must have played a key roll and his shareholders rightly decided to reward him. If anything, it looks like they didn't pay him enough (although who am I to judge what others do with their own property...)! Arguably, this man has done more to reduce the price of oil and expand gasoline availability than any other person in the United States, yet this is whom is criticized by government during times of high prices and shortages that they, the government, caused! This demagoguery is all the more ridiculous when one considers that there are 9 cents of profit as compared to 42 cents of taxes in a gallon of gasoline!

    I wonder how people like Lee Raymond stay sane. However, we are lucky he is sane, very sane, as we can tell by his most recent speech, which I very much wish I had a transcript of:

Former Exxon CEO Defends $150M Pay Package / Lee Raymond blasts critics of his retirement package, says oil industry will have its day of reckoning.

4/19/06 Reuters

    Never one to back away from confrontation while head of ExxonMobil Corp. for more than 13 years, Lee Raymond showed few signs of mellowing in retirement in his first public appearance following the controversy that erupted with the disclosure of his multimillion-dollar retirement package.

    In a 90-minute talk at Columbia University on Tuesday evening, Raymond was unrepentant for any past decisions he had made and he blasted politicians, the U.S. car industry, Wall Street, environmentalists and other critics of the oil industry for what he said was their failure to understand the nature of the energy business, conceding only that he had been unsuccessful in getting his point of view across. <.>

    The combative former CEO said Exxon's success during his tenure was entirely due to its focus on long-term goals and he had nothing but withering criticism for those who are proposing windfall taxes on energy companies, saying it would only serve as a disincentive to investment. <.>

    On the topic of alternative energy sources, Raymond poured scorn on the notion that petroleum-based fuels will be supplanted in the near future. When President Bush's suggestion of using ethanol produced from switchgrass as an alternative to gasoline came up, Raymond shook his head and grinned sarcastically.  

    You gotta love all this, but here is the kicker:

    "Back in 1998, when prices went down to $10 (per barrel), I don't recall anyone in Washington calling me up and saying 'what can we do to help.' But I didn't want them to be calling up. That's our job. We are in that business. It's our job to manage the risk. I am not interested in hearing from (politicians) when prices are at $10 and I am not interested in hearing from them when prices are at $40 or $50," he said.

    Sounds like he is not interested in hearing from politicians period! Frankly, I am sick of hearing from them too, but far sicker of suffering from their actions. I'd like to hear more, much more, from people like Lee Raymond.

    (Added to 'Gasoline and Government')

Posted 4/21/06

Where Would General Motors Be Without the United Automobile Workers Union?

4/19/06 Ludwig Von Misses Institute Wow, George Rismen hits one out of the park. First he gives some background, including:

    Why didn't they do this? [fire incompetent workers] Because with the UAW, such action by GM would merely have provoked work stoppages and strikes, with no prospect that the UAW would be displaced or that anything would be better after the strikes. Federal Law, specifically, The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, long ago made it illegal for companies simply to get rid of unions.

    But the best is his conclusion, which readers of this site will recognize as being nearly identical to our own independent conclusion (all emphasis his):

    What is happening is cruel justice, imposed by a reality that willfully ignorant people thought they could choose to ignore as long as it suited them: the reality that prosperity comes from the making of goods, not the making of work; that it comes from the doing of work, not from the shirking of it; that it comes from machines and methods of production that save labor, not the combating of those machines and methods; that it comes from the earning and reinvestment of profits not from seizure of those profits for the benefit of idlers, who do all they can to prevent the profits from being earned in the first place.

    In sum, without the UAW, General Motors would not be faced with extinction. Instead, it would almost certainly be a vastly larger, far more prosperous company, producing more and better motor vehicles than ever before, at far lower costs of production and prices than it does today, and providing employment to hundreds of thousands more workers than it does today.

    Few things are more obvious than that the role of the UAW in relation to General Motors has been that of a swarm of bloodsucking leeches, a swarm that will not stop until its prey exists no more.

    It is difficult to believe that people who have been neither lobotomized nor castrated would not rise up and demand that these leeches finally be pulled off!

    Perhaps the American people do not rise up because they have never seen General Motors, or any other major American business, rise up and dare to assert the philosophical principle of private property rights and individual freedom and proceed to pull the leeches off in the name of that principle.

    It is easy to say, and also largely true, that General Motors and American business in general have not behaved in this way for several generations because they no longer have any principles. Indeed, they would project contempt at the very thought of acting on any kind of moral or political principle.

    One of the ugliest consequences of the loss of economic freedom and respect for property rights is that it makes such spinelessness and gutlessness on the part of businessmen — such amorality — a requirement of succeeding in business. Business today is conducted in the face of all pervasive government economic intervention. There is rampant arbitrary and often unintelligible legislation. There are dozens of regulatory agencies that combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the enforcement of more than 75,000 pages of Federal regulations alone. The tax code is arbitrary and frequently unintelligible. Judicial protection of economic freedom has not existed since 1937, when the Supreme Court abandoned it, out of fear of being enlarged by Congress with new members sufficient to give a majority to the New Deal on all issues.

(Added to 'Unions') 

Posted 4/19/06

Weapons Rap for Self Defense Pair

4/16/06 New York Post 

    Two brothers who were shot defending their Brooklyn shop from a pair of stick-up men were busted for returning fire with an illegal handgun, police sources said. The gunfight erupted at 7:40 p.m. Friday when the two bandits, entered Vinnie's Style, a clothing boutique on Flatbush Avenue.

One of the pair allegedly fired a .45-caliber pistol when the brothers, Paul and Jacob Parris, refused to get down.

    Both were charged with weapons possession when cops learned the Parris' used an unlicensed 9mm pistol in the shootout, sources said.

    (Added to 'Guns and Crime'.)

Posted 4/19/06

U.S. Research Funds Often Lead to Start-Ups, Study Says

4/10/06 New York Times 

    A new study of university scientists who received federal financing from the National Cancer Institute found that they generated patents at a rapid pace and started companies in surprisingly high numbers.

    The study, the authors say, suggests that the commercial payoff for the government's support for basic research and development in the life sciences is greater than previously thought.

    The paper, to be published today, comes at a time when politicians and policy makers in the United States and Europe are questioning the value of government funds invested in fundamental research. In theory, those investments should be a wise use of taxpayers' money, according to many economists, who assert that innovation must be an engine of economic growth and job creation in developed nations.

    According to what economists? If the gist behind this article is true, then wouldn't private investors and private bankers be falling over each other to hire these researchers and fund all of this research? Of course, this is not the case and so the gist of this article cannot be true. Companies do research themselves and occasionally partner with academic centers, and private institutions often fund clinical medical research. These endeavors are a good and necessary allocation of resources. How do we know this? Because people are choosing to voluntarily fund the projects.

    With government this is not the case; government throws billions of dollars down the drain each year, funding useless, irrelevant, cockamamie research. The occasional successes of this research is the exception not the rule. Of course, government has no clue what areas of research are promising and which ones are not and so all of these 'scientists' end up chasing the funds wherever they appear, no matter how ridiculous the nitch. The research follows the money, the reverse is not true.

    Interestingly, I recently heard a speaker (an academic researcher) talk about a new way to get funding: start your own business. Of course, this 'business' is in name only, he just wanted the funding to pay his salary, substitute his other more time consuming grants, and continue to work on his projects. He could do this because the SBA (Small Business Administration), a bloated, porkbarelling branch of the Federal government has been expanding exponentially in recent years and they have a lot of grant money.

    These folks will chase the money wherever it goes and into whatever government program has the mullah, like piglets looking to suckle from a fat sow, they will fight for their place for a teat. 

The king's cheese is half wasted in parings;
But no matter, 'tis made of the people's milk.

 - Benjamin Franklin

(Added to Academic Bias)

Posted 4/18/06

Undredged Channels Limit Shipping on Great Lakes
4/17/06 AP 

    Shippers say the situation is getting worse as lake water levels decline and federal budget constraints are felt at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for dredging the nation's ports and waterways.

    I think this story is interesting for a number of reasons. The first question we need to ask is why the government is even in charge of dredging these lakes? Why can't the shippers all pitch in and get a private company to perform this task? It would doubtlessly be cheaper and, of course, much more competent (as government is incompetent by definition). If, however,  the price is so exorbitant that the shippers cannot afford to do this, then we have to wonder why the government is bothering to do it in the first place. Why should the government subsidize something that is a known money looser? 

    The key here in this line of reasoning is the premise that private industry's judgment is the best objective assessment of the validity of a given expenditure. Thus all infrastructure spending should be left to private industry. 

    (Added to 'Transportation Socialism')

Posted 4/18/06

America Celebrates Tax Freedom Day

4/12/06 The Tax Foundation

    As you're all toiling to finish up those taxes, I thought ya'll might enjoy some statistics on how hard we're working for the money that the criminals in government are stealing from us:

    Don't you wish for the good ol' days? (PreWWI)

    This last graph is especially of interest because you will notice corporate taxes are included. How can this be? Well, contrary to one of the tenants of liberalism, corporate taxes are paid by the owners of the corporations, who, by and large, happen to be citizens of the United States. Of course, some of this cost might be passed on by the corporations to the consumers who are also, by and large, citizens of the United States. 

    So, in conclusion, the average citizen works until April 26th, 116 days into the year for free. Just like a bunch of serfs.

    If I had the power to pass one law in this country, the law I would pass would prohibit this 'withholding' of our taxes the government currently pulls on us so we're kept in the dark about how much we're being robbed. It would be better if we kept all of our money throughout the year and then had to write the government a huge check for 1/3rd of our earnings come tax time. 

    We now might be singing a different tune. 

Posted 4/16/06

When the Tax Man Cometh, They Don't Answer the Bell / Tax resisters say refusal to pay all or part of their taxes is an act of civil disobedience. The IRS and US courts say it's illegal.

4/1/406 Christian Science Monitor

    "In good conscience I cannot pay this money to the US government," Ms. Benn wrote in a letter to the IRS that accompanied a completed, but unpaid, 1040 form. "I do not want my tax dollars to be used for killing and war."

    Benn joins an estimated 10,000 Americans refusing to pay their federal taxes this year in protest of US military power. Many of these conscientious objectors - some driven by personal politics, some by religious beliefs - plan to donate their tax obligation to charity instead.

    Ms. Pierce says she is part of a long American tradition of tax resistance, reaching back to when revolutionaries tossed tea into Boston Harbor. But to follow in the footsteps of American protesters such as Henry David Thoreau - who went to jail for withholding taxes during the Mexican-American War.

    While I personally cannot sympathize with this particular cause, I can admire their plan of action. Why should tax money be forcibly conscripted from you, a supposedly 'free' person, to go towards a cause you abhor? As Thomas Jefferson said:

    To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.  

    And they are correct, such defiance is an American tradition, as is suspicion of government, and a 'don't tread on me' attitude, which makes government wary of attempting to exert too much control. 

    "I made bundles and bundles of money and gave bundles away [to charity]," Mr. Stockwell says. "I arranged my life my own way and the IRS never caught up with me."

    Indeed, in my opinion, individuals would voluntarily fund nearly all 'vital' programs, including our national defense, if Federal taxes were abolished. We certainly know this is the case regarding charitable donations.

    Here is a look at what happens when the people roll over and are not proactive in battling their government, when they submit to the ever creeping totalitarianism of the state:

We Deserve No Sympathy

4/10/06 NewZimbabwe.com

    We have shied away from confrontation. In our meekness as Zimbabweans, we have offered our spears, shields, knobkerries and clubs to Mugabe in a self-defeating stance of pacifism. We have avoided our right to defend ourselves from aggression by assuming that if we remain unarmed and cowardly, Mugabe the aggressor may not attack us.

    We yearn for no freedom. We crave for no full stomachs for our emaciated children. We covet nothing else than the ugly woman in our neighbour’s life. We desire no more than the tattered Mao suits donated to us by charity. We have no hunger for success. We deserve all the fleas that inflict upon us.

    War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill

Posted 4/16/06

Tiny Owl May Be Taken Off Endangered List

4/15/05 AP The owl is set to be removed from the endangered species list next month, a move that also will rescind critical habitat designation for 1.2 million acres in Arizona. <.> The Fish and Wildlife Service determined the bird was not a distinct subspecies and therefore not worthy of protection. <.> The decision is likely to be fought by the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity.

    So basically, this owl never really existed. Sort of like the previously posted story about the jumping mouse, which cost states and private industry some $100 million to protect before it turned out that it didn't exist either.     

    Added to 'Environment'. 

Posted 4/16/06

9/11: Debunking The Myths / PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11

March 2005 Popular Mechanics 

    Since 9/11 I've probably received 10-15 forwards of video/articles purporting that the US government, or Israeli government, or who knows who else, had advanced knowledge of the Sept 11th attacks. I always send this article to the people forwarding me the conspiracy theory, but in case some readers didn't know it existed, here it is. 

Posted 4/15/06

For Iraqi Students, Hussein's Arrival Is End of History

4/15/06 Washington Post As mentioned in 'Secondary Problems of Socialism', American public school debates over the pledge, religion, evolution, and sex-ed are all counterproductive, as they skirt the main issue which lies at the root of the contentions: the political control of public school systems by the state. In Iraq, a similar debate is shaping up:

    Education officials said they decided soon after Hussein fell from power that the wounds of his rule were so fresh -- and the potential for retaliatory violence so great -- that the subject was best omitted from school texts, at least for now. This year, a committee of experts selected by the Education Ministry will launch an ambitious overhaul of school curricula. The goal is to produce the first broadly accepted history of Iraq's troubled recent past, a formidable challenge in a country split along ethnic and sectarian lines.

    "It will be very, very, very hard to represent all the viewpoints. It cannot be viewed as something imposed by the strongest," said an Education Ministry official who will head the new curricular development committee and is already reviewing nominations for roughly 40 other positions. He agreed to be interviewed on the condition that he not be named because of the sensitivity of the job.

    "The former regime used the curriculum as a mouthpiece for its own political interests," he continued. "We have to be careful. We have to be tactful. We need to make books that are acceptable for a Kurd from the north, a child from Ramadi and a girl in Basra."

    So we can see already what will take shape. A massive politically correct bureaucracy with top down control. Of course, the 'experts' they are selecting for this task will be no more 'expert' than the parents of the students. 

    Sometimes I think it is interesting to make cross cultural comparisons, as the effects of expansive government are the same. 

    (Added to 'A Charter School Tale')

Posted 4/14/06

$12 Billion for LA's homeless

4/6/06 LA Daily News 

    Putting a roof over the head of every homeless resident of Los Angeles County - long considered the nation's homeless capital - will cost up to $12 billion over the next decade, but it's a price worth paying, says a landmark three-year study released today.

    How much will it cost to 'fix' education in this country? How much will it cost to make Lyndon Johnson's $6 trillion boondoggle 'War on Poverty' reduce poverty? Of course, no amount of money will fix any of these problems and, in fact, these problems often exist precisely because of the amount of money spent on them. 

Posted 4/14/06 

The 10 Most Harmful Government Programs (Required Reading)

4/10/06 Human Events Similar, but refreshingly different from last years report. Like last years report, this will be added to 'required reading'.  

Posted 4/8/06

    This weekend I attended an advocacy conference for the AOA (American Osteopathic Association). Mostly, it was an interesting and motivating conference about how to approach legislators and lobby for public change. There is a lot of good the AOA does representing physicians and I enjoyed meeting the various people who attended the conference.  

    However, I must admit I was a bit disheartened by some of what the AOA, and we can assume their counterparts their at the AMA (American Medical Association), advocate for. I learned that the AOA is working to restrict the right of psychologists to prescribe medications, working to restrict the right of pharmacies to offer immunizations and monitor medications, working to restrict in store clinics offered by companies such as wal-mart, working to restrict the rights of RNs (nurses), and they, the AOA, were just shocked :), that Oklahoma optometrists can now perform surgeries which had previously been restricted to ophthalmologists. Of course, in the AOA's defense, some of these legislative battles are fought to defend our practice rights from the various groups that want to take them away. 

    However, it does appear to me that the AOA is fighting many non-defensive territorial wars of regulation, using government to sustain a monopoly against market forces, ironically, in the same way that MDs once used government to shut out Osteopaths. Recall it was Mark Twain who testified before the New York General Assembly:

   "I don't know as I cared much about these osteopaths until I heard you were going to drive them out of the state, but since I heard that I haven's been able to sleep."

    Well, I for one don't want any part of it. Good intentions aside, I don't see why an organization needs to spend so much effort tearing down other professional groups, stomping on entrepreneurs, restricting patient choice, and, at least in this sense, and in my opinion, becoming part of the problem, rather than the solution to health care in America. In an indirect sort of way it is almost lessening the value it subscribes its own members.

    During these debates about immigration, it has often been claimed that illegal immigrants are 'taking American jobs'. I always counter that if you need government to protect your job, if your own skill, hard work, diligence, and talent do not intrinsically define your individual value in a position of employment, than you don't deserve the job in the first place. Similarly, if given the freedom to choose, doctors are hemorrhaging patients, then docs better, government permitting, shape up or ship out. 

    Another contradiction can be found in the AOA position on keeping the status quo regarding the medical socialism perpetrated on the people of the United States via Medicare and Medicaid. The AOA appears to believe the proper position is not to cut these programs, or reduce dependency on government, but rather to keep reimbursements 'high', so more people are served as doctors can afford to keep seeing these patients. Of course, this sounds quite laudable, but it doesn't address the root of the problem or ask the ever pertinent question: Why do doctors want government to control their salaries in the first place? Why place your livelihood at the whim of whatever political forces happen to hold office?

    Again, why do we need government to prop up the value of our labor? Why can it not stand alone, self-evident in its merit? Or, what if it turns out that this government meddling is actually lowering reimbursements for certain procedures to below market prices? In fact, we learned that private insurance used to pay much higher prices for procedures than what government offered, but had recently fallen to mirror the government mandates. Interestingly, an analysis of key differences between the procedures covered by private insurance and those covered by government programs appear clustered around preventative care and screenings, much of which only private plans cover. Why is this? It turns out improving the health of the patient also saves money for the private insurance companies. Whodathunk? :) With government programs, these feedback loops are absent. One would think this would sink home most in the Osteopathic profession, which does have an emphasis on preventative medicine and whole body care, especially those practicing OMM.

    The truth is that government cannot know, despite its best efforts, what certain procedures are worth to patients to receive, or doctors to perform. The value of your skill as a physician should, in my opinion, be set by your patients and the market, and thus reflect the pride in your individual ability.  

    But, returning to the contradiction, the AOA advocating increasing these government payments in the name of 'increasing patient access', does not seem to match with their rhetoric on these so-called 'in store clinics'. 'In stores clinics' are sort of 'fast food' doctors' offices set up in stores like Wal-Mart or Target. 'Increasing access' is exactly what they do. They perform quick lab tests, physicals, immunizations, and can prescribe certain medications. Occasionally they are staffed by physicians, but mostly by RNs, PAs, or some other combination of health care worker. These clinics provide fast, cheap care, targeted especially at the poorest Americans and those without health insurance. In fact, family members of more than one classmate of mine have used these clinics with great acclaim and upon occasion, great necessity.

    The AOA is against these clinics, or at least wants to make sure only physicians can operate them and, at minimum, favors increasing the regulatory burden upon them. 

    Collectively, my impression of all of this is that it appears the interchangeable arguments of 'access', 'quality', and 'public safety' are empty shells, representing whatever is politically feasible to sell the goal of turf protection to politicians and the public. But then again, how can this be surprising to readers of this site?  We've seen this sort of pattern play out in every special interest group from Social Workers to Manicurists to Public School Teachers.

    On a side note, I had the pleasure of eating lunch with Dr. Joe Heck, (R) Nevada, a freshmen state senator of my district, an Osteopathic physician (ER doc), and army reservist. I was impressed. He seems to be a strait up guy, sincere, honest, and personable. I must admit I am not quite sure exactly where he stands ideologically, the presentation he gave was noticeably nonpartisan, as the occasion required, but from some brief research he appears fairly conservative, although I'm not sure if he is more conservative than the primary opponent he defeated, whom I can at least appreciate by the nature of her many enemies. From outside appearances their primary battle was pretty um..... interesting, albeit courteous. :)

    However, I will have to give Senator Heck credit for a money quote:

    Heck said increasing the amount of funding per pupil isn't the answer, and cited the school district in Washington, D.C., which has one of the highest rates of funding per pupil but "has one of the worst outcomes."

    As I've said before, the District of Colombia is a most interesting laboratory of liberalism, of its failures that is. :)

    I wonder where Dr. Heck stands/stood on school choice, the minimum wage, and the Union hypocrisy occurring in district 5. Hmmm... he is my state senator, maybe I should ask him? 

Posted 4/5/06

Virgin Galactic Customers Parting With Their Cash

4/2/05 Associated Press A previous 2/10 post mentioned some of the obstacles imposed by government on private industry's attempts to advance into space, including the requirements for 'space tourism licenses'. There is more of that here, but first let's look at what their customers say:

    Virgin Galactic has collected $13 million in cash from some 157 people who have signed contracts to be flown to the edge of the atmosphere -- about 110 kilometers -- to experience about five minutes of low-gravity conditions, Virgin Galactic President Will Whitehorn said.

    But look at how extensive of a process it takes for this company to achieve it's goal:

    With the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) setting regulations that permit SpaceShipTwo passengers to waive insurance and other security-related rights, Whitehorn said his company has all the legal leeway it needs. It still must protect the safety of people and property surrounding the New Mexico installation.

    Whitehorn lavished praise on FAA regulators, saying the rules they have adopted for space tourism will permit the same kind of "adventure capitalism" that helped usher in the era of commercial air travel.

    He said the FAA could have killed all hope for Virgin Galactic if it had insisted on full certification of SpaceShipTwo as an aircraft. "It would have cost us a billion dollars in that case," he said.

    A billion dollars in regulatory costs? Do these regulations even make us any safer? 

    Fashioning a paper airplane from his notepad, Whitehorn tossed it into the air before his audience of lawyers. "You could build it out of paper and they would not regulate it," he said.

    One set of regulations -- the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR -- eventually could stand in Virgin Galactic's way if the company sought to operate outside the United States.

    It is a wonder they are even able to get off the ground. How many other industries and entrepreneurial ideas get squashed by the heavy hand of government bureaucrats and their willing accomplices in congress? 

Posted 4/3/06

Heaven's Gate / Will gaining admission to one of the nation's elite colleges guarantee a prosperous future -- or just a mountain of debt?

4/2/06 Washington Post

    If you have read 'College' (12/5/05 post), which you could not have because I just realized I hadn't created it!, you would recall I expressed my reservations regarding the hype around the value of a college education. If one subscribes to this line of thinking, it would also follow that the type of college one attends does not particularly matter. In other words, and in my opinion, the rankings of various higher education institutions as 'good' or 'bad' colleges are fairly worthless, because it is the individual, not the college, which make all the difference. I think this is a rather optimistic viewpoint. :) 

    And far from being crazy, although it certainly flies against the grain of public opinion, this perspective is backed up by information contained in this WP article, which, in fact, is why I posted it. :) 

    In the late 1990s, two academics decided to measure whether those elite private schools really delivered on what they promised. Alan Krueger, an economist at Princeton, and Stacy Dale, a researcher with the Andrew Mellon Foundation, compared 1976 freshmen at 34 colleges -- from Yale, Stanford and Wellesley to Penn State and Miami University of Ohio. They separated out a subgroup of those freshmen who had applied to the same pool of elite colleges. They then took that subgroup, now full of elite and public school grads, and compared their wages in 1995.

    The findings? The income levels of these graduates were essentially the same, though very poor students seemed to get a slight benefit from an elite private education. For most students, there was no real post-college earning benefit gained from an elite undergraduate degree. The better predictor was where the students had applied.

    "Essentially, what we found was the fact that you apply to those kinds of elite places means that you are ambitious, and you'll do well in life wherever you go to school," Dale says.

    Other research has largely concurred with the findings of Krueger and Dale.

    "What does it really take to get into Harvard?" Sklarow asks. "Who knows?" People need to stop worrying about finding the magic formula to get into Harvard or Yale, he says. "There is enough research to show how you do in life has nothing to do with where you went to college, but it is just very hard to convince the parents."

    I find the part about ambition interesting and I must say I rather like this quote from a Yale graduate:

     "I ended up learning a lot more from my classmates than I did from my professors."

Posted 4/2/06

I've created a Tribute/Memorial Page for a friend that recently passed away. Included is an essay of mine that was requested and published in the Duke Chronicle on 3/27/06. 

Posted 4/1/06

The Tragedy of Big Government -- Why Failure Is Guaranteed!

Iconoclast An excellent ideological attack on 'Big Government', which I am in complete agreement with. It contrasts the differences in incentives and feedback loops in government run and market economies, especially how information known by a market nearly always outweighs what any individual or group of individuals can know. This is quite a powerful idea, upon reflection, and goes along with the quote starting out this piece:

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
--Friedrich A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, 1988

    Similar to how modern communists opine that the past attempts at communism just 'didn't get it right', the author notes this attitude in 'Big Government apologists'. Government is blamed and 'reorganized' and 'repackaged' in an attempt to 'get it right', when, by definition, it cannot 'get it right' for the reasons described in the piece. 

Posted 4/1/06

Venezuela Takes on Exxon Mobil in Oil Play

3/3/06 AP A rather interesting article describing how Venzuelan President Hugo Chavez is not just giving more control of the oil production to Venzuelan state oil companies, but also favoring state oil companies from other 'friendly' countries. Of course, 'friendly countries' in Venzuela's case means totalitarian regimes like China and Iran. Why else would this be done if not for political favors/alliances? 

    The raising of taxes and 'fees' and the lessening of private ownership of oil will have two results. 

    The first is the most dangerous, as now the government will have increased revenue, hence more power, and more money to squander and harm the people with. Look for Venezuela to continue to slide towards a statism similar to that 'enjoyed' by Middle Eastern Governments. 

    The second is that Venezuela will export less oil than it would if the fields were to be privately manned, fewer workers will be hired, foreign investment will fall and it would not be surprising if the revenues collected by the government are actually lower than if this trend did not exist. 

    The above two paragraphs seem to be in contradiction with each other, but I believe they can both be true if we factor in a time scale. Government revenue will increase in the short term, but fall in the long term. In the end, government will find it has destroyed the private sector and has complete power over an industry, which is now stagnating. Then it turns its attention to the next industry. This is the rather predictable result of socialism. 

    However, the sheer incompetence of government and the innate ability of the private sector to generate wealth (which can then be stolen by the government), means that private industry is often grudgingly accepted:

     Experts say, however, that fears that Chavez, a close ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro, is seeking to drive out private investment are exaggerated because Venezuela needs the technological expertise of Western oil majors to develop its vast deposits in the Orinoco belt.

    Few state oil companies have the expertise to upgrade the extra-heavy oil and tar-like bitumen found in the Orinoco into lighter, marketable oils.

    State companies do not have this 'expertise' and cannot develop these new deposits precisely because they are State companies. 

(added to 'Chavez' and 'Gasoline and Government')

Posted 3/31/06

Transportation Socialism Comments

8/25/05 Three Legged Stool I thought I had added this a while back to 'Transportation Socialism', but I had not. Bangart and I seem to agree on most everything except the power of monopolies. I've been meaning to follow up on this. 

Indiana Toll Road

3/21/06 Three Legged Stool An interesting story and analysis of how Indiana is leasing, unfortunately not selling, some highways to a private company. 

    This reminds me of the Trans-Texas Cooridor:

    Everything's big in the Lone Star State, but the term "superhighway" barely begins to describe Texas's transportation plan for the 21st century.

    Called the Trans-Texas Corridor, it is the most ambitious highway project since the Eisenhower administration introduced the interstate system in the 1950s. The $184 billion, 50-year plan calls for building 4,000 miles of roadways up to a quarter-mile wide. Each corridor would contain six high-speed toll lanes for cars and trucks; six rail lines and easements for petroleum, natural gas and water pipelines, as well as electric, broadband and other telecommunications lines.

    The price would be minimal to taxpayers, say state officials, who are seeking private companies to finance, develop, build and maintain the corridor in exchange for the right to charge tolls for half a century.

    Why not forever? 

Posted 3/29/06

Rethinking The Drug War

3/29/06 John Stossel 

    Stossel takes a break from his great educational pieces in order to turn in a new direction. 

    I almost posted this under 'required reading', but there are a few things left out that would make his good arguments even more complete. 

    The first is that the act of making something illegal generally makes it more, not less available to kids. In high school and early college, both in theory and anecdotally, nearly everyone I've talked to agrees that pot was more accessible than alcohol. It is more accessible precisely because it is illegal. As long as taxes are low on alcohol, there is no real incentive to risk your much larger adult business marketing to underage kids. If taxes are raised to a certain level, then incentives exist to sell alcohol on the black market, and then underage kids will have greater access. The reason I bring 'taxes' up is because this trend has been starting to occur recently with smuggling cigarettes. Of course, not that any of this should be taken as an endorsement of age limits on alcohol procurement, it is pretty repulsive that 17-18 year olds can die in defense of their country, but then be arrested at a bar, but I am merely stating that if one starts with the goal of limiting access of drugs/alcohol to minors, which those who defend the War on Drugs claim to do, then, from my perspective, it still does not make sense to advance logically in the direction of making drugs/alcohol illegal. 

    The second idea left out of the Stossel piece is stated in 'Guns and Crime', oh actually its originally from 'Sweat Shops and Welfare':

    Our inner cities (Indian reservations, and Applachia) didn't experience this prosperity because private sector wages couldn't match what the government was paying people not to work [via welfare]. On top of this the government never considered itself an employer of these millions people, so it paid no local taxes. But the worst part was that the government's ever expanding public housing units concentrated welfare recipients and, since the government never considered itself a homeowner, it paid little or no property tax on it's these units, further devastating local treasuries and contributing to the crumbling local (monopolistic) schools and infrastructure. High minimum wages worked to price the lowest income earners out of the labor market, thus benefiting Unions by eliminating their low wage competition. Private companies obviously avoided these areas like the plague, but some more sinister industries saw clear advantages in these areas. They saw an idle, restless, uneducated populace which, in order not to loose their cash, food, housing and medical benefits, could only engage in economic activity that was unreported to the government. Prostitution, gambling, drugs, gangs and other criminal enterprises were given the equivalent of a tax break to set up shop in these areas. Natural human ambition and the entrepreneurial spirit was not be stopped - even by the Federal government. It was merely molded into a more insidious force. 

    Basically, the casualties from the War On Drugs disproportionately effect the poorest, most destitute in society, especially those already suffering under the heavy foot of government. But then again, why should this be surprising? When government expands these are almost always the folks hurt first and most, which makes it all the more peculiar that government expansion is routinely undertaken in the name of helping them.

(Added to 'Guns and Crime')

Posted 3/28/06

Doctors opt to have private operations

3/26/06 Times Online More news from the socialized medical system of Britain:

    HOSPITAL consultants are spurning the National Health Service by paying for medical insurance so they can be treated privately if they become ill.

    A survey of 500 consultants, commissioned by Bupa, the health insurer, found that 41% of senior hospital doctors have invested in private health cover.

    More than 90% of the consultants surveyed have posts within the NHS. All of those surveyed also worked in private hospitals.

    But, why would you need private insurance if the public insurance is 'free'? If the public system provides adequate and 'equal' care, why would you need private insurance? Of course, the reason these doctors are buying insurance outside of their own jobs is because, innate to socialized health care, the service is poor and the waitlists lengthy.  

    I wonder if these doctors vote and speak in favor of sustaining the failing British Health Care system, even as they themselves opt out of it? 

    If so, it sort of reminds me of how public school teachers in this country routinely get their own kids out of socialized education, even as their unions fight desperately to keep their monopoly on public funds. As I pointed out in an article in the end of 'A Charter School Tale':

    In Washington (28 percent), Baltimore (35 percent) and 16 other major cities, the figure is more than 1 in 4. In some cities, nearly half of the children of public school teachers have abandoned public schools. In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent.

    Added to 'British Health Care'. 

Posted 3/26/06

    The quote page has finally been updated with some new additions and deletions. Here are the new ones:

Henry Louis Mencken

The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable.

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

Ronald Reagan

The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.

James Madison

The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.

P.J. O'Rouke

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.

Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

P.J. O'Rouke

The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, "See if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.

P.J. O'Rouke

Government seems to operate on the principle that if even one individual is incapable of using his freedom competently, no one can be allowed to be free.

David Shapiro

Lao Tse said that the evil leader is the one whom the people despise, the good leader is the one whom the people revere, but the greatest leader of all is the one who causes the people to cheer that "we did it ourselves".

Lao Tse

A wise leader has said, "I will not try to change things, and the people will be transformed by themselves; I will be fond of tranquility, and the people will by themselves become correct.  I will not pursue riches, and the people will by themselves become rich; I will manifest no ambition, and the people will become as natural as uncarved wood"

Mark Twain
The mania for giving the Government power to meddle with the private affairs of cities or citizens is likely to cause endless trouble, through the rivalry of schools and creeds that are anxious to obtain official recognition, and there is great danger that our people will lose our independence of thought and action which is the cause of much of our greatness, and sink into the helplessness of the Frenchman or German who expects his government to feed him when hungry, clothe him when naked, to prescribe when his child may be born and when he may die, and, in time, to regulate every act of humanity from the cradle to the tomb, including the manner in which he may seek future admission to paradise.

Thomas Edison

If I had let myself believe that a work day was only 8 hours I could not have accomplished most of my life’s work.

Richard Henry Lee

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

Mark Twain

Faith is believing what you know ain't so.

William F. Buckley

They told me if I voted for Goldwater, he would get us into a war in Vietnam. Well, I voted for Goldwater and that's what happened.

Rick Gaber

No matter who you are or what you believe, you have to understand
that some day the worst control-freaks among your bitterest enemies
will control the federal government, and you better have restored
effective, working constitutional limitations on that government
before that time arrives. 

Posted 3/25/06 

    I'd like to explain a seeming contradiction, which has been brought to my attention. In the 3/24 post below I attack government mandates for increasing the price of medications. However, in a 2/17 post I attack the government for NOT paying for a medication, which a woman in Britain wants. 

    But, this is not my contradiction, but theirs. IMHO, this is not exposing any flaws in my reasoning, but rather illustrating one of the fundamental flaws of socialism. 

    Government cannot provide universal service and still keep prices under control. So, it must choose, and regardless of what it chooses, the harm is already done as soon as it is given power to make the choice. Thus, I will attack whatever decision is made because, by definition, the choice cannot be good. 

    Now, the same thing will occur with a private insurance company. A company may wish to deny medications in instances where the price is too high. But, this should depend on the voluntary contract the company has with its customers who purchased the policy. If the contract is to cover all medications all the time, then there will be upward pressure on drug price, but there will also be upward pressure on the price of this insurance policy. If this sort of price inflation becomes widespread, incentives are created for cheaper discounted health insurance to proliferate, which will not pay for super expensive medications. Now drug companies are faced with loosing significant business if they do not lower prices. The market will adjust and work itself out. 

    When government is in charge these forces are not at work. There is no choice. This makes all the difference.

Posted 3/24/06

A Cancer Drug's Big Price Rise Is Cause for Concern

3/12/06 New York Times

    A most interesting article. In it, we see the usual, people who did not invent, manufacture, or buy the rights to various medicines, somehow feel they should have a say on what the price of a given medicine should be. This reporter almost regretfully writes:

    And once a company sets a price, government agencies, private insurers and patients have little choice but to pay it. The Food and Drug Administration does not regulate prices, and Medicare is banned from considering price in deciding whether to cover treatments.

    Medicare is banned from considering price in deciding whether to cover treatments? So, if you invent a new drug or treatment that is better than anything else out there, the government is practically ordering you to raise the price of it - because they will pay it. And we wonder why Medicare costs are soaring out of control... More interesting findings:

    While private insurers can negotiate prices, they have limited leeway to exclude drugs from coverage based on price, said C. Lee Blansett, a partner at DaVinci Healthcare Partners, which works with drug makers on pricing and marketing.

    "Price is simply not included in whether or not to cover a drug," Mr. Blansett said.

    I wonder why this is? Could it be because government regulates, mandates, and meddles with, private insurance? I don't know the exact details, but I know that by law, if you're offering health insurance you have to cover X, Y, and Z etc.. and the federal/state code is probably hundreds of pages long. I'd be interested in finding more info about this. 

    The point is that here in the United States we do not have a free market system. Both Public and Private providers are, via government coercion, effectively prevented from working to limit costs - yet our friends on the left blame the pharmaceutical companies for soaring prices. 'Big Pharma' is merely following the 'unintended' incentives put in place by the innate incompetence always found in expansive government. 

    Added to 'Government Health'.

Posted 3/24/06

Protest Turns Violent in Heart of Paris / Gang Rampage Mars Rally Against Job Law; Pressure Builds on Chirac

3/24/06 Washington Post The French government is finally taking steps to loosen up the country's archaic labor laws and allow employers to more freely hire and fire younger workers. As Alan Greenspan said:
    It turned out that with greater freedom to fire, the risks of hiring declined.

    Other steps to reduce the chronically high French youth unemployment would be to eliminate minimum wage laws, public housing, and other welfare programs. Needless to say, these modest reforms are being met with mass public protests, strikes, and rioting. 

    Under existing law, it is impossible to fire even the most incompetent workers without huge financial liabilities for companies. College students, other young people and unions say the new law discriminates against the young by denying them the job security that older workers have.

    If this is true, 'discrimination against young people' is occurring, then how come in the United States, where employers can generally fire workers at will (exceptions = unions), we have a per capita income 1/3rd higher than that of France and about 2.5x lower unemployment rate? 

    You know, often time on this website I attack and blame governments for the various ills they have injected into society and label those in government as criminals, thieves, etc..., which is all, of course, very true. But, in the end, Government can only take as much as 'we the people' let them. The ultimately responsibility for good governance lies in the people themselves. How much will they put up with? How much of their freedom will they allow those in government to rob them of? 

    In France, the answer is, apparently, quite a lot:

    Even as Ethuin, the bike rental shop owner, surveyed the damage along his block Thursday afternoon, he couldn't bring himself to criticize the young people whose demonstration brought the violence to his doorstep.

    "They have no jobs," he said. "It's not their fault."

    I bet most of these 'youths' don't care one way or the other about what is going on. They are bored, apathetic, and looking to have some fun. They are that way in large part for the same reasons, which they rioted earlier this year. Added to 'French Riots'

Posted 3/24/06

    Apologies for the break in postings, I had exams, school elections, and some personal business to take care of.

Posted 3/13/06

RIP Carrie Largent, (December 30, 1980 - March 11, 2006)

Carrie was an incredible person, and a great friend, whose memories I will cherish forever. My utmost condolences to her amazing family and friends. 

Duke Announcement

Obituary

A Remembrance Duke Chronicle

Memorial Page here on Neoperspectives

Posted 3/10/06

Communist Musings

    In 'John Kerry and Foreign Policy' it is stated:

    Communism is the greatest evil that man has ever known. It is responsible for more than 100 millions deaths (more than all the wars in history combined), millions and millions of refugees and the subjugation and slavery of over 2 billion people since WWII (70). Communist regimes always follow a similar pattern. A Communist regime has never been elected, so first Communists must orchestrate a revolution, often with the support of funding from preexisting Communist regime. Next, Communists dissolve private property, nationalize media and begin a brutal purge of political prisoners and the upper classes. To conduct it's class warfare and maintain control of the revolting people, the state will militarize, establish a large secret police presence, and create horrific labor/reeducation camps. The economy collapses, failed farm policies result in starvation, refugees flee, and the government begins to export Communist revolution abroad. How far the government is willing to push the Communist philosophy will directly equate with the severity of these events and the suffering of their people. This exact pattern has come to pass in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea, Angola, Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Cuba. A few countries on this list have not experienced the true hell of Communism because the governments either didn't last long enough to take full root, or total Communist policies were not pursued in earnest. (67)

    Now, this is certainly true, and happens to some extent in highly socialist/dictatorial countries such as those in the Middle East and Venezuela. However, a deeper analysis of pure Communism theory yields interesting results. 

    Present day Communists, modern day liberals, and others often argue that Communism, according to pure theory, has never existed. They are correct; Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong 'Mentally' ILL and all the rest are not communists per se, but murderous dictators. Curiously, what many do not see, I say 'curiously' because it has played out historically every time, is that murderous dictatorships are in fact, the predictable result of pursing the Communist ideology. Yet, this is only because those pursuing its ends have chosen the wrong means. 

    Pure Communist theory operates on the premise that each person should receive according to their needs and produce according to their ability.

    What people need and what people should provide those in need is not defined - there is no need to define it because 'whatever the perfect answer is' will already be known by the 'educated masses'. The people are the state and since none of them disagree with the state, ie each other,  there is no need for any enforcing body etc... But, as soon as one person doesn't conform, then the masses must pounce on him/her and a ‘state’ forms and the society reverts to Socialism (as opposed to a pure stateless Communism). Whether one says everything is owned by the state, or everything is owned by the people - is a bit of a moot point, as the people all think and act the same. If no one committed any 'crime' then there would not be a need for police. In the same sense, if everyone was a policeman, there would not be a need for what we think of as an official police force, but the line between stating there is no police force and that there is a total police force is almost non existent. IMO, this is quite an interesting concept.

    So, we have a simple and elegant theory of utopic equality. Far from being radical, this is sort of how families, churches, and some communes operate. But, in practice, when one moves beyond small unit trusting relationships the system breaks down.

    The reason it breaks down is because the path Communists have chosen is one of revolution, violence, intimidation, and murder. Their tool is expanded and militarized government. They have a vision and have set out to forcibly implement it on the populace. The people must think the same, but it is not the people who are determining what they must think, it is the Communists who are deciding - hence the bloody, hellish attempts to brainwash entire populations through terror and doublethink and the predictable concentration of ultimate power in a dictator. 

    Now, what if Communists choose the opposite path? Instead of implementing their vision by expanding government, what if they worked to reduce it. Instead of using force and coercion to change minds, what if they removed the influence of government from culture and society?

    The utopic goals behind ideologies such as anarcho-capitalism or the various blends of extreme libertariansm are actually identical to the utopia of Communism. The key difference is that they recognize this vision cannot be enforced on the populace, they must choose it for themselves. So, as opposed to mob Communist rule, where the 'masses'/state 'correct' anyone who steps out of line, these theories opine that the vast majority of people, if not everyone, will discover the pertinent 'truths' on their own, work according to their ability, and everyone will be provided according to their needs by the voluntary generosity of their fellow citizens, aided by the dizzying amount of wealth created in such a society. This also negates the presumption that a small group of elites, or, ultimately, a single person, can know the 'objective truth' or 'right action'. Just like the Communist utopia, the state can now be defined as non-existent, or all prevalent, depending on your semantic preference. People will think and act similarly, but they will all have chosen to do so and dissent/innovation will be tolerated. Contained in these beliefs is an understanding that a chief cause of rampant immorality is largely the intolerable power and corruption of expansive government,  injected as a poison into society.

    There is a certain beauty to this way of thinking. Instead of viewing people as animals that must be 'trained' and 'punished' by their ‘betters’ (other humans), it purports that, by virtue of their intrinsic natural endowment, people are good and individually worthy and capable of attaining the 'proper' truths, provided roadblocks in their way are removed. Similar to medical postulations (osteopathic etc..) on the body's ability to heal itself. It equalizes people in that it assumes that no man is better than or accountable to any other man, but ultimately only to God.

    So, these are the two competing theories, starting and ending at the same points, and differing only in their direction of advocacy. But this is what makes all the difference. As Ronald Reagan said:

    Today we are told we must choose between a left and right or, as others suggest, a third alternative, a kind of safe middle ground.  I suggest to you there is no left or right, only an up or down.  Up to the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism; and regardless of their humanitarian purpose those who would sacrifice freedom for security have, whether they know it or not, chosen this downward path.

    In practice, history has sided with those advocating freedom. With freedom, people are choosing to work according to their abilities and most often take care of the needs of those less fortunate. The prosperity of free countries is more than apparent, we have the highest standards of living, most scientific innovations, and there has always been a wave of immigration from less free to more free countries. You don't see any Americans moving to Cuba for their purported 'literacy rates', but hundreds of thousands of Cubans have risked their lives at sea in order to come here. And they don’t come here for ‘universal health care’, ‘universal education’, or ‘welfare’. In fact, they are leaving those failed promises back in Cuba...

    So, it is somewhat of an irony that Communists could actually attain their laudable goals by working in the opposite direction as they have historically.

    Indeed, as Marx said, "We have nothing to loose but our chains."

    The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.

- David D. Boaz  

Posted 3/7/06

Something for Nothing: Part III
3/2/06 Thomas Sowell

    The Economist magazine reports that the official unemployment rate in South Africa is 26 percent but that the real unemployment rate there may be even higher. The South African economy is growing. Why then this extremely high unemployment rate? What is going on?

    Minimum wages in South Africa have been set higher than the productivity of many workers, so employers have no incentive to hire those workers, even though such workers are perfectly capable of producing much-needed goods and services.

    South African labor unions say that they are not going to let their workers become "the West's sweatshop." But the irony is that a South African firm which has been manufacturing aluminum wheels solely in South Africa for two decades has begun expanding its output by outsourcing the additional jobs to Poland.

    Does that mean that Poland is becoming South Africa's sweatshop? Or does it mean that there are economic consequences to setting wage levels in disregard of productivity levels?

    The South African government refuses to admit that an unrealistically high minimum wage rate has anything to do with the high unemployment rate.

    Added to 'Sweat Shops and Welfare' and 'The Minimum Wage.'

Posted 3/7/06

Unconventional Use / Publicly funded venues spark controversy

3/6/06 Colorado Springs Gazette

    Excellent article that fits with and has been added to 'Secondary Problems of Socialism'. 

Posted 3/6/06

Drive 55, Try to Stay Alive

3/6/06 Atlanta Journal Constitution 

    They knew it was dangerous. 

    "We could have really been hurt," said one of the Atlanta college students after their experiment. Some strange scenes, including a car passing in the emergency lane, were the product of Georgia State students simply following the speed limit. 

    "I was pretty sure that I was doing something stupid," said another. That may be true. But, young and brash, they had a plan. 

    They wanted to go the speed limit on I-285.

    In four cars, on all four lanes, the students from Georgia State University and other local colleges paced the entire midmorning flow of Perimeter traffic behind them at 55 mph for half an hour. They call it "an act of civil obedience."

    Here is the video. 

    David Spear, a spokesman for the state Department of Transportation, said if the students weren't blocking emergency vehicles and were going the speed limit, "they didn't do a thing wrong." Spear added that the speed limit was lowered to 55 because it saves lives. "In Atlanta, the actual effect of it is we expect the people going 75 to move over so the people going 95 can have the right of way," he said.

    By its innate nature, government is risk adverse to more than a fault. Sure, you can 'save lives' by lowering the speed limit. The safest speed is zero, but is it practical? By government owning the roads, the government, not the people determine what the speed limit should be. A private company would be much more realistic and practical in providing services for their customers.

    Here is another interesting story on the arbitrarious nature of speeding tickets. 

   Added to 'Transportation Socialism'. 

Posted 3/6/06

Black Flight The exodus to charter schools.

3/2/06 WSJ opinionjournal.com 

    MINNEAPOLIS--Something momentous is happening here in the home of prairie populism: black flight. African-American families from the poorest neighborhoods are rapidly abandoning the district public schools, going to charter schools, and taking advantage of open enrollment at suburban public schools. Today, just around half of students who live in the city attend its district public schools.

    <.>

    Black parents have good reasons to look elsewhere. Last year, only 28% of black eighth-graders in the Minneapolis public schools passed the state's basic skills math test; 47% passed the reading test. The black graduation rate hovers around 50%, and the district's racial achievement gap remains distressingly wide. Louis King, a black leader who served on the Minneapolis School Board from 1996 to 2000, puts it bluntly: "Today, I can't recommend in good conscience that an African-American family send their children to the Minneapolis public schools. The facts are irrefutable: These schools are not preparing our children to compete in the world."

    <.>

    The school board has promised to address parent concerns, but few observers expect real reform. Minneapolis is a one-party town, dominated by Democrats, and is currently reeling from leadership shake-ups that have resulted in three superintendents in the last few years.

    The school board has promised to address parent concerns, but few observers expect real reform. Minneapolis is a one-party town, dominated by Democrats, and is currently reeling from leadership shake-ups that have resulted in three superintendents in the last few years. The district has handled budget cutbacks and school closings ineptly, leading some parents to joke bitterly about its tendency to penalize success and reward failure.

    <.>

    Parents are particularly angry about seniority policies, which often lead to the least experienced teachers being placed in the most challenging school environments. Nevertheless, a few weeks ago the Minneapolis school board approved a teacher contract that largely continues this policy, along with other union-driven practices that perpetuate the status quo.

    <.>

    Minneapolis families seeking to escape troubled schools are fortunate to have the options they do. That's not the case in many other states, where artificial barriers--from enrollment caps to severe underfunding--have stymied the growth of charter schools.

    The city's experience should lead such states to reconsider the benefits of expansive school choice. Conventional wisdom holds that middle-class parents take an interest in their children's education, while low-income and minority parents lack the drive and savvy necessary. Who defined this conventional wisdom? The usual 'experts'? In discussions with opponents of charter schools, this argument is frequently cited. 

    The black exodus here demonstrates that, when the walls are torn down, poor, black parents will do what it takes to find the best schools for their kids.

(Added to 'A Charter School Tale')

Posted 3/5/06

With Airfare No Obstacle, Europe Opens to Europeans

3/5/06 Washington Post 

    Skipping the rather humorous part about binge drinking Englishmen, lets get to the meat of the story:

    The cheap flight era was greatly aided by the creation of the single European market for air transport at the end of the 1990s. European carriers obtained practically unlimited freedom to choose their routes, capacity, schedules and fares, said Jan Skeels, secretary general of the European Low Fares Airline Association.

    As national governments cut back on protections for their state airlines, affordable air travel really boomed after 2000. And while some analysts predict that rising fuel prices will soon end the party, airlines disagree, saying they are already discussing ways to keep it going by turning profits on new services such as in-flight mobile phones and gambling.

    Ryanair, the largest European low-cost carrier, said it carried 35 million passengers last year, up from 7 million in 2000. Another low-fare giant, easyJet, ferried 30 million people, up from 6 million in 2000.

    "It has democratized flying," said Stephen Hogan, spokesman for the Brussels-based Airports Council International, who said a flight from Dublin to Paris in the mid-1990s cost about $600 if booked in advance. It now costs as little as $55. "It makes the dream of Europe possible -- the free movement of people within countries."

    Indeed, as government retreated, liberty expanded. And, of course, I can't resist this one:

    Some Britons are flying to Hungary, which has become a hub for good-quality, affordable dental care, and finding the bill for a crown and the airfare is less than a trip to a private dentist at home.

    This reporter neglects to mention that dental care is FREE in Briton. But, of course, this means that the quality is poor and the waitlists lengthy. Why doesn't the British government bring their policies regarding their dental and health care into line with what they have with the airlines? 

    But even the airlines still are not completely free:

    The cheap-flights craze has critics. Many say the publicized fares -- often advertised for literally a few dollars -- are deceptive because they don't include considerable taxes and fees.

(Added to 'British Health Care')

Posted 3/4/06

US govt to investigate digital music business

3/4/06 Digital Media Asia

    The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced yesterday that it is investigating possible anti-competitive behavior in the online music industry. Specifically, record companies are suspected of fixing their wholesale rates for digital retailers.

    The DOJ's inquiry is similar to one which the State of New York began in December. The DOJ reportedly plans to subpoena record companies for wholesale prices for digital music files which can be downloaded online.

    This headline should be changed to read: 

    'US govt to HARM digital music business'

    IMHO, there is no such thing as anti-competitive behavior, price gouging, price fixing, dumping, or monopolistic behavior - at least in the sense that government views it at negative. 

Posted 3/4/06

Two US women to donate kidneys to each other's husbands

2/23/06 AP 

    The operations will mean a new life for both families. The typical wait for a donated kidney in the Chicago area is about five years.

    Blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to have diabetes, a main cause of kidney failure. But organ donors from black and Hispanic communities - which provide better matches for genetic reasons -- do not keep pace with demand.

    As a result, "minority patients may have to wait longer for matched kidneys and therefore may be sicker at the time of transplant or die waiting," notes a US government organ-transplantation Web site.

    As I've frequently stated, whenever there is a shortage of something that people are willing to pay for, the cause is nearly always government. Currently, it is illegal to sell or buy organs in the United States and almost all industrialized countries. The result: thousands dying on waiting lists. The intentions? Do we really even need to get into the intentions? Do they even matter? How many acts of violence and tyranny perpetrated on the American people do we excuse in the name of good intentions. But, of course, the intentions are to limit 'inequality' and allow poorer people to still get organs. So, government will destroy the system for everyone, including the poor it sought to protect. Notice minorities are hurt the most here. 

    It is simply a matter of supply and demand. If you want to increase the supply of something, give people extra inventive to produce it. Why couldn't you buy insurance that would guarantee you any organ? I'd bet this sort of insurance would cost almost nothing.

    I attended an organ donation conference here at the University of Las Vegas a few months ago. The question I asked the panel of 'experts' was:

    "Say you have a father in a third world country with a sick daughter or wife who needs an expensive operation. He cannot afford the health care to save her life. In the west you have someone who will die if they do not receive a certain organ, say a kidney, which the father matches for. If these two were left to their own devices free from government coercion, it is likely they would make a voluntary contractual agreement whereby the father would donate his kidney to the Westerner and the Westerner would pay to save the life of the father's wife or daughter. Two lives are saved. It is a mutually beneficial situation. Now, why would you, via your laws and regulations, prevent such an exchange from occurring, especially considering you are on a committee to find a solution to the organ shortages!?!"

    In reality, I was politer than this and less eloquent. :)

    I forget the answer they gave, something about inequality and the dangers of unscrupulous individuals.

    But, just like the war on drugs, and anything else the people want, but government will not allow, people are going around government and getting their operations anyway. And paying for them:

    In 1995, for example, Turkish patients awaiting kidney transplants reportedly paid $65,000 for each organ, sending the cash to India via Istanbul hawaladars.

    Americans and other Westerners travel to China, Turkey, and other countries in order to live. Good for them! 

Posted 3/1/06

A Cancer Treatment You Can't Get Here
China, with lower regulatory hurdles, is racing to a lead in gene therapy

3/1/06 Business Weekly

    Suffering from late-stage cancer of the esophagus, he has come to Beijing for a Chinese gene-therapy drug called Gendicine that's supposed to kill tumor cells.

    Patel tried just about everything before coming to China. He did three months of traditional chemotherapy, flew to the Bahamas for treatment at an alternative healing center, and tried to find clinical trials of experimental drugs. Nothing panned out. By late 2005, his doctors said that additional surgery or chemo could bring him only a few more months.
    That wasn't good enough. "I'm not interested in buying time," says Patel, sitting on a couch at Haidian and holding his wife's hand.

    And why should he be? The human spirit will not be shut down so easily. Even by the heavy foot of the Federal Government of the United States. Why did Patel have to travel all the way to China for this therapy? 

    In the West, this experimental branch of biomedicine suffered major setbacks following the death of one patient in a clinical trial in 1999. Other patients later came down with cancer as a result of their added genes, and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration halted a number of trials.

    I can't help but contrast this with Desperate Measures, an excellent short piece, originally in the New Yorker, by Atul Gawande. In it, Gawande describes the initial near total failures in the history of organ transplants. The fatality rate was 100% for many of these early procedures, yet patients without any other options still chose to attempt them. Eventually, through growing experience and just plain luck, doctors were able to develop many procedures that have since saved millions of lives. 

    "A good doctor employs any effective means available. And if there is no effective means available? Then you must come up with one. Death must never be seen as acceptable". Confronted with a dying patient, he [Francis Moore] did not hesitate to consider the most outrageous proposals. 

    Today, the FDA and the various bureaucrats in government would throw any doctor who dared boldly act on such a philosophy in prison. And in doing so they have condemned untold numbers of patients to death.... for their own safety.  

    However, Patel is not one to roll over and die as the FDA has instructed him to (for his own safety). Luckily, he can go to China and take his chances. 

    Without the same regulatory obstacles, they were able to take ideas that originated in the U.S. but stagnated there. SiBiono's Gendicine, for instance, is similar to a gene therapy treatment that was pioneered by Introgen Therapeutics Inc. in Austin, Tex., but has yet to win approval from the FDA. As safety concerns forced the U.S. and Europe to apply the brakes, "China speeded up," Li says.

    As a result, China has attracted not just American patients but also American researchers. James S. Norris, chair of microbiology and immunology at the Medical University of South Carolina, is president of the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy of Cancer, which last December had a conference in Shenzhen, China. "If I were making a long-term investment in biotech, and particularly in gene therapy, I would be making it in China, not here," Norris says. "They have figured out how to get [gene therapy] approved." Norris is now trying to get funding to test his own promising gene therapy approach in China.

    <.>
    Clinical trials are inexpensive, at about one-tenth the cost in the U.S. And the regulatory climate is favorable. "The Chinese government is more open to innovation and new ideas, compared to the foreign counterparts such as the FDA in America," says Peng.
    <.>

    Some people wonder if Chinese regulators should have required longer trials before approving Gendicine. "Maybe they went into this prematurely," says Dr. Bauer E. Sumpio, chief of vascular surgery at Yale University School of Medicine. "It is hard to believe this would pass muster through our own FDA." Adds Takeo Ohnishi, a professor at Japan's Nara Medical University: "After the [problems] linked to gene therapy in the U.S, nobody wants to have anything to do with such treatments here."

    Nobody, except perhaps the people who actually have terminal cancer. But why should they, of all people, have a say? 

(Added to 'FDA Tyranny')

Posted 2/28/06

Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters

2/28/06 New York Times A very interesting and surprisingly well written piece from the New York Times on the developments that have occurred since Canada's Supreme Court ruled that preventing private citizens from paying for health care outside of the public system was unconstitutional. Once freedom has taken root, its contagiousness knows no bounds: 

    The country's publicly financed health insurance system — frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity — is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine.

    But how do these clinic know where to open? Are they performing the 'proper' and 'needed' procedures? The Government of Canada cannot answer the above questions, although they certainly tried. Top down, heavy handed government can never meet the 'needs' of the people. As Ronald Reagan said, "The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan."

    The Canadian people themselves are perfectly capable of fashioning their own health care and they alone can determine the 'proper' and 'needed' amounts. In a previous post I described the shortages of MRI machines in Canada. Could the government fix the problem? No! But now private industry is doing so:

    Private diagnostic clinics offering MRI procedures are opening around the country.

    Continuing:

    Dr. Day, for instance, is planning to open more private hospitals, first in Toronto and Ottawa, then in Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton. Ontario provincial officials are already threatening stiff fines. Dr. Day says he is eager to see them in court.

    These officials will sue in order to compel people to continue to die on the waitlists. This is why I previously said, which upset some readers, that the government of Canada was killing its own citizens. 

    "We've taken the position that the law is illegal," Dr. Day, 59, says. "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."

    If you recall, this previously posted story stated:

    Ordinary people, other than those designated as emergencies, cannot get a CAT scan quickly at any price because they are not allowed to pay for it. However, in an 18-month period, York Central Hospital in a Toronto suburb did more than 70 CAT scans on animals suspected of having such problems as tumors. The tests were done at night and the charge was $300 each.21 The practice was stopped only in response to adverse publicity.

    But now the kicker:

    Canadian leaders continue to reject the largely market-driven American system, with its powerful private insurance companies and 40 million people left uninsured, as they look to European mixed public-private health insurance and delivery systems.

    First, the figure of 40 million is misleading, and I believe the reasons have been discussed on here before. Secondly, our health care system is not a 'free market system'. It is so mired in bureaucracy and regulations and tax breaks and licensing and policy 'meddlings' that the best that can be said of it is that it is simply 'more' free market based than the European countries. Thirdly, I don't see why a country with such an experience would want more of the same, or a lesser degree of the same. On this website, we've documented many of the shortcomings of the 'British Health Care' system. Planners like Tony Blair keep saying:

    A flustered Mr Blair admitted there were problems with NHS dentistry. He told the Sky News question and answer session: "I can't suddenly produce more dentists. We have to train them. We are opening new dental training schools. It takes time."

    His plans will fail. The Europeans seem to believe that it is beneficial for Government to solve and fix and meddle with the health care system, just like the Canadians did, and apparently still do. Indeed, the same problems of waitlists, poor quality care, and lack of access are occurring, with varying degree, in European countries. Again, government is not the solution, but the problem. Why does Canada just crawl along the spectrum in the right direction? Why not jump strait to the other side? 

    Democracy and capitalism seem to have triumphed. But, appearances can be deceiving. Instead of celebrating capitalism’s virtues, we offer it grudging acceptance, contemptuous tolerance, but only for its capacity to feed the insatiable maw of socialism. We do not conclude that socialism suffers from a fundamental flaw. We conclude instead that its ends are worthy of any sacrifice – including our freedom

- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

(added to 'Canadian Health Care')

Posted 2/26/06

Midwest Oil fined for selling gas too cheaply

2/24/06 Star Tribune 

    The state imposed a $140,000 penalty for what it called "willful, continuing, and egregious" violations of the price law.

    The fine against Midwest Oil of Minnesota is twice as large as any imposed on a company since 2001, when the state established a formula based on wholesale prices, fees and taxes to determine a daily floor for gas prices.

    The price law was intended to prevent large oil companies from driving smaller competitors out of business, but some critics argue it fails to protect consumers.

    According to the Commerce Department, the Midwest-owned stations in Anoka, Oakdale and Albert Lea sold gas below the minimum price on 293 days in 2005.

    Those criminals! Again, government penalizes excellence, entrepreneurship, and hard work, and acts to stagnate positive economic change. 

    Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible. 

- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

 (Added to 'Gasoline and Government')

Posted 2/26/06

Should Wal-Mart Reduce Wages (Required Reading)

2/23/06 Alan Reynolds nails another one. Some highlights:

    Seattle Times columnist Bruce Ramsey notes that Washington's Medicaid plan "enrolls children from families of four with incomes up to $48,000 a year." No private plan can compete with a tax-financed scheme that costs nothing and pays all medical bills.

    The lobbying effort behind these bills comes from competing grocery store chains such as Giant, Safeway and Kroger, and from labor unions that carry their baggage. When Kentucky legislators discovered their Wal-Mart bill would also apply to Kroger, they quickly exempted Kroger by making the bill apply only to firms employing more than 25,000.

    Maryland's mandate does not compel Wal-Mart to spend a dollar more on employee compensation. All it demands is that Wal-Mart pays no more than 92 percent of compensation as wages (or non-health benefits). Compelling Wal-Mart employees to accept a larger fraction of their pay in the form of health insurance rather than cash is a particularly bad deal for housewives and students, who are usually covered under Dad's family plan. It is also a bad deal for seniors covered by Medicare.

    I must apologize to my readers for not coming to this conclusion myself, as I've been meaning to write about the Maryland bill and others for some time, but never thought of it this way. 

    The law injures actual and potential Wal-Mart employees in Maryland, particularly housewives, students and seniors seeking relatively easy part-time work. Students who have low-priced health insurance through college are not even allowed to work full-time.

    Requiring big employers to devote a larger share of paychecks to the fixed cost of health insurance must give them an incentive to substitute full-time workers for part-time workers. That is bad news for those seeking part-time work. Mandating that a higher share of payroll be devoted to health insurance also gives employers an incentive to shun future job applicants with labor market disadvantages -- such as teenagers, elderly seniors, those with little schooling, those in poor health and those with an imperfect command of the English language. That is bad news for those at the bottom of the ladder of opportunity.

    How amazing. 'Progressives' are passing these 'Wal-Mart bills' that hurt the poorest populations, and yet the average rank and file liberal cheer these developments with characteristic reckless abandon. (added to 'Wal-Mart, Aiding America's Poor')

Posted 2/23/06

GM adds 2,200 to Job Bank

2/21/06 Houston Chronicle 

    With the addition of the Oklahoma City workers, the national ranks of GM's jobs bank have swollen to more than 8,000 workers, according to company sources.

    Analysts estimate that each worker in the jobs bank costs GM about $130,000 a year in wages and benefits, a crippling financial burden for an automaker that lost $8.6 billion last year.

    But shutting down the 4-million-square-foot Oklahoma City plant comes at a high price. Given current cost estimates, GM will spend more than $300 million on its idled work force before the current UAW contract expires in September 2007.

    With these sorts of policies, it is a wonder that the Big 3 have stayed around this long. (added to 'Unions')

Posted 2/23/06

Wal-Mart bank ignites regulatory row

2/21/06 Financial Times 

    I've been meaning to write about this for some time. First, it is interesting how burdened with regulations the banking industry is. It is so complex that I won't even try to understand it. Yet, what is going on is still readily apparent. Entrenched interests are fighting against the creative economic destruction that results in healthy change and lower prices in the marketplace for all Americans. 

    Wal-Mart says it wants to use its Utah bank to cut credit and debit card processing costs and is not seeking permission for an interstate branch network.

    The Federal Reserve has never liked the state industrial banks, which also exist in other states and are exempt from the federal legislation prohibiting commercial companies from engaging in banking activities.

    Boo Hoo! What other companies besides 'commercial companies' would engage in banking? Isn't banking a 'commercial' activity? Why does the Federal Government care what companies get into banking? 

    Mr Greenspan argued that state-chartered banks “threaten to remove Congress’ ability to determine the direction of our nation’s financial system with regard to the mixing of banking and commerce and the appropriate framework for prudential supervision”.

    He added: “These are crucial decisions that should be made in the public interest after full deliberation by the Congress; they should not be made through the expansion and exploitation of a loophole that is available to only one type of institution chartered in a handful of states”.

    Heh heh... of course, what I would argue is that the public interest is best served when Congress's influence is 'threatened' and its power to do what it thinks is in the public interest is removed. But didn't this 'laissez-faire' attitude lead to the great depression? Only if one believes public school books. In reality, it was Federal control and Federal policies that contributed to the crash and, most importantly, strongly inhibited the recovery. 

Piggy Banker

2/12/06 Washington Post 

    Wal-Mart officials, in letters to Congress, in the company's FDIC application and in interviews, say it too would use the Utah bank for limited purposes, namely to accept large deposits brokered through third parties and, by removing the middleman, to lower costs of back-room operations by tens of millions of dollars a year in the processing of 2.5 billion credit and debit-card transactions.

    But sadly, Wal-Mart had big dreams that have already been scaled back:

    That's a change in plan from a few years ago, when the company said it wanted to enter full-service retail banking because that's what its customers want. A spokesman for the company in 2003, for example, said that because Wal-Mart could not find enough banks willing to open branches in its stores, it wanted to do it on its own.

    At about the same time, Wal-Mart chief executive H. Lee Scott Jr. said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times that the company wanted to be gung-ho into financial services, including mortgages.

    Since then, Wal-Mart has changed its approach, says Jane Thompson, president of Wal-Mart Financial Services. The company has "read the tea leaves," she said. The in-store banks will now be outside partners.

    If in fact, Wal-Mart was able to enter the banking industry and do it better and cheaper than its competitors, who would be the chief beneficiaries? That's right, lower income Americans, who are Wal-Mart's top costumers. Another example of big expanded regulatory happy government hurting the poorest Americans. 

    Charles Fishman, author of a new book, "The Wal-Mart Effect," chronicling how the company's growth and low-price philosophy influences the U.S. economy, is undecided: "I don't know if Wal-Mart would be good or bad for banking in the long run. But I'll bet ATM fees would come down pretty quick."

    But others say low pricing is king. "Wal-Mart sees banking as an opportunity to give the customer a better deal," says Howard Davidowitz, founder and chairman of Davidowitz & Associates Inc., a New York retail consulting and investment banking firm. "That's what Wal-Mart's about. That's why they have demolished the food and toy industries. If it's better for the customers, then that's the way it ought to be."

    The FDIC has received 1,500 comment letters on Wal-Mart's application, the most it's received on an issue. Many support Wal-Mart's bid to own a bank, but most are from banks and bank-lobbying groups across the country opposing it.

    And customers do love having a bank in the stores.

    But who are mere customers to know what's best for them?
    (added to Wal-Mart, Aiding America's Poor)

Posted 2/20/06

Venture Capitalists are Investing in Education Reform

2/16/06 New York Times

    Recipients of the fund's investments are not whiz kids eager to become the next Bill Gates. Mainly, they are public school teachers with a passion to improve the ways poor children are taught. The companies they form are nonprofit charter school management organizations, capable of running publicly financed elementary and secondary schools that are freed from some rules and regulations (why not all?) in exchange for producing educational results better than those of the large urban school district. Almost all their students are eligible for free or reduced-price breakfasts and lunches.

    For example, New Schools has contributed $3.3 million to help Michael Piscal and his Inner City Education Foundation start View Park elementary, middle and high school in the poor neighborhood of South Los Angeles. Mr. Piscal, 39, was a teacher at one of Los Angeles's highest-rated private schools until 1994, when he decided to try teaching children in what is considered an underserved neighborhood.

    Today, with three schools open and growing, Mr. Piscal plans to start 20 more schools in the same South Los Angeles area. "We have a waiting list of parents wanting to send kids to View Park," Mr. Piscal said.

    The View Park schools have 47 teachers who are not members of a union but earn salaries similar to the $42,000- to $54,000-a-year range of the Los Angeles Unified School District. View Park teachers can earn bonuses based on the performance of their students.

    Mr. Piscal says the middle school — grades six to eight — "has the highest test scores in math for African-American students in all of California," according to a foundation that supports education.

    I wonder if Mr. Piscal tells all the African American parents whose kids are in his schools and on the waitlist for his school to vote for a representative that supports school choice. If not, he should. 

    The charter school movement began to grow rapidly in California in 1997, when teachers and those in the business community persuaded the Legislature to remove limits on how many such schools could open.

    In many states Charter Schools are still illegal and those that are legal are restricted in the number of students they can accept or regulated half to death.

    Donald Shalvey, a longtime teacher and principal, was instrumental in winning that legislative victory and today runs Aspire Public Schools, a 15-school chain that was one of the first recipients of New Schools Venture Fund investment.

    And teachers' unions are understandably skeptical of the largely nonunion charter movement.

    'Understandably' as in of course they are threatened by them, or 'understandably', as in this reporter concurs with these unions? 

    "We are neutral on charter schools," said Joe Nunez, associate director of government relations for the California Teachers Association. "They're good when they respond to local needs of families and teachers," Mr. Nunez said. "But some of them are trying to grow statewide and move beyond their original mission."

    Of course, diligent readers of this site know they have never been neutral and I'm not sure why this reporter takes this statement at face value, misleading his/her readers. Teachers Unions, local and national, have opposed and blocked school choice all across the country. And who is Mr. Nunez to define the mission of the Charter Schools? Their mission should be to well educate as many students as choose to come to their schools and provide all students with that choice. Alternatively, their goal could be to make money, which is actually the same thing as the mission stated in the previous sentence, as they can only accomplish this goal by meeting those criteria. Mr. Nunez would apparently prefer it if most students and parents would still be forced to send their kids to the nearest public school. 

    Asked to contrast the high-tech entrepreneurs he has backed over the years with the educators he is financing today, Mr. Doerr responded without hesitation:

    "The education entrepreneurs have it harder. They must overcome massive institutional resistance," he said. "And if the high-tech entrepreneurs succeed, they get rich. The educators' rewards will be more important in life, but they're not going to get rich."

    This is still a problem. Only when charter schools owners, investors, and teachers become wealthy off their excellence, when they are rewarded by their customers for creating things of value, when the windfalls of a free competing market are unleashed, only then we will truly see educational gains. 

(Added to 'A Charter School Tale')

Posted 2/17/06

Teacher Unions Are Killing the Public Schools

2/15/06 John Stossel, RCP

    This article details how the New York public school system pays 400 teachers over $20 million a year to sit in 'rubber rooms' and do nothing. They do this because these teachers the city calls incompetent, racist, or dangerous cannot be fired. Or, better said, they cannot be fired until after years and years of costly litigation and arbitration. $300,000 over 6 years was paid to a teacher who had written sexually explicit emails to a student. A 6 year holiday for a sexual harasser, courtesy of New York City taxpayers! 

    Another article states:

In the past two years, school officials got the okay to fire only four of 80,000 teachers for poor performance.

    This all reminds me of this previously posted article:

Jobs bank programs - 12,000 Paid Not To Work Big 3 and suppliers pay billions to keep downsized UAW members on payroll in decades-long deal.

(added to Unions and 'A Charter School Tale')

Posted 2/17/06

British Clinic Is Allowed to Deny Medicine

2/6/06 New York Times

    An article detailing how a British citizen, who has had taxes forcibly confiscated from her her whole life, is now unable to get a drug that she wants and her doctor recommends. She can't afford it privately, but I wonder if she could afford it if she had access to all the money she has paid into the health care system. Of course, this money is now the property of the ever 'caring' STATE. Also of interest, access to this drug vary significantly depending on what a given citizen's 'postcode' is. But wasn't Universal Health Care supposed to make us all 'equal'? 

Added to 'British Health Care'

Posted 2/15/06

Low-Fat Diet's Benefits Rejected / Study finds no drop in risk for disease

2/8/06 Washington Post  

    Looks like government will need to adjust the food pyramid AGAIN. 

    Low-fat diets do not protect women against heart attacks, strokes, breast cancer or colon cancer, a major study has found, contradicting what had once been promoted as one of the cornerstones of a healthy lifestyle.

    The eight-year ($415 million!) study of nearly 50,000 middle-age and elderly women -- by far the largest, most definitive test of cutting fat from the diet -- did not find any clear evidence that doing so reduced their risks, undermining more than a decade of advice from many doctors.

   One cannot blame doctors, at least directly, for giving this advice, as doctors cannot study everything themselves and need to pass on the best available knowledge to their patients. But, what is defined as the 'best available knowledge'? Who is doing the defining? And, more importantly, who else was doing the 'promoting'?

    The findings run contrary to the belief that eating less fat would have myriad health benefits, which had prompted health authorities to begin prominent campaigns to get people to eat less fat and the food industry to line grocery shelves with low-fat cookies, chips and other products.

    Now this is a problem. When government takes it upon itself to decide what is or isn't healthy, what causes or does not cause, when politics are injected into science, when government declares itself an 'objective judge', there can only be one result. The fact is that government cannot know, with any unique degree of certainty, what is good or bad for you, and, often, neither do doctors, especially when they are also relying on government. 

    So, what was the result of the millions/billions ripped off American citizens and spent by their government for, ostensibly, their own good? A low fat health food craze, driven by government advertising and misinformation, which now appears to have been totally misguided. Did government learn its lesson? Of course not. They are probably still funding initiatives all across the country supporting a low fat diet. Even when the bureaucracy finally catches up with itself, it will never eliminate these programs, only change them and shift gears to promote the next faddish health fetish.  

    This does not mean that objective science should not be pursued and theories and pathways should not be argued and recommended. I am merely opining that government should not inject itself into the debate. Like almost everything government does, this type of proactive government action will result in more harm then good. 

    "It was a mistake, and this study really confirms that it was the wrong direction to go for nutritional advice," said Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health. "It did do harm. It was a lost opportunity. People were given the idea that it was only fat calories that counted. This should be the nail in the coffin for low-fat diets."

    But this misses the point. It was not this particular theory that did the harm, it is the power government gives itself to propagate ANY theory, which is at the root of the problem. 

    It is always of great interest to hear people talk about the objectivity of government research, as if we should value their esteemed 'unbiased' opinion over all others. In reality, the exact opposite is true. Bureaucrats often engage in 'groupthink', driven by the nature of the distorted feedback loops resulting from the political control of their institutions. Most often this bureaucracy serves to stifle debate, especially given the power that the people, medical establishment, and media bestow upon these bullypullpits. If scientific objectivity was left to the people: private research organizations, non-profits, corporations, individuals, and the medical community, we would find that the true 'objective' truths would be collectively realized much faster. Not to mention less of our money would be looted from us and given to government to shoot us in the foot...  

    "There's a danger people will throw up their hands and say, 'Why should I believe anything else?' " Willett said.

    Why is this a danger? This is the hope! 

    Again, the left returns to find comfort in their good intentions: 

    "We had hoped that this approach would prove to be beneficial," said Barbara Howard of the MedStar Research Institute, who helped conduct the study. "I think we've learned that nutrition is never simple and there are no simple solutions."

    What I would like to know, which this article does not address, perhaps because this reporter is not curious, is HOW it came to be that this theory became the the 'accepted' theory? Where did the breakdown occur? This exposure of the inner workings of government might be.... quite illuminating. 

    To end, an excerpt from Rush Limbaugh:

    "The eight-year study showed no difference in the rate of breast cancer, colon cancer and heart disease among those who ate lower fat diets and those who don't, but the scientists declined to call the $415 million venture a failure." Of course they're not going to call it a failure. How many times have we heard, "Coffee is going to kill you." Now no effect. "Oat brain, eat that. Oh, you're going to be healthy, the gastrointestinal tract, everything." It doesn't matter. Every one of these health surveys, "Don't eat this. Do eat this," and so forth. "Eat your watercress. Don't eat your watercress," whatever, amazing how like pied pipers we are when some group of scientists or so-called experts says something.

    I have my own theories, and if I were to announce my theories to you today I would be bombarded with criticism from people, "You have no right! You have no right to be imparting scientific evidence and medical evidence when you are not a scientist and you are not a doctor and you have no right." Right, like you guys have all the right in the world to get it wrong, as long as you call yourselves scientists, you get $415 million spent on a theory and the theory blows up you still can't say that the theory is wrong. You tell us about coffee; you tell us about oat bran; you tell us about Chinese food; tell us about coconut oil. You tell us about all these things. Look at your "experts" out there, Center for Science and the Public Interest and all these other whacked out nuts. But if I were to give you my theory? Well!

    Lol!

    (Added to 'New Government Food Pyramid')

Posted 2/15/06

Low-Fat Diet Myth Busted

2/9/06 Fox News To elaborate on my post above...

    The unfortunate fact is that, when it comes to diet and health, we’ve been misinformed, ripped off and unnecessarily medicated by junk scientists, behavior-control nannies and unscrupulous marketers in the government, public health community and the food and pharmaceutical industries. And, of course, let’s not forget the media that seldom miss opportunities to pump health scares and scams.

    An excellent article with good links throughout. I cannot vouch for the specifics contained therin, but agree with the general themes. I plan to look through it some more when i get some time.  

    The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable.

- Henry Louis Mencken

  (Added to 'New Government Food Pyramid')

Posted 2/13/06

N.H. Town Rejects Plan to Evict Souter

2/4/06 Associated Press 

    Residents on Saturday rejected a proposal to evict U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his farmhouse to make way for the "Lost Liberty Hotel."

    But voters deciding which issues should go on the town's March ballot replaced the group's proposal with a call to strengthen New Hampshire's law on eminent domain.

    "This is a game," said Walter Bohlin. "Why would we take something from one of ours? This is not the appropriate way."

    Sorry to be the bearer of this disappointing news. But the fact that this got wide media coverage and attracted much public interest still made pursuing the 'Lost Liberty Hotel' worthwhile. 

    This will probably be the last post added to 'Supreme Tyranny'. To end on a positive note, due to public outrage, eminent domain laws all across the country are being strengthened. But rest assured, if the people grow complacent in their demands to protect private property, so too will government. 

    The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

- Thomas Jefferson

Posted 2/13/06

Senator Coburn stands his ground

2/12/06 George Will via Townhall.com  

    Coburn is the most dangerous creature that can come to the Senate, someone simply uninterested in being popular. When Speaker Dennis Hastert defends earmarks -- spending dictated by individual legislators for specific projects -- by saying that a member of Congress knows best where a stoplight ought to be placed, Coburn, in an act of lese-majeste, responds: Members of Congress are the least qualified to make such judgments.

    Indeed, the best qualified are the people themselves, via voluntary donations, capitalists fulfilling a need, or, worst come to worst, a local mayor or towncouncil type person. 

    When Coburn disparaged an earmark for Seattle -- $500,000 for a sculpture garden -- Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., was scandalized: ``We are not going to watch the senator pick out one project and make it into a whipping boy.'' She invoked the code of comity: ``I hope we do not go down the road deciding we know better than home state senators about the merits of the projects they bring to us.'' And she warned of Armageddon: ``I tell my colleagues, if we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next.'' But Coburn, who does not do earmarks, thinks Armageddon sounds like fun.

     He came to Congress with the 73 House Republican freshmen of 1994. A fervent believer in term limits, he said he would leave after three terms, and did. He says he will serve at mos one more Senate term. Of the 535 House and Senate seats, he says, ``There's 200,000 -- 300,000 -- people can do these jobs.'' How many? ``Millions,'' he revises.

    How can this media labeled 'right wing' Conservative trust so many everyday folks? This is the beauty of Conservative/Libertarian thought, the belief the ordinary people are more than capable of spending their own money 'correctly', capable of discerning right from wrong, capable of managing their own affairs, and even capable of serving in the United States Senate. 
    I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University

- William F. Buckley

Posted 2/12/06

A new post grouping, 'FDA Tyranny', has been created. All previous posts about the FDA have been placed here, as will future posts. Rest assured, this site will not relent in attacking this harmful institution. (further reading can be found at www.fdareview.org) 

Posted 2/12/06

Breathless arrogance

2/9/06 East Valley Tribune Editorial (reprinted in full, (emphasis mine))

    An advisory panel to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended that an over-the-counter asthma inhaler sold as Primatene Mist be taken off the market.

    The stated reason is not that the product has harmed any asthma patients, but that the inhalers are propelled by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the compounds that allegedly destroy the Earth’s ozone layer and have been banned for most other uses.

    The notion that the chlorofluorocarbons in asthma inhalers are a threat to the ozone layer is absurd. Before the ban, about a million metric tons a year of CFCs were produced. The inhalers produce about 4,000 tons a year.
    Even if the science on CFCs and the ozone layer is valid — and it’s less conclusive than most people believe — the chlorofluorocarbons used in asthma inhalers are not enough to be a factor.

    It’s more likely, as one doctor suggested, that the panel’s recommendation has more to do with the fact that the active ingredient in Primatene Mist is epinephrine, which comes from a plant and cannot be patented. Since it can’t be patented, it has no hefty constituency to influence the FDA’s decisions, which (given that it is a government body) are more political than scientific. 

    According to Wyeth, the largest manufacturer of epinephrine inhalers, about 3 million Americans use Primatene, with two-thirds of them also using prescription inhalers but keeping Primatene as a backup. Another 700,000 people use them because they don’t have a prescription or lack health insurance.
    Wyeth has asked that it be given a couple of years to develop an inhaler that doesn’t use chlorofluorocarbons. It would be far better if Big Nanny FDA backed off this cruel idea and rejected the proposal to deprive asthma sufferers of a valuable, relatively inexpensive and convenient tool to deal with their condition.

    I'm not going to speculate on whether the article is correct about the political forces at work, or if it is simply an unfortunate mix of incompetence and extremist environmentalism. It is easiest to lump both possibilities into the ideology of liberalism and tout it as yet another example of big government hurting the poorest and most vulnerable portion of the populace. The very people its proponents claims to help. 

Posted 2/11/06

First Inhaled Insulin Approved

1/27/06 Forbes.com Exubera, the first inhaled insulin, has finally passed muster with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after years of delays for Pfizer.

    From another story:

    But in June of last year, CNN/ Money reported that analysts were predicting that the FDA would spend two more years evaluating Exubera because of the lack of long-term tests establishing whether it would cause respiratory problems for smokers, as well as its effects on children.

    This is another example of the pattern alluded to in previous posts. The FDA finds some small marginal group it has 'concerns' about and then destroys the beneficial opportunities for everybody. What about healthy adults? What about the 14 million Americans, most of whom are nonsmoking adults, with type I or type II diabetes? What about those who get sicker and sicker because they don't like sticking themselves with needles every day? Don't you folks worry. The years and years of delay was worth it because the FDA needed to 'protect' you. 

FDA Approves Inhalable Insulin

1/28/06 Washington Post

    Millions of Americans need treatment with insulin but don't get it because it involves frequent, painful needle sticks and injections. About 5 million take the hormone, but a high proportion inject themselves too few times during the day because it's so inconvenient. Doctors hope inhaled insulin will overcome some of that resistance, helping diabetics ward off a slew of medical problems that afflict those who don't control their disease.
    Studies show that the new product, to be sold by Pfizer Inc. under the brand name Exubera, works and appears to be safe with short-term use. Patients who have used inhalers told researchers they prefer them to needles by a wide margin, according to studies sponsored by Pfizer. "I'm just flabbergasted at the number of people who really do seem to want this, and want it substantially," said Jay Skyler, a University of Miami doctor and one of the nation's leading diabetes experts.

    But, of course, who are mere patients to know what is best for them. 

    He has been on the product continuously for seven years without a problem, he said. "The flexibility that I have is incredible," he said.

    What if others wanted to join in this trial too? Could Pfizer have sold this product to customers who wanted it, who were willing to take the risks, who couldn't or wouldn't deal with the tightly regimented diabetic needle regime? Of course not. Pfizer executives would be thrown in jail and the company fined; all for the 'crime' of providing a service to a willing customer. 

    Pills help some people, but many others need supplemental insulin, which cannot be given as a pill. They have to prick their fingers to test blood-sugar levels and inject themselves repeatedly throughout the day with insulin, or wear pager-size insulin pumps that deliver the hormone through tiny needles.

    The sheer tedium of the task gets diabetics down, and overall, they do poorly at it. A third of Americans with diabetes don't even know they have the disease, the government estimates, and many others fail to achieve adequate control of their blood sugar. The long-term result is a litany of severe medical problems: blindness, impotence, limb amputation, kidney failure, heart attack. The government pegs costs at more than $100 billion a year.

    Mohamed Shakir, head of endocrinology at Howard University Hospital, said the new product could be particularly important in a city like Washington. There's a big racial disparity in diabetes, with blacks, Hispanics and native Americans more likely to contract the disease and less likely to receive adequate care. And Shakir said people lower on the income scale aren't as willing to read up on the disease and take control of their illness.
    Again, the consequences of expansive government fall heaviest on the most vulnerable sections of the populace. 

    He said he hopes Pfizer will price Exubera fairly, and he looks forward to offering it to newly diagnosed diabetics.

    The price of Exubera is none of Dr. Shakir's business. The 'fair' price is, by definition, whatever Pfizer chooses it to be. If they price it 'too' high, it is likely many people will not be able to afford it and Pfizer will not sell as many and therefore attain a poor profit. If they price it 'too' low, Pfizer will not recoup sufficient profit to justify their research expenditures. My guess is that they will probably price it just about 'right'. If they do not, they will probably find it difficult to remain competitive within the pharmaceutical industry. 

    Also, notice that Exubera will be available only by prescription. This will raise the price of this medicine for many patients and limit access. There is also a safety factor, people who have unexpected swings in sugar levels or forget their inhaler at home cannot stop in at the closest gas station. But, government tells us that mandating these prescriptions are necessary in order to protect the patients from themselves. Surely none of them is competent enough to manage their illness themselves.

    So, the final questions are: how many preventable deaths occurred in the at least 7 years that the FDA wasted 'studying' the efficacy of Exubera? What has the cost been to society? How many of these were minorities and/or those in poverty?

    When will people rise up and throw off the yolk of Big Government? 

Posted 2/10/06

87-year old women fatally shoots man in home

2/7/06 St. Louis Post Dispatch 

    An 87-year-old East St. Louis woman fatally shot a man early this morning as he was trying to break into her house.

    He had pulled the telephone wires from the side of the house, then removed security bars from a porch window.
    As the man was breaking through a storm door that leads into the house itself, the woman fired several shots through her front door, striking Tillman once in the chest.
    Police said the shots were fired from a pistol, most likely a gun that her daughter had given her after a man broke into the elderly woman’s house in December, battered her and stole some items.

    The man may have been dead for as long as four hours before police arrived. Police said that the woman was not sure that she had hit Tillman when she fired the shots about 2 a.m. However, she was too afraid to go outside to check and could not call for help because the telephone lines were dead.

    This women is lucky she didn't leave in San Francisco, the District of Colombia, or any other gun grabbing bastions of liberalism. There, her actions would have been a criminal offense.  

    In the end, government cannot be counted on to protect you and your family. Society must protect itself, through the diligent actions of its citizens. This criminal, whom we can assume had a rap sheet miles long, was finally stopped, not by the police, not by the government, but by an individual empowered by the second amendment. 
    (added to Guns and Crime)

2/8/06 Walter Williams A pretty good article. 

    In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn't earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn.

    If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone. My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.

    The real tragedy for our nation is that any politician who holds the values of liberty that our founders held would be soundly defeated in today's political arena.

    Reminds me of these quotes from JRB:

Politicians in their eagerness to please and to provide something of value to their constituencies that does not have a price tag are handing out new rights like lollipops in the dentist’s office.

- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

Something new, called economic rights, began to supplant the old property rights. This change, which occurred with remarkably little fanfare, was staggeringly significant. With the advent of "economic rights," the original meaning of rights was effectively destroyed. These new "rights" imposed obligations, not limits, on the state. It thus became government's job not to protect property but, rather, to regulate and redistribute it. And, the epic proportions of the disaster which has befallen millions of people during the ensuing decades has not altered our fervent commitment to statism.

- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery. Turning a democracy into a Kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government.

- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

(added to 'The Founding of the United States and the Constitutionality of Charity)

Posted 2/10/06

Mineta Says Space Tourism Licenses Could Be Issued In 2008

2/8/06 Associated Press 

    Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta says travelers could soon boldly go where no passengers have gone before -- into space.
    He told a group of space entrepreneurs today that he expects to issue permits for test flights next year. If those are successful, licenses for passenger space travel could then be issued and paying space travelers could be lifting off from the United States by 2008.

    Why does one need the permission of the United States government to travel to space? In regards to space tourism, the function of the United States government should be to ensure that no entities, foreign or domestic interfere with the rights of individuals to contract with each other and fly to space. Its function is not to interfere, meddle, and regulate. 

    Be assured, if there is one accident during the 'permit' phase, the risk adverse, media fearing government will shut down the entire industry for who knows how long and irrevocably harm its growth. However, if history is any guide, the biggest problems from this licensing scheme will emerge years down the road, when the biggest companies in the business will use government to cut out competitors in the name of 'public safety'. 

    If someone wants to fly to space, and risk being killed to do it, what business is it of government's? If these entrepreneurs are serious about making money and seeing this vital industry grow, they should get space travel classified outside the jurisdiction of the regulation happy Department of Transportation. After all, they are not really 'transporting' people from location A to location B, they are taking them from location A to location A. :)

Posted 2/5/06

Small dairyman shakes up milk industry

1/2/06 Wall Street Journal 

    A lone milkman is delivering misery to the doorstep of the giant dairy industry.

    Hein Hettinga was once a simple dairy farmer who sold raw milk from his farm in Chino, Calif. Today the Dutch immigrant has expanded his operation so much, so fast, that some of the biggest dairy companies and cooperatives in the U.S. have banded together against him. They are lobbying for federal laws to close loopholes they claim he exploits. Mr. Hettinga counters that the only purpose of the proposed legislation is to kill competition -- and keep milk prices high.

    "That's not right," says the 63-year-old farmer.

    When special interests and the powers that be are able to restrict the 'creative destruction' that  results in progress, our whole economy suffers. The 'arcane system of Depression-era federal rules' which make up the milk industry and many other food industries should be abolished. Long time readers will recall this previous 6/2/05 post:

Dairy Gets Squeeze by the Feds

6/1/05 The Seattle Times. In its 85 years of existence, Smith Brothers Dairy in Kent has survived all manner of misfortune and mistakes. There was the Depression, when milk sales plummeted. There were cow-killing floods. There were modern times, when it appeared the old-fashioned idea of fresh milk delivered to the doorstep had died. "None of that compares to this," says Alexis Smith Koester, 60, dairy president and granddaughter of the founder, Ben Smith. "This is the biggest threat we've ever faced." She's talking about the federal government.

    In all of this, it is amazing to me that despite the restrictions, regulations, socialism, and the crushing presence of an overbearing government, American entrepreneurs still have the spirit to struggle on and fight. 

Posted 2/5/06

Record Funding Boost Likely for Schools / Costly Stadium Plan Provoked Advocates to Fight for Systemwide Renovations

2/5/06 Washington Post Long rebuffed in their pleas for more money for decrepit public schools, frustrated parents said they were outraged when the mayor and council agreed in 2004 to spend more than $500 million on a baseball stadium, a price tag that since has risen.

    I can sympathize with their latter complaint. The spend happy DC council decided that the best use of money forcibly conscripted from businesses and DC residents would be to build a bloated and wasteful baseball stadium. This was done in the name of 'benefiting these citizens'. Of course, if the citizens of DC had been allowed to keep their own money, they surely would have found more 'beneficial' uses for it. 

     Regardless, I think this article is more notable for its omissions than content.  

    On Tuesday, the council is expected to give preliminary approval to a bill that would devote an additional $100 million a year -- $1 billion over the next decade -- to school modernization, enough to complete a systemwide overhaul.

    After years of deferred maintenance, many of the city's 147 schools are in appalling condition. The buildings -- 73 years old, on average -- have leaking roofs, stopped-up bathrooms, ancient lighting and air-handling systems that leave classrooms freezing or stifling.

    Boo Hoo! Why, from this blatant editorializing by the Washington Post there can be no doubt that anyone opposing what will probably end up as a tax increase just doesn't care about the 'children'.

    Yet, nowhere is it stated that the cost of educating students in the District of Colombia is the highest in the nation at around $13,000 a year! And that this record expenditure results in... the worst test scores in the nation! (and apparently crumbling buildings too) Money is not the problem, and more money is not the solution! School choice is the solution. 

    But in late spring, Fenty, Evans and others started polling. When the results came in, education popped off the page. In Fenty's poll, it exceeded other issues, including crime and affordable housing, as the top concern by more than 40 percentage points.

    This is because people recognize how horrible the public schools are in the district of Colombia. What they do not recognize is that the problem stems from the schools themselves, notably the Teachers Unions, who fight tooth and nail for their monopoly on public funds and the status quo stagnating top down system. 

     "Here's my quote: The bill is consistent with the priorities of the people of the District of Columbia. People find the schools a complete embarrassment," he (some DC politico) said.

    I'd agree that the schools are an embarrassment, but, then again, so is this bill, along with the reporting done by the Washington Post.   

(added to 'DC public school articles')

Posted 2/4/06

Generic Drugs Hit Backlog At FDA / No Plans to Expand Review Capabilities

2/4/06 Washington Post 

    At a time when low-cost generic drugs are being embraced as among the few ways to slow skyrocketing health care costs, the Food and Drug Administration has a backlog of more than 800 applications to bring new generic products to the market -- an all-time high.

    As a result, experts say, fewer generic drugs will be available to consumers in the years ahead than the industry is ready and able to provide.

    "We have a kind of crazy situation now where the FDA's generic reviews -- which are supposed to be quicker because they're less complicated -- on average take longer than the new drug reviews," said Kathleen Jaeger, president of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association.

    Who is hurt most by the delays in getting these new drugs on the market? You guessed it, the poor, the minorities, the women, the children, the hungry, the thirsty, those without health insurance, and whomever else proponents of big government claim to advocate for. We, again, find that the actual results are the opposite of their intentions. 

    But, might some of these new drugs be dangerous? 

    A generic drug, which comes on the market after another drug's patent expires and must have the same active ingredients as the drug it mimics, usually costs 60 to 90 percent less than the brand-name version. The cost drops the most with the first generic alternative to a brand-name drug, and it falls more as each new competitor reaches the market. (some drug prices fall exponentially)

    So, one would think that the likelyhood of 'danger' from these drugs would be low. And, what if a poorer person wants to risk the danger, as they believe the possibility of having his/her life improved, or even saved, by a drug outweighs all risk. Of course, proponents of the FDA believe these people are too stupid to make these choices. I happen not to think so. 

    Another irony is that many of our friends on the left rail against wealthy 'corporations' and 'big business' etc.., yet expansive government nearly always favors big business and works to cut out the 'little guy':

    Some at the agency and in the industry say the answer is to have generic-drug makers do what brand-name makers did in the early 1990s -- pay "user fees" to finance new hires by the FDA. Today, user fees support about half the FDA staff that reviews new drug applications.

    But the generic drug industry includes hundreds of small firms, and its leaders say they cannot reach consensus on whether to accept user fees.

    Others argue that since the low cost of generics has broad benefits for the public, Congress should be willing to pay for added staffing. That the administration has not asked for more money, some say, indicates that it favors the big drug companies.

     "The branded industry has to be delighted by this backlog," said Jake Hansen, vice president for government affairs for Barr Laboratories Inc., a maker of generic drugs. "If they can't stop competition in the courts, stopping it as applications go through the regulatory process is just as effective. For consumers, to flatline or cut funding makes absolutely no sense."

    These user fee proposals are interesting, especially the aprox $200 million currently paid by drug companies to the FDA. Of course, this money is not paid by the drug companies, it is paid by their customers, the citizens of the United States, whom, in my humble opinion are killed in far greater numbers than they are 'saved' by the FDA. It is now apparent why the US 6th Court Appeals Justice Janice Rogers Brown said:

    In the last 100 years we have let the government buy our birthright with our own tax money. 

    And our lives too. 

Posted 2/2/06

A brief reaction to President Bush's State of the Union address. 

State of the Union Transcript

1/31/06 White House The President said, "Every year of my presidency, we've reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending, and last year you passed bills that cut this spending."

    Now, this immediately jumped out at me because... well, I don't see how it can be true:

     This and other charts came from a Cato Institute report titled, The Grand Old Spending Party: How Republicans Became Big Spenders, yet the Cato follow up on the state of the Union doesn't address this. 

    However, we know that the Bush administration has spent recklessly all across the board, the most egregious example being the Medicare drug entitlement program, which massively expanded government and is expected to boost spending by trillions of dollars over the coming years. 

    Other examples of past actions:
1)
"The President's request would raise the Arts Endowment's budget by $18 million from $121 million in FY 2004 to $139.4 million, the largest increase since 1984."

2)
Veterans: The President’s FY 2005 budget for VA medical care is over 40% larger than when he took office –

This four-year, $300 million initiative will provide basic job training and placement, transitional housing, and mentoring.

His budget also provides $150 million as part of a three-year program for mentoring disadvantaged youth and children of prisoners, and $200 million as part of a three-year effort to provide treatment for addicts including through faith- based and community drug treatment programs.

President Bush’s FY 2005 budget represents a 49% increase in Federal funding for elementary and secondary education since FY 2001.

    This year's state of the Union contained many other examples of the President spending other people's money on various ill-advised schemes. Especially disappointing was the portion of his speech dealing with education. Not surprisingly, this was cheered by the media:

Bush Says Math, Science Economic Tools

1/31/Washington Post In his State of the Union speech, Bush called for doubling federal spending on critical research programs in the physical sciences over 10 years, a proposed increase of $50 billion.

    Are these really so 'critical'? Or will they just serve to compete with the private sector, drawing scientists away from more useful application, and encouraging poor research without oversight? 

    Bush called for training an additional 70,000 teachers over five years to teach advanced math and science courses in high school, where demand for such classes has soared nationwide. He also proposed new math programs for elementary and middle school students, and reiterated his goal to lure thousands of mathematicians and scientists to become adjunct high school teachers.

    Keep in mind the Constitution specifically states that education is to be left to the states... but, regardless, of course, hiring new teachers will not solve any problems, neither will throwing more money at the problem. Intuitively, there is no real point to having PhD scientists and mathematicians teach high school, especially as a result of some convoluted government incentive program. The way to reform our horrid public education system is clearly school choice and Bush doesn't mention this at all.  

    But, despite all of this, many 'Conservatives' cheered this speech. Are these people Conservatives or Republicans? Do they believe in party over principle? 

    I prefer the attitude of the Club For Growth, brought to my attention by my colleague Dobson:

Club for Growth endorses Cuellar, its first Democrat

1/17/05 The Hill 

    “By endorsing Representative Cuellar in this primary, we are demonstrating what we have always maintained … and that is that we’re committed to a set of ideas,” said Toomey, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania. “We’re not committed to a party. We’re not part of a party.”

    Hey Democrats, we have a bunch of out of control, big spending, government increasing, corrupt politicians running our government. Will you do something about it?

Posted 2/1/06

Chirac helps "The Da Vinci Code" makers, asks favors

12/28/05 Breitbart.com An inside look at the bizarre and corrupt workings of government:

    Newsweek said Chirac offered to smooth out any problem they might encounter in their request to film some scenes at the Louvre -- where The Da Vinci Code's murder-and-religion mystery begins and ends.

    In addition, said Grazer, Chirac suggested his daughter's best friend -- whom Newsweek describes as "an actress of some acclaim in France" -- for the film's leading female role, which in the end fell to Audrey Tautou.

    Chirac also "wondered aloud, half seriously, if they could sweeten the paycheck for actor Jean Reno," Newsweek said. Reno plays the detective assigned to the case.

    If Mr. Chirac, the President of France, was so concerned with playing politics and favors with a film, imagine how he runs the country. As power corrupts, better to give this man as little power as possible. Only the strong will of the people can keep government in check. 

Posted 2/1/06

Oil execs refuse to testify at U.S. Senate hearing

1/30/06 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Officials from six major oil companies have refused to testify this week at a Senate hearing looking into whether oil industry mergers in recent years have made gasoline more expensive at the pump.

    The FTC is investigation whether oil companies manipulated gasoline prices and oil refining production levels. The agency plans to finish its probe and send its findings to Congress this May.

    About time! Why should they waste their time with these jokers? I only wish they would lay the blame where it truly belongs: back at the foot of the United States Senate. Who was it that said, "The blame that travels furthest usually belongs at home."? (added to 'Gasoline and Government')

Posted 1/29/06

    I just realized that I hadn't previously posted an interesting article that debunks the myth of the 'horrible' infant mortality rates here in the United States. Statistics always deserve further investigation, especially 'fishy' ones propogated by the media. 

Cuba vs. the United States on Infant Mortality

2/19/02 overpopulation.com 

    Recently released statistics on the infant mortality rate in the Western hemisphere yielded an odd conclusions -- Cuba's infant mortality rate, 16 6.0 per 1,000, is now lower than the U.S. infant mortality rate, at 7.2 per 1,000. Given Cuba's poverty level, its 6.0 rate is very impressive, but is it accurate to say that Cuba now has an infant mortality rate lower than the United States? No.

    The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category -- the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

    Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality -- the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.

    How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive -- and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent -- that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.

    In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.

    So, in effect, by having among the best prenatal care in the world, we raise our infant mortality rate. This means that infant mortality rates, as commonly measured, are a relatively useless statistic, especially when used to compare us to other countries. However, this will not stop liberals in favor of national health care from using this statistic to make unflatteringly comparisons and it will not stop the agenda driven media from mentioning it whenever they get the chance. Educate them.  

(added to US Health Care)

Posted 1/29/06

A 1975 Sears Catalog

1/26/06 Cafe Hayek As long as we keep government relatively limited, prosperity and progress will continue.  Added to a new group posting 'Optimism'. 

Posted 1/29/06

Please Do Your Job (added to media bias)

1/27/06 Cafe Hayek An excellent analysis of a rather typical 'study' reported on by the media. If you're in the mood, feel free to contrast this with a similar debunking of 'International Poverty Rates', a debunking of United States 'horrible' Infant Mortality rate, and an attack on the liberal 'Urban Institute'.

Posted 1/29/06

Taxes on illegal drugs, moonshine net $1.7M

1/24/06 Tennessee's tax on unauthorized substances such as cocaine and marijuana and some alcoholic beverages brought in more than $1.7 million in its first year, according to revenue officials.

    The tax has resulted in $1,714,565 in collections and nearly $32 million in assessments.

    It was only a matter of time, government is trying to have its cake and eat it too, restrict the liberty of citizens in what they can do, while still profiting off the wealth generated by the forbidden industry!

Posted 1/27/06

Saving the Post Office

1/15/06 Washington Post A fawning article on the bloated US Postal Service. Ironically, coming right as they've increased the price of stamps another 2 cents. 

    Then there is the Postal Service that has made huge strides in on-time delivery, runs one of the most impressively automated operations in the world and, for now, is bringing in a huge profit. This is the Postal Service that customers such as Tornga don't see, and, frankly, take for granted -- the one that moves 580 million pieces of mail a day with remarkable speed and accuracy to every address in the nation, six days a week.

    I'm not sure why this reporter finds this so 'impressive'. Private industry and the free market perform much more complex feats every day. What would be surprising is if a government agency could do such a task without being vastly overpaid (the US postal service could not). And if a government agency could do such a task without a legalized monopoly (the US postal service could not). 

Ending Royal Mail’s 370-year Postal Monopoly

1/4/06 Government Bytes 

    One week before the U.S. Postal Service is expected to increase rates by 5.4%, Great Britain ended Royal Mail’s 370-year monopoly and fully opened its postal market to private competition on January 1. Private enterprises now have the chance to compete for business-to-business and business-to-consumer mail.
    Great Britain joins countries such as Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, Japan, South Africa, the Netherlands, the Philippines, and Jordan in moving toward the advantages of postal privatization. Other EU member states are charged will fully liberalizing their postal systems by 2009.
    As American customers enviously gaze over the pond to the increased postal choice and price competition enjoyed by British postal consumers, chances of reforming the bloated and outdated USPS monopoly in 2006 look increasingly slim. A thorough overhaul of the postal service is needed now to avert a future taxpayer bailout, or the cost of our mail will reach far beyond the loose change we pay today for a stamp.

(Added to 'The Post Office')

Posted 1/26/06

Hamas Election Victory Shocks World
1/26/06 AP Islamic militant Hamas' landslide victory in Palestinian elections unnerved the world Thursday, darkening prospects for Mideast peace and ending four decades of rule by the corruption-riddled Fatah Party.

    Hamas won a clear majority in Wednesday's vote, capturing 76 of the 132 seats in parliament, according to official, near-complete results released Thursday. The results of the popular vote were not announced.

    The parliamentary victory stunned even Hamas leaders, who mounted a well-organized campaign but have no experience in government. They offered to share power with President Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah chief, who said he may go around the new government to talk peace with Israel.

    Now, I am writing about his because my opinion of this event is much different than that offered by the media. While this is not surprising, my thoughts differ even from those of the Bush Administration, which I generally support on foreign policy issues. 

    But leaders across the world demanded that Hamas, which is branded a terror group by the U.S. and European Union, renounce violence and recognize Israel.

    "If your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you're not a partner in peace, and we're interested in peace," President Bush said in Washington.

    However, President Bush (the State Department) and the European Union have no one to blame but themselves. It is they who perpetuated the terror of the Palestinian Authority on the Palestinian people. It is they who gave millions to the PA, a terrorist organization, an organization filled with terrorists, thugs and common criminals, and it is they who endorsed the present socialism throughout the PA territories, bought with outside American, European, and Arab money. 

    How can they be surprised when the Palestinian people vote out the thieves and scoundrels who have been decimating and robbing them?

    The group [Hamas] campaigned mainly on cleaning up the Palestinian Authority downplaying the conflict with Israel and Zahar said Thursday that Hamas planned to overhaul the government.

    "We are going to change every aspect, as regards the economy, as regards industry, as regards agriculture, as regards social aid, as regards health, administration, education," he said.

    It also could jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign donations to the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority.

     Good. This aid is a large part of the problem. Perhaps the Palestinian people are not as stupid as some think...

    A look at our government's own bunglings:

Palestinian Candidates Condemn U.S. Program

1/23/06 AP The Bush administration's effort to increase the popularity of the Palestinian Authority and its governing Fatah party before critical parliamentary elections this week came under intense criticism Monday from a number of candidates, some of whom charged that the program amounted to illegal interference in the democratic process.

        Although $2 million is a fraction of the U.S. development budget in the Palestinian territories, the funds are significant in the context of the campaign.

    The program calls for funding Palestinian Authority events and projects and announcing those projects in the days before the vote. Included are a national youth soccer tournament, street-cleaning campaigns, computers for classrooms and free food and water at border crossings. The effort has been coordinated through the chief of staff of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president and leader of Fatah.

    The US government's action has, again, resulted in the opposite of their intentions, which ironically in this case, might be a good thing. However, if US funds flow to Hamas in the same way they flowed to the PA, we can be assured the terrors of corruption and socialism will follow. Actually, bureaucrats have already started to use American tax dollars to hurt the Palestine people again.

U.S. building Hamas town

12/20/05 Ynet News While the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution calling for a halt in funding to the Palestinians if Hamas wins upcoming parliamentary elections, the U.S. government is currently in the process of funding a Gaza town run by Hamas.

    Anna Litvak, a public affairs officer for U.S. AID's regional headquarters in Tel Aviv, told WND development of Bani Suhaila was in the works long before Hamas won the town's elections.

    Hamas gunmen have taken charge

    "Leaderships change all the time," said Litvak. "We are here to benefit the Palestinian people, not Palestinian groups. We don't want to deal with Hamas."

    They are there to hurt the Palestinian people. Yet, here in the United States there seems to be little distress that government is forcefully confiscating money from your family in order to perpetuate terror and socialism upon the Palestinian people. 

    (Posts about the Israel Palestine Conflict have been grouped together in a new 'Israel Palestine Conflict' post grouping.)

Posted 1/26/05

Judge: Don't Count Fetus for Carpool Quota

1/11/06 Associated Press Why I don't get involved in the abortion debate. 

Posted 1/25/06

Some recent news regarding school choice:

No Choice
1/16/05 Editorial (The Paducah Sun) on Blackenterprise.com

    A good article on the recent decision by the (liberal) Florida Supreme Court to overturn portions of the recent Charter/Voucher education reforms passed by the Republican legislator and signed by Gov Jeb Bush (who. IMO,  is one of the best governors in the nation). I especially like this article's emphasis on race and that it was featured in an African American magazine. Since Conservative/Libertarian philosophy is race neutral, this might seem hypocritical. But this approach is necessary, as seen throughout this website, in order to refute those on the left who constantly emphasize race: 

    Florida's voucher program was challenged in court by the usual collection of school choice foes, including the state teachers' union and the NAACP.
    It's interesting that the NAACP backs the education establishment on vouchers, given that polls show most blacks favor school choice. In several states, voucher programs have been established to serve minority students in troubled inner-city school systems.

    Black parents tend to support school choice because their children are disproportionately affected by the failures of the public school system. Against that, it's curious that the Florida Supreme Court -- at the behest of the NAACP -- has ruled that poor minorities must keep their seats in the back of the public education system's bus.

    The Florida program was in its infancy, but almost 95 percent of the students who were receiving state scholarships to attend private schools were black or Hispanic. A pioneering school choice program in Milwaukee, Wisc., was championed by a black activist who battled the state education bureaucracy and its allies in a successful effort to expand educational opportunities for poor African-Americans.
    Could you imagine the outrage if Conservatives/Libertarians abolished a program which benefited 95% minorities? Conservative/Libertarian policies nearly always result in positive outcomes for minorities, yet for some reason the debate is always diverted to center on the intentions of the proponents of these positive policies. In another article, Florida Libertarians call the ruling "bizarre, unrealistic, and a new form of Jim Crow to keep the poor out of private schools."

    A further explanation is found here:

    The court found that taxpayer support for private schools in general is unconstitutional because Florida's constitution requires "a uniform, efficient, safe, secure and high-quality system of free public schools." Private schools aren't "uniform when compared with each other or the public system," the justices wrote. They're also exempt from public standards on teacher credentials and requirements to teach about a wide range of subjects, such as civics, U.S. and world history and minorities' and women's contributions to history.

    Of course, 'uniformity' is precisely the problem in todays' public schools. A system contrived from the top down, derived by politically correct bureaucrats, not entrepreneurs and parents, has resulted only in uniform incompetence and stagnation, hurting the poorest of the poor. 
'He's Throwing Away My Dream' / Today it's liberal Democrats who stand in the schoolhouse door.

1/16/05 Opinion Journal, John Fund

    Milwaukee's innovative school choice program has become a beacon of hope for reformers everywhere. But the educational establishment has never accepted its success and is now striking back. A cap on the number of students that can attend the city's private choice schools has been reached, and starting Feb. 1, education officials will implement a rationing plan to allocate the program's available seats. That could disrupt up to 4,000 families and create such chaos among the participating schools that several could be threatened with closure.

    In 1995, then-Gov. Tommy Thompson joined with state legislators to expand choice in Milwaukee to include religious schools, but a compromise set a limit on the number of participating students at 15% of the enrollment in Milwaukee Public Schools. Today that means some 14,500 students, and demand is now higher than that for the slots which give $6,351 annual scholarships to students opting for choice schools (The public schools' per pupil spending is about 80% higher).

    "You could not design a more fiendish way to cripple Milwaukee's choice program while still claiming to keep it alive," says Father Bob Smith, who heads Messmer.

    (Added to 'A Charter School Tale')

Posted 1/24/06

    Following in the footsteps of my 12/16/05 post on American Indian Charter School, here is another profile of a successful Charter School:

America's Best Schools?

1/17/05 Washington Post Jay Mathews (education writer) is writing a book on KIPP, a charter school chain with 47 schools nationally:

    The report says in 2004-2005 more than 80 percent of the KIPP students were eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meal program -- the usual criteria for designating which students are low-income -- and more than 95 percent were African American or Hispanic.

    The achievement figures for American students who fit that profile nationally are, on average, abysmal. The achievement figures for American students who fit that profile but have been in KIPP are, again on average, quite the opposite.

    "While the average fifth-grader enters KIPP in the bottom third of test-takers nationwide (28th percentile), the average KIPP eighth-grader outperforms nearly three out of four of test-takers nationwide (74th percentile) on norm-referenced reading and math assessments," the report card says. "In the fifth-grade year, approximately 40 percent of KIPP schools outperform their respective districts on state reading exams, and just over 60 percent do so in math. By the eighth grade, 100 percent of KIPP schools outperform their districts in both subjects."

    Some other tidbits of interest:

    It is encouraging to me that in several instances KIPP principals and teachers whose students were not improving have been shown better ways to do their jobs, and if that hasn't worked, have been fired or allowed to resign.

    Two schools, the KIPP Chicago Youth Village Academy and Atlanta's KIPP Achieve Preparatory Academy, have had the right to use the KIPP name revoked effective at the end of this school year.

    Private ownership and dedication to results means that those in the system will be held accountable for their performance. As documented, public schools are hardly ever closed for poor performance and subpar teachers often cannot be fired. 

    What kind of folks established KIPP? If we are to believe the rhetoric of the Teachers Unions, media, and Democratic party, then we must assume these folks were eminently qualified, with PhDs in education and many years of experience and research. Of course, they were not:

    KIPP, a way of teaching low-income middle-school children, grades 5 through 8, was invented in 1994 by two Houston elementary school teachers in their twenties who were, they freely admit, making it up as they went along. The KIPP founders, Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin, had at the time no foundation support, no well-known advisers, only two years teaching experience each and almost no support from the various principals and school district officials they had to deal with.

    These 'average' folks who created KIP were anything but average. Without government imposed barriers, many more 'ordinary' people would rise up to fashion these storms of 'creative destruction', uplifting and educating millions and spreading prosperity, leaving behind them only the carnage of socialism.

 (Added to 'A Charter School Tale')

Posted 1/19/05

Wish They All Could Be Like Estonia

1/4/06 Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece This article contains some useful info on the liberalization of Eastern Europe and the prosperity resulting from the shift from Communism to an open free society, as well as a comparison with South America. However, this article contains a very important lesson for today's politicians, especially Conservative politicians:

    Yet there is something more that can be observed in this pattern: Countries that liberalize quickly and thoroughly achieve resounding successes, politically and economically. Conversely, gradualism risks stagnation and even reversals, because the benefits are not evident enough to impress the electorate and generate a momentum in their favor.

    Take, for example, the difference between the wealth of "repressed" economies and "mostly unfree" economies. The per capita GDP of the former is $4,239 while of the latter it is a tad lower at $4,058. This suggests that reforms that move a country one step up in economic liberty, on average, produce no material benefit to the population.

    The jump from "mostly unfree" to "mostly free" yields a much better return but still leaves a country not particularly well-off. "Mostly free" countries have a per capita GDP of $13,530, while "free" countries have, on average, a per capita GDP of over $30,000.

    This matters the most in democracies, where leadership needs to produce results if liberalization is to stick. Clearly, it's not the absolute income level that generates support for reforms but the growth in living standards that seems to hold the key. Halfhearted measures generate immense resentment from the "losers" of the old system but often don't yield large enough gains to create a constituency to support the changes.

    Now, let us apply this to today's Republican party. Pollsters and political strategists focus on winning elections. That is their job. Therefore, they tend to have a great interest in poll data/focus groups etc... In general, I think it is fair to say that most politicians put a great deal of emphasis on getting re-elected or further advancing their own political careers and pay close attention to their consultants. This explains the observed phenomena of the Clinton/Morris triangulation strategy, the Rove Blunder (Medicare), and various attempts by the politicians on both sides of the isle to play towards the political middle. But, these 'baby step' attempts at reforming government, especially in limiting government, tend to come up short on results. The 'moderate' attempts are demagogued by opponents just as strongly as if they were pursued with full strength, except now there are no clear results to show. 

    Imagine if the Bush tax cuts had been twice as big. Imagine if Republicans had not just 'reformed Welfare', but eliminated it entirely. Imagine if Republicans had drastically cut spending and reduced government. The results would be eye-opening and readily observed by the American people. I would argue that it is better to bid your time to make bold steps, rather than fiddle and/or compromise with temporary slow improvement. This is essentially what resulted from the campaign of Barry Goldwater in the 70s. Johnson and Goldwater were miles apart on policy. Goldwater lost in a landslide and the political left moved boldly, continuing the Johnson Administrations policies. The results were so disastrous that Ronald Reagan entered and was able to push through many of his reforms, even with a Democratic Congress. 

    Today, we need our 'Republican' leaders to learn these lessons and move boldly, to produce results with such glimmer that the objective 'rightness' of liberty producing, government shrinking, policy cannot be disputed. As Ronald Reagan said (paraphrasing), "Just do the right thing, and the politics will follow."

Posted 1/17/06

Shadegg Brings Hope to Majority Leader Race

1/17/06 Human Events Jack Kemp

In Shadegg's Race, a Nod to the '94 Revolution

1/16/05 Washington Post 

    He argued in 2001 that Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut was not big enough. He has bucked the administration on a number of issues, refusing to vote for the aviation security act or Medicare prescription-drug benefits, one of only 25 Republicans to oppose the costly program.

    Wa hoo!

    "He's Newt's progeny," said Marshall Wittmann, a Democratic Leadership Council aide who previously worked for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). "A hard-core, true-believing, hard-charging right-winger who believes everything Newt said about dismantling government and transforming the culture. In many ways, he is trying to revive the spirit of the revolution of '94."

    Sounds good to me! 

And, most importantly, from a CFG email:

CLUB FOR GROWTH ENDORSES JOHN SHADEGG FOR U.S. HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER

Washington, D.C. - Club for Growth, the nation's leading free-market advocacy organization with over 34,000 members, announced today that it is endorsing Rep. John Shadegg's candidacy for U.S. House Majority Leader.

"There is no member of the House of Representatives more committed to the idea of limited government and economic freedom than John Shadegg," said Club for Growth president Pat Toomey. "To be an effective governing party, Republicans must focus once again on these core issues and John Shadegg has the unique qualifications to lead the way."

Rep. Shadegg is one of only four Members of the House of Representatives to vote the pro-growth position on every key vote identified last year by the Club for Growth.

"The House Republican Conference has been ideologically adrift," continued Toomey. "This nominally conservative party is responsible for a huge expansion of government and letting spending get out of control."

John Shadegg is a principled, effective leader who can build consensus across the full range of the Conference to return to the core issues of limited government and economic freedom that produced a Republican majority in the first place," Toomey concluded.

    Rest assured the mainstream 'Republican' party will oppose Shadegg. 

Posted 1/17/06

    Understanding the basics of economics would change many world views. Here is an excerpt from the 'Rumsfeld quote page'. This Al Jazeera journalist was dropping hostile questions about how the US wants to control the world's oil. Similar to the charges flung around by many of the left in this country:

Rumsfeld: There is no master plan. We don't run around the world trying to figure out how other people ought to live. What we want is a peaceful region.

    You used the word black gold. I've seen the same kinds of articles and suggestions that that's the case.

    You know, I've been around economics long enough to know that if somebody owns oil they're going to want to sell it. If they want to sell it, it's going to end up in the market. And it doesn't matter if they sell it to Country A or Country B. If they sell it, it's going to be in the market and that's going to affect the world price. Money is fungible and oil is fungible. This is not about oil, and anyone who thinks it is, is badly misunderstanding the situation.

Al Jazeera: But it depends on who controls the oil.

Rumsfeld: Anyone who controls it wants to sell it. It doesn't matter. That is not a problem. If you own -- If a bad person owns the oil and a good person owns the oil -- different oil -- and the bad person doesn't want to sell it to you but the good person is willing to, it doesn't matter because then the good person sells it to you. You're not going to be buying this person's oil but this person's going to be selling it to somebody else. And the world price will be the same. Everyone will have the oil they need. They aren't going to horde it, they're not going to keep it in the ground. They need the money from the oil. So it's not a problem.

Contrast this exchange with:

World can't afford to lose Iran's oil: US EIA chief

1/17/05 Reuters 

WASHINGTON - A disruption in Iran's crude oil exports because of a dispute over that country's nuclear program would affect an already tight global oil market and lead to higher petroleum prices, the head of the U.S. Energy Information Administration warned on Tuesday.

    "The market is so tightly balanced, clearly, we can't afford to lose a large supply of crude to the market," EIA chief Guy Caruso told Reuters in an interview.

    Even though the United States does not directly import Iranian crude, Caruso said a cutoff of Iran's oil would affect the U.S. market because other countries that buy Iranian crude would compete with America to find new supplies.

    "It's a fungible world oil market, and any disruption in supply affects everyone, because the price would go up for everyone," he said.

       And, this is not withstanding that actual ownership of natural resources may do more harm than good. From 'Middle Eastern Governments and the Causes of Terrorism':

    Another theory is that without foreign aid or natural resources, governments are forced to liberalize because it is the only way for them to get tax revenues. In other words, when wealth can only be generated through the naked productivity/ingenuity of it's citizens, the rulers of that country will be most inclined to introduce reforms to accelerate this. Notice some of the strongest economic zones in the world today - Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Switzerland, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea and the (early, eastern) United States - are poor in natural resources. Historically, the British, Dutch, Portuguese and, going way back, Carthageans and Athenians, were all were top world powers without being strong in natural resources. Why was the Spanish Empire, a centrally controlled country drowning in colonial gold, discarded into the ash heap of history so fast? Returning to the Africa analogy, the areas which are richest in natural resources, especially the diamond belt, are suffering the greatest conflict and strife. Taking this into account, Moore and other leftists should wonder why the United States would even want to "take over" any oil...

Posted 1/16/06 

Myths, Lies and Straight Talk / A List of 10 Media-Fed Myths

12/30/05 ABC 20/20 Media spun myths on Time, Happiness, Republicans, Crowdedness, Chemicals, Guns, Garbage, Forests, Colds, and Life. 

    Another Myth that should have been added:

Buying a House is less of a bite

12/29/05 New York Times Despite a widespread sense that real estate has never been more expensive, families in the vast majority of the country can still buy a house for a smaller share of their income than they could have a generation ago. A sharp fall in mortgage rates since the early 1980's, a decline in mortgage fees and a rise in incomes have more than made up for rising house prices in almost every place outside of New York, Washington, Miami and along the coast in California.

    Now, lets us view the effect of the bias of the media:

    In a nationwide New York Times/CBS News poll conducted this month, 75 percent of respondents said they thought most families in their community spent a larger share of their income on housing now than in the 1980's. Only 5 percent said the share was smaller.

    What explains this disconnect? Rush Limbaugh explains:

    So the key here is, families in the vast majority of the country can still buy a house for a smaller share of their income than they could have a generation ago. Now, I tell you that, and you just don't believe it, because you watch all the news about how high housing costs, and they are in lots of the country, but where the people who write these stories live... Look it, these are the same people that would need a visa to leave Washington or New York to go to Missouri to do some reporting, because to them it's another country. It's flyover country. They fly over and they look down and say, "Thank God I don't live there." If they did, they would have a far more enjoyable life than where they are and they wouldn't be writing stories about how they can't afford to do all they want to do on a $250,000-a-year income. So it just makes sense. This story, when you read it -- and I'm not going to spend the whole time reading the whole thing to you here, but it focuses on positive news and the economy. It has to!
    If you can buy a house today for less of a bite of your income than you could 25 years ago, in the vast majority of the country, the economy has to be good. The economy has to be doing well, and the story also admits that news on housing prices and the economy is skewed because most people writing about real estate live in places like New York and LA, and they don't understand what it's like in other parts of the country. It is starkly different. It is incredibly different from where they live and breathe and work and moan and whine and complain, but it does form the basis of their reporting.

    All of this echoes what is stated in Barry Glassner's 'Culture of Fear', which is that the media sells stories by playing up fears. Also, folks in the media see what they perceive to be 'wrongs' and their conscious dictates they advocate a position on the topic. If they exaggerate a bit, who cares? In fact, the more they exaggerate and inflame, the more likely something will get done to 'correct' the problem and, to further sweeten the temptation, it will also sell more papers. Of course, since most reporters are of the liberal mindset, the results of the 'correction' they advocate for most often accomplishes the opposite of their intentions. But, by then, they have moved on and are covering a different story.   

The Plague of Success / The paradox of ever-increasing expectations.

12/29/05 National Review online

    What explains this paradox of public disappointment over things that turn out better than anticipated? Why are we like children who damn their parents for not providing yet another new toy when the present one is neither paid for nor yet out of the wrapper?

    One cause is the demise of history. The past is either not taught enough, or presented wrongly as a therapeutic exercise to excise our purported sins.

    Either way the result is the same: a historically ignorant populace who knows nothing about past American wars and their disappointments — and has absolutely no frame of reference to make sense of the present other than its own mercurial emotional state in any given news cycle.

    Few Americans remember that nearly 750 Americans were killed in a single day in a training exercise for D-Day, or that during the bloody American retreat back from the Yalu River in late 1950 thousands of our frozen dead were sent back stacked in trucks like firewood. Our grandparents in the recent past endured things that would make the present ordeal in Iraq seem almost pedestrian — and did all that with the result that a free Germany could now release terrorists or prosperous South Korean youth could damn the United States between their video games.

    Instead, we of the present think that we have reinvented the rules of war and peace anew. After Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and the three-week war to remove Saddam, we decreed from on high that there simply were to be no fatalities in the American way of war. If there were, someone was to be blamed, censured, or impeached — right now!

    Second, there is a sort of arrogant smugness that has taken hold in the West at large. Read the papers about an average day in Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Detroit, or even in smaller places like Fresno. The headlines are mostly the story of mayhem — murder, rape, arson, and theft.

Sanctuary, Part 2

5/18/05 Bill Whittle

    We live in an age of miracles, and we just don’t see it. All of the magicians who stand on generations of other magicians – engineers, technicians, architects – go unnamed and unsung, while common actors, tradesmen whose art form has barely advanced since the days of Babylon and Egypt, are deified and rewarded as no living gods in history.

    We, in our Sanctuary, who sleep in warm, dry, safe places without a second thought of the men and women who shiver in the cold to keep us free and secure, are getting very far away from the forces that have threatened us for millennia and threaten us still, as potent as the black rage of an incensed mob of religious lunatics killing people in response to some real or imagined slight.

    And yet our elites – bored, pampered and without a glimmer of perspective – search the inside of our walls by night, looking for cracks to enlarge.

    I can’t pretend to understand this. It is simply beyond my ability to grasp. Nor can I understand why so many rich people who so hate and despise this land do not simply move somewhere else.

    Unless, of course, this is a giant game for them: a chess match of rhetoric to gain a little temporary political advantage, and the sullen petulance of someone deciding that if my candidate can’t be the one doing the liberating then entire nations can remain in darkness. This little thing for the price of destruction of all we have worked for. How can such selfishness face itself in the morning?

    I don’t know why so many people can miss so many wonders and miracles that are laid right before their eyes. But I do know that their poison has cut deep in to the foundations of a country I love because I owe it my happy and comfortable life and all the opportunities – not guarantees, but opportunities – it has provided me and my family.

    So we will fight this amnesia and ingratitude, you and I will, right here on these pages in the days to come.

    The point is that we, the people of the United States, and even humanity itself, have never had it so good and each day is getting better and better. There is success and wonderment and prosperity and goodness all around us. We just need to open our eyes to see it. 
You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.

- Mark Twain

Posted 1/14/05

In N.C., Scandal Arrives Before New State Lottery

12/30/05 Washington Post Before reading the above article or commentary, please read the 1/11 post below. There, I discuss how corruption in government is directly linked to the power of government. When government has the power to do something, corruption soon follows. Thus, government should only be allowed the power to do things that are of such necessity that their benefits override the corruption that naturally flows with it (for example, property protection). You will also recall that the lobbyists' take and resulting corruption in the Abramoff scandal arose from the government's power to regulate lobbying and gambling for Indian tribes. With this context, you will see why I selected this article:

    RALEIGH, N.C. -- When North Carolina's legislature relented from its decades-long opposition to a state lottery this summer, preachers and conservative lawmakers warned that wherever gambling goes, scandal follows.

    Even they never predicted it would arrive so fast.

    State House Speaker Jim Black (D) is in the midst of a controversy over his role and that of a top aide who turned out to be working for a firm hoping to land the contract to run the lottery.

    Three of the nine lottery commissioners, meanwhile, resigned within a month of their appointments. One stepped down two days before testifying to the grand jury, and another bowed out after it was revealed that he received $24,500 from the same firm that hired the speaker's aide. <.>

    "What do you expect the private sector to do when the competition is for a billion-dollar instant business that's a monopoly, that's guaranteed by contract with the full faith and credit of the 10th-largest state in the country?" asked Mavretic, the former House speaker. "What do you think private industry would do to get such a deal? They'd shoot their mothers."

    With the power of government behind you, a great many profitable things are possible that otherwise would not be. 

    It is interesting to see the Democrats of North Carolina support the lottery, as they generally do nationwide, as it is really just a tax on the poor, albeit a voluntary one. Studies have shown that most lottery ticket buyers are lower income folks. Indeed, the grounds of the homeless shelter I used to work at were often littered with discarded lotto tickets. Why does the Democratic party, which purports to be the party of the 'poor' and minorities etc..., support a policy that funds bloated and useless government programs with money derived the poorest segments of the population? There is no rhyme, reason, or logic to it. The answer, is the one given by Dr. Thomas Sowell in the 11/12 link below:

    Ultimately the left is about the left, not about the people they claim to want to lift out of poverty.

    The left is about power and increasing the power of government, which attracts special interests, which keeps them elected, while they politic the people with rot about 'public safety' and 'compassion'.  

    Now, does this mean I am opposed to lotteries? Of course not. I am just opposed to Government lotteries. Government has no business taxing its lowest income citizens to fund failing schools (in which the children of the same lower income citizens are trapped) and the bloated salaries of the teachers unions. 

    If private citizens want to gamble or start gambling enterprises then it is no business of government, especially not the Federal Government. 

Posted 1/13/05

Enforcement of mine safety seen slipping under Bush

1/6/06 Knight Ridder Newspaper Added to 'media bias'. An attempt to tie the Bush administration to the accident in the Pennsylvania mine this past week. 

    Since the Bush administration took office in 2001, it has been more lenient toward mining companies facing serious safety violations, issuing fewer and smaller major fines and collecting less than half of the money that violators owed, a Knight Ridder Newspapers investigation has found.

    At one point last year, the Mine Safety and Health Administration fined a coal company a scant $440 for a "significant and substantial" violation that ended in the death of a Kentucky man. The firm, International Coal Group Inc., is the same company that owns the Sago mine in West Virginia, where 12 workers died earlier this week.

    The $440 fine remains unpaid.

    Relaxed mine safety enforcement is widespread, according to a Knight Ridder analysis of federal records and interviews with former and current federal safety officials, even though deaths and injuries from mining accidents have hovered near record low levels in the past few years.

    Lol, again, it doesn't matter what the results are, it matters what the intentions are, it matters how big government is, it matters how many regulations and fines there are. This is = to safety in the minds of these reporters.

    But, if there is no correlation between government imposed fines and regulations and safety, which I would guess there is not, there is a correlation between a company's own regulations and attitudes towards safety, but this attitude is not shaped by government, then it makes little sense to have any government regulations and fines of this nature in the first place! By their own admissions, these reporters are actually making the case to do the opposite of what they advocate. What company wants to kill its employees? What company would profit by hurting its own employees? There is financial, as well as moral, indeed the two often go to together, reasons for companies to treat their employees well without the coercion of government. Any further or malicious wrongdoing can be processed through a the regular justice system. (similar to the FDA)

    Also of note, despite the headline of this story:

    David Gooch, president of Coal Operators and Associates in Pikeville, Ky., which has 200 members, said the size of the fines have nothing to do with who's in power in Washington.

    "It doesn't have anything to do with who's the president because, actually, the people who are doing those fines are apolitical," Gooch said. "They're employees that are covered by the federal civil service, and their own union, by the way, so they compute the fines the way they come out."

    Hopefully government would do us all a favor and abolish this agency and their union. 

Posted 1/13/06

The Bureaucrat in Your Shower

1/10/06 Misses.org The Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 mandates that "all faucet fixtures manufactured in the United States restrict maximum water flow at or below 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm) at 80 pounds per square inch (psi) of water pressure or 2.2 gpm at 60 psi."

Which could be accompanied by:

'The Bureaucrat in Your Toilet' (not the real title)

4/12/05 Associated Press Current standards require toilets to use 1.6 gallons of water per flush instead of the 3.5 gallons that was the previous norm.

And:

'The Bureaucrat in Your Air Conditioner' (not the real title)

6/24/05 The Augusta Chronicle

    Energy-hungry air conditioners are getting the cold shoulder from the government. And after January, you'll no longer be able to buy them.

    For consumers, this means more energy efficient -- but higher priced -- air conditioners.

And:

'The Bureaucrat in Your Milk' (not the real title)

6/1/05 The Seattle Times So what we have is the government, prodded by large corporations, saying it is helping small family farms by destroying one of our most successful small family farms.

And:

'The Bureaucrat in Your TV' (not the real title)

12/22/05 Fox News require broadcasters to end their traditional analog transmissions by Feb. 17, 2009, and send their signals digitally.

And:

'Another Bureaucrat in Your TV' (not the real title)

    And on And on And on... The point is that government controls or influences nearly ever facet of our lives. Why should we let them determine how we live? Who is it that controls our actions, our pocketbooks, and our very lives? Why do we stand for it? Why do we sit here and take it? Why do we put up with the constant Tyranny stemming from the Federal Government of the United States?  

Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.

- Benjamin Franklin

Posted 1/12/06

Curing Poverty or Using Poverty?

1/10/06 RCP Dr. Thomas Sowell Reprinted in full:

Posted 1/11/06

Scandals are a Symptom, Not a Cause (Required Reading)

1/9/06 (R) TX Rep. Ron Paul  (who the closest thing in Congress to a Libertarian) Reprinted in full:

The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
                                                                                                                                                    James Madison

    The Washington political scandals dominating the news in recent weeks may be disheartening, but they cannot be considered surprising.  We live in a time when the U.S. government is the largest and most powerful state in the history of the world.  Today's federal government consists of fifteen huge departments, hundreds of agencies, thousands of programs, and millions of employees.   It spends 2.4 trillion dollars in a single year.  The possibilities for corruption in such an immense and unaccountable institution are endless.

    Americans understandably expect ethical conduct from their elected officials in Washington.   But the whole system is so out of control that it's simply unrealistic to place faith in each and every government official in a position to sell influence.  The larger the federal government becomes, the more it controls who wins and who loses in our society.   The temptation for lobbyists to buy votes-- and the temptation for politicians to sell them-- is enormous.  Indicting one crop of politicians and bringing in another is only a temporary solution.   The only effective way to address corruption is to change the system itself, by radically downsizing the power of the federal government in the first place.   Take away the politicians' power and you take away the very currency of corruption.

    Undoubtedly the recent revelations will ignite new calls for campaign finance reform.   However, we must recognize that that campaign finance laws place restrictions only on individuals, not politicians. Politicians will continue to tax and spend, meaning they will continue to punish some productive Americans while rewarding others with federal largesse. The same vested special interests will not go away, and the same influence peddling will happen every day on Capitol Hill.

    The reason is very simple: when the federal government redistributes trillions of dollars from some Americans to others, countless special interests inevitably will fight for the money. The rise in corruption in Washington simply mirrors the rise in federal spending. The fundamental problem is not with campaigns or politicians primarily, but rather with popular support for the steady shift from a relatively limited, constitutional federal government to the huge leviathan of today.

    We need to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important in politics. It's time to reconsider exactly what we want the federal government to be in our society.  So long as it remains the largest and most powerful institution in the nation, it will remain endlessly susceptible to corruption.

    Diligent readers will recall that in, 'The Founding of The United States and the Constitutionality of Charity' I stated:

    Lord Acton famously stated, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." (29) The great thing about a Republic is that almost all power is concentrated at the local or individual level, thus limiting corruption. This is why it has always been perplexing to see the attempts to unconstitutionally restrict the actions of free individuals with all of these campaign finance reform laws that never ever end up working. The simple solution is to reduce the power of the Federal government! If government doesn't have the power to do anything, then why should private industry give money to political candidates? The more power the Federal government has, the more money and corruption will flow in and out of the system. In the Federal government today even non-partisan boards, panels, commissions, and agencies with power become corrupted; members leave and take high paying jobs in the industries they are supposed to regulate; cronyism and political favoritism run rife. The corruption and special interest benefit is derived from the power itself. The power needs to be returned to the individual.

    Of course, Ron Paul says this much more eloquently than I. You will note that in all of the coverage of this Abramoff scandal, there is not one mention of the real solution to campaign finance reform (3rd story down). Those in government will not suggest it, because they are in government. The media will not suggest it because they cherish government. The problem is not that Abramoff broke laws and ripped off some Native Americans (although he made others millionaires), but that government has the power to regulate gambling for these tribes. Republicans are already talking of 'lobbyists reform', and other nonsense as a way to stem public outrage over the scandal. But public outrage should not be directed at this scandal. Public outrage should be directed at the power of government, which is what really created this scandal and will continue to create others in the future, irregardless of what these frantic politicians propose as a 'fix'. 

Posted 1/11/06

World Bank official: Palestinians on verge of bankruptcy

10/1/06 Haaretz The Palestinian Authority, the largest employer in the territories, is facing a fiscal crisis that could result, as early as next month, in it being unable to pay the salaries of its 130,000-plus officials and security staff, Nigel Roberts, the World Bank's man in the West Bank and Gaza Strip said in an interview to Haaretz.

    Reminds me of the previously posted story that stated the Iranian government owned 80% of all industry in Iran. It is not surprising that the Palestinian authority is the largest employer in town, but what is surprising is that the largest private employer is the Oasis Casino, with 800 Palestinian employees.

    Now, lets compare that with the United States (2004), where 11,046,023 local government workers, 5,355,490 state government workers, and 3,572,640 federal government employees give us 15,154,153 total government workers, which is far, far too many. For example, when we compare this to the next largest employer, Wal-Mart, which employs 1.1 million people, we get a ratio of 15:1, again, unacceptable in a society that was founded on Liberty. Private companies should always be the leading employers. 

    However, when we do the same calculation for the PA territories (130,000/800), we get a ratio of 162:1. 

    Interestingly, I was hoping that 162/15 = 10.8 would be equal to the ratio of a per capita difference $ between the Palestinians and US citizens, but this correlation does not pan out, perhaps the graph is exponential, as the actual per capita is $1,100 in the PA territories and $40,000 in the US, a ratio of 40:1. It would be interesting to calculate this ratio for a number of different countries and see what we find. :)

    Anyway, to continue with the article:    
    Roberts notes that the amount of assistance the Palestinians are getting - $5 billion in five years, or $300 per capita annually - is the highest granted to any entity since World War II. "To maintain the deep involvement of the donors, and their diplomatic attention, as well as the desire of the private sector to invest additional money, the PA must improve its performance," Roberts states.

    Of course, what Roberts does not note is that money is not the problem, wealth is never created through government, government does not raise people out of poverty, and the efforts of the donors and the international community are most likely harming, not helping the prosperity of the Palestinian people. 
    Were the donors not to hold the PA responsible, they would lose the confidence of their taxpayers that enough control can be exercised to prevent the money from being used to finance acts of terror.

    They are forgetting about the terror of government. 

Posted 1/10/06

College students ordered to shut down sandwich program for homeless

12/23/05 Catholic News Service 

    A Jesuit-run college in Baltimore has suspended a food program for the homeless after the city's health department informed student participants that they could not distribute sandwiches without a license.

    Despite not having a license, which requires that hot and cold running water be available where the food is served, several students from Loyola College in Maryland have continued to give out sandwiches on their own outside St. Vincent de Paul Church in downtown Baltimore on Monday nights.

    "We think the regulations are ridiculous," said Ashley Biggs, an 18-year-old sophomore and the student coordinator of the outreach program, called Care-A-Van. Biggs said students in the college program had been giving out food in a downtown parking lot when Baltimore City Health Department officials asked them to stop Nov. 14.

    Why is 'hot and cold' running water necessary? Sounds to me like some restaurants don't want any vendor competition around. So, they use government in the name of 'public safety'. It is interesting how those in favor of expanding government to help the 'poor', remain unaware of the effects expanded government has on those populations they seek to help. 

    Now for some humor, we, of course, turn to government officials:

    Melisa Lindamood, senior adviser on legislative affairs for the Baltimore City Health Department, said the city is enforcing regulations related to the licensing of food providers as a way of protecting the homeless. She said Baltimore has been recognized nationally for having the cleanest restaurants. (lol, I'm sure that distinction is just great for business....)

    "We wanted to be able to say that any outdoor food provider is as safe as the Cheesecake Factory or any other restaurant," said Lindamood, who noted that licensing fees are waived for nonprofit groups such as Loyola's. (How generous government is!)

    Lindamood said many homeless people have "compromised immune systems," and that licensing serves as "a check to make sure homeless persons are protected." (See the parallels to the 1/6 FDA post below?) 

    "These licenses are to make the food safer, not to stop distribution," she said.

    You see, results don't matter, it is only the intentions we must appreciate...

Posted 1/9/06

'The Poor' 

An excerpt from Welfare; History, Results and Reform. Well, what the hey, I'll just post the entire thing here:

    The Census Bureau did a study from 1996-1999. They found that 51% of those in poverty at some point during those 48 months were only in poverty for 2-4 months.  Only 2% of the United States population was in poverty for the full 48 months. Of the total number of full time workers in the United States, only .1% were in poverty for the full 48 months. Of the total number of part time workers, only .5% were in poverty for the full time period. Revealingly, 10.6% of all those receiving public assistance of any kind were in poverty for the full 48 months and 11.7% of all Medicaid recipients were impoverished for the full time period. Keep in mind that this is during Welfare Reform, when the rolls were falling by over 50%. (62)

    We must also consider that the poverty rate might include recent immigrants, college kids, temporary unemployed, and those who choose to be poor. But even factoring these people in, it still seems like the majority of people who remain in poverty for long periods of time are primarily those on public assistance.

    Even so, there are many discontent with the way the Census Bureau measures poverty. The Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty says:

The existing official measure of poverty has been widely criticized. Under the procedures by which the official poverty rate is calculated, only cash income is counted in determining whether a family is poor; cash welfare programs count, but benefits from noncash programs, such as food stamps, medical care, social services, education and training, and housing are not included. Taxes paid, such as social security payroll taxes, and tax credits, such as the Earned Income Credit, are also excluded from poverty calculations. Because government spending on means-tested noncash benefits and tax credits has increased more rapidly than spending on means-tested cash benefits over the years, ignoring noncash benefits is an increasingly serious omission if we want a broad picture of the impact of government programs on poverty. (48)

    This raises serious questions about the true plight of those in poverty. The Heritage Foundation did a study of those considered poor (61): 

For a more accurate assessment of poverty, let's turn to the Heritage Foundation (a Conservative think tank):

    But what is more remarkable is the story behind the Census figures: The actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description.

While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. The bulk of the "poor" live in material conditions that would have been judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:  

·  Forty-six per cent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage and porch or patio.

·  Seventy-six per cent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago only 36% of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

·  Only 6% of poor households are overcrowded. More than two thirds have more than two rooms per person.  

·  Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30% own two or more cars.

·  Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. [by the way, I don't own a color television or any television for that matter] Over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player. Sixty-two percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

·  Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens; more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Chart 64 (61):

·  The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (Note: These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries not to those classified as poor.)  

Chart 65 (61):

As a group the poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100% above recommended levels. Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, on average growing up to be one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

Still, "poverty", even as defined by the broad standards of the Census Bureau, can be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and fathers are absent from the home. In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year—that amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year—the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week through the year—nearly 75% of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

Not having a dad around is another reliable pathway down into poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes. Each year an additional 1.3 million children are born out-of-wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as Food Stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly. (61)

    Two things catch my eye in the Heritage analysis. First, each family in poverty is only supported by 16 hours of work a week! I realize this figure might be higher if one considers that some work might be done 'under the table', but even so, this doesn't represent the single mother working three jobs trying to make ends meet that is often portrayed in the media. Second,  in the rush to portray European countries as more 'caring' and 'civilized' and, especially, more 'equal', we often forget how much more prosperous then Europe we are. Because 76% of those in poverty have air conditioning (those that don't probably live in the northern states) we would never see a story like this one, seen in the Associated Press during the Summer of 2003 (49): 

France's longest and hottest heat wave, with temperatures that topped 104 in the first two weeks of August, probably caused about 10,000 deaths, said Hubert Falco, secretary of state for the elderly.

While other European governments have not reported the huge death toll of France, signs are emerging of significant spikes in deaths in several countries.

The Central Bureau for Statistics said the heat claimed 500 to 1,000 lives in the Netherlands, and Portugal's Health Ministry estimated more than 1,300 dead.

        Italy's Health Ministry has refused to give figures, but calls to several major cities found marked increases in deaths compared with last year. Genoa had 693 in the first 18 days of August, compared with 475 in the whole month last year. In Turin, 732 died, more than 500 of them over 70, compared with 388 last year. (49)

Society softens sting of poverty

1/9/06 Waterbury Republican American (editorial)

Posted 1/8/06

Some stories from Venzuelan leader Hugo Chavez. Added to 'Chavez'.

Venezuela to Expand Heating Oil Offer

1/7/05 Associated Press CARACAS -- Venezuela said yesterday it will expand a program to provide discounted home heating oil to poor Americans, bringing savings to low-income families in Vermont and Rhode Island, as well as four Indian tribes in Maine.

    Venezuela's Citgo Petroleum Corp. has already begun selling millions of gallons of discounted fuel in Massachusetts and the Bronx in New York City as part of a plan by Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, to aid poor communities that he says are neglected by Washington.

    So, what should our reaction be to this? um.. I guess: Thanks! But if I was a Venezuelan I would be absolutely livid. Venezuela has a per capita income of $5,700, while the United States is 7x richer at nearly $40,000 per capita. The fact is the US 'poor' that Chavez is subsidizing are better off than the vast majority of his countrymen. The fact that he can, apparently by decree, spend his peoples' money in such a way is indicative of the reason Venezuela remains mired in poverty, along with the large flux of Venezuelans who continue to immigrate to the United States.

    Another story of Chavez spending the money of the people of Venezuela on foreigners:

Chavez Uses Hedge Fund for Politics

12/19/05 NewsMax Chavez, seeking to embarrass the United States, stepped in for the purchase after the two biggest U.S. banks, Citigroup Inc. and JP Morgan Chase & Co., opted not to buy a portion of Argentina’s debt.

    The Venezuelan dictator has accumulated as much as $986 million of bonds this year from Argentina, more than any of the 10 largest U.S.-based mutual funds that focus on emerging markets, according to Bloomberg News.

    "The dangers are when the market heads south and they want to dump the bonds."

    But if the money you are spending is not your own then who cares? Such is the danger of political control of the peoples' money. 

  One of the greatest dangers to a democracy and a republic is the use of 'public funds' to fund campaigns of politicians. Opposition groups are alleging that Chavez supporters have been using funds from the general treasury to run their campaigns. Sadly, this happens here in the United States too. 

Venezuela President Chavez Makes Anti-Semitic Speech

1/2/06 MidEast Dispatches Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced in a Christmas speech that “the descendants of those who crucified Christ” have appropriated the riches of the world.

    Speaking at a rehabilitation center on December 24, the controversial left-wing president said “the descendants of those who crucified Christ... have taken ownership of the riches of the world, a minority has taken ownership of the gold of the world, the silver, the minerals, water, the good lands, petrol, well, the riches, and they have concentrated the riches in a small number of hands.”

    This, apparently, has a number of our friends on the left (some of whom are Chavez supporters), quite upset. I don't see why it is surprising at all. Historically, those on the far left have generally followed this path. For example, the USSR Communist fundings of terrorists in the Middle East against Israel and the persecutions of their own Jewish populations. Middle Eastern Governments, which are amongst the most socialistic (in terms of the size and scope of their governments) in the world, have carried over the fascist anti-Semitic ideology from Hitler. And, of course, Hitler is often falsely labeled as 'Right Wing', when in fact he expanded government to the greatest degree Germany had ever seen. 

    This anti-Semitism, which arises quite naturally in Communism, and the fringes of liberalism, is often, in practice if not in theory, fueled by class envy and relentless attacks on the 'rich'. Since the Jews are, statistically speaking, well educated and economically successful people, and often occupy prominent positions throughout free societies, one could almost predict they would become the subject of attack by the class warfarests. 

     And some more rhetoric from Mr. Chavez, as well as his support of revolution and violence in south America:

    Peru recalled its ambassador to Venezuela yesterday in protest at the support for Ollanta Humala, a military officer turned politician.

    President Chávez had heaped praise on Mr Humala on Tuesday for "joining in the battle" against the US-backed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). He was speaking at a joint press conference with his close friend, Bolivia's president-elect, Evo Morales. He also complimented his Peruvian guest for leading a military uprising five years ago.

     To close, a snap shot of more bile spouted at our country:

    In a long speech, Mr Chavez repeated his description of Mr Bush as a "madman, a killer and a mass murderer".

Posted 1/6/06 

FDA to Examine New Ways to Study ADD Drugs

1/4/05 Associated Press More news from the hurtful FDA:     

    The Food and Drug Administration said it had received reports of what it called "serious adverse events" including deaths in association with the therapeutic use of the drugs. The agency considers the reports "rare though serious," FDA spokeswoman Susan Bro said Wednesday.

    The FDA's Canadian counterpart, Health Canada, yanked the ADHD drug Adderall XR from the market for six months last year in response to reports of 20 sudden deaths and 12 strokes in adults and children using the drug. A number of the cases involved children with structural heart defects.

     How many cases involved the structural heart defects? What % of folks with structural heart defects who were not on Adderall suffered similar fates? These numbers are so small and so insignificant, yet indicative of the risk aversion and panic of government bureaucrats, which ultimately has cost thousands of American lives. No medicine is safe from these tyrants. In the name of 'public safety' they will investigate and trump up any cockamamie 'dangers' and find small subgroups of the population that suffer occasional ill effects and then ban the drug for everyone. 

    And, even if it is true that folks with structural heart defects are harmed by taking Adderall XR, why should this destroy the benefits for the rest of us (yes I take and have greatly benefited from this drug)? This is a pattern seen throughout the ideology of liberalism, tear down the strong to 'help' the weak, destroy the benefits of many because a few are 'hurt', work to prevent all harm regardless of how many are harmed by the bungled attempts to prevent harm, work to equalize without regard to the inequality created.

    And, even if it is true that folks like myself are at greater risk for heart or other problems, which may indeed be the case, then who is government to weigh the pros and cons for us? Who are we to submit control of our very lives to ignorant bureaucrats in Washington? We would certainly not be Americans if we went down without a fight. 

Posted 1/5/06

Speaking of the concocted 'rights' (post below) that government believes all people are entitled to, by virtue of their fellow citizens' pocketbooks:

S.F. mayor sees wireless service as basic right

10/4/05 Reuters San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who became internationally known for his campaign a year ago to legalize gay marriage, said on Monday he considered wireless Internet access a fundamental right of all citizens.

   Newsom told a news conference that he was bracing for a battle with telephone and cable interests, along with state and U.S. regulators, whom he said were looking to derail a campaign by cities to offer free or low-cost municipal Wi-Fi services.

   Lol, look at all these regulators, struggling against each other to impose their respective versions of utopia upon the citizens of San Francisco.

     "It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information," he said.

  <.>

   Wireless access can be seen a basic right that should be available not just to business professionals but also lower-income citizens. "This is a civil rights issue as much as anything else," Newsom said.

   Why stop there Mr. Mayor? Why not air conditioning, and heating, and cars, and houses, and clothes, and designer clothes, and and and and...

    The mayor said he had no exact figures on how much it would cost to build a wireless umbrella to cover the entire city, but cited general estimates that have ranged from $8 million to $16 million for antennas and other gear.

    "My intent is to have the taxpayers pay little or nothing," Newsom said of the municipal wireless project.

    Lol! How can there even be a possibility that taxpayers will pay 'nothing'? Government, in this case Mayor Newsom, most often have no clue what a given plan will cost, how it will be done, how to do it, and what the results will actually be. Emotions don't sweat the small stuff.

    Now, it says further on in the article that the cost will be reduced or free because of advertising that a company will install in the 'free' wireless system. If this is true does this debunk my whole argument? No! Because, if true, why does Google, or whatever company that would set up the wireless need Mayor Newsom? If it is profitable for a company to set up free advertising supported wireless then the only thing stopping them from presently doing so is... (drum roll) Mayor Newsom and the other state and federal regulators! (More)

Posted 1/5/06

Senate OKs Digital TV-Deadline Legislation

12/22/05 Fox News Government has decided American companies are too incompetent to build and broadcast cheap high quality digital television signals and the citizens of the United States are too stupid to buy the proper equipment and thus would be unable to enjoy what government thinks they must enjoy. So, in order to rectify the possibility of such an egregious loss of pleasure among the masses, government has decided to:

    require broadcasters to end their traditional analog transmissions by Feb. 17, 2009, and send their signals digitally.

    But what if there are some especially defiant people who don't follow the advice of government and purchase the new sets or buy a new upgrade? Or what if they can't afford to? Well, we are lucky that our government is wise enough have already foreseen this possibility:

    The plan also would allocate as much as $1.5 billion for a "converter box" program to help people with older, analog TV sets that would lose their signals in the digital era. 

    Thus, government will rob some of its own citizens and give their money to others to pay for the increases in pleasure (via clearer digital sights and sounds) that it has determine all of its citizens must have. In effect, government has decided that the right to digital television is inherent within the US constitution and that this 'right' must be achieved by any means necessary, including the destruction of our liberty. 

    Something new, called economic rights, began to supplant the old property rights. This change, which occurred with remarkably little fanfare, was staggeringly significant. With the advent of "economic rights," the original meaning of rights was effectively destroyed. These new "rights" imposed obligations, not limits, on the state. It thus became government's job not to protect property but, rather, to regulate and redistribute it. And, the epic proportions of the disaster which has befallen millions of people during the ensuing decades has not altered our fervent commitment to statism.

- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

    However, government's carefully laid plans for us may go astray:

    Cable industry representatives say there is the potential for a service disruption for some of the 40 million cable customers without digital. If they still have analog TV sets in 2009, they could lose some stations. 

    <.>

    "We think this is unfair, unworkable and unacceptable. It virtually ensures that on Feb. 18, 2009, tens of millions of televisions go black," said Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst with Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports.

    I've often said on this site that a shortage of any good or service that people are willing to pay for is, nearly always, caused by government. Thus, in 2009, when government plans may disrupt the televisions of many, probably lower income folks, we might again see this pattern. Another illustrated pattern is that government expansion typically hurts the 'little guy', consumers and companies, the worst. Looks like this is true in this case too:

    For those households, cable operators would convert digital signals back to analog for the major broadcast stations. But that may not happen for smaller, independent stations unless those stations and cable operators work out a deal or Congress intervenes. (translation: these small firms better fork over some dough to the mafia, I mean, Congress, ASAP)

    If government had taken over the auto industry in 1920, today we'd all be driving Model-T cars -- and saying, 'If it weren't for the government, we'd have no cars at all.'

- Harry Browne

Posted 1/4/06

Teachers' Pets / The NEA gave $65 million in its members' dues to left-liberal groups last year.

1/3/06 Wall Street Journal Editorial

    If we told you that an organization gave away more than $65 million last year to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups, you'd probably assume we were describing a liberal philanthropy. In fact, those expenditures have all turned up on the financial disclosure report of the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union.

    <.>

    Most disturbingly, continuing their historical obstruction towards meaningful reform of public education:

    There's been a lot in the news recently about published opinion that parallels donor politics. Well, last year the NEA gave $45,000 to the Economic Policy Institute, which regularly issues reports that claim education is underfunded and teachers are underpaid. The partisans at People for the American Way got a $51,000 NEA contribution; PFAW happens to be vehemently anti-voucher.

    The extent to which the NEA sends money to states for political agitation is also revealing. For example, Protect Our Public Schools, an anti-charter-school group backed by the NEA's Washington state affiliate, received $500,000 toward its efforts to block school choice for underprivileged children. (Never mind that charter schools are public schools.) And the Floridians for All Committee, which focuses on "the construction of a permanent progressive infrastructure that will help redirect Florida politics in a more progressive, Democratic direction," received a $249,000 donation from NEA headquarters.

    <.>

    When George Soros does this sort of thing, at least he's spending his own money. The NEA is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions. According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on "political activities and lobbying" and another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and grants" that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.

    This parallels my earlier 7/25 post containing the article, 'These are your Teachers' and is especially interesting considering that, according to an NEA internal survey, 20% of new NEA members joined because 'they had no choice'. In short, just like every time you send a piece of mail, your tax money is going to support these causes, whether you like it or not. But, make sure you watch your rhetoric.... :)

    In the last 100 years we have let the government buy our birthright with our own tax money. 

- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

(Added to 'A Charter School Tale')

Posted 1/4/06

It is, perhaps, fitting to start off the new year with a story on hangovers:

Hangover Helpers: Beyond Sheep Eyes

1/1/06 New York Times Though there has been limited medical research into the effectiveness of such cures, the explosion of new products prompted British and Dutch researchers to review the research on popular folk remedies and hangover products. The results, published in late December in BMJ, the British medical journal, found that "no compelling evidence exists to suggest that any conventional or complementary intervention is effective for preventing or treating alcohol hangover" (although the researchers noted "encouraging findings" for borage, a yeast product, and tolfenamic acid, a painkiller).

     <.>

    The symptoms are familiar enough: headache, nausea and grogginess. Most authorities, he said, agree that they seem to be caused by a combination of factors resulting from intoxication by alcohol, including dehydration, dilation of blood vessels around the brain, changes in certain chemical levels in the body and alteration of the sleep cycle.

    But no one knows exactly how large a role each of those causes plays, which means that no one knows exactly how to treat them, Dr. Rosenberg said. 

    heh, heh, I always like stories that show how little science knows. Sometimes it gets a big head. :) 

Posted 12/23/05

Happy Holidays, Merry Xmas, and Happy New Year to all! I'm not sure if I'll be able to post or not the next week or so... Hopefully I'll find some time. Take Care! 

-Travis

Posted 12/23/05

Senators propose taxing Internet shopping

12/22/05 CNET This may be the last holiday season to enjoy tax-free Internet shopping, thanks to new legislation in the U.S. Congress. They  [State tax collectors] complain that the Internet is sapping tax revenues and are supporting Enzi's bill to force companies to collect taxes on many out-of-state shipments in the future. Traditional retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores, which collects taxes on shipments from Walmart.com because it has physical locations in every state, are also supporting the bill.

    Of course, the more government revenue is 'sapped' the better. This bill will probably pass if citizens' outcry and the lobbying of online retailers does not match that of established retailers and these 'state tax collectors'. We must keep the government out of the Internet! 

Posted 12/23/05

Jury Awards $172 million to Wal-Mart Employees

12/22/05 Associated Press I've been sent this story by two different people who are apparently quite happy and vindicated by this ruling. :) 

    A few comments. First, I wonder how much of this money will go to the employees, as opposed to the lawyers? Second, why do labor laws exists that mandate what Wal-Mart must pay its employees and how it must treat them? Why is private company not allowed contract with its own workers, free of government coercion? Added to 'Wal-Mart, Aiding America's Poor'. Comment (0) | Trackback (0)

Posted 12/22/05

Let a thousand Choices Bloom

12/05 Reason Dobber, contributing author of 'Observations from a Former Charter School Employee' in 'A Charter School Tale', alerted me to this interesting compilation of 'expert' opinions on school choice. 'Expert' is in quotations because I happen to think that the term 'expert' is frequently overused and has the effect of leading people not to think for themselves, as it is possible to find 'experts' who will say just about anything. The best 'expert' in a given subject is, most often, you. Anyway, in principle, I agree with most of these 'experts'. Here are some excerpts:

    Everything from the real estate industry to school rankings based on test scores is set up to reinforce the idea of school assignment by address. Imagine if our higher education system worked that way. <.>

    Criticisms of state schooling are often misconstrued or misrepresented as attacks on the idea of universal access to good schools. (the left's most frequent tactic: attack intentions)

    Biggest obstacle: The greatest institutional obstacles to systemic education reform are teachers unions, school boards and administrators, and schools of education. Good teachers have nothing to fear from competition—indeed, they obtain more power over their classrooms and sometimes even higher pay. But unions could lose members, dues, and political clout. Bureaucrats and local politicians do lose out in a market system of education—neither producers nor consumers of education find them of much value. Schools of education, which largely control the supply of schoolteachers (and have an abysmal track record to show for it), also lose if teachers are chosen on the basis of skill and merit rather than surviving a stultifying curriculum. All use public funds or compulsory dues to fight school choice. <.>

    Interesting little blurb on a 'secondary problem of socialism':

    The whole school reform movement is a misdirection, so people talk about items that have little or no importance. Then they line up in some oppositional way, and after some spasm of a few years, everything is brought back in exactly the same form. But if you started with the premise that human genius is so widely distributed and so easy to access that it costs the taxpayers not a goddamn cent to do it, you would unthread the social and economic structure of this country.   

    But, the most intriguing commentary came from Marshall Fritz ,  president of the Alliance for the Separation of School & State:

    Most necessary reform: None. “Reform” implies the government is still involved. We need to transform America’s collectivist approach to education into free-market education. This means ending not only compulsory funding but compulsory attendance and content. We must separate schools from the state.

    Biggest obstacle: Tax-funded school vouchers are the biggest obstacle to improving education. They will again trick parents into believing school improvement is just around the corner. They could delay return to a genuine free market by a generation or more. Vouchers replace today’s monopoly with a “monopsony” (single buyer). Schools will have only one customer to serve—and it’s not you. Follow the money.

    As Douglas Dewey once asked, “How is moving from 88 percent of the school population in dependency to nearly 100 percent a good first step toward zero percent? What possibly could motivate edu-welfare parents to demand a lower and lower voucher?”

    The cost of vouchers is exorbitant: converting virtually all of today’s 27,000 independent schools into “public school look-alikes” whose competition will be merely grubbing for government bucks.

    Educational tax credits are merely covert mutations of the entitlement cancer. Experience shows they can be sold only with deceit, e.g., “You’re getting your own money back” and “It’s a voluntary contribution to a scholarship fund.” And charter schools are simply privately owned lapdog schools on a slightly longer government leash. A dog on a long leash is still a dog on a leash.

    Embrace full choice. Start with your own children. Remove them from school-by-government. You’ll not be paying twice for education: You’ll pay taxes for the state to harm other people’s children, but you’ll pay only once for education—your children’s.

    This closely mirrors stated remarks in the conclusion of 'A Charter School Tale':

    The pure libertarian view, whereby control and jurisdiction over Education policy is taken from the Federal Government, the States, and the Counties and given directly to the people, is an interesting one. In such a scenario there would be no taxes, regulations or requirements for Education and every school would be truly private. Private foundations and charity organizations would exist to help the poorest areas. My gut feeling is that this may indeed prove to be the best scenario for permanently improving education in this country. However, legislation repealing all the old education laws and taxes is certainly not politically feasible at this time. The 'Charter School Act' legislation that I've described is politically feasible (as it is really just common sense), provided the proposal is not skewered and slanted and demaguaged (and rest assured, it will be). After this legislation is passed, and people adjust to the idea of (gasp!) being able to spend their own tax dollars where they desire and see the benefits of (gasp!) having more control over their kid's education, the pure libertarian view can be more closely examined and (perhaps) pursued. 

Posted 12/22/05

Now Executive warns: no smoking at home

12/22/05 The Scotsman Some more nonsense from Scotland and the health nannies: 

    The public are to be told not to smoke in their own homes as part of plans to protect public sector workers from the effect of passive smoking.     

    Ministers have told councils, health boards and social work departments that they should compile a "smokers' map" of Scotland, focusing on those who regularly receive visits from officials and carers. This would identify individual households where a smoker is resident.

    The smokers would then be sent letters asking them not to smoke for one hour before a council worker or health worker called round.

    But the Executive advice, which was issued to all councils, health boards and care service-providers yesterday, was derided as a "bureaucratic waste of money", and "politically correct nonsense".

    No!

    There are tens of thousands of people who get visits from public sector workers at home.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

-Ronald Reagan

    Similarly, check out this story from UK government media, I mean the BBC:

Inside the Fattest State in the US

12/20/05 BBC Jefferson County is said to be the fattest part of the fattest state in the United States after a 2002 study found it had the highest proportion (26.1%) of obese residents in Mississippi.

    But it is a place that screams out poverty. Average household incomes here are just $13,500 (£7,662) a year, and unemployment almost 20%.

    If you recall, in 'Welfare; History, Results and Reform', an excerption from the Heritage Foundation said:

    As a group the poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100% above recommended levels. Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, on average growing up to be one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

    However, now the story begins to get really ridiculous:

    Yet poverty and inactivity are not the only explanations proffered for Jefferson's - and the Mississippi Delta's - problem with obesity.

    Ho ho!

    Back in the 1850s more than 100 slaves worked the cotton fields on the 1,250-acre Rosswood farm, one of many such plantations along the Mississippi Delta.

    Then the working day was long and arduous, the food basic but filling - gumbos, or stews thickened with okra, cornbread, beans and fish from the Mississippi.

    "The taste of the individuals in this area comes from their experiences during slavery, the food that is eaten is of poor quality and rich in calories.

    So.... lol, I can't even comment on this anymore. 

    So, what is the 'solution' to this 'epidemic'? A concerted government attack on private industry? More government funding and programs and solutions and handwringing? 

    It has a nutrition clinic, but it is conspicuously empty.

    "Some women who have entered the weight loss programme have been asked to leave by their husbands who say that they like them the way they are."

    Maybe because they are fine the way they are. 

Posted 12/21/05

    As many of you know, the Senate reauthorized the Patriot Act. Also, as I'm sure even more of you know, the media has worked itself into a frenzy over a seeming non-story about President Bush and 'domestic spying'. We don't shy away from controversies and 'gray areas' on this site, rather we embrace them. However, I prefer not to offer opinions and commentary in areas that I am unfamiliar with or uncertain about. Some have been curious as to my take on this development. 

    First, one of the main reasons I don't feel comfortable offering an opinion is that the coverage of this has been, from my perspective, rather horrid. Normally, in analyzing an event, I'll read a few different rather predictably biased coverages of it and be able to gather the disparate pertinent information, group it together, and attempt to deliver a verdict. With this event, there appears to be a lot of commentary and opinions, but little substance or fact. What is the Patriot Act? What were the laws before? How did it change them? No one seems to be able to answer these questions, at least to my satisfaction. 

    Even with this information, I'm still not sure how inclined I would be to support one side or the other. While I certainly support shrinking government, I have previously stated that the one responsibility of government is to protect property and that government alone must maintain a monopoly on the lethal use of force, especially in regards to defense of the nation. Thus, these two principles conflict as on one one hand I view government as a blight upon the country and on the other a necessary evil required to ensure fundamental protections. 

    Despite this haziness, I cannot help but feel somewhat positive about the reactions of those on the left and the media towards the Patriot Act. At least they are in favor of some restriction on government. At least American citizens of all ideologies display some disdain towards government. As long as there is anger, fear, and distrust towards government then liberty will reign in some form. This 'don't tread on me attitude' is uniquely American, whether the left will admit it or not. Indeed, it is the reason we are the world's only superpower. We, as a people, are simply not willing to let government expand. There is a line it must not cross. 

    I happened upon Republican Senator Larry Craig (Idaho)'s explanation of why he voted with the Democrats in delaying the reauthorization of and modifying the Patriot Act:

    At the time I voted for it [the original patriot act], I said, "This is a major step in the wrong direction but necessary for the moment, but I will constantly review it and attempt to change it when that day comes for reauthorization," because we have to be under constant vigil against the enemy, and that enemy now is terrorism, and some of us believe that government at some times can also be the enemy.

    As an Idahoan I lived through Ruby Ridge. I saw a family destroyed by misguided government and misguided information from government. So it's a memory that is seared in my mind.

    I'm chairman of the Veterans Committee. I go regularly out to Walter Reed to see young men and women who have lost limbs and a big chunk of their life defending our freedoms. So if they can defend them in Iraq, doggone it, I'm going to defend them here.

Posted 12/20/05

In 'Sweat Shops and Welfare', I wrote: 

    Third world countries have one great advantage: cheap labor. You may read the press whining about 'sweatshop labor', but keep in mind Adam Smith's golden rule of economics: a transaction will only take place if both sides mutually benefit. So, it is obvious that these people working for these companies improved their conditions by working for them, or else they would choose not to work there. Now, as more and more companies move into the area to take advantage of this cheap labor a few things occur. First, the people they are employing have more money then before (if they didn't then why would they take the job?). Second, the new factories requires construction, electricity, and transportation of their exports. Third, foreigners, who are used to high standards of living, must be brought in to supervise the investment and they must be housed and paid. Fourth, the companies have to pay taxes.

    All of this translates into more demand for local companies and more spending in the local economy. Also, the new tax revenues are invested into schools, roads and infrastructure. Perhaps some local people are promoted to positions of authority in the foreign investment and they learn new skills. Since the schools are better funded, due to the increasing tax revenues, more students graduate and more go to college. We might also think that kids won't have to start work as young and work as hard as they used to because their parents are making more money - either working for the foreign companies, or from the general cash influx into their normal occupations. But how can this be? 'Sweatshops' and foreign investment = more educated kids working less when they are younger? This is different then the hysteria we often hear. 

    At any rate, as the population becomes more educated and infrastructure continues to improve, some of the foreign investors might think, "hmmm.. we can do something with a little more skill over here too and pay the people here less then at home!". Then we have a situation similar to India, where jobs open up in software developing, technical assistance, and more advanced manufacturing operations. Eventually, the price of labor has risen so much that the low wage manufacturing centers have to leave the country - people won't work for a price that is profitable to the company. As the 'sweatshop' manufacturing center pulls out of the formerly third world country what does it leave behind? Despair and destitution, or a skilled educated workforce and a humming modern economy? This is how prosperity advances. 

    Contrast that with this recent article:

China overtakes US as top IT supplier

12/12/05 Newsmax

PARIS -- China has overtaken the United States as the world's largest exporter of a broad category of electronic goods including computers, mobile phones and digital cameras, the OECD said Monday. The report by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development marks a milestone in China's diversification from low-tech textile sweatshops into sophisticated electronics factories.

    Also, as the original article was written over a year ago, my views have since evolved and I would probably write it slightly differently today. It seems to me I placed a little too much emphasis on 'tax money' and government funded schools and infrastructure. The more taxes a given government takes from a foreign company, the less likely that other foreign companies and investments will continue to come to the country. And, as demonstrated, money spend on education, coming from the government, is not the ideal way to educate a population. Better to take less taxes from the people so they can educate themselves as they, not the government elites, see fit.

  Comment (0) | Trackback (0)

Posted 12/16/05

Posted 11/11/05

For New Folks

    Welcome! For your info, all group postings (or single lengthy essay type posts) can be located either in Archives or in the lower left hand portion of this site with the recent ones at the bottom. Lengthy research type pieces are on the immediate left and other varied categories are above on the top bar. 

    In other news, despite a cut back in posting, last October was a record month for this site: 4,163 people registered 55,921 hits.

    I'm still looking for contributors. Dobber, Bangart, AuH2ORepublican, Valin? 

Posted 11/11/05

'Gasoline and Government'

    I've grouped all the posts on gas prices and the hurtful government meddling in the industry into 'Gasoline and Government'. Little did I know I've written 9 posts on the subject! Oh and it's been pointed out that the ConocoPhilips study was in the late 90s and the profits are higher now. Perhaps, but it is still nowhere near what is taken out in taxes.

Posted 11/11/05

FTC subpoenas Big Oil firms in U.S. gasoline probe

11/10/05 Reuters Federal Trade Commission witch hunt alert. 

    The agency sent out "dozens of subpoenas" to companies, including oil giants Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. , ConocoPhillips, and the U.S. units of BP Plc. (BP.L) and Royal Dutch Shell Plc., FTC Chairwoman Deborah Majoras said.
    She spoke following a hearing on energy profits held by the Senate's energy and commerce committees. "It is a major investigation."

    "If there is anticompetitive behavior going on between and among these gasoline companies, we'll find that and we will prosecute," Majoras said.

    Again, what should be happening is that the oil executives should be subpoening some of these US Senators for their blatant 'anticompetitive behavior'. I'd like to see an investigation of how the Senate came to pass these laws, compiled by the American Petroleum Institute:

Fuel Tax Facts

·        The price for a gallon of gasoline includes 42 cents for taxes. The federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents a gallon. The national average for state and local gasoline taxes is 23.6 cents a gallon.

·        The total annual gasoline tax bill for Americans is about $56 billion, including $24 billion in federal tax and $32 billion in state and local taxes.

·        Taxes on highway diesel fuel average 48.2 cents per gallon.The federal tax on diesel fuel is 24.4 cents a gallon, six cents a gallon more than the federal tax on gasoline. The national average for state and local diesel fuel taxes is 23.8 cents per gallon.

·        Diesel fuel users - usually truck owners - pay $16 billion in fuel taxes each year.

·        The total annual motor fuels tax bill for the nation is nearly $72 billion. That works out to about $260 for every man, woman and child; $385 for every licensed driver, or more than $660 for a family.

 ·       Federal motor fuel tax revenues finance the federal Highway Trust Fund program, which pays for highway construction and road maintenance.

    Crude Oil (Other)

1)         Import Duty – a duty (tax) imposed on crude oil when it is entered into the commerce of the United States. The duty rates are: 0.0525 cent per barrel for crude under 25 API Gravity;0.105 cent per barrel for crude over 25 API Gravity

2)         Merchandise Processing Fee – merchandise that is formally entered or released into the commerce of the United States is subject to the payment to Customs of an ad valorem fee based on the value of the merchandise. The fee is : 0.21% (Imports) and the fee shall not exceed $485 and shall not be less than $25.

3)         Harbor Maintenance Fee – Commercial cargo loaded on or unloaded from a commercial vessel is subject to a port use fee based on the value of the cargo. The fee is: 0.125% of the value of the cargo.

Sales and Use Taxes – Just like taxes imposed on the sales of all types of goods, some states  and local taxing authorities also collect taxes on the sales of motor fuels based on the value of the product or on the use, storage or consumption of the product.

  Franchise Taxes – these taxes are referred as ‘‘privilege” taxes, a tax on the privilege of doing business in a state.

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Tax (LUST) - A 0.1-cent per gallon excise tax is imposed on all taxable fuels. This tax was structured as an add-on  rate to the existing motor fuel taxes. Revenues from the tax are dedicated to remediation of ground pollution from under ground storage tanks.

In addition, when oil companies drill on government land, of which the Federal government, not the American people, owns 653 hundred million acres out of 2.2 billion total (public and private) in the country, they are taxed again: 

In 2000, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) collected over $5 billion in royalties from oil and gas development on government lands -- $4.2 billion from offshore and nearly $1 billion onshore.  MMS also collected over $1 billion in bonus bids, rental payments and other revenues, to bring the total federal revenues collected from oil and gas operations on government lands to approximately $6.3 billion.

This site lists other taxes such as State Severance and Production taxes, Conservation taxes, and property taxes (above land value)

    Now, let's compare this with these 'massive profits' these oil companies make. From ConocoPhilips:

    An industry-wide study in the late 1990s showed that oil industry profits amounted to an estimated 7.3 cents on each gallon sold. More recently, ConocoPhillips reported that during the third quarter of 2005 earnings from its U.S. refining and marketing operations amounted to 9 cents per gallon, out of industry average retail price of $2.60 per gallon during the quarter.

    Do you see why I say the oil companies should hold hearings and haul US Senators before their committees? Do you see why I say that these oil companies should be the ones issuing subpoenas to government officials? Profit is 9 cents a gallon and taxes are 42 cents a gallon! The government is nearly 5 times as liable and responsible for the price of gasoline as private industry, which isn't even a fair comparison because 'profit' is a necessary component in the price of oil, while taxes are not. Another things to note is that this 42 cents on the gallon figure is certainly not high enough. There are taxes mixed in the cost of tools, wages, and any given plethora of taxes taken out at every transaction and step from start to finish, not even including taxes demanded by other governments if the oil is procured there. What would the price of oil be in a taxless society? I doubt we will ever find out.  

Posted 11/10/05

    Today, the United States Circus, I mean, Senate, further disgraced itself by holding the most pompous, ridiculous, idiotic hearings since they hauled professional baseball players in to testify about steroids. This is strait out of Atlas Shrugged. What if I went and planted large rocks all throughout the lawn and then berated and sued the lawn care company when they had trouble cutting the grass? What if I flushed pipe bombs down my toilet and then raged at the plumber? These problems in energy, including high gas prices, are caused by the same US Senate that is berating these oil executives for 'excess profit'! If anything, the US Senate should be hauled before the oil executives! The oil executives should be demanding answers to questions, the media should ask government why it has imposed these barriers and caused these problems, and the American people should focus their anger on the corrupt, inept, and thieving politicians. 

Oil Company Execs Defend Huge Profits

11/9/05 Associated Press Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said, opening the hearing in a packed committee room. "The oil companies owe the American people an explanation," he declared.

    No Senator, you have it backwards, it is the US Senate which owes the American people the explanation. 

    Thankfully, The head of the National Association of Manufacturers, former Michigan Gov. John Engler, criticized lawmakers for the way they handled the hearing.

    "Demagoguery and demonization will not reduce energy prices or solve supply problems in the long run," he said. "Our energy supply and infrastructure have suffered from 25 years of increasingly restrictive government policies that have made it almost impossible to access and refine the resources we have. The Senate should dispense with the theatrics and get serious about Americas energy supply."

Posted 11/10/05

Rage of French Youth is a fight for recognition / Spreading Rampage in Country's Slums Is Rooted in Alienation and Abiding Government Neglect

11/8/05 Washington Post Is anyone else sick of reading articles like this one? Government neglect? Alienation? If it is the fault of government it is probably for opposite reasons. My guess is that these Muslim slums are the recipients of large amounts of government aid (welfare). Unemployment is estimated to be as high as 40-50% among young Muslim poor in these French slums. High minimum wages doubtlessly price them out of the job market. A job market where it is exceedingly difficult to fire people (due to overbearing and onerous labor laws), thus employers are reluctant to hire:

(from a previous 5/10/05 post [dead link]) In France, the company must show that layoffs have a financial basis, said Lowell Turner, a professor of international and comparative labor at Cornell University.

    Poor public schools and French socialism keep these folks uneducated and unmotivated. In short, conditions and causes are probably similar to the ones I have outlined throughout this site that effect our own inner city slums, Appalachia, and Indian Reservations. Now, do I have proof of this? Not at all. I am just speculating, but I would be very surprised if it were not true. 

    Several of the older youths fingered pockets bulging with plastic packets of hashish for sale or trade. As they read local newspaper accounts of their previous night's exploits, they began discussing Saturday night's plans with more of an air of boredom than a commitment to a cause.

    "We don't have the American dream here," said Rezzoug, as he surveyed the clusters of young men.

    How can this be? The media has been telling us that Muslims hate the US and that President Bush's foreign policies have just inflamed this hatred more. After all, France actively opposed and lobbied against the war in Iraq. Yet their own population speaks of the 'American dream'? 

Muslims more integrated in US than France

11/8/05 AFP Arab and Muslim immigrants in the US generally identify themselves as Americans and integrate with relative ease into a society that prides itself on social mobility and has more tolerance for cultural and religious differences, Haddad said.

    Arab Americans and Muslims are better educated and have a higher income than the national average, said Edina Lekovic, communications director for the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

    She cautioned against painting the riots as a religious issue rather than the result of economic and political disenfranchisement.

    Well, this 'expert' is right that it is not a religious issue, it is an economic issue, but the solution is probably the opposite of whatever economic problems she thinks are occurring. Political disenfranchisement is not an issue because political disenfranchisement only exists with economic disenfranchisement (with rare exception). 

    The real parallel to the French riots is the African-American race riots of the 1960s and following the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles, said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute.

    I agree with Zogby here, although I'm sure, again, that I have opposite views on the causes and solutions. 

    However, what is unique about the French experience is that government not only causes the problem, but then makes it doubly worse by refusing to allow its citizens to defend themselves or their property from the result of the failed government policies. In France it is illegal to own a gun.

French Police Arrest 250 as Arson Grows

11/5/05 Associated Press

    In quiet Acheres, on the edge of the St. Germain forest west of Paris, arsonists burned a nursery school, where part of the roof caved in, and about a dozen cars in four attacks that the mayor said seemed "perfectly organized."

    Children's photos clung to the blackened walls, and melted plastic toys littered the floor. Residents gathered at the school gate demanded that the army be deployed or suggested that citizens band together to protect their neighborhoods. Mayor Alain Outreman tried to cool tempers.

    "We are not going to start militias," he said. "You would have to be everywhere."

    The police cannot be everywhere, but the people can! The government is not the people! This is precisely the point I had been trying to make in 'Guns and Crime'. When push comes to shove you cannot count on Government for protection. The best protection against criminals is that which you construct for yourself. Does anyone think these punk kids would keep burning cars if they were getting shotgun blasts fired over their heads? Protection of property is the key to liberty. When government fails in the only duty for which is exists then it must be abolished or the law must be taken into the hands of righteous citizens. 

Posted 11/9/05

For the Dalai Lama, a meeting of the mind and brain

11/9/05 Washington Post The Mind and Life Conference (which has been going on for many years) has begun, this time here in the United States. 

By day's end, it was more clear why the Dalai Lama finds his scientific explorations to be so compelling. What the scientists were discussing -- and with the help of the Mind and Life Institute are increasingly researching -- is the most current biological, chemical and psychological findings about how certain kinds of human suffering can be understood and alleviated.

    I've read a few of these Mind and Life books and they are pretty good, although they occasionally become quirky. I've also read a few books by the Dalai Lama, such as 'The Art of Happiness'. I'll be interested to see what comes out of this conference as it is always pretty fascinating stuff. Notice how the WP goes off on a tangent giving prominence to 'protestors'.... However, from a political angle, this article is better than many stories I've read that cover the Dalai Lama. For example, this one 

Dalai Lama Tells U.S. Crowd War Outdated

9/26/05 Associated Press Of course, the Dalai Lama was speaking of an idealistic world where war doesn't exist, but this reporter and others seem to be inferring on the Dalai Lama a sort of anti-war 60s 'stop the violence' type of attitude. In reality, the Dalai Lama has spoken ambiguously about war, condoning certain instances of self-defensive retaliation and even seeming to endorse world war I and II. A different article described it this way:

He stressed that peace is not just the mere absence of violence but the condition when all actions are motivated by compassion.

    In other news, I'm still working on the aforementioned rather lengthy meditation piece, and will try to address the disparity between individual and political violence, especially in regards to meditative philosophy. I know it is long overdue, give it a few more weeks....

Posted 11/6/05

11/5/05 BBC Added to Required Reading. An excellent story that indicates the clear ideological failings of communism and, indirectly, of socialism, and, generally, of big government. I have always maintained that when there is a shortage of anything that people are willing to pay for, the cause is always government. 

    When reading this article, I urge you to make the contrast to the vaccine shortage, organ shortages, health care shortages, energy shortages, visas, gas, etc... You will notice that many of the above shortages are in health care related fields. This is because socialism is more prevalent in health care than any other area in the United States. While this may be expected, because of the emotional nature of health care, and the differing in market forces (inelastic/elastic)  regarding supply and demand, the negative outputs of these policies are still just as stark and hurtful; in fact, one could argue the resulting shortages, declining quality of patient care, and lack of access are the most profound in the health care field, because lives are at stake. 

    Another theme, which I try to hit as often as possible on this site, is that socialism and regulation and the problems arising therefrom, often undertaken in the name of 'equality' and helping the 'poor', actually accomplish the exact opposite of their intentions. The most inequality exists when government attempts to lessen inequality. The BBC article talks about the days of Communism:

    Mind you, there was one place in Moscow where you could always find something worth buying.

    The "beryozka", the "silver birch" store. It was such a beautiful name, but what a shameful shop.

    Stocked to the hilt with the kind of Western goods ordinary Soviet stores could only dream of, it was designed for foreigners with dollars and deutschmarks, as well as members of the communist elite.

    There were guards on the door to keep ordinary Muscovites out.

    Now, what happens when these government attempts at 'fixing inequality' are abolished. What happens when government retreats and liberty expands?         

    Sparkling new malls are opening up across the country. But can Russians afford to visit them?

    Well, certainly in Moscow, every weekend the shopping centres are packed out. And the kind of shoppers you will find here are not the rich and famous, or the well-connected.

    How amazing, that those who merely advocate liberty are constantly derided as being against the poor. 

Posted 11/2/05

An update, I have changed my links offered below on the left on this page. I originally had a bunch of sites listed that I never really visited. Now there are fewer sites, but more high quality ones, and it is from the sites listed that I do about 95% of my reading. Yes, the New York Times and Washington Post are listed, sometimes they have in depth coverage of certain issues, and it is always fun to hear what the 'other side' has to say.... :)

Posted 11/2/05

Bad Water, Bad leadership

10/30/05 Ottawa Sun Just like our own Native American Indian reservations, Canadian reservations are plagued by similar conditions with similar causes. Kashechawan, where the water that flows from the taps is so filthy and contaminated it's not fit for bathing, let alone drinking. Where residents, many of whom are on welfare, say they often spend $300 to $400 for about five days worth of groceries. <.> Nothing short of a crisis, it seems, can spur the Department of Indian Affairs into action. And even then the government seems inclined to do only what is necessary to end the controversy instead of finding long-term solutions.

    They still ignore the fact that the reserve system isn't working. That sending billions of dollars to band councils is not improving living conditions on the reserves. That under the Indian Act, most families are denied the simple right to own their homes.

    Denied the right to own their homes? This is a good follow-up on the Hernando De Soto post below. In 'Native Americans and Welfare' I wrote:

    "Like Native Americans on reservations throughout the United States, Pine Ridge residents have little access to private credit. According to local housing practitioners, the possibility of obtaining a mortgage is further complicated by the legal complexities of tribal land ownership structure." (79) (multiple individuals often own the same land - by the way, lack of land deeds and ownership is considered one of the biggest barriers to third world development)

Posted 11/2/05

The U.N. finally discovers property rights

10/29/05 Union Leader The UN has appointed Hernando De Soto as a co-chair (the other one, unfortunately, being Madeline Albright), of a commission entitled: 'High Level Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor'. Now, normally we would expect such a commission at the United Nations to go about doing their best to hurt the poor in the name of helping them by criticizing wealthy nations for debt relief (giving money to criminals), more aid, or some other socialist wealth distribution scheme. However, who is Hernando De Soto? 

    Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto is the recipient of the Cato Institute's [Libertarian Think Tank] 2004 Friedman Prize for his work exploring the link between poverty and property rights in underdeveloped states. World leaders, academics, and journalists have praised his book The Mystery of Capital, which describes the extralegal systems of economic transaction created by citizens in countries without a strong system of property rights. De Soto's think tank the Institute for Liberty and Democracy seeks to implement reforms that give citizens of poor countries the ability to operate in a free enterprise system. The Economist has praised the ILD [Institute for Liberty and Democracy] as one of the most important think tanks in the world, and the institute has implemented reforms throughout the former Soviet Union, as well as in Egypt and Peru.

    Strong property rights means that the governments of these countries will not be able to steal from their citizens as blatantly as before. In capitalist economies, De Soto notes, business transactions are made possible by widely accepted rules governing legally defined property. Such concepts often don’t exist in the developing world, where existing legal systems (or the lack thereof) may not recognize the assets and transactions of some 70 percent of the population.

    This same problem occurs on our Native American Indian reservations and those in Canada, with 'tribal ownership': everybody, but in reality, nobody, owns any given piece of property on the reservation and so cannot leverage it in a mortgage to a bank or raise any capital with it.

    Reforms, whereby property protection is enshrined in law, sometimes don't exist because such concepts are foreign to people, but other times are opposed because it facilitates conditions where important activities take place outside the realm of government. Since the poorer countries of the world are run by corrupt thieves with priorities on holding onto power, 'important things happening outside their control' is initially a bit discerning to them. But here is the kicker, and the reason I love this article:

    The reform program he developed for his native Peru resulted in the legalization of an estimated 300,000 enterprises that previously operated off-the-books. When political leaders in other countries saw how the Peruvian reforms moved some 560,000 workers from the underground economy to the legal economy and generated some $300 million a year in new tax revenues, they started to understand.

   Alert readers will remember that in 'Middle Eastern Governments and Causes of Terrorism', I wrote:

    Another theory is that without foreign aid or natural resources, governments are forced to liberalize because it is the only way for them to get tax revenues. In other words, when wealth can only be generated through the naked productivity/ingenuity of it's citizens, the rulers of that country will be most inclined to introduce reforms to accelerate this. Notice some of the strongest economic zones in the world today - Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Switzerland, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea and the (early, eastern) United States - are poor in natural resources. Historically, the British, Dutch, Portuguese and, going way back, Carthageans and Athenians, were all were top world powers without being strong in natural resources. Why was the Spanish Empire, a centrally controlled country drowning in colonial gold, discarded into the ash heap of history so fast? Returning to the Africa analogy, the areas which are richest in natural resources, especially the diamond belt, are suffering the greatest conflict and strife.

    So, by educating the corrupt thieving rulers of poor countries that there will be more loot for them to steal if they let their people become prosperous and respect property rights, De Soto has a great plan to really help the poorest of the poor.
"In most countries, including my own, the idea is we the government will tell you what is good for you. In this case, the responsibility of carrying out the administration has been thrown at the people themselves. That trust in people is essentially what characterizes Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries going from being elite-led nations to those of nations that have grass-root economies." 

- Hernando De Soto

Posted 10/29/05

10/29 Club For Growth email

Jeff Flake: Getting Back to Work is Not a Science

Bill Nye the Science Guy may not have approved of Congressman Jeff Flake's (R-AZ) vote against commemorating National Chemistry Week, but like-minded conservatives surely would rally behind the Club-backed member's premise behind his vote. Here's what Jeff had to say (periodic table key below):

"One would think that with important issues before the Congress, trivial resolutions like this ought to go over like a Pb balloon. Frankly, this bill just didn't hold H2O. Instead of spending time passing inconsequential resolutions like this, Congress needs a Ne sign flashing, 'get back to work.' Small bills like this are hardly the Au standard.

"Passing minor bills like this, rather than focusing on some of the major issues facing the country, shows that Congress has a Sn ear."

Jeff of course is another congressman who won his first race with outstanding support from Club members. For those Club members who aren't up on their periodic table, Pb=lead, Au=gold, Ne=Neon and Sn=Tin.

Comment (0) | Trackback (0)

Posted 10/29/05

Senior US Senator Says oil tax may be needed

10/28/05 Reuters "I believe it is time to take a serious look at reinstituting an excess profit tax on oil companies with the proceeds being put towards the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and deficit reduction," Gregg said in a statement. "Some might call this a novel approach for me, but I cannot sit back in good conscience while those in our society struggling to heat their homes are being left in the cold by oil companies," he said.

    So, a 'Republican' Senator, blowing in the political winds, seeks to offset higher gas prices by taxing oil companies more. Of course, this will just serve to further raise the price of gas as the companies pass the tax back onto the consumer.

House Passes Bill to Boost Refineries

10/7/05 Associated Press Why should government legislation be required to 'boost oil refineries'? Why can't private companies do it on their own, as it is needed, without government coercion? Government must not have the power to regulate energy. 

Posted 10/29/05

Microsoft: Windows May Be Pulled in Korea

10/28/05 Excite (AP) - Microsoft Corp. on Thursday said that an investigation by Korea's antitrust watchdog could lead to the withdrawal of Windows from the country, or to delays in introducing new versions of the operating system there.

    Heh heh... This would be great to really stick it to the anti-monopoly folks. We can't operate in your country because we're monopoly? Fine, we're out, now let's see how you do. Turns out people might actually want and need the 'evil monopoly'. After all, why are they a 'monopoly'? Probably because they are pretty dang good at what they do. 

Posted 10/28/05

Online Flu Sales Soar

10/20/05 Denver Post Internet sales of antiviral drugs at some online pharmacies are up by 1,000 percent or more this year, and health officials, who suspect the trend is related to fear of a flu pandemic, are calling the practice of hoarding both unethical and dangerous. Government causes the flu vaccine shortage (see 10/23 post below) and then calls it 'unethical' when people find ways around government  imposed barriers? This sort of demand, and accompanying high prices will be great incentive for companies to increase production of flu drugs and vaccines, incentives that government has taken away. Ready for the money quote?

"I understand there are people who have lost faith in the government's ability to protect them," Huitt said, "but this (hoarding) is not prudent." LOL!

Posted 10/27/05

Bloggers Aim to Bring Bacon to Gulf

10/25/05 New House News

A follow up on my (10/25) Club For Growth Email below. 

    By the time Senate debate began, what had been a largely conservative movement on the Web had crossed the aisle. Bloggers of all stripes were following the proceedings in real time, rooting for what they labeled fiscal sanity -- and for Katrina relief overall. "Honestly, there's no reason for any Democrat to vote against this amendment," opined The Daily Kos, which, along with the Talking Points Memo, are lefty counterparts to Instapundit.

    Before the vote, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., delivered a speech in which she warned any senators voting in favor of defunding a Seattle sculpture park to watch their backs about projects in their home states. In the end, the amendment garnered a mere 13 "yeas."

    Only one Democrat backed the bill: Wisconsin's Russ Feingold. "It's embarrassing that Feingold was the only Democrat voting for it," The Daily Kos said. "What a great way to show the country that Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. Sheez."

    Also includes some tidbits on Republican Senator Ted Stevens's temper tantrum, including threatening to resign if his $223 million bridge serving 50 people wasn't kept. What a bunch of Jokers our Senators are!     

    But the main reason I posted this article was to focus on the lefty blogosphere joining in the fight. This is similar to what occurred immediately after the Kelo decision. The corruption and thievery of our elected officials is so blatant, so apparent, and so obvious, that it is no longer being ignored because now ordinary people, via the power of the Internet, have the power and the means to see it for what it is and take our country back.

    So, this is a hopeful sign, but we still have a long way to go. After all, the problem is not where the money is allocated, but the fact that government has the power to allocate it at all. And even if it did, government has no authority to provide charitable redistribution under the Constitution. Even Senator Coburn has not acknowledged these truisms. 

Posted 10/25/05

"Coburn the Barbarian"

10/24/05 Club For Growth Email

    That's the headline of an editorial from the Wall Street Journal last Friday, referring to freshman Senator Tom Coburn (elected last year in part with over $1 million in contributions from Club members). In the "go-along-to-get-along" Senate, you're considered a barbarian if you look out for the national interest instead of the pork in your home state.

    Coburn forced his colleagues to vote on his amendment to defund the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere", a $223 million pork project that connects an island community of only 50 people in Alaska. The savings would then be directed towards the rebuilding of a bridge near New Orleans that was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.

The Journal editors wrote:

"On current trends, freshman Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is soon going to need a food taster to accompany him to the Senate dining room. Which is all the more reason for the rest of us to admire his political nerve.

"Mr. Coburn yesterday took to the floor not once, but twice, to force his colleagues to defend some of their more egregious "earmarks," or pork projects they plan to funnel to home states. The Republican dared to use the "p" word ("priorities") and suggested that taxpayers might be better served if hurricane relief was offset by deleting earmarks for a sculpture garden in Washington state, an art museum in Nebraska, and a Rhode Island animal shelter, among other national necessities."

    Three cheers for Tom Coburn and kudos to all the Club members who supported him last year. Rome wasn't built in a day, and the Senate's traditions of pork won't be banished until and unless we make it politically impossible for them to continue. While his amendment was crushed, we take heart that Coburn had excellent support from other Senators elected with substantial Club member support: Jim DeMint (SC), John Sununu (NH), Wayne Allard (CO), Richard Burr (NC), and David Vitter (LA).

    That's one key quality that we look for in candidates when recommending them to Club members: political nerve. We find it more often than any other group.

    Here is another article by the WP talking about this, including some quotes from thieving Republican Congressman. Even some on the left are upset about it... How did your Senator vote?

Comment (0) | Trackback (0)

Posted 10/24/06

Chinese Immigrants keep US well fed

10/9/05 Taipei Times The vast majority of these workers, like Xue, are undocumented, and have paid tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of being in the US. In the Delaware-size area around Fuzhou, a city that has become China's leading exporter of restaurant workers to the US, the going rate for being smuggled is now around US$60,000, Guest said.

    Why do these folks pay $60,000 to come here? It is not for universal health care, for food stamps, housing, welfare, or other government goodies. They come here for the opportunity to make money, they come here for capitalism, and they come here because of the prosperity and economic opportunity found in the United States. Yet, there are those who believe government must spend money to help the 'poor' in this country. If things are so bad why would penniless immigrants pay $60,000 to come here? Of course, things are not bad here and most often the poverty and misery that exists is created by the very forces attempting to use government to end it.

Posted 10/23/05

'Required Reading'
Political Virus / Why there's only one drug to fight avian flu.
10/22/05 Wall Street Journal Editorial Excellent Editorial! In the name of helping the 'poor' and 'less fortunate' government destroys the benefits for everyone (including the 'poor' and 'less fortunate'). You won't see these points covered in any main stream media article or television show. This is why Conservative/Libertarians believe there is bias in the media. I urge you to read their editorial in full. 

    In a similar vein, here is an previously posted story from the BBC:

GSK Aims to stop Aids Profiteers

2/21/05 BBC

Russia's Populations shrinks to 143 million

10/22/05 Associated Press The solution according to the United Nations? United Nations experts have urged Russian authorities to boost social spending to improve health care and prevent the population decline. The UN is, of course, wrong. People generally flee from less free to freer countries (and states here in the US). Since 'boosting social spending to improve health care' is liberty depriving as it gives the state more power, increasing such spending will not solve Russia's problem, but, in all probability, add to it. This is why it is probably best to listen carefully and politely to the United Nations 'experts' and then do the opposite of whatever they suggest. :) 

Posted 10/21/05

The strange business of protesting jobs that may be better than yours

9/14/05 Las Vegas Weekly A well written (see I give credit where credit is due :) ) story that illustrates the hypocrisy of the Unions better than anything I've posted thus far. To add a personal element, this Wal-Mart is so close to me I could walk to it and I shop there regularly. Ever since I've been here I've noticed what I thought were Union members picketing the Wal-Mart with signs urging people not to shop there. I didn't give them much thought, but thought it was a shame more people didn't realize that these Union members were actually working to hurt the poorest of the poor. But I was mistaken on who the protestors were. This story explains:

    They're not union members; they're temp workers employed through Allied Forces/Labor Express by the union—United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW). They're making $6 an hour, with no benefits; it's 104 F, and they're protesting the working conditions inside the new Wal-Mart grocery store.

    The Union criticizes Wal-Mart for not paying high wages and then the same Union hires people at $6 an hour with no benefits? Let me restate that: The Union criticize Wal-Mart for not paying high wages and then the same Union hires people at $6 an hour with no benefits?

(added to 'Wal-Mart, Aiding America's Poor', 'Unions', and 'Required Reading')

Posted 10/20/05

Japan PM's Dream of Postal Privatization Enacted

10/14/05 Washington Post Under the postal laws, Japan Post, which has 25,000 post offices and some $3 trillion in assets, will be split into four entities under a new holding company and privatized in 2007. 

    Privatizing the postal system has been the cornerstone of Koizumi's agenda to wean the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) from its addiction to the wasteful public spending that had won votes but bred scandals and inflated government debt.

    Why isn't this happening here? Let's look at our Postal Service:

The shelter from competition and other special advantages have yielded a bloated enterprise. By any measure, the Postal Service is immense. Its profile in 1994 figures:

• 852,045 total employees

• nearly 40,000 retail offices

• 207,000 vehicles

• annual sales of $49.4 billion

    If ranked among the Fortune 500, the Postal Service would appear ahead of such corporations as DuPont, Texaco, and Citicorp. The Postal Service is bigger than the three largest airlines (American, United, and Delta) combined. It is larger than the five biggest package and freight companies combined. Indeed, as the Postal Service itself notes in its 1994 annual report, each of the Postal Service’s seven product lines would qualify as a Fortune 500 company on its own.

    [T]he Postal Service has lost money in 17 of the past 23 years despite its statutory mandate to break even.

    The general rule (unfortunately) in the American economy is that attempted monopolization is a crime. When it comes to delivering letters, though, it is attempted competition that is the crime. And if it [The Postal Service] suspects a customer is sending mail in contravention of its monopoly, it may engage in its own police searches and seizures.

Weep for the Poor Postal Service? Nah

4/20/05 Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

• “If the Postal Service were a private company, stamp prices would be falling, not rising. A December study by leading experts of the Postal Rate Commission explains: ‘The doubling of overall volume coupled with scale economies should have resulted in the average price of the stamp dropping in real terms.’”
• “Despite new technology – like modern reader/sorters that process over 30,000 pieces of mail per hour – stamp prices have risen with inflation since 1970. Imagine if the price of a phone call or sending an email rose with inflation for 30 years. It doesn’t take an economist to understand that such price distortions would place an enormous strain on the U.S. economy.”

    The question of whether the Private Sector is more efficient than the Public Sector should have been settled with the fall of the Soviet Union. If, as postal service managers and employees argue, the post office is most efficient as a government entity, then it also follows that Cars (If government had taken over the auto industry in 1920, today we'd all be driving Model-T cars -- and saying, 'If it weren't for the government, we'd have no cars at all.'-Harry Browne), Clothes, Food, Computers, and (cough, cough) Health Care should all be run by our efficient government. Of course, this cannot be true and government is also poorer at delivering roads, power, water, and telephone/internet service. In fact, government is remarkably incompetent in nearly every endeavor it pursues, besides those duties that it alone can perform, such as protecting property (and it is less than competent in this too).

    Returning to the article:
• “The Postal Service is plagued by high labor costs – which gobble up nearly 80 percent of revenues – lack of financial transparency and an inability to cut costs and improve productivity. Currently, the U.S. Postal Service has over $70 billion in unfunded liabilities.”

    Hmmm... high labor costs, large liabilities, floundering productivity.. there can only be one cause: Unions. 

    As mentioned, Unions are and have been bankrupting private companies across the United States. They cannot bankrupt the postal service because it is owned by the government. More than 330,000 Postal Employees are members of the American Postal Workers Union. Like all Unions, the Postal Union members give almost all of their money to Democratic candidates through the AFL-CIO. Like almost all Unions, they are vastly overpaid for the jobs that they do. The resulting higher costs are paid by the taxpayer. Thus, in effect, the +50% of the voting population that is Conservative/Libertarian are forced to pay a tax that supports candidates they abhor. Yet, our elected 'Republican' officials refuse to abolish this wasteful government entity. I would understand if it was 'the right thing to do', but 'politically inexpedient', however eliminating the millions of dollars of involuntary campaign contributions flowing from their own Conservative constituents to the Democratic party makes political sense too. We can learn a lesson from our friends in Japan... 

Posted 10/17/05

The NEA Pyramid

October 05 Education Intelligence Agency

    Very interesting report from a great site, which was cited by numerous news reports, including the Washington Times (via the Club For Growth website). They obtained a leaked NEA survey given to its members. The NEA's own findings:

    One question asked members how involved they were in the union at either the local, state or national level. Thirty-six percent of them said "not at all." Right away, you can write off approximately 972,000 NEA members who do nothing to affect the union's direction one way or the other. Among new members, those who have been with NEA for three years or less, the "not at all" group rises to 48 percent. When these new members were asked why they joined NEA, the top answer (20 percent) was that they had "no choice."

    I highlight this because this is a figure I have been looking for a long time. Thus far, I've found varying answers in different states. Sometimes people are allowed to not join the union, but still forced to give some of their salary to it, as a condition of employment! For example, from a Chicago legal case (the Union lost):

    Approximately 95% of the employees are members of the Union. Until 1982, the members' dues financed the entire cost of the Union's collective bargaining and contract administration, and nonmembers received the benefits of the Union's representation without making any contributions to its cost. In an attempt to solve this "free rider" problem, the Union and the Board entered into an agreement requiring the Board to deduct "proportionate share payments" from nonmembers' paychecks. The Union determined that the "proportionate share" assessed on nonmembers was 95% of union dues, computed on the basis of the Union's financial records.

    Without knowing more it is difficult to do further analysis of this 20% number, such as if this represents just the number opposed to joining, those who were forced to join but would have joined anyway, or some combination thereof. 

    Still, when you consider that the NEA has given over $25 million dollars (over 90% to Democratic candidates) since 1989, the third highest of any organization (and actually even higher than this because of how campaign contributions are defined), it is apparent that somewhere in the area of $5 million dollars was conscripted from members who were, in all probability, forced into membership (not withstanding that a vast majority of Union members would opt out of the Union using their money to make political donation if they could).  

    The surveys also asked both members and local presidents to self-identify their political philosophies. This may well be the most controversial finding of the surveys, although it is consistent with previous surveys of NEA members.

Respondents were asked if they were conservative, tend conservative, liberal, tend liberal, or don't know. Fifty percent of NEA members said they were conservative or tend conservative. Only 40 percent described themselves as liberal or tend liberal.

    Watch what happens to these percentages with the NEA local presidents:

    Of course, local presidents are not at the top of the NEA pyramid. There are state and national representatives, and state and national executives. There is no comparable survey of their beliefs, but it isn't much of a stretch to infer that all these tendencies would continue as we moved further up.

    As you can see, from my 7/25 post containing the link: 'These are your Teachers', the NEA agenda includes many things outside of education and that would probably be opposed by their members. Or would they? What do NEA members want their union to do?:

    However, in a relative sense, their marching orders to NEA are obvious. "Improve/protect medical insurance" and "protect members against unfair actions" were deemed important by 90 percent of member respondents (local presidents agreed by 94 and 95 percent, respectively). Eighty-five percent want the Association to "provide legal protection" (local presidents agreed at 88 percent), and 84 percent want NEA to help "increase salaries" (local presidents – 93 percent). The only meaningful divergence of opinion between the two groups was on class size reduction. Seventy-five percent of members thought this should be a priority, but only 52 percent of local presidents thought so.

    Hmmm... So teachers Unions look out for the interest of teachers. This isn't a criticism, it is just what a Union is supposed to do. So why does the NEA, the Media, and the Democratic party (which are pretty much one and the same) always talk as if the Teachers Unions care about the education of students? Why are Unions a credible source when discussing Charter Schools? 

    Of course, individual teachers care about the education of students, and I'd think even the Union bosses personally care about the education of students, but the goal of a Union is not improving the education of students, especially if it conflicts with improving working conditions of teachers (as it frequently does). I am attempting to demonstrate why one aspect of the many feedback loops in our horrid public education system is broken. 

"When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children."

- Albert Shanker (Former head of American Federation of Teachers)

    So why does the 'Conservative' membership not care about the direction the Union takes politically? Well, some do care and are acting bravely on their convictions. Others are apathetic and aren't really that politically active and are so are unaware. However, from my (limited) experience, a large group of these 'Conservatives' see local benefits of the Union doing things like legal representation, good salary and benefit negotiations, and have decided that these things are in their interest and so they put up with their National Union's liberalism... Many of these teachers oppose Charter Schools and other education reforms...

    So, in conclusion, we have conclusive proof that Conservative Teachers are being forced to support the Democratic party and that parents of Conservative parents are forced to pay taxes that do the same. How do you feel about this? Is this is freedom? Why is this allowed to continue? 

    In California they are attempting to do something about it, via Prop 75, which requires that Unions obtain written permission from members to use their dues for political purposes and even the Liberal Los Angeles Times agrees:

Their Dues, Their Views

10/16/05 Los Angeles Times Editorial 

    However, the Unions have raised over $100 million to attempt to defeat this commonsense measure. They have raised at least a portion of this money by levying an involuntary 'tax' on their members (and even nonmembers), which a Federal Judge has upheld. 

    Interestingly, the editorial contains this: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that union members cannot be forced to finance political activity. Really? I'd like to know more about his, especially considering that 20% of NEA members claim they had no choice but to join that Union.... 

    However, sadly, even if this proposition passes, I will be surprised if the corrupting Union power diminishes, as they will 'comply' with the ruling in a convoluted way that still allows them access to the money of it's members. Or maybe they won't comply and just take a slap on the wrist fine. Why would I make this prediction? History. 

NEA doesn't show up in Court, Union fined $800,000

7/1/02 Evergreen Foundation

OLYMPIA, WA - A Thurston County Superior Court judge today fined the National Education Association (NEA) $800,000 plus legal fees for “intentional” violations of a Washington state law that prohibits the unauthorized use of agency fees* for political activity. The NEA’s state affiliate, the Washington Education Association, was penalized more than $770,000 last year for breaking the same state law. The NEA’s fine bumps two earlier WEA fines to become the largest in Washington state history.

(This post was added to 'A Charter School Tale')

Posted 10/14/05

Palestinians Loot Gaza Strip Greenhouses

9/13/05 Associated Press I post this story as an example of why private ownership and laws protecting property are so important. In this case, privately owned assets are being transferred to a 'state'. Let's look at the intentions:

    American Jewish donors had bought more than 3,000 greenhouses from Israeli settlers in Gaza for 14 million US dollars last month, and transferred them to the Palestinian Authority. Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn, who brokered the deal, put up 500,000 dollars of his own cash.

    The greenhouses are a centerpiece of Palestinian plans for rebuilding Gaza after 38 years of Israeli occupation. The Palestinian Authority hopes the high-tech greenhouses left by the Israelis will provide jobs and export income for Gaza's shattered economy.

    During a tour of Neve Dekalim, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia implored Palestinians to leave the structures intact. "These greenhouses are for the Palestinian people," he said. "We don't want anyone to touch or harm anything that can be useful for our people."

    "We expect the security to protect the assets properly," he said.

    Of course, these assets were not 'owned by the Palestinian people', they were owned by the Palestinian government. Previously they were owned by the Israeli people, not the Israeli government. This makes all the difference. Let's look at the results:

    Palestinians looted dozens of greenhouses, walking off with irrigation hoses, water pumps and plastic sheeting in a blow to fledgling efforts to reconstruct the Gaza Strip. Al-Wazir said the greenhouses did not suffer structural damage, but that looters got away with irrigation pipes, plastic sheeting and most troublesome, water pumps. He said authorities were trying to recover the expensive pumps. In some instances, there was no security, and in others, police even joined the looters, witnesses said.

    This is the difference between 'state' and 'private' ownership, the difference between socialism and capitalism, the difference between the equal rule of law and corruption, and illustrative of the misunderstanding and appeasement of the Jewish donors and the world bank president.

    The Palestinian mobs also torched 19 Jewish Synagogues. Did you hear or see any of this on the news? Similar to what happened in areas of the Muslim world after false rumors about a Koran being flushed down a toilet were aired by western media, did Jews riot in outrage? No, they did not. (Neither did Muslims when Mohammad's home was bulldozed in Mecca, by the Saudi Arabian government.) The disparities in these incidents reflects the desire by the foreign political powers that be to influence our media and public opinion. The difference in reaction between Jew and Muslim is not based on their religion, but the political differences in their governments. 

    Two more stories to compare:

IDF troops arrest would be suicide bomber

6/20/05 Haaretz The woman, who was carrying 10 kilograms of explosives in her pants, had a permit to enter Israel to receive medical treatment. Ibrahim had been in the past to the Soroka Medical Center in Be'er Sheva to receive medical treatment for severe burns she sustained from a gas balloon that exploded next to her six months ago. She needed to reach the hospital for medical tests. When Ibrahim realized she had been caught, she tried to detonate the explosives she was carrying, but was unsuccessful.

Gaza becomes Prison for Sick

9/26/05 Ynet News Physicians for Human Rights complain that it is Israel's responsibility to let potential suicide bombers like the one above into Israel for treatment. The Palestinians don't have advanced medical centers because their government is corrupt, socialistic, and run by thieves. Yet this liberal group are apparently impervious to this and place the blame on the Israeli authorities rather than on the Palestinian Government and/or the suicide bombers!:

    In post-pullout Gaza the sick pay the price: Palestinian Gaza residents suffering from illness are not receiving proper treatment in the wake of Israel’s withdrawal from the area, according to a report issued by the Physicians for Human Rights organization.

    Hundreds of sick Gazans have been left untreated and trapped in the Strip and are waiting for its gates to open, the report says.

    The doctors noted that cancer patients who used to receive treatment in Israel nowadays hardly receive permits allowing them to reach the hospitals. Only seven out of 40 patient requests to enter Israel for treatment in the last two weeks have been approved.

    If one of these seven blows himself up what do you tell the mother of the soldiers or innocents she kills? (on a side note, this violates the 'Sanctuary' of Mercy.)

Posted 10/13/05

Two stories added to 'Guns and Crime'

NRA Pushes 'Guns at Work' Bill

10/8/05 Florida Times Union The dust-up is over the "guns-at-work" bill, which the National Rifle Association began pushing last month in Tallahassee to force all Florida businesses to allow firearms in the vehicles of any employee or visitor. Companies could keep policies banning guns from their buildings themselves but could no longer apply those policies to their parking lots. This is an example of the NRA going too far. Who owns the parking lot property? The actual owners, or the NRA? Obviously, the owners, thus they make the rules. 

Anti Gun Campaigner Attacks Heavy Handed Police

6/17/05 The Scotsman An anti-gun campaigner today criticised police as “heavy handed” after she was arrested for having a pump-action sawn-off shotgun in her home. Grandmother Sheila Eccleston said she was locked in a police cell for 12 hours after she attempted to hand in the weapon. The 51-year-old has been a high-profile anti-gun campaigner since her son Dean was shot and killed four years ago. She has met Prime Minister Tony Blair and travelled to Boston in 2003 as part of a BBC documentary on tackling gun violence. (The media love this sort of thing). The mother of three said she called police at around 1.00am on Saturday to report interrupting an attempted burglary at a neighbour’s home. So the police arrest her, not the criminal... I wonder if she would have used her gun if her home had been broken into? She claims she had it for 6 months. 

She said: “If people see a person like me being arrested despite all the work I do to get guns off the street, they are even less likely to hand them in. lol

Posted 10/13/05

Added to 'Unions'

Delphi's Bankruptcy Hearings Seen as Crucial Fight for U.S. Unions

10/12/05 Washington Post The Unions have bankrupted another US company: Delphi, the nation's largest auto-parts manufacturer, operates 31 plants in 13 states. It has 185,000 workers worldwide, with 32,000 union workers in the United States -- 24,000 of them represented by the UAW. One of the reasons Unions bankrupt so many American companies is because they don't allow business to control their own property: Delphi also demanded the ability to close, consolidate or sell factories without the union's consent. But, what is most amazing is the reaction of the union bosses:

    Richard Bank, director for the center for industry strategies at the AFL-CIO, which includes the UAW, said the autoworkers now have to fight the same battles as workers in the airline and steel industries.

    "What's obvious here is there is now a template for industries that want to break the promises that they've made -- and that's go into bankruptcy," Bank said. "This is a follow on to what's happened in steel, and it's a follow on to what's happened in airlines, and it's totally unfair."

    Mr. Bank makes my points for me. The Unions are the reason all of these American industries are bankrupt! How is anything 'unfair', but the archaic labor laws passed by Democratic politicians, bought off with Union dough? Why is it 'unexpected' that these companies will go bankrupt when parasitic unions take over companies that cannot legally fire them and extort the management to pay them unrealistically high salaries? It is sort of like Herbert Hoover raising the top tax rate from 25% to 63% during the first year of the great depression and then being surprised when the collapse only deepened. Or, as the tech station gas article says: With every disaster or crisis, it seems that the public, press and politicians require a remedial course in Economics 101. When you pay your employees too much your business will go bankrupt. Unions force their employers to pay them too much (using government). It is that simple.

    The article goes on to describe how Japanese companies have invested in the South and pay market prices for their workers wages and that The UAW has not had much success in bringing these workers into the union. If they had, they might be able to push for higher import taxes and thus keep a monopoly on all cars built in the US and pass on the cost of the higher prices to the consumer. Why should we, the consumer, pay for union members to have a salary higher than what their labor is worth? 

    However, there is one other way they might be able to keep their high salaries, by using government: 

    Chrysler was the last major U.S. automaker to come close to bankruptcy. At the end of the 1970s, the automaker struggled with major cash-flow problems, a line of cars that wasn't selling well and high labor costs. The U.S. government stepped in with $1.2 billion in loan guarantees, which the company repaid in four years. "The argument was made that this would be so disastrous for the 100,000 Chrysler employees, their families and their communities. Bankruptcy was not an option," Shaiken (labor Berkeley Prof) said. With Delphi, he said, there hasn't been a murmur of the government stepping in. "It shows how far we've come politically," he said. "There are so many fewer moral barriers to a bankruptcy of this scale."

    This Berkeley prof apparently considers it 'moral' to use tax money from the general populace (doubly, in terms of the resulting higher consumer prices too) to prop up a company that is being held hostage by union members? Stealing to give money to stealers so they can continue to steal doesn't strike me as terribly 'moral'. The 'moral' thing to do is to let every company held hostage by these union members go bankrupt so we are finally rid of them. Even better, change or toss the current labor laws. Speaking of moral, it would also be moral for the Washington Post to inform their readers accurately.

Posted 10/13/05

The break in postings was a result of switching apartments and loosing Internet for a bit. I've added a disclaimer to the 'Guns and Crime' post below because it has been, rightly, pointed out that I didn't give any statistics that showed that more gun control = more crime. I'll need to organize and go through some news stories and do some work on this to put this info into good format. But I can say that the District of Colombia, which has the highest murder rate per capita, also has the strictest gun control laws in the nation (Defense Secretary Rumsfeld once accurately pointed out that the murder rate of D.C. was greater than that of Baghdad). This is sort of like how the District of Colombia has the most spending per pupil, but lowest test scores. :) The District is a fascinating laboratory of liberalism.  Interestingly, Detroit, the so-called most 'liberal city' in the US has the second highest murder rate (and I'm guessing strict gun control laws too). 

Posted 10/5/05

'Guns and Crime'

Armed Citizen Thread Archive

3/05-present FreeRepublic.com 

    I ran across this a few days ago and it is quite an excellent collection of stories supporting the second amendment, the right to bear arms. I've always had the intention of writing a lengthy piece comparing gun laws with crime rates etc.. in different countries, because the Left's fascination with gun control is reflective of Liberalism in general. A homeless person is homeless: give him a home, poor people are poor, give them money, people are being killed in a war, stop the war, someone is killed by a gun, take away guns, kitchen knives are causing injuries, ban kitchen knives (you think I'm joking). The immediate knee jerk reaction of Liberalism is to attack the immediate symptoms of a problem, irregardless of the actual cause of the problem. As demonstrated, such a mindless approach tends to make the problems worse, not better. It is always ironic to me how Liberals, especially in academia, consciously or unconsciously portray themselves as 'intellectuals' and the 'common man' as unintelligent, when nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this is why Libertarianism (and economic Conservatism) is so positive and forward looking. We believe in the 'common man', the 'average American', the 'working Joe', and we believe he can discover the simple political principles that this country was founded on and, indeed, she has, despite the efforts of the elitists 'experts' and media of this country. Furthermore, it is the 'common man', regardless of class, sex, race, or background, that form the entire Libertarian/Conservative movement and are responsible for keeping the United States 'relatively' free from Tyranny. You see, even the richest Libertarian billionaire will stand in lockstep with a minimum wage earner and respect his views, whereby a Liberal billionaire, perhaps well intentioned, will instead be indirectly condescending towards those of a different 'class' as, in the name of equality, he assumes a destroying parental role in their lives. 

    Taking away guns, as many liberals tried (and still try) to do before it became politically unpopular, actually increases crime and violence in society (I realize I haven't given the statistics yet to back this up). Our Founding Fathers thought gun control was so important they created an Amendment to the Constitution (albeit one that was unnecessary and potentially harmful). This amendment is now violated in states, counties and cities across the country who refuse to let their citizens bear arms. 

    Two countries with some of the lowest crime rates in the world, Israel and Switzerland, buy semiautomatic rifles for each of their male citizens (and in Israel's case I believe many of the females too) after they join the army (which is compulsorily). I'm no suggesting we follow in their mold (gun socialism?), but merely pointing out the fact that the career path of 'burglar' in these countries is generally short lived. 

    But, why did our Founding Fathers consider gun control so important? The answer given in our government (public) schools, if it is even addressed, is defense of the country from foreigners, ie the War of Independence. Therefore, today, since we have adequate protection from our military, guns are not necessary. Of course, this line of thinking is incorrect. More important than protecting citizens from external governments, is ensuring our protection from our own. This was utmost in the minds of our founding fathers, and for good reason:

    Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

- Noah Webster

    Since the governments of Europe were Tyrannical at the time of the founding of the United States, they kept their citizens unarmed, as all dictatorships and tyrannies always have. On 7/3/05 I posted:

Zimbabwe Tyranny Confiscates Guns

6/30/05 Volokh Conspiracy Added to 'Charitable Corruption', an example of how Tyrannical governments always aim to keep the people unarmed (the easier to rob and kill them). Also contains this gem:

Perhaps the most effective foreign aid which should be sent to the people of Zimbabwe would be millions of rifles, so that the people would no longer be defenseless against the depradations of one of the most evil governments in all of African history.

    History is replete with examples of gun confiscations/restrictions by Tyrants, the most notorious being the confiscation of the guns of Jews using gun registration lists compiled in the liberal Weimar Republic:

Jews Forbidden to Possess Weapons By Order of SS Reichsfuhrer Himmler Munich, November 19 [1938] The SS Reichsfuhrer and German Police Chief has issued the following Order: Persons who, according to the Nuremberg law, are regarded as Jews, are forbidden to possess any weapon. Violators will be condemned to a concentration camp and imprisoned for a period of up to 20 years.

     If one recognizes that power is corrupting and that government is, at best, a necessary evil, a tolerated mafia, which must be carefully watched for signs of deceit and trickery, then it follows that armed citizens are the best safeguard against oppression. 

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

- Thomas Jefferson

The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.

- Tench Coxe

    The media, not surprisingly, editorializes in their reporting on militias and armed citizen groups, insinuating they are 'destabilizing', 'radical', 'dangerous' elements. With small exception, nothing could be further from the truth. 

    Guns also protect people from each other. An important trend to recognize is that as weapon technology advanced, justice and morality have generally advanced. In the beginning, a man with bigger muscles could steal the property of any other man with smaller muscles and any given man could rape any women. With the invention of knives and swords, genetic build was no longer the predominate factor in a conflict. While this gave the weak and defenseless more of a chance against bullies, it also allowed for a skilled swordsmen, through training, to attain great power over much of the populace. With guns, this changed. Bill Whittle writes (good piece opposing gun control):

    In our cowboy past we used to say that "God created Man, but Sam Colt made them equal." This is simple enough to understand. It means that a villager, let's say a schoolteacher, can defeat a human predator who may have spent his entire life practicing the art of war. Firearms are what tipped the balance toward civilization by eliminating a lifetime spent studying swordplay or spear play or pointed-stick play. The bad guys have always used weapons and they always will. The simple truth about guns is that they are damn effective and even easier to operate. They level the playing field to the point where a woman has a chance against a gang of thugs or a police officer can control a brawl.

    So, clearly, guns have been a blessing on society. But what about individual families? With some variation, it is doubtlessly true that if your family has a gun in the home, you are more likely to suffer an accidental shooting death than save a life from an intruder. This difference between society and individual family is where ideologues of both sides neglect reality. 

    Hypothetically, if two accidental home deaths occur for every death, kidnapping, or rape prevented by gun ownership, then a family is, statistically, endangering itself by having a gun in a home. But the most violent criminals, those most likely to be shot by property owners, are most likely repeat offenders. Social behavior of criminals can be graphed in exponential form. For example, hardly anyone murders, a few murder one person, but those that murder more than one person are responsible for the vast majority of murders. This pattern holds true with burglars, rapists, child molesters and other sociological phenomena such as sexual disease transmission. Thus, if a family with a gun kills one of the above criminals they are protecting not just themselves, but many other families and future victims of the criminal. 

    Liberals see only the accidental statistics and disavow the societal protective reality, Conservatives and organizations like the NRA emphasize the immediate protective reality (some societal too), but disavow the accidental statistics. In a strange sort of way, owning a gun and sacrificing (statistically) one's family's safety for the 'public good' is sort of a socialist concept! I doubt most gun owners view themselves this way. In my opinion, the NRA and other gun owning organizations propagate a strange mix of truth found no where else, and irresponsible politically driven rhetoric, especially around election time, which often sacrifice the means for the ends. Still, I would trust an NRA newsletter over anything written in the media (more on this later). 

    But, so far I've neglected to address the underlying forces behind crime. Although an armed society helps prevents crime, what causes crime? I'm sure you've heard the generic statement: Guns don't kill, people do. True, but why do people kill? In 'Sweat Shops and Welfare' I state:

    Our inner cities (Indian reservations, and Applachia) didn't experience this prosperity because private sector wages couldn't match what the government was paying people not to work [via welfare]. On top of this the government never considered itself an employer of these millions people, so it paid no local taxes. But the worst part was that the government's ever expanding public housing units concentrated welfare recipients and, since the government never considered itself a homeowner, it paid little or no property tax on it's these units, further devastating local treasuries and contributing to the crumbling local (monopolistic) schools and infrastructure. High minimum wages worked to price the lowest income earners out of the labor market, thus benefiting Unions by eliminating their low wage competition. Private companies obviously avoided these areas like the plague, but some more sinister industries saw clear advantages in these areas. They saw an idle, restless, uneducated populace which, in order not to loose their cash, food, housing and medical benefits, could only engage in economic activity that was unreported to the government. Prostitution, gambling, drugs, gangs and other criminal enterprises were given the equivalent of a tax break to set up shop in these areas. Natural human ambition and the entrepreneurial spirit was not be stopped - even by the Federal government. It was merely molded into a more insidious force. 

     With Welfare Reform, much of this began to change. The demand for work brought companies back to the inner cities. There were no longer any more 'tax breaks' and other incentives for shady criminal activity. While the jobs the private companies offered may initially be low paying, a gradual transformation will occur as people strive for better lives and more local money and taxes flow into the striken areas. Problems still exist and the reforms need to be continued. Conservatives often propose setting up 'economic zones' with tax breaks for companies in poorer areas. This will only work if people have a need to work - more government social programs must be reduced and/or eliminated.

    So, these Welfare stricken areas were ripe for prostitution, gambling, and drugs. But would these 'industries' target Welfare stricken areas if they were legal? Probably not, the reason they target these areas are pricelessly because they are illegal. By criminalizing consenting adults in their activities and violating their right to control of their property (like their money and their physical bodies), government has done nothing less than unleash a wave of terror on the poorest populations in the United States, already suffering under government imposed welfare tyranny. (Not to mention endangering our national security.) 

Arrested After Reporting Stolen Marijuana

7/27/05 Reuters A Texas man was arrested on Monday after calling police to complain about the theft of his marijuana, authorities said. Stephen Knight, 17, said three men had broken into his apartment, hogtied him with Christmas lights and stole some marijuana, along with a plasma screen television, police said. Police are looking for the suspects. In the meantime, they arrested Knight after finding several marijuana plants growing under heat lamps in the apartment, four grams of harvested marijuana and a tablet of ecstasy, Officer Chad Ripley said. Knight said the men barged into his home early on Monday morning demanding, "Where's the weed?," according to San Antonio police.

    Most people might just laugh this off as stupidity, but this misses a key point. Injustice was done to this man and since the main point of government is to ensure property protection, he sought out government. He will not do so again. Instead, if he continues growing/dealing he might arm himself or join an armed criminal gang. By making gambling, prostitution, and drugs illegal, government has 'legalized' the theft of them by others. Armed conflict is often the result. Another story: pot club robbed.

    In any event, crime is a complex multifaceted phenomena, but it seems clear that large reductions in criminal activity will occur following accelerated repeal of welfare policies, decriminalizing unconstitutional freedom limiting laws, or, better yet, by doing both simultaneously. 

    This idea of relying on oneself, not government, for protection is also useful when government collapses, for example during national disasters (like hurricane Katrina). 

Armed Militia Protect Their New Orleans Neighborhood

9/10/05 The Austin American Statesman But the band of neighbors who survived Hurricane Katrina and then fought off looters has not disarmed. The several dozen people who did not evacuate from Algiers Point said that for days after the storm, they did not see any police officers or soldiers but did see gangs of intruders. So they set up what might be the ultimate neighborhood watch. Another afternoon, a gunfight broke out on the streets as armed neighbors and armed intruders exchanged fire.

    Who would finally evict these citizens from their homes? Government.

    "They say they're going to drag us kicking and screaming from our houses. For what? To take us to concentration camps where we'll be raped and killed," Ramona Parker said. "This is supposed to be America. We're honest citizens. We're not troublemakers. We pay our taxes." "It would be cruel for the city to make us evacuate after what we've been through," Pervel said.

    Even worse, in one of the worst blunders of the disaster, but one most illustrative of the dangerous of liberalism, the government of New Orleans began confiscating firearms, including those legally registered, from the citizens of New Orleans, right when they needed them most. This was only stopped after the NRA sued and a Federal judge ruled such actions unconstitutional. This is why gun registration efforts, licensing, and regulation must be opposed. In the end, government cannot be counted on to protect your family. In fact, more often than not government will be the cause, not the solution, of the distress you or your family will be experiencing.

    In conclusion, I want to return to address the reasons why I would trust the NRA, despite it's flaws, over the media and our government officials. Reading through some of the stories listed in the original link, can be quite shocking. The restrictions and regulations on gun ownership, the statements of police chiefs urging citizens to not resist thieves, the media wondering whether people defending their homes or lives against armed criminals will be charged? Some examples:

Story 1

    Police allege that Dominguez was in the process of burglarizing a home in the 6000 block of 26th Street North in the Leeway-Overly community about 5:30 a.m. Sunday when he was confronted by the homeowner. When confronted, police said Dominguez ran from the family room into the room of the man’s teenage daughter. A struggle ensued, and the homeowner shot the intruder in the face. While there is an ordinance that makes it illegal to discharge a firearm in Arlington County, Arlington County Police Det. Rick Rodriguez said that no charges have been filed against the homeowner, who was interviewed by detectives following the incident. “It will be up to the investigator to determine if they will be,” Rodriguez said of charges. “You have to look at the circumstances in this case.”

Story 2

Shortly after 4 p.m., three men went into the store and tried to rob Winter. When he wouldn't comply, one of the men shot him once in the hip, said York County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Bill Graff. A part-time store clerk, Steven Gray, fired several shots from a .45-caliber handgun, hitting one of the men, police said. The robbers ran out of the store. Gray won't be charged, Graff said.

Story 3

"He tried to shoot me first but I pulled my gun and shot him," said Butts, adding that he fired three times at the suspect. "You have to work if you need money, just like me. I work 16 and 17 hours every day seven days."

"I don't encourage anyone to confront a would-be robber," said police Sgt. Wayne Woods. "The safest thing normally is to comply with their wishes because we don't want anyone hurt."

Story 4

In another incident described as a home invasion Thursday, a Fremont man was shot to death at 80 Pine St. in Rochester. The Attorney General’s Office has not commented on reports that the man was shot after he broke into the home. An autopsy revealed that Bryan Gaedtke, 21, died from a single gunshot to the chest. The residence is the home of Geoff and Jocelynn Hamann and their two children. The death was ruled a homicide, but Assistant Attorney General Peter Odom said that does not necessarily mean criminal charges will be brought; rather, the term means one human killed another human.

Story 5

A Staunton man hospitalized with a bullet in his back early Friday had been shot when his street gang attacked an armed victim, authorities have tentatively ruled. As doctors listed Coakley in critical condition hours later, investigators had 26-year-old Jeremy Kyle Bryant, of Staunton, in custody as the shooter. They charged him with carrying a concealed weapon because he lacked a permit, and released him.

    Here are three positive stories on people proactively taking on criminals. What would the crime rate be like if all citizens acted like this: Story 1, Story 2, Story 3. By how much could we cut the police force? 

    Last, but not least:

Florida tourists warned that locals could shoot them

9/30/05 The Scotsman This story illustrates the depth to which those on the left will sink. This campaign has gained wide and distorted media coverage. The debate is over new gun laws in Florida. Previously, gun owners could only use their weapons if they first attempted to withdraw and avoid a confrontation, and were permitted to shoot threatening individuals only inside their home or property. Why should you be forced to 'withdraw' from a criminal? Why shouldn't you confront a criminal attempting to rob or harm you outside of your property? Now they can use "deadly force" if they "reasonably believe" that firing their gun is necessary to prevent a crime or serious injury. The law also effectively prevents civil legal action by victims of such shootings. The state's governor, Jeb Bush - whose brother is the US president - described it as a "good, commonsense, anti-crime issue". He is right. 

Posted 10/3/05

Mier's Qualifications are non existent

10/3/05 Pat Buchanan I post this story not because I agree with Pat Buchanan, especially his emphasis on 'social issues', or agree with the angle in this essay, or that I disagree with it. I like some parts and don't like others. But for the vast majority of it, I don't know what to think. President Bush has appointed two SCOTUS candidates that no one outside of Bush's inner circle knows anything about. Do we trust him? Well, I think he is honest. But I don't trust his ideology. Besides some foreign policy, I wouldn't even call him a Conservative.

     I like Buchanan's point about being proud of Conservatism and challenging the Left. Let the Left filibuster; let them tear down Conservative nominee after Conservative nominee. In North Carolina the Democratic legislators passed a law that said judges couldn't have their party affiliation listed next to their name at the ballot. The reasoning was that even reliable Democratic voters were voting for Conservative judges. Conservative Judges have a majority backing in this country, especially after Kelo.

    But I disagree with Buchanan's emphasis on 'qualifications', besides that which indicate a philosophy. I don't care if someone is 'qualified', I tend to think there is a bit too much emphasis on 'qualifications' in society today. William F. Buckley said of the most 'qualified' people in the country:
I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

    Could we say the same about the Supreme Court?

Posted 10/3/05

13- and 14-year-old siblings enter UC Berkeley as junior transfer students (Homeschooling success)

9/23/05 UC Berkeley News "We don't think they're geniuses," said Pierce [Father], who got his undergraduate Asian Studies degree in 1991. "We think it's a question of hard work and focus." 

    How these siblings wound up in college at such a young age is actually very simple, according to their parents. Ma and Pierce didn't originally intend to homeschool their children and sent them off to kindergarten and then Montessori school, Charles for one year and Mayumi for two. But the school relocated further away from them and they reconsidered their options, Pierce said. "The whole thing with our kids is that we just found it heartbreaking to see their progress slow down when they went to school," he said. They signed up for a home schooling seminar being held in Berkeley, met some other home schooling parents in the area, and made the plunge. "We were afraid they wouldn't reach their full potential if they went the normal way," Pierce said. 

    "We went to the library a lot, and I let them just read whatever they liked. On Sundays they went to Barnes & Noble to read new books," said Ma, who eventually received her J.S.D. from Boalt Hall in 2000. "Now, it's their favorite place." Making learning fun and tapping natural curiosities is what government (public) schools generally cannot do because of broken feedback loops in the system. Added to 'A Charter School Tale'. 

Posted 10/3/05

Florida City Considers Eminent Domain

10/3/05 Washington Times Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.
    "This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown. Yet Liberalism sticks up for 'the little guy'? 

CA: Blight? Yeah right - National City badly abuses land-seizure law

9/9/05 San Diego Union-Tribune On some abuses in Cali with the liberal (pun intended) use of 'blight' designation. If you give government power to do something they will use and abuse it, irregardless of limitations placed on it when the power was created. Both of these stories were added to 'Supreme Tyranny'.

Posted 9/29/05

Some stories from Scottish Socialized Health Care, added to British Health Care (close enough...)

Executive admits failure on NHS

9/11/05 The Scotsman Scottish Executive health officials bluntly concede in a report to go before MSPs this week that the billions of pounds of extra cash pumped into hospitals has not led to an increase in clinical activity. [The same thing occurs in this country with our public schools.] Ministers have ploughed an extra £4bn into the NHS since devolution, an unprecedented investment designed to address the service's problems, including waiting lists and dirty hospitals. [emphasis mine] Critics contend much of the cash has been spent on extra bureaucracy, increased salaries and on the spiralling cost of drugs [emphasis mine]. Other health chiefs claim that the drop-off in activity is the result of new restrictions on junior doctors' hours, brought about by European regulations. [emphasis mine] More on the EU. This story contrasts well with the recent story from Britain: Tax-funded NHS 'cannot go on'.

 The Baby who refused to die

1/24/05 The Scotsmen One of the many dangers of socialized medicine. The parents of Charlotte Wyatt are now going back to court to try to overturn a judge’s ruling that doctors had the right not to resuscitate the child on the grounds that she was brain-damaged and doing so would simply prolong her suffering. <.> Doctors at St Mary’s Hospital resuscitated Charlotte three times prior to the court hearing, when they argued that a fourth resuscitation attempt would be "purposeless and intolerable". <.> Prof McLean, an internationally respected expert in law and medical ethics at Glasgow University, said the courts may well reverse the decision, but this would depend on how much better Charlotte had become. <.> Yesterday, an eminent Scots authority on law and medical ethics, Professor Sheila McLean, said that if the child’s condition had improved "significantly", there was no reason why the "do not resuscitate" ruling should not be overturned. I've excerpted Doctors, Judges, two medical ethics professors, who all have opinions and control over what happens to a parent's child. What about the parents? Why can they not determine what happens to their own child? This is why the idea of ownership is so important to the Libertarian ideology. Who owns the health care this couple is receiving? The state. Thus, the state will decide for them what they get and how much of it they get. Political control should be eliminated from Health Care and this couple should be free, if they so choose, to take responsibility, as they see fit, for the care of their child. This can only be done if they are financially responsible for its care.  

Posted 9/26/05

'Secondary Problems of Socialism'

    There are many patterns that I've attempted to document throughout this website, underlying trends that disturbingly and constantly repeat, but I've come the realization that I've neglected to address one of the more fundamental characteristics of socialism. 

    Justice Janie Rogers Brown said:

Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible. 

    Now, this is true, but the effects of socialism are debilitating beyond their immediate impact zone. More often than not, the indirect effects of Socialism are the target of attack by Conservatives, apolitical Americans, and, ironically, Liberals, most probably because of the immediate, obvious, and emotional nature of the issues. However, these are fights that cannot generate a winner. You cannot bail out a sinking boat with a small cup or a big spoon and treating symptoms is no way to approach curing the disease. Let me elaborate: 

Federal Judge Declares Pledge Unconstitutional

9/14/05 CNN  U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

    Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

    There has been a torrent of outrage from the Right about this, in fact, I bet most Democrats also think this judge has gone over the line. Why do they think this and why are they angry? Because they like the Pledge how it is. But popular opinion should not dictate judicial philosophy. One of the most important characteristics of a Republic, as opposed to a runway, majority rules, democracy, is that the rights of the minority are protected. Socialism never protects the rights of the minority and this is nowhere more apparent than in our socialistic public education system.

    Socialism has spawned the problem because, under the Constitution, Newdow and the parents he is representing have a right to raise their children in ways consistent with their own values and should be allowed to do so free of government coercion. His point, that he is forced to pay tax money to an institution that flagrantly defies his values, is completely valid. After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who said:
    "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
    Now, on the other side, we have the vast majority of Americans who don't have a problem with 'Under God' and don't mind it being in public schools. Yet, some of these parents have problems with evolution being taught in school and sex/ed etc.. etc.. Their rights are being violated in the same way as Newdow's - opinions they abhor are being taught to their own children with their own tax money. Both of these aberrations are equally repulsive.
    To profess an opinion, or develop legal arguments, one way or the other in regards to either of these issues is besides the point and counterproductive as it misses the bigger picture: socialism of public schools. If charter schools/school choice existed (or government was completely removed from education), then no one could complain about the happenings in the school their kids attend because no one is forced to send their kids to any particular school.
    But our public schools are not run by parents, or businessmen seeking customers, they are run by the government: local, state, and increasingly and most unfortunately, Federal, and so they are not free from political control. Thus, these problem exists. Both Newdow and other parents who disagree with any aspect of the public education forced on their kids should join forces to destroy educational socialism. Yet, because of superficial differing ideology, an alliance of this nature appears to be most difficult.

President Calls for a Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage 
2/04 White House Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

    America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

    Most Americans, but not the Liberal National Media, support the President's position on gay marriage. But, more fundamentally, why does this issue exist? It exists because of the socialization of marriage. How, you ask, is marriage socialized? Because it is government managed, government sanctioned, government licensed, government defined, and government subsidized, and thus, is not free from political control. Marriage is socialized because it is not defined by, the people, the churches, or other private organizations, but by the government. Marriage brings all sorts of tax benefits, inheritance benefits, health benefits and so forth. Some of these are generated by private companies, but many/most are sanctioned, or at least influenced, by government. Government should not be defining marriage, or giving out tax breaks for it, or utilizing the term in any regulatory way. Without government, there is no debate; the partisan, raucous, and often uncivil debate on gay marriage is moot. 

    But, without government, who will define marriage? Well, the people will! Who knows how it will turn out; doubtlessly a large majority of churches will not recognize gay marriage and that is their prerogative to do so. Other churches will recognize it. Gay people can recognize their own marriages, other people can if they so choose. And the institutions don't have to be churches, there should be no 'marriage licenses' or 'certificates', that are now required. Marriage is a right and 'we the people' can regulate it how we wish, without government interference or coercion. The gay marriage debate is another secondary problem of socialism. 

Senate Republicans to Yank Welcome Mat For Illegal Aliens

9/13/05 Associated Press "We cannot afford to take care of everybody," Johnson said in a news conference with Sen. Chip Rogers, R-Woodstock, whose bill to prohibit benefits to illegal immigrants is pending in the upper chamber. "Our priorities should be on Georgia's neediest citizens ... (and) our neighbors, our friends who are hurting - the evacuees from the Gulf," Johnson said. "Those should all be a higher priority than somebody who has broken the law and come to this country illegally."

    One would think that since welfare generally only perpetuates poverty and hurts those who receive it, these Republicans would cut their own citizens from it first, and illegals second! But, irregardless, many of the anti-immigration arguments center around the increased burden facing social services. First. these arguments are moot because illegals pump much more into the economy than they take out, but even if these positions had merit, these folks should not be attacking immigration, but the socialism that results in the illegals causing the so-called 'problem'.

    "Helmet laws must be required so we don't pay for your injury when you hurt yourself", some say. Don't attack the helmet laws, attack the socialism that results in the compulsory confiscation of your money to pay for the health care of others. 

Faith Based and Community Inititives

White House    

President George W. Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiative represents a fresh start and bold new approach to government's role in helping those in need. Too often the government has ignored or impeded the efforts of faith-based and community organizations. Their compassionate efforts to improve their communities have been needlessly and improperly inhibited by bureaucratic red tape and restrictions placed on funding. Their goal is to make sure that grassroots leaders can compete on an equal footing for federal dollars, receive greater private support, and face fewer bureaucratic barriers.

    Was it unfair that religious organizations couldn't compete for Federal dollars? Do we want the government exerting influence on Religion and vice versa? Do you agree with Justice Hugo Black who said, "Its [the establishment clause's] first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion."? Your opinions to the above questions don't matter. The fact that government gives money to any organization at all has given rise to the dispute. Eliminate all 'charitable' Federal activity and the problem doesn't exist. Since Federal charity it is unconstitutional anyway, it shouldn't be too much to ask.

Bush to Allow limited Stem Cell Funding

8/10/01 In a much-anticipated decision on what he called a "complex and difficult issue," President Bush on Thursday night said he would allow federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines. Are you upset that your government is funding stem cells with your money? Are you upset that new stem lines are not being funded by the government? Why does this debate exist? Why do you have an opinion one way or the other? The problem is that, under threat of imprisonment, the government is confiscating its citizens' money to spend on whatever research it, the government, chooses. In a runway Democracy, the government can spend a little less than half of its citizens' money this way, on research causes against their will, and still stay in power. This is not respecting the rights of the minority. The solution is to abolish government research in all areas. Without government having the power to redistribute research money, the debate is, again, moot. People can voluntarily donate to foundations or nonprofits that fund research they are interested in (and get more bang for their buck too).

    Year after year we are greeted by Congressional deadlock as Congressmen debate the $2.3 trillion dollar bloated and wasteful budget and fight to repay their contributing constituents with pork and goodies. Just like there exists differing opinions on stem cell research, I'm sure most Americans have different ideas of what government should be doing, if it should be doing anything at all, and what government programs they would like increased or decreased. If people were spending their own money, instead of government taking it from them to piraticaly divvy up the loot, then there could be no contention around budget time. 

    During the recent Social Security debates there was an attempt by some to focus the debate on those who received Social Security disability checks, which are entirely different from retirement accounts. There are a few underlying problems:

1. Disability checks, if they are going to exist, should not be part of a retirement program. 

2. Disability checks, paid for by the Federal Government, should not exist. 

3. Social Security, retirement socialism, should not exist (and should be phased out).

Politicizing the FDA

8/30/05 Washington Post Editorial attacking the non approval of a pill called Plan B, a pill some Conservatives had attacked for acting like an abortion. Again, it is irrelevant whether the Post's charges are true, or what actually happened. Others have complained about Ephedra and nearly every publication I saw blamed, in part, the FDA for the recent Viox deaths. The blame thrown at the FDA and the 'fixes' that are being planned would all be extraneous if the FDA did not exist. Indeed, and ironically, many of the problems the agency is blamed for not preventing might be lessened if the agency did not exist! The Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Lester Crawford recently resigned and an article stated:

    Crawford's tenure was marked by increasing criticism of the agency by those who contended it had become more interested in politics than in its mission to protect consumers.

    An agency run by the government cannot be free from political control! Every government agency is, by definition, mired in political discourse. 

I'm sure I could find similar articles and disputes about nearly all government agencies, for example, the Department of Agriculture. The socialization of our food, drugs, and the many other products/services and 'concerns' that we aren't even aware of, are causing untold devastation and hurtful secondary disputes throughout society. 

    In conclusion, David D. Boaz once said:

The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.

    This quote echoes what I referred to before as the Tyranny of the majority. Socialism exists around the world because it was propagated on the entire population by either Tyrants, elected government officials, or a majority of a population. It needs to be recognized for the evil that it is and confronted head on. By attacking the secondary problems of socialism, you are, in essence, legitimizing the underlying socialism that caused the problem in the first place. Worse, even if a given issue is resolved satisfactorily, in your opinion, you can rest assured that a similarly rooted problem will again arise in the future. Socialism is like a mass of festering snakes, if you cut off a head, two will grow back. The problem must be eliminated at its roots. 

Posted 9/26/05

Tribes

9/5/05 Bill Whittle writes a neat mix between Katrina/New Orleans and 9/11. Like always, Bill always generates interesting perspectives and makes his points with a great writing style. My only criticism, and this is true for some of his other pieces too, is that he sometimes seems to get overly emotional. But, I still think highly enough of this piece to post a link here. 

Posted 9/25/05

To elaborate further on the real reasons for higher gasoline prices. Rush Limbaugh put it quite eloquently a few weeks ago on his radio show:

RUSH: So what are the things that can be done about this (higher gas prices)? Well, you wouldn't believe the number of taxes that are in a gallon of gasoline. And it's just like you wouldn't believe the taxes in your phone bill. Do you know you are still paying taxes on your phone bill to make sure that farmers have phones? The Rural Collective Phone tax? You're also still paying a tax on your phone bill for those buildings that Clinton and Gore personally wired for the Internet. Well, it's no different with gasoline. There are so many taxes in a gallon of gasoline, and if all these politicians were that concerned about the economic impact, ladies and gentlemen, the price of gasoline, they could temporarily suspend some of these taxes; they could permanently cut some of these taxes. Oh, no, but they won't do that because there's one thing government will never do without and there's one thing that government will never even do less of, and that's money. Oh, yes. When our taxes are raised, they don't give one thought to whether or not we could absorb it and afford it. But when tax cuts are proposed, the people in the government ask, "Well, how we going to pay for this? Well, how we going to pay for it? How we gonna make up for it? We can't do without that!" But we're expected to. Everybody else is expected to. So the next time you hear some politician trying to get on your good side by bellyaching and moaning about the price of gasoline, why don't you ask him, "Why don't you do something about it, then?"
    Since we can't do anything about imports right now, since we can't go into ANWR (or Florida, or the Atlantic and Pacific coasts), since we can't drill anywhere else and since we have all these stupid, silly different formulations (environmental regulations), why don't you just temporarily suspend some of the taxes in gasoline? Just ask him that. If you're really concerned, if you really want to help us in the back pocket, really want to help us at the family dinner table, really want to help us out here with the family economics and the income, just get rid of some of the taxes in it. It's not that hard to do. And you just watch their reaction: "Well, we need a majority to do that... I don't know what kind of legislation that would require.... That's a good idea, we'll put it in the hopper, I'll throw it around with my staff," blah, blah, blah, blah. Nothing will ever happen on it.

Virgin plans oil refinery

9/14/05 Think you are upset about high gas prices? Maverick British entrepreneur Richard Branson is so furious he wants to build his own oil refinery. Like the rest of the airline industry, Mr Branson's Virgin Atlantic Airways has been stung by higher jet fuel prices and was forced to raise fuel surcharges for the second time in four months.

    "If we don't start now to get more refineries built then fuel prices could literally rocket to $US100-$US200 (per barrel of oil) and the world economy would come to a grinding halt," Branson said in an interview on financial news network CNBC overnight.

    Mr Branson did not say where he wants to put his refinery, but some analysts said he should not look to the US, where no one has built a refinery in 29 years.

    "My immediate reaction to that is: Not in the US," said Paul Flemming, oil analyst at Energy Security Analysis Inc. "That's definitely more pie in the sky than anything."

    In the US, getting a permit could involve years of navigating local, state, and federal regulations and protests from environmental and community groups, analysts say. (emphasis mine)

    Let's compare this to a report sponsored by the World Bank and the International Finance corporation: 

    The report tracks a set of regulatory indicators related to business startup, operation, trade, payment of taxes, and closure by measuring the time and cost associated with various government requirements. For example, an entrepreneur in Mozambique must undergo 14 separate procedures taking 153 days to register a new business. In Sierra Leone if all business taxes were paid they would eat up 164 percent of a company’s gross profits. In Syria, it takes 63 days, 18 documents, and 47 signatures from the time imported goods arrive in ports until they reach the factory gate.

    Isn't it great to see similarities between the United States and these third world countries? However, it is not just gas prices and economic growth that these environmental groups, government bureaucrats, and liberal politicians hurt with their archaic and liberty suppressing regulations. They cost lives:

New Orleans: A Green Genocide

9/13/05 Front Page Magazine 

    As radical environmentalists continue to blame the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina's devastation on President Bush's ecological policies, a mainstream Louisiana media outlet inadvertently disclosed a shocking fact: Environmentalist activists were responsible for spiking a plan that may have saved New Orleans. Decades ago, the Green Left - pursuing its agenda of valuing wetlands and topographical "diversity" over human life - sued to prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from building floodgates that would have prevented significant flooding that resulted from Hurricane Katrina

    In the 1970s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Barrier Project planned to build fortifications at two strategic locations, which would keep massive storms on the Gulf of Mexico from causing Lake Pontchartrain to flood the city. An article in the May 28, 2005, New Orleans Times-Picayune stated, "Under the original plan, floodgate-type structures would have been built at the Rigolets and Chef Menteur passes to block storm surges from moving from the Gulf into Lake Pontchartrain."
    "The floodgates would have blocked the flow of water from the Gulf of Mexico, through Lake Borgne, through the Rigolets [and Chef Mentuer] into Lake Pontchartrain," declared Professor Gregory Stone, the James P. Morgan Distinguished Professor and Director of the Coastal Studies Institute of Louisiana State University. "This would likely have reduced storm surge coming from the Gulf and into the Lake Pontchartrain," Professor Stone told Michael P. Tremoglie during an interview on September 6, 2005. The professor concluded, "[T]hese floodgates would have alleviated the flooding of New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina." Speaker of the House Bob Livingston also referred to environmentalists whose litigation prevented hurricane prevention projects.
    Why was this project aborted? As the Times-Picayune wrote, “Those plans were abandoned after environmental advocates successfully sued to stop the projects as too damaging to the wetlands and the lake's eco-system.” (Emphasis added.) Specifically, in 1977, a state environmentalist group known as Save Our Wetlands (SOWL) sued to have it stopped.

    On December 30, 1977, U.S. District Judge Charles Schwartz Jr. issued an injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lake Pontchartrain hurricane protection project, demanding the engineers draw up a second environmental impact statement, three years after the corps submitted the first one. In one of the most ironic pronouncements of all time, Judge Schwartz wrote, “it is the opinion of the Court that plaintiffs herein have demonstrated that they, and in fact all persons in this area, will be irreparably harmed if the barrier project based upon the August, 1974 FEIS [federal environmental impact statement] is allowed to continue.”

    This story goes on with a more detailed description than I've given. Have any of you seen this story in the main stream media? Doesn't it seem like it should play a central part in the coverage of Hurricane Katrina? After all, the proposed structures were designed to prevent the flooding of Lake Pontchartin:

    Hurricane Katrina pushed Lake Pontchartrain over the flood walls...The spilling water then undermined the walls, and they toppled…Lake Pontchartrain, a body half the size of Rhode Island, was losing about a foot of water every 10 hours into New Orleans.

    I haven't seen one mention of this in any national newspaper.

Posted 9/24/05

Previously I posted an important quote from Frank Chodorov:

    The more subsidized it is, the less free it is. What is known as `free education' is the least free of all, for it is a state-owned institution; it is socialized education - just like socialized medicine or the socialized post office - and cannot possibly be separated from political control.

    To provide an example of this:

Georgia Governor asks state's schools to close to save gas

9/24/05 WISI  Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue Friday asked the state's schools to take two "early snow days" and cancel classes Monday and Tuesday to help conserve gasoline as Hurricane Rita threatens the nation's fuel supply line. If all of Georgia's schools close, the governor estimated about 250,000 gallons of diesel fuel would be saved each day by keeping buses off the road. (See previous post 9/1 and story on more gas ridiculousness from 'Republican Gov Sonny Perdue', who, by the way, was rated horribly by the Cato institute.)

    Do you want your kid's education at the whim of some governor or some hurricane a few states over? Would you be willing to pay a bit extra to keep your kid in school when the price of gasoline is higher? But, this specific gasoline problem is not the reason I'm posting this story. It is to show the political control and power that government has over the education system. This manifests itself in many ways that don't make the news, but that all work to stagnate the education of our children and limit freedom. 

    On a side note, I couldn't help but notice this tidbit in the story:

    As prices spiraled after Hurricane Katrina, Perdue suspended the state's gas tax and the Legislature quickly approved the measure in a special session, saving motorists an estimated 15 cents per gallon. The tax is scheduled to return a week from Saturday.

    Gov Perdue, why is the tax returning?

Posted 9/24/05

I realized I had quite a number of posts (6) dealing with the Club For Growth, an organization that is at the forefront of defending Liberty in the United States. These have been collected and placed in a post grouping titled:

'Club For Growth: Defenders of Liberty'

Posted 9/23/05

Added to 'New Government Food Pyramid' and 'British Health Care', News from the Nanny State:

Fat Police Arrest Chris

2/23/05 The Sun Sobbing 31-stone (434 lb) Chris Leppard was dragged off to a mental hospital against his will by meddling social workers and police. They locked him up despite the fact neither he nor his family wanted him to go. Last night Chris’s furious mother Anne said he has no mental problems and was winning his fight against the rare illness that compels him to eat.

Stranded Pair Refused to be Saved

9/17/05 BBC The mystery couple had been cut off by the tide after a beach walk at St Anne's Head in Pembrokeshire. Despite a lifeboat and RAF helicopter crew arriving, the pair refused their rescue offers and even hurled abuse. <.> The elderly pair refused their offers of coffee and warm clothes, turning their backs and refusing even to talk. Finally, at 2020 BST - six hours after the "rescue" effort had been launched - the tide retreated and the pair walked to safety. <.> The coastguard said the whole "rescue operation" is thought to have cost thousands of pounds. <.> The coastguard said they could not be arrested for wasting police time because they had not asked for help. What about arresting the rescuers for wasting public funds? :) 

Posted 9/21/05

Council Approves Bill on Suing Drug Companies Over Costs

9/21/05 Washington Post Recall the 9/3 post on gasoline price fixing? 

    The bill, passed unanimously, could give consumers and the D.C. government a legal advantage when suing pharmaceutical companies over prescription drug prices, sponsors said. It puts the burden of proof on pharmaceutical companies to prove that their prices are not excessive.  

    The legislation defines excessive as being 30 percent over the comparative price in Germany, Canada, Australia or the United Kingdom. The bill would allow civil penalties against the drugmaker.

    This outrageous bill, passed by the D.C. Democrats, will destroy the health care and drug choices of D.C. residents, especially the poorest residents. Why do I say it will hurt the poorest? Because the poorest might not be able to travel to neighboring states to buy the drugs that can't be sold in D.C. anymore.

    One independent expert said the bill could prompt drug companies not to sell their products in the city.

    The president of a D.C.-based nonpartisan organization that studies health policy said pharmaceutical companies could refuse to sell drugs to D.C. businesses, especially because many customers could cross into Virginia and Maryland for their prescriptions.

    "The probable effect of this would be that there would be no pharmacies left in D.C.," said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change.

    Although at least the Post included this point of view, it is bothersome that it is not stated as fact. Taking the cue from the previously posted Tech Central Station article, it would be like a headline stating: 'Man's head to be chopped off, experts disagree on if he'll live or die'. 

    Why won't the Post inform the people of D.C. accurately about the shortages that are about to befall them?

    Shortages of anything that people are willing to buy are always caused by government meddling. 

Posted 8/21/05

FEC Sues Pro-Republican Group

9/20/05 A story of huge importance that has received little mention in the mainstream press. The Club For Growth is the most outstanding political organization in the United States. It works by pooling the money of members and targeting pro-growth candidates in an incredibly efficient way. It is not a 'pro-Republican' Group, actually, it is an anti-Republican group, which is, perhaps, why it was targeted. They have effectively challenged establishment Republicans in their primaries, nominating Republicans who were not backed by the party, but won the nomination. One of these is Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, the only Senator in the United States who seems to understand the Constitution.

Senator's attempt to hold line on spending rebuffed

9/15/05 Chicago Sun-Times

    Coburn's performance confirms dread of him as a senator by establishment Republicans, both in Oklahoma and the nation's capital.

    A plain-spoken obstetrician from Muskogee, Okla., Dr. Coburn won no popularity contests with a principled assault on pork during his House tenure (1995-2000) that was ended by self-imposed term limits. He entered the Senate determined to keep a low profile, but that is difficult considering the Washington spending carnival under Republican rule.

    Citing calls for ''sacrifice'' by Americans, he declared that ''it is no sacrifice on the part of Congress to steal $51.2 billion from our grandchildren.''

    Heh heh,.. I like his rhetoric. 

    The Club For Growth has had incredible influence behind the scenes and this influence is always pro-growth, pro-freedom and positive. Why is the FEC after them? In an email to club members, CFG President Pat Toomey said:

    Finally, I must say that our efforts to work this out with the FEC were a real eye-opener for me. The arrogance and unfair treatment was incredible. At one point when the Club asked the FEC how we could operate consistent with their view of the law, they refused to tell us.

    Is the Republican party behind this scheme? I hate to float conspiracy theories, especially without evidence, but the FEC, like all Federal agencies and panels, is under political control. 

    FEC Vice Chairman Michael Toner rated the case "one of the most important suits the commission has brought in recent years."

    "At stake is whether Club for Growth will be able to continue raising and spending millions of dollars in soft money for activities influencing federal elections," said Toner, a Republican.

    The Republican party must be loosing many of their fundraisers to this new organization that has vowed to elect people that don't produce charts like these. Would they really 'eat their own', to keep their monopoly on Conservative donor money? But how can they expect to keep their donors when the Republican majority leader in the house, Tom Delay, says things like this:

DeLay declares 'victory' in war on budget fat

9/15/05 Washington Times House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget. 

    Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."
    "Excluding military and homeland security, American taxpayers have witnessed the largest spending increase under any preceding president and Congress since the Great Depression," he said.
      American Conservative Union Chairman David A. Keene said federal spending already was "spiraling out of control" before Katrina, and conservatives are "increasingly losing faith in the president and the Republican leadership in Congress."    

    Mr. Keene said annual nonmilitary and non-homeland security spending increased $303 billion between fiscal year 2001 and 2005; the acknowledged federal debt increased more than $2 trillion since fiscal year 2000; and the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill is estimated to increase the government's unfunded obligations by $16 trillion.

    "This is hardly a well-oiled machine," said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican. "There's a lot of fat to trim. ... I wonder if we've been serving in the same Congress."

    It makes me wonder if Delay is on the same planet? How can he say such at thing? The Republican party is no longer the party of limited government.  Who is Jeff Flake? A Club For Growth bankrolled candidate. 

    Delay was named porker of the month by CAGW (Citizens Against Government Waste).     

    Mr. Delay, if we wanted liberals in Congress we would have elected them. The only way to redeem yourself is to immediately apologize for your statement and begin abolishing government agencies.

    You could start with the FEC. 

Posted 9/20/05

Public chooses choice

9/9/05 Waternbury Republican-American Americans are opposed to school choice, declares Phi Delta Kappa, the international association for "professional educators" who believe it their mission to advocate for "publicly supported education." To bolster its position, PDK annually trots out a poll showing Americans oppose vouchers and other forms of choice in ratios approaching 3 to 2. True to its unflagging belief that the only good monopoly is the public-school monopoly, the news media annually report those biased results uncritically, even though the numbers are intuitively wrong. After all, America has witnessed in the last decade growing criticism of the performance of the public schools, as well as a groundswell of support for school choice. If Americans are so opposed to school choice, why do they keep demanding more choices?

    So how does PDK get its polls to reflect a different reality? By loading the question to provoke the response it desires. The Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation (I highly recommend Friedmen's Free to Choose), which seeks to improve the quality of education in American by giving parents of all income and social classes the economic freedom to choose where to enroll their children, notes that PDK phrases its question to produce artificial opposition to choice, especially school vouchers. The PDK poll asks, "Do you favor or oppose allowing students and parents to choose a private school to attend at public expense?"

    To test its premise about the PDK's loaded question, the foundation ran its own poll in which it asked half of those surveyed the PDK's question and the other half a question that reflects the truth about choice and vouchers:         

    "Do you favor or oppose allowing students and parents to choose any school, public or private, to attend using public funds?" Fifty-five percent of those asked the leading question opposed choice, while 37 percent favored it. Of those asked the accurate question, 60 percent supported choice and 33 percent were opposed. The wording change produced a 23-point shift.

    Their conclusion: But Americans won't get the straight scoop as long as biased polls capture the headlines and lazy, ax-grinding journalists refuse, as the foundation put it, "to look at both sides of the issue and to scrutinize all research by the prevailing standards of scientific accuracy."

An example:

Vouchers Don't make the Grade

9/20/03 CBS Most Americans oppose voucher programs and think teachers aren't paid enough, a poll finds.
    Support for a program that allows students and parents to choose a private school to attend at public expense dropped to 38 percent from 46 percent last year, according to the poll conducted by professional educational association Phi Delta Kappa International and Gallup.

    This is why Conservatives/Libertarians believe there is a bias in the media. CBS news is doing nothing more than parroting the talking points of a hurtful, liberal special interest group, and working against the education of American children. 

    This sort of polling skewing is common in the media and by politicians of both parties, but especially the Democratic party, I recall it was heavily utilized when President Bush was attempting to explain the idea of private retirement accounts. This was added to 'A Charter School Tale'.

Posted 9/18/05

    Bangart made some good comments on a 7/29 post: Inequality, Aid, and the Nature of Governments that I had been meaning to follow up on. In the graph I have aid going from rich (free) countries to poor (corrupt) countries. Poorer countries with no capital are aided by foreign investment from rich countries, which are rich because their governments don't steal their citizens money. A formerly oppressive poor country will become prosperous by allowing foreign companies, and their own citizens, to freely utilize the cheap labor of its citizens. In other words, foreign investors will aid in bringing prosperity to a poor country as long as they are assured of not having their assets looted by the corrupt governments (as often is the case). However, what I left out of this post is that once wealth is created in corrupt poor countries, it is often transferred from poor countries to rich countries because the owner can get a better return on his money in a rich country because the government is not as criminal as his poor country (which is why poor countries are poor and rich countries are rich). As we might expect, the thug leaders of poor countries don't even feel safe keeping their own assets in the country that they have looted because of the instability they have thrust on their country through their criminal behavior. This is why Saddam Hussein, Mugabe, Kim Jung Ill and most African leaders all have/had bank accounts in free countries like Switzerland and the Bahamas, which have strong property protecting laws. 

    Because of our relative freedom here in the United States, the US received the most foreign investment every year until a few years ago when China passed us. This is a troublesome indicator as one could draw the conclusion that the Chinese government is now less criminal than our own government, a conclusion most Americans would dispute - yet with the government spending (stealing) $2.3 trillion a year from US citizens and taking into account the rampant and spreading socialism here in the United States, the idea certainly deserves consideration. Of course, China might just be experiencing a short lived boom. If you recall, in the 80s, ignorant politicians bemoaned the fact that Japan was 'buying America'. It was best said by Milton Friedman:

    It is a mystery to me why... it is regarded as a sign of Japanese strength and American weakness that the Japanese find it more attractive to invest in the U.S. than Japan. Surely it is precisely the reverse - a sign of U.S. strength and Japanese weakness.

    This recent trend of 'outsourcing', is bemoaned for the wrong reasons, the fact that some Americans may (in the short term) loose jobs, is somewhat irrelevant compared to the bigger concern of why companies find it more attractive to set up shop overseas. In China do you have to pay Medicare, Medicaid, and SS tax? It is not simply the cheaper labor that companies go overseas for, if that were the case then they would most likely just import the labor here in the form of increased immigration. Yet, blocking this immigration is facilitated, again, by the Federal government of the United States , including many so-called 'Conservatives'. What business of it is the Federal Government's, whom businesses employ on their own property? Or where they house them? Or what they pay them? Or how many immigrants come here? Such things occurred naturally throughout our early history, and would still be occurring today, except that Government has given itself the power to 'regulate' and block such actions, and it does so, hilariously enough, in the name of 'saving those jobs for Americans'. Again, Government accomplishes the opposite of its intentions, as it indirectly encourages both outsourcing and capital deflection.

    But the main point is that, looking at the shown graph, there should be another arrow indicating the flow of capital from poor countries to rich countries. This is not the 'aid' money, that flows from rich to poor countries, and it is true that a poorer country that is newly liberalized will see substantial foreign investment due to cheap labor, but in most corrupt countries of the world, citizens that manage to create wealth are quick to send it away from the thieves that run their countries, and, as shown in the 9/17  post below, are also likely to leave the country themselves. 

    LOL! In re-reading what I wrote above, I said: "This is not the 'aid' money, that flows from rich to poor countries." But I am wrong because much of this money actually IS the same aid, recycled, accumulated, stolen, and shipped to safety in the bank account of the tin-cup dictator and his cohorts! Apologies for the error... :)

Posted 9/17/05

Brain Drain

Federation for American Immigration Reform 

An interesting article I accidentally stumbled across (btw, I don't agree with their platform):

    For example, more African scientists and engineers work in the United States than in all of Africa—leaving the entire African continent of 600 million people with just 20,000 engineers and scientists.¹ The United Nations calls brain drain one of the greatest threats to economic development in sub-Saharan Africa.²