Welcome to my new daily feature that I am going to call Surf's Up! These are some links that I found interesting in my Reader feed today.
College students are not learning to think critically. "An unprecedented study that followed several thousand undergraduates through four years of college found that large numbers didn't learn the critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication skills that are widely assumed to be at the core of a college education." Are these really the skills that we think of as core skills of a college education? If so, why?
President Obama will sign an executive order to cut down on wasteful business regulation. Well, gee thanks, that is about two years too late. Now about that other branch of government cutting down on legislation that authorizes regulation. Any hope on that front?
As our President wants to move to a more "European" style health care, Britain, said to be the preferred model, is looking to move away from a "second rate" health care system. "In a speech outlining the government's plans to overhaul public services, Cameron promised to get rid of 'topdown, command-and-control bureaucracy and targets.' He said that with an aging population and growing demand for new medical treatments, 'pretending that there is some easy option of sticking with the status quo and hoping that a little bit of extra money will smooth over the challenges is a complete fiction.'" Hmmmm.
USA Today: States are looking at long term budget problems. The opposing view: It's Wall Street's fault. Seriously guys, there's lots of blame to share.
From the "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" department, a $1 billion dollar yacht.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Battle of the States
In the coming months, we will see two things in state politics:
It might be ugly, but it will be entertaining.
- States will be pursing economic recovery with Republican governors will be pushing fewer taxes and lower tax rates, while Democratic states (like Illinios) will increase taxes. The Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel looks at neighbors Wisconsin and Illinois for just such a divergence of policy.
- We will also see just how interconnected our state and national economies really are.
It might be ugly, but it will be entertaining.
Is the Problem with the Constitution That We are Misreading It?
Having we misread the Constitution? The more I think about it, I am coming to the conclusion that yes, we have. After the reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives and despite the provisions in the new House Rules regarding the citation of a Constitutional provision for every piece of legislation introduced in the House, it is not going to matter much in my opinion. There will be three provisions cited more than any other:
It is that last one that carries the most danger--and I am not even talking about how you define "general welfare," itself a significant problem.
Article 1, Sec. 8 gives congress the power to levy taxes and appropriate money for the general welfare of country. The problem is that the general welfare is interpreted so broadly by Congress, no matter who is in power on Capitol Hill. But a broad interpretation of a delegated power runs contrary to the purpose behind the Constitution, the creation and framework for a government of LIMITED powers.
The Congress wants to expand its power, that much is almost assured and they frequently use the spending power as a means to do so, spending money and attaching strings and conditions to that money in order for states/localities to spend it. The classic example is federal highway money, which used to be given to states only if they had a 55 MPH speed limit and a drinking age of 21. So in order to force compliance with what Congress decided was in the general welfare (i.e. a speed limit or drinking age despite those being largely a matter of state concern), Congress held federal money hostage, money that had been taxed from the various states and their citizens, in order to obtain a policy goal it ordinarily would not have been able to touch because it is not within the purview of its delegated powers.
The Courts have almost universally allowed such "covert" regulations and legislation to be attached to spending bills with impunity because Congress can spend for the general welfare. But more and more I find myself wondering if that the courts and Congress and the states themselves, were just completely wrong and we have let it go for so long that we think it is the natural order of things. We have allowed the notion that Congress can attach any kind of strings to federal spending. The Preamble to the Constitution states:
We the People wanted to promote the general welfare by establishing a national government of limited, delegated powers designed to keep the federal government limited. But if the spending power for the general welfare is located in the list of limited powers of the Congress, how can it have such a broad scope, allowing Congress pass laws that otherwise would not be possible under the limited powers of Art. I, Sec. 8? In other words, if the power of Congress is limited by Sec. 8, why is the spending power treated and interpreted so differently than other powers? Did the Framers really intend to provide a list of limited powers and then say, "those limited powers and spheres of responsibility don't apply if Congress is spending money for the general welfare?"
Are policies related to policing (speed limit), health and welfare (drinking ages or education) of the citizenry not a matter for the states and localities? Where in the theory underlying the Constitution of a limited government of delegated powers and a concerted effort by the Framers to circumscribe and check the powers of the national government do the Courts, Congress and national Executive find the power to regulate matters outside the discrete list of Section 8 Powers?
We need to seriously think about how to resolve that conflict that is in keeping with the actual Constitution.
- The Interstate Commerce Clause. With the notion that just about everything impacts interstate commerce, Congress will regulate every kind of business, even one that is purely intrastate.
- The Necessary and Proper clause" even though this clause was created to allow Congress to pass legislation necessary and proper for carrying out its delegated powers in Art. 1, Sec. 8. I don't the the House Leadership should let this pass, there needs to be something else cited, but we will see.
- The General Welfare clause.
It is that last one that carries the most danger--and I am not even talking about how you define "general welfare," itself a significant problem.
Article 1, Sec. 8 gives congress the power to levy taxes and appropriate money for the general welfare of country. The problem is that the general welfare is interpreted so broadly by Congress, no matter who is in power on Capitol Hill. But a broad interpretation of a delegated power runs contrary to the purpose behind the Constitution, the creation and framework for a government of LIMITED powers.
The Congress wants to expand its power, that much is almost assured and they frequently use the spending power as a means to do so, spending money and attaching strings and conditions to that money in order for states/localities to spend it. The classic example is federal highway money, which used to be given to states only if they had a 55 MPH speed limit and a drinking age of 21. So in order to force compliance with what Congress decided was in the general welfare (i.e. a speed limit or drinking age despite those being largely a matter of state concern), Congress held federal money hostage, money that had been taxed from the various states and their citizens, in order to obtain a policy goal it ordinarily would not have been able to touch because it is not within the purview of its delegated powers.
The Courts have almost universally allowed such "covert" regulations and legislation to be attached to spending bills with impunity because Congress can spend for the general welfare. But more and more I find myself wondering if that the courts and Congress and the states themselves, were just completely wrong and we have let it go for so long that we think it is the natural order of things. We have allowed the notion that Congress can attach any kind of strings to federal spending. The Preamble to the Constitution states:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We the People wanted to promote the general welfare by establishing a national government of limited, delegated powers designed to keep the federal government limited. But if the spending power for the general welfare is located in the list of limited powers of the Congress, how can it have such a broad scope, allowing Congress pass laws that otherwise would not be possible under the limited powers of Art. I, Sec. 8? In other words, if the power of Congress is limited by Sec. 8, why is the spending power treated and interpreted so differently than other powers? Did the Framers really intend to provide a list of limited powers and then say, "those limited powers and spheres of responsibility don't apply if Congress is spending money for the general welfare?"
Are policies related to policing (speed limit), health and welfare (drinking ages or education) of the citizenry not a matter for the states and localities? Where in the theory underlying the Constitution of a limited government of delegated powers and a concerted effort by the Framers to circumscribe and check the powers of the national government do the Courts, Congress and national Executive find the power to regulate matters outside the discrete list of Section 8 Powers?
We need to seriously think about how to resolve that conflict that is in keeping with the actual Constitution.
An Unsavory Argument for a Sour Policy
Another argument for the ending of agricultural subsidies of all kinds from Professor Don Boudreaux.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Binding Arbitration--Not Good for Writing Contracts
Jeff Jacoby points to the real victims of binding arbitration for public union contract negotiations and it is us.
When contract talks between a union representing public employees and the state or local government they work for are deadlocked, many states require that the disagreement be referred to an outside arbitrator for a binding decision. Since strikes by public employees are intolerable — no one wants firefighters, teachers, or trash collectors walking off the job — letting a neutral third party hear both sides out and settle the issue can sound like a fair and practical way to resolve thorny issues.
Sound imminently reasonable right? After all, an arbitrator is neutral, has no stake in the fight and is beyond the scope of the dispute. Once a decision is made by an outside arbitrator, no one can complain about right? The labor union and the governmental body has to suck it up what ever the decision by the arbitrator.
The problem is that there is no accountability for the arbitrator (who gets paid by both sides splitting the costs--which is not cheap). So the taxpayers pay the arbitrator's cost directly through the governmental body and indirectly by paying the salaries of the public employees who then pay dues to the union who then pay the arbitrator. Nice huh.
But Governor John Kasich (R-OH) makes a really good point:
“You think these local governments want to be stuck with binding arbitration?’’ Kasich asked. “I don’t know if you all know what binding arbitration is. When there’s a labor dispute, they bring somebody in from Kokomo, Indiana. He comes into Ohio. He imposes a settlement on our cities. He goes back to Kokomo — and we pay the bill.’’With municipal budgets strained to the breaking point, said Kasich, the last thing local cities need is higher costs imposed on them by outsiders. “If you talk to the mayors of cities, Republicans and Democrats alike — Democrats will tell you off the record — [they] can’t stand binding arbitration . . . Binding arbitration is not acceptable. You are forcing increased taxes on taxpayers with them having no say, by people who come from a far-away place and have no accountability to the taxpayers.’’
Therein lies the problem--with no stake in the fight, the union can force an impasse that a governmental body does dare create. Public sector unions can threaten job action and there is minimal risk to them, after all, shouldn't cops and firefighters and teachers be compensated for their time and talent? But a city council can not afford to be in a position of "forcing" public employees to work for less or get fewer benefits because they know that if they do, every public employee union will campaign against them and the public will blame them for lack of police, firefighters, etc. They can't win.
In Michigan, notes the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a respected think tank, “the average arbitration process takes 15 months to reach a decision.’’ When those decisions are reached, the price tag is generally high. A task force appointed by former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm surveyed the economic literature and reported in 2006 that the overall impact of binding arbitration in states that require it “is to raise municipal expenditures . . . by 3-to-5 percent relative to other states. While small in percentage terms, this impact is large in dollar terms.’’
By the way, Granholm is a Democrat--not some union busting, labor hating Republican. Here's the killer:
As state and local governments have learned to their chagrin, once binding arbitration becomes part of the collective-bargaining process, it doesn’t facilitate compromise — it undermines it. Unions quickly figure out that they risk nothing by making extreme salary or benefit demands, rejecting reasonable counteroffers, and then waiting for the ensuing impasse to go to an arbitrator. How can they lose? They know that the arbitrator will almost never award public employees less than the government’s final offer.
If there is a dispute as to the meaning of a term in an operating contract, arbitration is usually a good move and generally cheaper than going to court. By the way, it is not always cheaper, since arbitration is essentially a private trial, with witnesses, testimony, evidence presented and all the other features of a trial. Arbitration is just before a private decision maker who acts as a judge who can't be appealed. If you really wanted it to be cheaper--mediation is the way to go.
So what is the solution? Quite simply, blunt the power of public unions to make unreasonable demands and put some real bargaining power in the hands of the government. Unions who make unreasonable demands in the contract negotiation talks can be countered with a mandatory mediation procedure. If the unions make no progress or offer no compromises, the government can walk away from the table and the contract is automatically reduced by 2 percent in salary and benefits and put in place for one year. If no progress is made in that next year, the contract is reduced again by 2 percent in salary and benefits. In the second year of an impasse, the union has to pay the reasonable costs and fess for the governmental entity paid by the union negotiators. Thus if the parties come to an impasse, the burden is on the union to get the reasonable negotiations moving.
Now some people will argue that such a law is not fair to the unions, who after all work hard. I am not arguing that the union members work hard, but the contract negotiators almost never are union members, but outside experts hired to burglarize the tax coffers. Public sector work is relatively safe in terms of job security, but it cannot be a means of simply getting paid more and more for doing the same work, there must be a limit and we cannot have public sector unions simply holding the government hostage to force a binding arbitration by acting in an unreasonble manner and make outrageous demands.
After all, the public sector unions are public employees paid by tax payer dollars and the tax payers should hold much more power than they do now.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
I thought we moved beyond the Heavy Metal Causes Crime Meme
Seriously, can we give up the 'heavy metal makes people do bad things' meme. I thought such a notion went out the window 20 years ago. Drowning Pool responds to allegations that their music had any influence on AZ shooter and it didn't, at least we have no evidence that it did. Drowning Pool says the song is about the mosh pit.
If music is supposed to make young people do things they normally wouldn't do, then why is it that when I was growing up every time I played Barry White or Marvin Gaye for girls they didn't jump into bed with me?
Ready, Aim, OVERREACT!
Washington’s top five most ridiculous reactions to the Arizona shooting includes some pretty wacky ideas.
Seriously, how are you going to enforce that? We can't even ensure a gun free school zone law and the school is a fixed point of geography. How do we keep a 1,000 foot bubble around a moving person?
Like I said, wacky.
2. Impose a federal ban on carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of any “high-profile” public official
New York Republican Rep. Peter King, with full approval from New York City’s freedom-loving mayor Michael Bloomberg, has vowed to introduce a bill that keeps all guns at least 1,000 feet from from him at all times.
Seriously, how are you going to enforce that? We can't even ensure a gun free school zone law and the school is a fixed point of geography. How do we keep a 1,000 foot bubble around a moving person?
Like I said, wacky.
Three Quick Thoughts on the Tuscon Shooting Reaction
1. It was only a matter of time before we started to discovery these kinds of threats against Sarah Palin. I know many of my liberal colleagues don't like Sarah Palin, my question has always been why? Beyond disagreement with her policy positions, what specifically has Sarah Palin done to warrant such vitriolic, nay, hateful speech?
2. My worry about Congressional reaction to the Tuscon shooting was that our leaders will see the need to distance themselves even further from the people they serve. My thinking was that town hall meetings will come with security and metal detectors or would be held in secure facilities of some type. I also figured that public events will not be publicized far enough in advance to all voters in a given region except for known supporters to create an actual dialog with voters. Turns out, I wasn't nearly wacky enough for some Representatives from both sides of the aisle.
3. I wonder, in light of # 1 up there and the overreaction among the liberal commentariat, blaming Palin, Bush, Tea Party, Conservatives or just about anyone who believes in the right to bear arms, would the reaction be the same if the Congresswoman fighting for her life was Michelle Bachman? Methinks not. There might even have been celebration.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
This Week's Playlist
This week, I decided to go with some instrumentals this week. I had a few problems because I told myself that I would select no more than two songs from any one artists (I don't have as much instrumental only music). But by the same token, it opens up some other genres that I have been moving into a bit more. So enjoy this list.
"Storm" by Vanessa Mae. A violin virtuoso who plays regular classical and crossover classical on different albums. This song is a crossover that is pretty solid musically.
"Acoustic Curves" by Animusic. Saw this song and video on PBS a few years ago and was enthralled. This is not animation set to music, it is music that drives the animation. Check them out here.
"Vein Melter" by Herbie Hancock. What can you say about the man and the album ("Headhunters") that changed the face and sound of jazz. Mellow groove and brilliant writing.
"Flatbush and Church Revisited" by Vernon Reid & Masque. Living Colour's guitarist Reid's "side project" shows that Reid is not just about the gravelly guitar work that made Living Colour great, but that he can play with so many different styles. This song is brilliant, clean and demonstrates that that Reid is one of the most underrated guitarists around.
"Kashmir" by Bond. Say what you will about Bond, a manufactuered classical string quartet who makes dance music (and look good while doing it), any classical quartet that takes on a Led Zeppelin classic is brilliant.
"Baluchitherium" by Van Halen. Most Van Halen instrumentals are usually Eddie Van Halen and his guitar but this one is definitely a song to hear. Eddie is brilliant on the guitar and the rhythm section of Alex Van Halen and Michael Anthony show why they are among the best.
"Zap (Live)" by Eric Johnson. Unless you follow guitarists, you might not know about Johnson, but his guitar work is distinclty influenced by his Texas roots and is certainly clean. This live cut is from a tour he did with Joe Satriani and Steve Vai.
"Wormhole Wizards" by Joe Satriani. This is my favorite track from Satriani's most recent album, Black Swans and Wormhole Wizards. This is classic Satriani, a song with great guitar work, but the album is working in other instruments a bit more.
"Reel Around the Sun" by 12 Girls Band. This group of 13 women (only 12 are on stage at one time) playing traditional Chinese instruments take on a classic song from "Riverdance" and make it work so well.
"Answers (Live)" by Steve Vai. One of the most creative and ambitious guitarists around, Vai makes one of his older songs very fresh in a live setting.
"YYZ (Live)" by Rush. Behind Neal Peart's lyrics, it might be hard to forget that the Canadian trio are also fantastic musicians. This instrumental from "Moving Pictures" really solidified my liking of the band (which got better as Geddy Lee stopped trying to shout/sing and just sing in a more natural range for him).
"Highly Strung" by Orianthi. Steve Vai makes another appearance on this list, teaming with the young Australian woman who has impressed Vai, Carlos Santana and Michael Jackson (Orianthi was hired to be Jackson's guitarist on the King of Pop's tour that didn't happen). Technically sound, lots of fun and proves that Orianthi is not just a hot guitarist, but a guitarist who happens to be hot (and can sing).
"Banana Mango 2" by Joe Satriani. This is my second cut from Satriani (of my limit of two). This piece includes some really fun rhythm and drums in addition to some brilliant technique from Satriani.
"Fuego" by Bond. I love this song and like the Spanish influence.
"Cathedral" by Van Halen. A short technique piece from Van Halen that sounds much more like a viola or cello than a guitar.
"Pipe Dream" by Animusic. A much more rhythm/drums piece that if someone could do it live with vibraphones, xylophones and other percussion would be absolutely brilliant.
"Doll" by Keiko Matsui. Another jazz entry, I heard this song at the movie theater in the pre-show entertainment. I thought it a fantastic piece and got me interested in Mastui. There are many other much better songs by Matsui, but I will never forget this one.
"Lily Was Here (DNA Remix" by Candy Dulfer. I love the interplay of saxophone and guitar in this jazz piece.
"Home Blues" by The 5 Browns. This classical piece contains a guest appearance by Chris Botti and just mesmerizes me. I just love this piece.
"Storm" by Vanessa Mae. A violin virtuoso who plays regular classical and crossover classical on different albums. This song is a crossover that is pretty solid musically.
"Acoustic Curves" by Animusic. Saw this song and video on PBS a few years ago and was enthralled. This is not animation set to music, it is music that drives the animation. Check them out here.
"Vein Melter" by Herbie Hancock. What can you say about the man and the album ("Headhunters") that changed the face and sound of jazz. Mellow groove and brilliant writing.
"Flatbush and Church Revisited" by Vernon Reid & Masque. Living Colour's guitarist Reid's "side project" shows that Reid is not just about the gravelly guitar work that made Living Colour great, but that he can play with so many different styles. This song is brilliant, clean and demonstrates that that Reid is one of the most underrated guitarists around.
"Kashmir" by Bond. Say what you will about Bond, a manufactuered classical string quartet who makes dance music (and look good while doing it), any classical quartet that takes on a Led Zeppelin classic is brilliant.
"Baluchitherium" by Van Halen. Most Van Halen instrumentals are usually Eddie Van Halen and his guitar but this one is definitely a song to hear. Eddie is brilliant on the guitar and the rhythm section of Alex Van Halen and Michael Anthony show why they are among the best.
"Zap (Live)" by Eric Johnson. Unless you follow guitarists, you might not know about Johnson, but his guitar work is distinclty influenced by his Texas roots and is certainly clean. This live cut is from a tour he did with Joe Satriani and Steve Vai.
"Wormhole Wizards" by Joe Satriani. This is my favorite track from Satriani's most recent album, Black Swans and Wormhole Wizards. This is classic Satriani, a song with great guitar work, but the album is working in other instruments a bit more.
"Reel Around the Sun" by 12 Girls Band. This group of 13 women (only 12 are on stage at one time) playing traditional Chinese instruments take on a classic song from "Riverdance" and make it work so well.
"Answers (Live)" by Steve Vai. One of the most creative and ambitious guitarists around, Vai makes one of his older songs very fresh in a live setting.
"YYZ (Live)" by Rush. Behind Neal Peart's lyrics, it might be hard to forget that the Canadian trio are also fantastic musicians. This instrumental from "Moving Pictures" really solidified my liking of the band (which got better as Geddy Lee stopped trying to shout/sing and just sing in a more natural range for him).
"Highly Strung" by Orianthi. Steve Vai makes another appearance on this list, teaming with the young Australian woman who has impressed Vai, Carlos Santana and Michael Jackson (Orianthi was hired to be Jackson's guitarist on the King of Pop's tour that didn't happen). Technically sound, lots of fun and proves that Orianthi is not just a hot guitarist, but a guitarist who happens to be hot (and can sing).
"Banana Mango 2" by Joe Satriani. This is my second cut from Satriani (of my limit of two). This piece includes some really fun rhythm and drums in addition to some brilliant technique from Satriani.
"Fuego" by Bond. I love this song and like the Spanish influence.
"Cathedral" by Van Halen. A short technique piece from Van Halen that sounds much more like a viola or cello than a guitar.
"Pipe Dream" by Animusic. A much more rhythm/drums piece that if someone could do it live with vibraphones, xylophones and other percussion would be absolutely brilliant.
"Doll" by Keiko Matsui. Another jazz entry, I heard this song at the movie theater in the pre-show entertainment. I thought it a fantastic piece and got me interested in Mastui. There are many other much better songs by Matsui, but I will never forget this one.
"Lily Was Here (DNA Remix" by Candy Dulfer. I love the interplay of saxophone and guitar in this jazz piece.
"Home Blues" by The 5 Browns. This classical piece contains a guest appearance by Chris Botti and just mesmerizes me. I just love this piece.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Ban the Glocks
This kind of an op-ed piece took longer than I expected to appear:
Yes, the events in Tuscon are a tragedy of irreducible proportions for those who lost a loved one. But the reaction cannot be "let's ban all Glocks." First, I am not sure if we know that Loughner got the Glock legally or illegally. Whose to say that if the Glock was a banned weapon that he wouldn't have been able to obtain one anyway.
You know what surprises me? That someone else didn't shoot Loughner to stop him. If Arizona is so "gun crazy" why didn't that happen?
If Loughner had gone to the Safeway carrying a regular pistol, the kind most Americans think of when they think of the right to bear arms, Giffords would probably still have been shot and we would still be having that conversation about whether it was a sane idea to put her Congressional district in the cross hairs of a rifle on the Internet.
But we might not have lost a federal judge, a 76-year-old church volunteer, two elderly women, Giffords’s 30-year-old constituent services director and a 9-year-old girl who had recently been elected to the student council at her school and went to the event because she wanted to see how democracy worked.
Loughner’s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is “not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.”
Yes, the events in Tuscon are a tragedy of irreducible proportions for those who lost a loved one. But the reaction cannot be "let's ban all Glocks." First, I am not sure if we know that Loughner got the Glock legally or illegally. Whose to say that if the Glock was a banned weapon that he wouldn't have been able to obtain one anyway.
You know what surprises me? That someone else didn't shoot Loughner to stop him. If Arizona is so "gun crazy" why didn't that happen?
Paul Krugman Is an Idiot
Generally, that is hard for me to say about anyone, most particuarly someone who has won a Nobel Prize for something other than the Peace Prize, but with his latest little diatribe, found here, I have no choice but to call Krugman an idiot and most importantly an influential idiot.
In the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and Judge John Roll and the other men, women and girls who lost their life, Krugman is, like most media outlets, blaming the conservatives and/or Tea Party (I am not sure which). So let's take a look at what Krugman has to write--about the right.
OK so far. Pretty fairly balanced. Both parties have been guilty in the past of uncivil discourse (Krugman included). There isn't any place in civil politics for the kind of vitriol that sometimes passes for political discussion. So Krugman is okay here.
Here's where start seeing the punch coming. "Espcially our airwaves" is Krugman speak for conservative talk radio and to a lesser extent cable shows. The fact is that conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves because it connects to people in their everyday lives. Air America sucked because it didn't entertain or enlighten people or make them think. I would welcome more liberal shows, but they don't last because they can't draw an audience, which means they can't draw advertisers which is necessary to make money. But I digress.
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
In the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and Judge John Roll and the other men, women and girls who lost their life, Krugman is, like most media outlets, blaming the conservatives and/or Tea Party (I am not sure which). So let's take a look at what Krugman has to write--about the right.
Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent.Now that little gem comes with absolutely no link or any citation other than a general time frame and website--hardly the kind of documentation that a Nobel Laureate should be engaged in. The New York Times editors didn't even provide a link (but they did find and include a link to a Homeland Security report about right-wing extremism and one of Krugman's own pieces about from 2008 about the campaign.) I have no idea if threats to members of Congress have increased 300 percent, but I do know this. If you have 10 threats in one year and 40 threats the next year, that is a 300 percent increase. While every threat is of concern, 40 isn't really all that much. By the way if you go to Politico.com and run a search on "Threats," "Threats of violence" or "Threats to Congress" in teh time of Feb 1, 2010 to August 1, 2010, you don't get any reports of a 300 percent increase in the number of threats to Congress.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
OK so far. Pretty fairly balanced. Both parties have been guilty in the past of uncivil discourse (Krugman included). There isn't any place in civil politics for the kind of vitriol that sometimes passes for political discussion. So Krugman is okay here.
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Here's where start seeing the punch coming. "Espcially our airwaves" is Krugman speak for conservative talk radio and to a lesser extent cable shows. The fact is that conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves because it connects to people in their everyday lives. Air America sucked because it didn't entertain or enlighten people or make them think. I would welcome more liberal shows, but they don't last because they can't draw an audience, which means they can't draw advertisers which is necessary to make money. But I digress.
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
And BAM!! There's the punch. According to Krugman (and the rest of his leftist elitists mates), Rep. Giffords lies in a hospital and families are burying loved ones because of Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. Make no mistake, that is exactly what Paul Krugman wants you to believe. Some crackpot goes a-shootin and it is the fault of the political right.
Of course, the political left would never do such a thing. Nope, Keith Olberman would never says someon is the worst person in the world. Oh, wait. The political left would never compare a conservative leader with Hitler....oh, wait--sorry. The political left would never forget that they regularly get called on the carpet for excessive vitriol. Oops, forgot this little bit. No the left doesn't hate.
Oh, forget being crafty with my language, just go check this not so little collection of leftist hate.
Are we as a nation politically divided. Yep. Is there too much hate in our political discourse--maybe. But let's not forget, Mr. Krugman, it takes two sides to have a fight and perhaps it would behoove you to put those vaunted academic skills to use a d do a little research before spraying around such unsupported statements as leftist commentators would never spew hate speech.
Oh, forget being crafty with my language, just go check this not so little collection of leftist hate.
Are we as a nation politically divided. Yep. Is there too much hate in our political discourse--maybe. But let's not forget, Mr. Krugman, it takes two sides to have a fight and perhaps it would behoove you to put those vaunted academic skills to use a d do a little research before spraying around such unsupported statements as leftist commentators would never spew hate speech.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Memory Hole: The Debt Ceiling Debate
The Washington Examiner editorial today gives us a reminder of the not so distant past:
[Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers Austan] Goolsbee should consult a floor speech delivered not so long ago by a certain member of Congress who offered this counterargument to automatic debt ceiling increases: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. ... It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies." Which die-hard Tea Party wingnut said that? It was none other than Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaking on the Senate floor in 2006 just before he voted against raising the debt ceiling.
Oh how the view changes when the job title and control changes.
Therein lies the problem, too many politicians change their view or at least their expressed view when it suits them. If raising the debt ceiling in 2006 was a bad thing (regardless of who was in control of the purse strings) then it is bad policy in 2011. Seriously, a little consistency would go a long way.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
This Week's Playlist
This week's playlist features songs with lyrics that I love or have a turn of phrase that for some reason simply resonates with me. So with each song, I have put in one lyric (which may be one of many in the song) that just worked its way into my head.
- "Tears of Yesterday" by Hoobastank: "I write your name in my breath on the window, sit and watch as it fades away."
- "Citizen Soldier" by 3 Doors Down: "For when they simply need a place to make their bed/right here underneath my wing you can rest your head."
- "I'm Not Running Anymore by John Mellencamp: "Well I got two circus clowns who like to fight/they've got one black eye and a bloody nose. They are the hoodlums of my third wife/whatever I say they will oppose."
- "Scenes from an Italian Restaurant by Billy Joel: "And the king and the queen went back to the Green but you can never go back there again."
- "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" by the Charlie Daniels Band: "My name is Johnny and it might be a sin, but I'll take your bet, you're gonna regret cause I'm the best that's ever been"
- "Mine All Mine" by Van Halen. "Some only see what they want to see, claiming victory oh but that's not me. Gimme a truth, gimme something real. I just wanna feel that it's mine, all mine."
- "This is My Song" by Carbonleaf. "My name is Hope, Luck just ran out. He said he'd return without a doubt, ah but don't you believe him. Oh I happen to have a message from Love, she told she knows what you've been dreaming of."
- "Grey Street" by Dave Matthews Band. "There's a stranger who speaks outside her door, says 'Take what you can from your dreams, make them as real as anything. Ohh, it'll take the work out of the courage.'"
- "Hysteria" by Def Leppard. "When you get that feeling, when you start believing."
- "Bobby Jean" by Bruce Springsteen: "You'll hear me sing this song, if you do you'll know I'm thinking of you and all the miles in between. And I'm just calling one last time, not to change your mind, just to say I miss you babe, good luck, good bye, Bobby Jean."
- "If You Only Knew" by Shinedown: "I don't regret any days I spent, nights we shared or letters that we sent."
- "Twentysomething" by Jamie Cullum: "Who knows the answers, who do you trust. I can't even separate love from lust."
- "3x5" by John Mayer. "Didn't have a camera by my side this time, hoping I would see the world through both my eyes."
- "Nothingness" by Living Colour: "This is the place I call my own, I live with the lies and the fear all alone."
- "Solosbury Hill" by Peter Gabriel: "TOday I don't need a replacement, I tell them what the smile on my face meant, my heart going boom, boom, boom, "Hey," I said, "You can keep my things, they've come to take me home."
- "Time Stands Still" by Rush: "I turn my back to the wind, to catch my breath before I start off again/ Driven on without a moment to spend and pass the evening with a drink and a friend"
- "Home Again" by Queensryche. "For me it wasn't easy to raise the flag and leave, but I thought that you should know how much you mean to me. I won't be there to see you dance or hear you sing the songs we love, so please be strong, it won't be long till I'm home again."
- "The River" by Bruce Springsteen. "Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse?"
- "It's Probably Me" by Sting. "The jury's out, your eyes search the room but one friendly face is all you need to see. If there's one guy, just one guy who'll lay down his life for you and die, its hard to say, I hate to say it, it's probably me."
- "Departure Bay" by Diana Krall: "The fading scent of summertime, arbutus trees and firs, the glistening of rain soaked moss, going to the Dairy Queen at dusk."
Rewriting ‘Huckleberry Finn’
A soon to be released edition of Mark Twain's Classic ‘Huckleberry Finn’ ditches the ‘n’ word which is used regularly in the novel.
The effort is spearheaded by Twain expert Alan Gribben, who says his PC-ified version is not an attempt to neuter the classic but rather to update it. “Race matters in these books,” Gribben told PW. “It’s a matter of how you express that in the 21st century.”Unsurprisingly, there are already those who are yelling “Censorship!” as well as others with thesauruses yelling “Bowdlerization!” and “Comstockery!” Their position is understandable: Twain’s book has been one of the most often misunderstood novels of all time, continuously being accused of perpetuating the prejudiced attitudes it is criticizing, and it’s a little disheartening to see a cave-in to those who would ban a book simply because it requires context.
My issue is that Gribben and his PC cronies are changing a work of art! They are changing the words that Mark Twain put on the page, thought about, edited and in the end included in his novel--a copyrighted work of art.
My problem is that we are altering an enduring work of art. If Huckleberry Finn was such a good novel, it would not have lasted to this day as something to be read, discussed. But the reason it has endured as a work of art is because it makes us think about our assumptions about people, about the world we live in and who we chose to share our life with.
Would these same liberals be okay with altering the Mona Lisa? Or Michealangelo's David? Are we next going to start editing and revising Shakespeare?
If Mr. Gribben is such an expert, he should be defending the work of art as it was written by Twain, not as he thinks it should be written in the 21st Century. Twain is not alive and we can't ask him what he thinks. We should not presume to think he would think differently, which is exactly what Mr. Gribben is doing because he claims some sort of "expertise." All we have are the words Twain put on the page and we shouldn't and mustn't change them just because we don't like some of the words.
Sunday, January 02, 2011
The Battle Between the Public and Public Employees
I have been pretty up front about my admiration for Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ), I have admired how he takes no crap from anyone, generally doesn't play the media dance and calls a spade a spade when it comes to state finances. I might not make the same decisions that he makes, but I admire the fact that he is willing to take on New Jersey's "sacred cows."
But as this story from the NY Times points out, it is not that simple. There is a growing battle between the public and public employees or more specifically, public employee unions. At a time when union membership in the private sector is generally shrinking, the public sector employees are growing, booming even. While the incestuous relationship between public unions and politicians creates one set of problems, the more pressing problem is coming from people who are seeing public employee unions feeding at the government trough and then the government turning around and asking the tax payer to put more in the trough.
In my hometown area, the county government is looking at an $11 million budget shortfall (which is about 4 percent of the budget). Everyday, you read stories of cities and counties in crisis, there is talk of bailouts (a word that is just overused at this point) and of course you hear about tax increases. What is rarely discussed is spending cuts, or at least not spending cuts where the cuts need to happen--in employee pay and benefits. Our leaders talk of "doing more with less" as if that will work. There have been changes in the work rules, but there will come a time when you will hear the buzz and rumble of "work to the rule" and nothing more. Such an attitude will lead to only one result--more animosity toward public sector workers.
But the conversation about public unions and their role in the municipal and state budget crises is coming and has been joined in places like New Jersey. The problem of course, is that it has taken the larger financial crisis to bring us to the point of talking about the issue. The inevitable fallout of waiting to talk about this problem is that the financial crisis has made the converstation more shrill, probably more than it needs to be, and the stakes that much higher. But the fact is that unfunded pension liabilities have been a problem for more than a decade in some states yet, in the good times, the bill and the buck was just passed. I feel sorry for future state legialtors in say 10 years when they will be vilified and demonized for having to make the truly hard choice--i.e. denying some state workers a pension outright, when some politicians now or ten years ago could have made far less painful, though still unpopular, decisions but chose, for political expediency not to.
People have talked about "doing more with less" but at this point, we need to change the tenor of the conversation. The battle will be waged and ultimately, the unions will have to cave--the financial realities are just too dire. To be sure, public sector unions are not doing a good job on the PR front, talking about how they lag behind private sector in pay and benefits (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding). But our political leaders have failed to demonstrate a spine and stand up to the unions. The problem is that because of political cowardice, we face a possible, indeed probable, future will be one where we look at a government worker not with a modicum of respect, but rather we will look at public employees union in the same way we think of the Mafia--with a look of disdain and discomfort.
But as this story from the NY Times points out, it is not that simple. There is a growing battle between the public and public employees or more specifically, public employee unions. At a time when union membership in the private sector is generally shrinking, the public sector employees are growing, booming even. While the incestuous relationship between public unions and politicians creates one set of problems, the more pressing problem is coming from people who are seeing public employee unions feeding at the government trough and then the government turning around and asking the tax payer to put more in the trough.
Across the nation, a rising irritation with public employee unions is palpable, as a wounded economy has blown gaping holes in state, city and town budgets, and revealed that some public pension funds dangle perilously close to bankruptcy. In California, New York, Michigan and New Jersey, states where public unions wield much power and the culture historically tends to be pro-labor, even longtime liberal political leaders have demanded concessions — wage freezes, benefit cuts and tougher work rules.
In my hometown area, the county government is looking at an $11 million budget shortfall (which is about 4 percent of the budget). Everyday, you read stories of cities and counties in crisis, there is talk of bailouts (a word that is just overused at this point) and of course you hear about tax increases. What is rarely discussed is spending cuts, or at least not spending cuts where the cuts need to happen--in employee pay and benefits. Our leaders talk of "doing more with less" as if that will work. There have been changes in the work rules, but there will come a time when you will hear the buzz and rumble of "work to the rule" and nothing more. Such an attitude will lead to only one result--more animosity toward public sector workers.
But the conversation about public unions and their role in the municipal and state budget crises is coming and has been joined in places like New Jersey. The problem of course, is that it has taken the larger financial crisis to bring us to the point of talking about the issue. The inevitable fallout of waiting to talk about this problem is that the financial crisis has made the converstation more shrill, probably more than it needs to be, and the stakes that much higher. But the fact is that unfunded pension liabilities have been a problem for more than a decade in some states yet, in the good times, the bill and the buck was just passed. I feel sorry for future state legialtors in say 10 years when they will be vilified and demonized for having to make the truly hard choice--i.e. denying some state workers a pension outright, when some politicians now or ten years ago could have made far less painful, though still unpopular, decisions but chose, for political expediency not to.
People have talked about "doing more with less" but at this point, we need to change the tenor of the conversation. The battle will be waged and ultimately, the unions will have to cave--the financial realities are just too dire. To be sure, public sector unions are not doing a good job on the PR front, talking about how they lag behind private sector in pay and benefits (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding). But our political leaders have failed to demonstrate a spine and stand up to the unions. The problem is that because of political cowardice, we face a possible, indeed probable, future will be one where we look at a government worker not with a modicum of respect, but rather we will look at public employees union in the same way we think of the Mafia--with a look of disdain and discomfort.
Yes, the Constitution is binding
Ezra Klein really backpedaled on that gaff--well sort of. Yes, he backed off the statement he made that the Constitution is actually binding, but then made this statement:
The rather toxic implication of this proposal is that one side respects the Constitution and the other doesn't. That's bunk, of course: It’s arguments over how the Constitution should be understood, not arguments over whether it should be followed, that cleave American politics. The Constitution was written more than 223 years ago, and despite the confidence various people have in their interpretation of the text, smart scholars of good faith continue to disagree about it. And they tend to disagree about it in ways that support their political ideology. I rarely meet a gun-lover who laments the Second Amendment's clear limits on bearing firearms, or someone who believes in universal health care but thinks the proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause doesn't leave room for such a policy.
The funny thing is that Klein himself interprets the Constitution to read that there are limits on the Second Amendment but a very expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
But leaving aside Klein's interpretation issues, the fact that he, a supposedly educated man, can somehow claim that the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, can not be binding is ludicrous and a symptom that too few liberal "thinkers" believe that there are any limits on the power of government. Of course people have disagreements over an interpretation of the Constitution, but it is a document that has written words and those words have meanings. The problem with too many liberals is that they want to put different words into the document, not interpret the words that are there.
The rather toxic implication of this proposal is that one side respects the Constitution and the other doesn't. That's bunk, of course: It’s arguments over how the Constitution should be understood, not arguments over whether it should be followed, that cleave American politics. The Constitution was written more than 223 years ago, and despite the confidence various people have in their interpretation of the text, smart scholars of good faith continue to disagree about it. And they tend to disagree about it in ways that support their political ideology. I rarely meet a gun-lover who laments the Second Amendment's clear limits on bearing firearms, or someone who believes in universal health care but thinks the proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause doesn't leave room for such a policy.
The funny thing is that Klein himself interprets the Constitution to read that there are limits on the Second Amendment but a very expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
But leaving aside Klein's interpretation issues, the fact that he, a supposedly educated man, can somehow claim that the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, can not be binding is ludicrous and a symptom that too few liberal "thinkers" believe that there are any limits on the power of government. Of course people have disagreements over an interpretation of the Constitution, but it is a document that has written words and those words have meanings. The problem with too many liberals is that they want to put different words into the document, not interpret the words that are there.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
This Week's Playlist
Final one for this year. Going to the rocking side of things:
1. "Honest Man" by The Gracious Few. Great new stuff by former Live and Candlebox.
2. "My Kinda Girl" by Chickenfoot. Another "supergroup" with Sammy Hagar and Michael Anthony from Van Halen, Red Hot Chili Peppers drummer Chad Smith and guitar virtuoso Joe Satriani. A basic, straightforward rock song very well executed.
3. "The High Road" by Broken Bells. This duo created one of my favorite songs of 2010.
4. "Hard to Handle" by The Black Crowes. I fell in love with this song when it first came out in 1990 from this Atlanta band.
5. "Shape I'm In" by Arc Angels. A little heralded bank, the Arc Angels put together a great album of core rhythmn and blues songs. This is as basic R&B as you can get.
6. "Dream On" by Aerosmith. Great song by great band. Enough said.
7. "Bringin on the Heartbreak" by Def Leppard. The early song that established this Sheffield band as the soundtrack of my middle and high school years.
8. "Run Back to Your Side" by Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton's latest single gets back to his famous roots.
9. "This Ain't A Scene, It's An Arms Race" by Fall Out Boy. Great writing, well played and and fantastic hook.
10. "High" by Jimmie's Chicken Shack. From Annapolis Maryland, this band got some early play on MTV but have pushed on. This was their first really big hit and still gets me pumped up.
11. "I Just Wanna Rock" by Joe Satriani. One of my favorite artists ever, this is not one of Satch's best songs, but it is a fun song and he does different things with his guitar in this song.
12. "I'm Bad" by The Last Vegas. With a 80/90's sound, and high quality musicianship, this song got me hooked on the Chicago fivesome.
13. "Back in Black" by Living Colour. One great band (ironically) covering one of the greatest rock songs ever. Brilliantly done and Vernon Reid rocks the solos.
14. "Holier Than Thou" by Metallica. My brother liked Metallica long before me, but the "black" album got me hooked. My Navy roommate and I played this CD until I thought we would burn it out.
15. "State of Love and Trust" by Pearl Jam. I got in to Pearl Jam thanks to a girl I knew in the Navy. This song is just encapsulates this band.
16. "Synchronicity II" by Queensryche. the "thinking man's metal band" covers the Police. Supremely well done.
17. "They Say" by Scars on Broadway. I was never a big fan of System of a Down, but this song by Scars was something that just struck me.
18. "Sin With a Grin" by Shinedown. One of my favorite new bands, and one of the best bands to come out of Jacksonville Florida since Lynyrd Skynyrd, they simply rock. This is one of their harder, faster songs, and I love the title.
19. "Riot Act" by Skid Row. A much older song by Skid Row, but off an album that, from first song to last, demonstrates that a band that a lot people simply didn't credit with much had some musical and songwriting chops.
20. "Black Rain" by Soundgarden. This band getting back together was good news. After a solo career and time with Audioslave, Chris Cornell shows that he still has the pipes and this song's hook just drew me in.
1. "Honest Man" by The Gracious Few. Great new stuff by former Live and Candlebox.
2. "My Kinda Girl" by Chickenfoot. Another "supergroup" with Sammy Hagar and Michael Anthony from Van Halen, Red Hot Chili Peppers drummer Chad Smith and guitar virtuoso Joe Satriani. A basic, straightforward rock song very well executed.
3. "The High Road" by Broken Bells. This duo created one of my favorite songs of 2010.
4. "Hard to Handle" by The Black Crowes. I fell in love with this song when it first came out in 1990 from this Atlanta band.
5. "Shape I'm In" by Arc Angels. A little heralded bank, the Arc Angels put together a great album of core rhythmn and blues songs. This is as basic R&B as you can get.
6. "Dream On" by Aerosmith. Great song by great band. Enough said.
7. "Bringin on the Heartbreak" by Def Leppard. The early song that established this Sheffield band as the soundtrack of my middle and high school years.
8. "Run Back to Your Side" by Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton's latest single gets back to his famous roots.
9. "This Ain't A Scene, It's An Arms Race" by Fall Out Boy. Great writing, well played and and fantastic hook.
10. "High" by Jimmie's Chicken Shack. From Annapolis Maryland, this band got some early play on MTV but have pushed on. This was their first really big hit and still gets me pumped up.
11. "I Just Wanna Rock" by Joe Satriani. One of my favorite artists ever, this is not one of Satch's best songs, but it is a fun song and he does different things with his guitar in this song.
12. "I'm Bad" by The Last Vegas. With a 80/90's sound, and high quality musicianship, this song got me hooked on the Chicago fivesome.
13. "Back in Black" by Living Colour. One great band (ironically) covering one of the greatest rock songs ever. Brilliantly done and Vernon Reid rocks the solos.
14. "Holier Than Thou" by Metallica. My brother liked Metallica long before me, but the "black" album got me hooked. My Navy roommate and I played this CD until I thought we would burn it out.
15. "State of Love and Trust" by Pearl Jam. I got in to Pearl Jam thanks to a girl I knew in the Navy. This song is just encapsulates this band.
16. "Synchronicity II" by Queensryche. the "thinking man's metal band" covers the Police. Supremely well done.
17. "They Say" by Scars on Broadway. I was never a big fan of System of a Down, but this song by Scars was something that just struck me.
18. "Sin With a Grin" by Shinedown. One of my favorite new bands, and one of the best bands to come out of Jacksonville Florida since Lynyrd Skynyrd, they simply rock. This is one of their harder, faster songs, and I love the title.
19. "Riot Act" by Skid Row. A much older song by Skid Row, but off an album that, from first song to last, demonstrates that a band that a lot people simply didn't credit with much had some musical and songwriting chops.
20. "Black Rain" by Soundgarden. This band getting back together was good news. After a solo career and time with Audioslave, Chris Cornell shows that he still has the pipes and this song's hook just drew me in.
Ezra Klein Calls Reading the Constitution a "Gimmick"
And it is too confusing because it was written over 100 years ago.
The last time I checked, the Constitution was written in English--right?
The last time I checked, the Constitution was written in English--right?
Two new rules will give Constitution a starring role in GOP-controlled House
What?? A Congress who actually reads the Constitution? Did I just feel the Earth shake? I know it is cold, but did Hell just freeze over? According to the Washington Post, Congress will enact two new rules that will give the Constitution some primacy in Congress.
When Republicans take over the House next week, they will do something that apparently has never been done before in the chamber's 221-year history:They will read the Constitution aloud.And then they will require that every new bill contain a statement by the lawmaker who wrote it citing the constitutional authority to enact the proposed legislation.
As Gina, Renee Zellweger's character in Empire Records, said: "Shock me, Shock me, Shock me with that deviant behavior." Congress is going to read the Constitution (which may be a first for Congressional Democrats and more than a few Republicans). May I suggest to presumptive Speaker John Boehner regular recitations of Article I, Sec. 8 and the Bill of Rights, I am thinking Daily.
But the second rule, requiring citation of the Constitution provision granting authority to enact the legislation, really warms my heart. But I would suggest an amendment to that rule right now. Don't let Members of Congress get away with a necessary and proper clause citation. They need to cite some other authority--an actual power delegated to the Constitution.
Still, even if the education of Congress is a little late, it is better than never.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
The Top Three Tea Party Questions
Karl Uppiano, writing at the American Thinker presents "The Top Three Tea Party Questions" that he contends should be asked. Those questions are:
1. Which article of the Constitution gives government the authority to do this?2. How does this help reduce the deficit and balance the budget?3. Why does this have to be mandatory and not voluntary?
These are good questions, but these are not just Tea Party questions, they should be questions every American asks of their government a little more. The Framers were suspicous of the accumulation of power, hence the structure of the national government, but also the reliance on the state governments as bodies of power. But there are two questions that Uppiano doesn't ask, and I would name these as 1.5 and 2.5, that should be asked as well.
1.5. Is there a provision in the Constitution that limits or prohibits the government from taking this action? The Constitution is not just a document that grants certain enumerated powers to Congress, it also contains express limitations on the government's power. The difficulty that we as a nation face is that the Framers were not stupid, they realized that Congress would need to have a certain amount of flexibility to legislate their enumerated powers. Thus, the Necessary and Proper Clause. The problem of course is that Congress and the Courts have allowed the Necessary part to go forward, but everyone has forgotten about the Proper part of that clause. Just because an action may be necessary to effect, for example, a regulation of interstate commerce, doesn't mean that it is actually Proper for the federal government to exercise that power. We have to look elsewhere in the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights to make sure that what Congress is doing is not just permitted, but also not prohibited.
2.5. If this action is necessary, what level of government should be doing what ever is being proposed? America is a nation governed by multiple levels of government, from the national government to state government and multiple levels of local government. But more and more, we are asking the federal government or we are allowing the federal government to do more and more and more. What is the point of having state government or local government if we are asking the national government to do all of these tasks we want government to do.
We as a nation are not doing enough to ask ourselves "should government be doing this thing?" The loss of liberty is not a jarring thing, not like an invasion by a foreign power. The loss of liberty in America has happened because we don't ask ourselves and our politicians these questions?
Monday, December 27, 2010
How Does This Happen?
A New York City teacher suspended for allegedly molesting a sixth grade student has been employed for 13 years earning $97,000 plus whiel doing nothing. 13 Years in the 'rubber room' with full pay and benefits is teh headline and I have just one question. Why can't the school system fire him? Why can't they reinstate him? Who knows, but if I could earn $97,000 for sitting around doing nothing or blogging at someone else's expense, then I would be pretty happy.
Friday, December 24, 2010
NOW Hates Hooters
I don't get it, seriously I don't get it.
I don't understand the National Organization for Women. What is their mission? NOW describes their mission as this:
What's wrong with that? Seriously, I want to know. If Radio City Music Hall sold t-shirts that said "Future Rockette," would that by appropriate? What if Cosmopolitan magazine or Elle sold t-shirts with the slogan "Future Fashion Model," is that appropriate? What if NOW sold t-shirts that said "Future Abortion Activist?" I might find the latter offensive.
Okay, NOW has a problem with Hooters, probably because they think that the short orange shorts and tight T-shirts somehow demean the servers at Hooters, but without actually asking if the Hooters servers are actually demeaned. In theory, NOW's mission would encompass these "oppressed" Hooter's Girls and try and get them better treatment.
But read through that mission statement again--I don't see the word children, kids or child welfare anywhere in there. Not once. So why is this complaint being lodged? Because NOW thinks they know better than you what is good for your kids. the last time I checked, that was my job as a parent.
The worst part about Hooters for my kids is not the wait staff or their modest (I have seen more skin displayed in local shopping malls by girls younger than the wait staff at Hooter's--all of whom are at least 18) outfits--but their decidedly unhealthy kids menu. I don't think we would patronize Hooters as a family, but if we did, I am pretty sure that a complaint by NOW would not change my mind.
I don't know what my reaction would be if my daughters decided to work at Hooters. But I would not be worried about my daughters moral upbringing if we did go to Hooters. If I am not worried, why should NOW be worried for me?
I don't understand the National Organization for Women. What is their mission? NOW describes their mission as this:
Since its founding in 1966, NOW's goal has been to take action to bring about equality for all women. NOW works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society; secure abortion, birth control and reproductive rights for all women; end all forms of violence against women; eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia; and promote equality and justice in our society.Okay. I am not sure about all of that, but that is what they say. Now I looked through that mission statement several time after reading a story on the Daily Caller titled: NOW says Hooters is inappropriate for kids. According to the Daily Caller:
The National Organization for Women has filed a complaint against Hooters for being an improper dining venue for minors.
A California chapter of NOW argues that Hooters is unsuitable for kids and violates sexual entertainment law regulations, and therefore no one under 18 should be allowed inside select California venues.
“They also display and sell products of prurient nature, including T-shirts in child sizes with statements such as ‘Future Hooters Girl,’” the NOW complaint reads.
What's wrong with that? Seriously, I want to know. If Radio City Music Hall sold t-shirts that said "Future Rockette," would that by appropriate? What if Cosmopolitan magazine or Elle sold t-shirts with the slogan "Future Fashion Model," is that appropriate? What if NOW sold t-shirts that said "Future Abortion Activist?" I might find the latter offensive.
Okay, NOW has a problem with Hooters, probably because they think that the short orange shorts and tight T-shirts somehow demean the servers at Hooters, but without actually asking if the Hooters servers are actually demeaned. In theory, NOW's mission would encompass these "oppressed" Hooter's Girls and try and get them better treatment.
But read through that mission statement again--I don't see the word children, kids or child welfare anywhere in there. Not once. So why is this complaint being lodged? Because NOW thinks they know better than you what is good for your kids. the last time I checked, that was my job as a parent.
The worst part about Hooters for my kids is not the wait staff or their modest (I have seen more skin displayed in local shopping malls by girls younger than the wait staff at Hooter's--all of whom are at least 18) outfits--but their decidedly unhealthy kids menu. I don't think we would patronize Hooters as a family, but if we did, I am pretty sure that a complaint by NOW would not change my mind.
I don't know what my reaction would be if my daughters decided to work at Hooters. But I would not be worried about my daughters moral upbringing if we did go to Hooters. If I am not worried, why should NOW be worried for me?
Farm Subsidies and School Lunches
Mona Charen, writing in the Washington Examiner, was discussing the manner in which the commentariat on the right took a recent comment by First Lady Michelle Obama out of context when talking about school lunches and healthy eating. A fair number of people, particularly those on the right chastise the First Lady for trying to tell us how we should eat better. I for one think Mrs. Obama's message is a good one, I don't even mind the appearances the First Lady has made in psuedo-PSAs on the Disney Channel (my kids favorite channel) on thinks like eating healthy snacks or managing portion sizes. I believe her efforts come from a good place and I don't really have a problem with the fact that sometimes she and her family like french fries.
So naturally, to fix the problem we are going to--expand that same government program that gives our kids half their calories a day. There are even some people who want to expand beyond just school breakfasts and lunches and go right into dinner as well. Can you imagine the blobs for kids we would get then? (And don't get me started on the lack of Physical Education to burn some of those calories off).
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/will-mrs-obama-downsize-your-kid#ixzz192iuazRN
Having said that though, I am not a big fan of some of Mrs. Obama's chosen methodology, such as expanding school lunch programs. I became even less enamoured of the idea when I read this bit from Charen's piece:
So let's follow the government's logic here a bit. As noted by Charen, the government nutrionistas tell us that 1 in 3 American kids are overweight or obese. That is bad, but then we read that children get half their daily caloric intake from school lunches. That is one meal out of, presumably 3 meals and snacks probably, and kids get 1/2 of their calories from a school lunch--a government program. So, partially to blame for the high obesity rate in this country is----that's right, the government.Obama is correct that school meals are loaded with saturated fat, salt, and sugar. She notes that children receive half of their daily calories from school lunches. Most kids don't eat breakfast at school, which means that school lunches are larded up with calories.
So naturally, to fix the problem we are going to--expand that same government program that gives our kids half their calories a day. There are even some people who want to expand beyond just school breakfasts and lunches and go right into dinner as well. Can you imagine the blobs for kids we would get then? (And don't get me started on the lack of Physical Education to burn some of those calories off).
Compounding the school lunch problem is the farm subsidies that go along with it. The government spend $13 billion dollars a year now on the school lunch program buying those fatty, dairy-laden, fat-dripping, high caloric lunches for our ever more obese kids. We subsidize dairy and meat farmers who then provide the basis for the high caloric school lunches and breakfasts.
How did this happen? Was it just that before the Obamas came to town, the feds were misguided about what was good for kids? Or was it something about the way government operates?Is it an accident that school lunches are so heavy on cheese and meat?No. The National School Lunch program, enacted in 1946, was devised with two goals in mind. The first was to subsidize farmers by purchasing huge blocs of "excess" commodities in order to keep prices up.Only secondarily did the government intend to help feed hungry children. Subsidies are, to paraphrase President Reagan, the closest thing to immortal life in this world.So while America's children were getting heavier and heavier, particularly low-income children, federal programs continued to heap pizza, French fries, and cheeseburgers onto their plates.
So we pay subsidies to farmers to keep the prices artificially high for their products and then the government, presumably pays those artificially inflated prices--essentially paying twice for the products. It gets better, Mrs. Obama and the nutritionistas want to expand the the school lunch program by some 35%, adding another $4.5 billion into the program to, I hope, buy more fruits and vegetables for the school lunch program. That expansion will include, no doubt, subsidies to fruit and vegetable farmers to keep their prices higher and then the government will pay those higher prices. Of course, the School Lunch Program is not going to stop by the dairy and meat products that it already subsidizes. The program is just going to add more calories to our kids plates, although it will be healthier calories.
Does anyone else see the folly in this? Does anyone else see the billions wasted? I think it terrific that we are looking to trim our collective waist lines and put some healthier food on our children's plates. But we also need to think about trimming the size of our national wallet and this is not the way to do it.
Does anyone else see the folly in this? Does anyone else see the billions wasted? I think it terrific that we are looking to trim our collective waist lines and put some healthier food on our children's plates. But we also need to think about trimming the size of our national wallet and this is not the way to do it.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/will-mrs-obama-downsize-your-kid#ixzz192iuazRN
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Texas Gets Four New House Seats
The Census Bureau today announced U.S. Population Growth and how many U.S. House seats will be reapportioend. The Northeast and Midwest all took a hit as they lost seats, but the Sunbelt and Southwest continue to grow.
Texas will gain four new House seats, and Florida will gain two. Gaining one each are Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington.
Ohio and New York will lose two House seats each. Losing one House seat are Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.Florida will now have as many U.S. House members as New York: 27. California will still have 53 seats, and Texas will climb to 36.
What is interesting is that the states where seats were gained all went against Barack Obama in 2008. The state legislatures will begin the process of redistricting early next year. It will be bitter, it will be bloody and it may very well make a huge difference on who is occupying the White House in January 2013.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Nothing has really changed
When Bill Clinton was elected President, I was in the Navy, in the midst of my four year enlistment. There were two big talking points in my unit about President Clinton's election: 1) that he had never served in the military--the first president in the modern era to have not done so and 2) that he had campaigned to a certain extent about ending the ban on gays in the military.
Interestingly, the first was a much greater concern than the latter. The truth is there have been gays in the military undoubtedly since the Declaration of Independence was signed. Randy Shilts wrote and terrific book on the subject called Conduct Unbecoming describing the lives and careers of gays and lesbians in the military since the Vietnam War. The fact is, ask a military member and chances are they can tell you and probably name fellow service members who are gay. But President Clinton made a pledge to end the ban on openly gays serving in the military.
The military leadership, as to be expected, was opposed to the idea. The fact is that it was a policy decision and like all policy decisions, particularly in the Clinton Administration, it was subject to compromise--which is how we got the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It was a compromise built on lack of spine by the Clinton White House. In order to get elected, Clinton felt he needed the votes of gays and lesbians (I still don't believe this to be true) and in doing so, promised to do something that was, at least in theory, within his purview. The funny thing is that as someone who had not served in the military, President Clinton didn't understand the fundamental nature of civilian leadership of the military. As the commander in chief, the President could have simply said, "Don't discharge anyone from the military just because they announce they are gay." It is an order, and if the Joint Chiefs didn't like it, Clinton could have fired them, they serve at the pleasure of the President.
But with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell compromise, like most political compromises, you got the worst of both worlds. You continued to have a military leadership who thought they could continue to act like they previously did, discharging soldiers for being gay and, honestly, looking for some rather flimsy excuses. You still had gay service members who enlisted or were commissioned, didn't like the military and then get discharged by simply coming out. In the meantime, the military still had gay service members. Nothing had changed.
Now that a repeal of that dumb law has passed and you can have openly gay service members in the military, what is going to change? Probably nothing. Sure there are same gay activist military members who are going to celebrate, but probably a very small minority. The fact is the push for the repeal of this law didn't come very hard from the gay service members, at least as far as I can tell, not from active service members. Rather the push came from the people who drive "identity politics." Comparing gays in the military to minorities in the military didn't not win the argument, rather what one the argument is the realization that since 1776, there have been gays in the military and there shouldn't be a law that should force someone to hide who they are, even in the military. I would guess that the vast majority of gays in the military will remain closeted, but at least they no longer have to face the end of their chosen career if they are inadvertantly outed or viciously outed by someone else. That is the justice that is deserved.
The truth is, in the military, "identity politics" is based upon the color of the uniform you wear. The identity is Marine, or Navy, or Air Force or Army. Within the services, you might have distinctions based on unit. Identity politics based upon race, or sexual orientation or nationality are a luxury for civilians, because when the excrement hits the wind generating device, it won't matter if the person next to you is a black soldier from Chicago or a white Marine from Moline, Illinois. It doesn't matter to a ground pounder in a firefight in Afghanistan if the Air Force pilot about to drop a 500 lb., laser-guided nasty-gram on the enemy is a lesbian from Long Island or if the Naval aviator is a gay man from Seattle so long as they hold up their end of the bargain and do their job. The assessment of them is based on competence in their job, not what they look like or where they came from or what gender they prefer to sleep with.
In the end, Marines in combat will treat sexual orientation the same way they treat race, religion and one's stance on the likelihood of the Patriots winning another Super Bowl. I do not believe the intense desire we all feel as Marines to accomplish the mission and protect each other will be affected in the slightest by knowing the sexual orientation of the man or woman next to us.
The only people the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell really matters to are the Human Rights Campaign and other gay/lesbian advocacy groups. Everyday, our nation calls upon our military to lay their lives on the line to give groups like HRC the freedom to espouse their point of view. In the end does it matter if those service members are gay or straight? After all, last week there were gays in the military and this week, those same gay people are still in the military. Nothing has really changed
Music This Week
I like to keep track of the music I am listening too (since I tend to delete playlists from my iTunes after a while). This week's playlist looks like this:
1. "War" by Bruce Springsteen
2. "True Reflections" by Dave Matthews Band
3. "Cliffs of Dover" by Eric Johnson
4. "Pretty Vegas" by INXS
5. "Wormhole Wizards" by Joe Satriani
6. "Escape" by Hoobastank
7. "Everlong" by Foo Fighters
8. "Think Like a Man" by Orianthi
9. "Hysteria" by Def Leppard
10. "Paloma" by Carbon Leaf
11. "Lily Was Here" by Candy Dulfer
12. "Hard to Handle" by The Black Crows
13. "My Kinda Lover" by Billy Squire
14. "Even Flow" by Pearl Jam
15. "Living in a Dream" by the Arc Angels
16. "Sweet Emotion" by Aerosmith
17. "Flirtin' With Disaster" by Molly Hatchet
18. "Time Stands Still" (Live Version) by Rush
19. "Just Wait" by Blues Traveler
20. "Home Again" by Queensryche
If you check any of these songs (some are quite old and some very new), let me know what you think.
1. "War" by Bruce Springsteen
2. "True Reflections" by Dave Matthews Band
3. "Cliffs of Dover" by Eric Johnson
4. "Pretty Vegas" by INXS
5. "Wormhole Wizards" by Joe Satriani
6. "Escape" by Hoobastank
7. "Everlong" by Foo Fighters
8. "Think Like a Man" by Orianthi
9. "Hysteria" by Def Leppard
10. "Paloma" by Carbon Leaf
11. "Lily Was Here" by Candy Dulfer
12. "Hard to Handle" by The Black Crows
13. "My Kinda Lover" by Billy Squire
14. "Even Flow" by Pearl Jam
15. "Living in a Dream" by the Arc Angels
16. "Sweet Emotion" by Aerosmith
17. "Flirtin' With Disaster" by Molly Hatchet
18. "Time Stands Still" (Live Version) by Rush
19. "Just Wait" by Blues Traveler
20. "Home Again" by Queensryche
If you check any of these songs (some are quite old and some very new), let me know what you think.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Supreme Court agrees to hear campaign finance law case that could be ‘game changer’ | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Supreme Court to hear campaign finance law case that will look at the issue of public funding in Arizona's Clean Elections Law which provides that when privately financed candidates expend over set amounts, publicly funded candidates get more public funds to counter the privately funded candidates.
I am generally against the notion of public funding for campaigns. The case could be significant and have implications for the presidential campaign fund. It will be interesting to see how the Court will address this issue in light of previous campaign finance rulings.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Wikileaks: Enemy of the United States
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion:
Seriously, a demand letter? I send demand letters all the time in my legal practice--but when some chucklehead is making a mockery of the United States of America, we should be dropping a bomb on his head. Wikileaks is endangering the safety and national security of the United States. If North Korea was lobbing artillery at us, we wouldn't send a demand letter.
We are the laughingstock of the world, an impotent superpower whose response to those who aid our enemies is to write a letter asking them not to do it. Yes, Harold Koh the State Department's chief lawyer, sent a demand freakin' letter to Wikileaks. It went something like this (my paraphrase):Dear Wikileaks,Here is the letter which should have been delivered months ago:
Please give us our stuff back because it was really mean of you to take it and give it to all your friends.
Sincerely,
Harold KohDear Wikileaks,
If you publish any more material we will hunt you down no matter the cost, and you either will be killed while resisting arrest or you will spend the rest of your lives in solitary confinement in a Supermax prison, where the highlight of your day will be 1 hour spent in a cage instead of your cell. Don't look up, that sound of propellers in the air is not a Predator drone.
Sincerely,
Harold Koh
Seriously, a demand letter? I send demand letters all the time in my legal practice--but when some chucklehead is making a mockery of the United States of America, we should be dropping a bomb on his head. Wikileaks is endangering the safety and national security of the United States. If North Korea was lobbing artillery at us, we wouldn't send a demand letter.
Seriously, how wimpy does the Obama Administration look?
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Chris Christie Freezes School Superintendent Pay
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie orders school superintendent pay freeze. Christie is still looking to bring the New Jersey budget under control. As you can see, he is an equal opportunity pay freezer. Will this make the teachers' union happy? Probably not, but at least the objective outsider can look and see that Christie isn't just beating up on teacher's pay when it comes to controlling education costs.
Author of DOJ report targeting NJ Governor Chris Christie has history of using position for political purposes, sources say | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
According to the The Daily Caller a recent report targeting NJ Governor Chris Christie was authored by someone who may have a political agenda.
That a Department of Justice lawyer may have a political agenda doesn't bother nearly as much as these passages:
Another former senior DOJ official who asked not to be named confirmed Lee’s involvement in strategizing to leak information to the Washington Post, saying that she was not a trustworthy person and had major political motivations.
Von Spakovsky described one case where Lee was caught breaking into the e-mail of a colleague, Joshua Rogers, specifically because Rogers was conservative and Christian. “Lee was radically left. She made it plain that she didn’t like Rogers,” von Spakovsky said.
He went on to call Lee’s efforts at DOJ a “major security breach.”
snip
ccording to another former DOJ employee who worked closely with Lee, Lee first got into trouble while working in the Voters Rights Division during the Bush administration. There, according to the former coworker, Lee was caught breaking into other employees’ e-mail accounts and spreading around personal information.
Look if this woman, Maura Lee has a political agenda, big deal. It might create conflicts at the DOJ, but that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is why this woman still has a job!!! Did you note that she was caught breaking into another employee's email? Did you note that it doesn't appear to be an isolated incident? This is not some clerk, this is a licenses member of the Bar--an attorney who should have been fired after the first incident. But somehow, this woman still is employed by the U.S. Government. If she is willing to break into a colleagues email, what is to stop her from thinking she can break into your email or my email. Lee should have been fired--not for being politically adverse to conservatives, but for violating the privacy and work papers of a colleague.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Truth in Education and A Pandora's Box
While I think some of the arguments presented in this piece by Robert Weissberg at American Thinker, Spending Less for Better Education, are a bit simplistic, Weissberg hits on a truth that has so far befuddled education reformers:
The GOP's victories on November 2 have once again raised the call for smaller government, and given soaring budgets and lack of improvement, reducing K-12 education spending is one obvious target. This will not be easy, but there is a sensible strategy.Weissberg is absolutely correct, the current education constituencies, i.e. the teacher unions and the massive administrative bloat that we have in education is difficult to overcome directly. The secret which Wiessberg presents through one idea is to go around, or under, the education constituencies rather than through them.Begin by recognizing that abolishing any specific program, even clear-cut ineffective boondoggles, is doomed to fail. All have constituencies -- education school professors, benefiting parents, program employees, foundation experts, bureaucratic administrators, plus erstwhile pro-education members of Congress who can readily mobilize to defeat axe-wielders. Scanning the budget line by line to cut waste is a cost-saving dead end. GOP skinflints will be overwhelmed and labeled mean-spirited enemies of "helping the children."Successful cost-cutting requires satisfying three conditions. First, reductions must improve education, not just make mediocrity less expensive. Second, measures must defeat interests who sustain an expensive, personally lucrative status quo. Finally, cutbacks must create powerful counter-constituencies to resist the inevitable rear-guard action from teachers' unions and all profiting from government's largess.
Weissberg argues that the best way to reduce costs and improve education quickly is to take all the "bad students" out of the classes. But unlike the disciplinarian crowd, Weissberg suggest sending them packing not as a punishment, but as an opportunity. Weissberg suggests letting any 16 year old kid to drop out with a Lifetime Learning Credit Voucher that can be used with the knucklehead gets some maturity and takes a few lumps in the real world.
The idea has appeal, but fails to address a few problems. Namely that behavioral problems in classrooms arise far before a child turns 16. By the time the kid is 16, then most schools have given up hope on the miscreant. So, while there may be some savings, I am not sure that the savings will be as great as Weissburg thinks.
But while Weissburg sees an upside, and it is a reasonable upside, there is a downside--namely that you now have a bunch of 16-year-old, uneducated, unemployed kids on the street. It may be just a matter of time before our juvenile justice system is swamped with these drop-outs. I am not saying every drop-out will end up a criminal--but the odds certainly seem to stack up that way.
But if we go back to Weissberg's truth in the beginning of his piece, this is where we need to get creative. We need to see more ideas like this--but of course, Weissberg himself opens up the biggest Pandora's box of all--we would have to admit that there are indeed bad students--something that politicians have been loathe to admit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)