Democracy Market

Borat's Kids - So Iodized Now

2006-12-18T19:31:00.000-08:00

This is an interesting example of how much progress can be made in a public health effort in a short time.
----
In fact, Kazakhstan has become an example of how even a vast and still-developing nation like this Central Asian country can achieve a remarkable public health success. In 1999, only 29 percent of its households were using iodized salt. Now, 94 percent are. Next year, the United Nations is expected to certify it officially free of iodine deficiency disorders.
-----

So, why is this important?
-----

Worldwide, about two billion people — a third of the globe — get too little iodine, including hundreds of millions in India and China. Studies show that iodine deficiency is the leading preventable cause of mental retardation. Even moderate deficiency, especially in pregnant women and infants, lowers intelligence by 10 to 15 I.Q. points, shaving incalculable potential off a nation’s development.

The most visible and severe effects — disabling goiters, cretinism and dwarfism — affect a tiny minority, usually in mountain villages. But 16 percent of the world’s people have at least mild goiter, a swollen thyroid gland in the neck.

“Find me a mother who wouldn’t pawn her last blouse to get iodine if she understood how it would affect her fetus,” said Jack C. S. Ling, chairman of the International Council for Control of Iodine Deficiency Disorders, a committee of about 350 scientists formed in 1985 to champion iodization.

-----

It costs about $1.15 to iodize a ton of salt. This is a great example of some of the low hanging fruit out there for Bill Gates and Warren Buffet's billions.

Padilla - Maybe Not So Dangerous

2006-11-19T14:50:00.000-08:00

You'd hope that if the government held a US citizen for 1300 days without charges that you wouldn't then read things like this in the Washington Post.
------
A Republican-appointed federal judge in Miami has already dumped the most serious conspiracy count against Padilla, removing for now the possibility of a life sentence. The same judge has also disparaged the government's case as "light on facts," while defense lawyers have made detailed allegations that Padilla was illegally tortured, threatened and perhaps even drugged during his detention at a Navy brig in South Carolina......

But some legal scholars and defense lawyers argue that the government's case is so fundamentally weak, and its legal options so limited, that Padilla could draw a relatively minor prison term or even be acquitted. The trial has already been postponed once, until January, and is almost certain to be delayed again......
--------

It sure looks like Judge Luttig's anger at, and loss of confidence in, the Bush Administration was pretty well founded.

China's Development

2006-11-19T13:07:00.000-08:00

Those interested in China should check out today's (ridiculously long) article on development along the Yellow River.

A Better Barry

2006-11-06T15:10:00.000-08:00

I've never liked Rick Barry's radio show. He has that annoyingly condescending take that the only people that can comment on sports are people who were professional athletes. Best example of this was his stance that the media in SF couldn't call TO a jerk because they didn't understand what it took to be great. This was dumb of course because 1) A brain damaged K-9 could tell TO was a jerk. 2) It was pretty obvious this view sprang from Barry having been considered a jerk at time.

Anyways. I DID like his son Jon when he played for the Kings back when I was at Davis. And Jon is now doing games with Tirico and Walton and, at first glance, seems very good. Very good in the sense that he seems able to spar with Walton when he makes his ridiculous and hyperbolic statements - which, really, is all that I want from a broadcast. For example: Last week Walton made the innane comment that the Lakers could win the division and Barry pointed out that, despite the presence of Luke Walton on the Lakers, the Suns would still be much better. Then when Walton was talking about how shrewd Red Auerbach was Barry objected with something to the extent of "I don't know that he was always shrewd. He did trade ME for Alaa Abdelnabby." If you can rebut Bill Walton and use Alaa Abdelnaby at the same time then you are pretty much my favorite commetator.

The only bummer about Barry is that it reminds me what a failure Tom Tolbert was in this role. On his KNBR show Tolbert was consistently excellent in mocking Walton. Then after he ended up working next to him he was pretty much a relative failure in effectively sparring and checking Walton's excesses. Of course, I've always thought Tolbert in no way lives up to his potential on TV relative to his excellence on the radio. (Which I guess says a lot about his radio skills as I think he did win an Emmy for his TV commentary).

The thing that makes Tolbert great on radio does not really work on TV and is not conducive to quick rejoinders with Walton. Tolbert is at his best when he spends like 3 minutes going off on some seemingly totally irrelavent metaphor, story or simile that is enjoyable and seemingly unrelated to anything being discussed until he finally pulls it through at the end and you end up thinking "Yah, that's totally true." That sort of thing is great with radio, but doesn't work when doing color on TV, or even on a studio show when you are still limited to 20 second bits.

Should the Yankees Cut and Run with A-Rod

2006-11-05T10:47:00.000-08:00

This is an amazingly clever op-ed. To give you a taste:
-----

TRADE A-Rod’s continued failure to deliver in the clutch is diverting critical resources and dividing our team. He must go. We need to move on, now!

KEEP Trading A-Rod would lead to a disaster in the American League East. It would embolden other teams and threaten future Yankee clubs. To cut and run is not an option.

TRADE Neither is “Stay the course.”........

TRADE We’re sending our kids to fight an endless war in Boston, when it’s Detroit that attacked us. After we swept the Red Sox in August, you hung out your Mission Accomplished banner, but nothing has been accomplished.

KEEP The Yankees never said it was over. The news media said it was over. And I acknowledge the challenges. We must adapt. We must heed the experts. Joe Torre and his coaches have said they believe A-Rod should come back. We must listen to them.

TRADE Those are the same “experts” that batted A-Rod eighth!

KEEP You would stoop so low as to attack Joe Torre? Have you no shame? Have you no shame?

-------

Frum's Astounding Take On Haggard

2006-11-05T10:14:00.000-08:00

I'm going to have a hard time ever taking David Frum seriously after this:

--------

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

After all, the first man may well see his family and church life as his "real" life; and regard his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works.

Yet it is the first man who will if exposed be held up to the execration of the media, while the second can become a noted public character - and can even hope to get away with presenting himself as an exemplar of ethics and morality.

---------

I'm not quite sure how this shouldn't come across as ridiculously offensive to homosexuals, people who support gay rights, or L/libertarians. So, if you publicly vilify homosexuals you can: snort meth with hookers, cheat on your spouse with prostitutes, wreak havoc and upheavel upon the lives of your five children, and engage in hypocritical acts which will seriously damage your sides cause? And you are morally superior to someone who is openly homosexual? Or someone with libertarian leanings who doesn't feel it is the government's role to interfere with the interaction of consenting adults? Wow.

On a positive note, after noting the irony of this graphic, Matt Yglesias has an interesting and positive wish for how the affair could play out:
------
Shadenfreude and hypocrisy aside, though, it's be nice -- unrealistic, perhaps, but nice -- if people took this as an opportunity to learn something. Obviously, the other men in that image with Haggard -- Tony Perkins, James Dobson, etc. -- know him, get along with him, and have worked with him as a colleague, like him, think he's a good man, and so forth. And Dobson and Perkins aren't alone. Lots of people have worked with or for Haggard over the years. He's a widely respected man in this country. Should all those people who know him, and have followed him really so sharply revise their views of Haggard, or should they revise their views of gay people? The latter, I think, though I'm not optimistic that's how it'll play.
--------
I tend to agree with that sentiment - that it would be nice, and that it is unlikely.

Elizabeth Dole Awful on Meet The Press

2006-11-05T09:54:00.000-08:00

No video or transcript is available yet, (will be here later) but Senator Elizabeth Dole is about the most unlikeable personality I can think of on today's "Meet the Press." She completely filibusters and butts in at every opportunity, though never actually answers a question. Russert spends about 45 seconds trying to get her to stop filibustering to talk about Iraq then just gives up. If I were him I would not have gone back to her - all the other three on the panel were all fairly reasonable with time and topic.

But the highlight is when he finally gets her to talk about Iraq and she says something to the extent that Democrats seem "content with losing the war" in Iraq. Russert tries to follow up with her but she continues to speak. Emanual tries to as well but she just continues to go on. When she finally stops Russert gives Emanual time to retort and he gets about two sentences in when Dole begins droning on in the background until Emanual finally looks at Russert as if to say "get ahold of your program, what's going on?" then finally shrugs and gives up trying to talk.

Picking on Realtors

2006-11-04T17:06:00.000-08:00

So yesterday The National Association of Realtors had a full page ad in the WSJ proclaiming "It's a great time to buy or sell a home." The slogan also shows up in other ads and from individual realtors. Here's what I don't understand; do people really believe that a particular time can be great to buy AND sell the same thing. I mean, if it is a great time to buy something then shouldn't, by definition of what makes it a good time to buy - namely, price, it be a bad time to sell that same thing? And vice versa. I mean, if it is a great time to buy gold, then doesn't that mean it's a bad time to sell it? That has always annoyed me.

How Not To Prove You Are Middle Class

2006-11-02T17:00:00.000-08:00

I enjoy Rich Karlgaard's column and, to a lesser extent, blog. But I can't help but think this sort of thing gives ammunition to those who would accuse "capitalists" and such with being out of touch.
------
Yesterday I flew my Cirrus SR22 from Palo Alto, Calif., to Santa Monica, Calif., on a perfect autumn afternoon. I'm just a middle class dork from North Dakota--it astonishes me everyday that I work at a great company like Forbes.
------
I'm all for people enjoying their success. And I'm all for the tendency to self-identify as middle class even when you probably aren't. But. Note to self: If trying to convince people of middle class creds, don't lead into it with stories of flying in my personal plane.

That may not be viewed as middle class by a machinist or teacher whose highest powered mode of transport is a 1997 F-150.

Bush and Rove Just Using Evangicals?

2006-10-15T17:26:00.000-07:00

So there is some excitement about a new book by a Christian Republican who worked in the White House that claims Evangicals are just being used by the administration.
-----
He says some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as “the nuts.”

“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy,’” Kuo writes.

------

If true, I find this to be pretty disengenuous and cynical. I also find it to be really, really comforting, given the alternative is that they are taking the Faldwell/Robertson sect seriously.

Oregonian Endorses Republican As Well

2006-10-15T16:30:00.000-07:00

It's a trend amongst the Left-leaning West Coast Cities. The Oregonian endorsed Ron Saxton over incumbent Dem. Kulongoski.

LA Times Endorses Schwarzenegger

2006-10-15T16:19:00.000-07:00

Read it here. Main reasons they cite:
1) He embodies CA center of political gravity.
2) He will serve as a check of the excess of the Democrat Legislature
Both of those make sense.

Conservative Talk Show Hosts - Not Conservative, or Just Whores?

2006-10-15T12:12:00.000-07:00

I found this this argument about conservatives who shill for brands on radio to be interesting.
-----

When I'm driving along in the afternoon, I often turn on my radio and hear Sean Hannity shilling for Ruth's Chris Steak House. Frankly, he's pretty convincing. I've never been to a Ruth's Chris Steak House, but when I hear that spiel right before dinner time, my mouth starts to water.

But after dinner when I turn on my TV there is that same pitchman posing as a journalist. Sean Han nity is not a conservative. He just plays one on TV. The same goes for Bill O'Reilly. The man who claims to work in a "no-spin zone" in the evenings spends his afternoon not just spinning but pitching.

None of this would bother me if these characters didn't purport to be conservatives. We conservatives have principles. We don't say things because people pay us to say them. We say things because we believe in them. That doesn't seem to apply at Fox. There may be some code of behavior there, but only in the sense that there is some code of behavior at those brothels outside Reno. In both cases, no law is being broken but someone's honor is being traded for a price.

What makes it worse is that these guys often pose as journalism critics. Listening to Hannity or O'Reilly critique honest journalists is like listening to a hooker critique the Miss America contest. It may be entertainment, but it sure ain't journalism.

-------

By interesting, I guess I mean thought provoking - but entirely unconvincing. I'm not sure I buy the whole "we conservatives have principles" argument. It seems to allude that liberals don't have priciples, something I don't buy. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean that they don't have principles. In fact, you probably disagree with them them because of some of their principles. I tend to think it is more accurate to say that both sides have principles, and both sides have shown a willingness to stray from them when politically expedient. I think you could make just as strong an argument that - given views on markets, business and wealth - it should be more expected that conservatives would be willing to shill for dollars.

But I do agree in the sense that their is something unseemly about any radio personality - left, right, sports, etc - seeming willingness to shill for whoever will pay them. The one that has always bothered me are the personalities that promote investing (read: speculating) in gold.

Just to establish something, there is about zero reason for 99.99999% of people to put money into gold. In the long run, it is nothing more than a store of wealth that barely keeps up with inflation. To give this some perspective over the very long run, $1 invested in gold in 1802 is now worth $1.24 adusted for inflation. That same dollar invested in stocks is worth over $100,000 adjusted for inflation. Putting money into gold is really speculating - a speculation that has paid off at certain times in history, including recently (though not very recently)- but still speculation. With just about any precious metal, I would imagine you are usually better served to purchase the stocks of companies in the industry than you are to buy the metal itself. The price is correlated with the underlying commodity (if that is what you want) long term returns should be better, you have current income from dividends, it is easier, and transaction costs are significantly lower (which is why all these people selling gold can have radio personalities shilling for them).

So just about any financial advisor worth their salt is going to tell the average person they should not invest directly in gold. But you still find a number of radio personalities preaching to listeners that gold can be part of a well rounded portfolio (defined as whatever % the salesman is going to be able to convince you to invest with them) and you should call Company X now to discuss how they can help you invest in gold (and capture exorbinate fees in the process).

This does not sit well with me. These guys are trading on their credibility, and using it to convince people to do something not in their best interests. I am especially amused with Dennis Prager, who has one ad talking about mortgages or life insurance where he says "You don't know how carefull I am about what I endorse" The message being that he is so carefull about what he chooses to endorse that you can trust whoever he speaks about. Yet, he then encourages listeners to call a company to learn about investing in gold.

To that extent that is not impressive, I agree with the author. I know that the argument many people will use to justify it is that people only promote products the really believe in, use anyways, or were aware of already. I can see the logic of that argument.

But I have my doubts as to how often that is the case. Last year I shopped for some radio ads for my business and the salespeople immediately suggest having an on-air personality do the commercial. They said it would lend credibility, etc. etc. And I'm sure it would. Of course, the personality in question had never used our service, and probably had never even heard of us. Which would seem to put to rest the idea that personalities only shill for companies they know, use etc. (though that is not to say there may be individuals for whom this is the case - just that it in no way seemed to be the norm).

I can understand why the stations and personalities like to push this though. You pay extra to have an on-air personality do the commercial. The extra money is split between the personality and the station. So the station is getting extra income for their talent (which means they can pay them less, everything else equal) and they are getting more money for that 30 or 60 second spot vs. just having a normal ad. It is a win/win on their part, which is why the salespeople push it so hard.

Just keep that in mind though the next time your decision making process for a product or service includes "well, X highly recommends it."

What Problems Do People Really Face

2006-10-11T20:48:00.000-07:00

This, from Time, makes a ridiculous amount of sense and is important to remember when discussing any number of items. Key take away from the discussion is how what is often potrayed in the media is not reality for the vast majority of Americans:
----
I don't deny that some people have this problem of coddling, pushing and overachieving--but it's not the public menace it's supposed to be. The media need a reality check. American high school students think their parents are doing less to help them in school, not more (in such things as attending PTA meetings and helping out with homework). Nor is every teenager spoiled or lazy; nearly a third of 16-year-olds have jobs while in school, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nearly a third of them volunteer, about one hour a week. Meanwhile, the odds of getting into college are far better than the panic portrays. Only 2% of students apply to 12 or more colleges, and only 150 of the nation's 3,500 colleges are so selective that they turn down more than half their applicants. Forty-four percent of colleges accept every single applicant. Some graduates do move home after college, but in the 1980s, more 18-to-34-year-olds lived at home than do today, according to census data. Constant distortions like these have unintended consequences. A survey of young Latinos showed many hadn't applied to college at all because they had heard colleges are too selective and too expensive.

The newest entrant in the supermom-lit category is Searching for Mary Poppins: Women Write About the Intense Relationship Between Mothers and Nannies. This book has its place, but it's a small place. Only 1 in 20 kids in the U.S. will ever be cared for by a nanny. Nevertheless, the book's editors, Susan Davis and Gina Hyams, write that "employing a nanny is beyond a necessity" for a middle-class American family.

-----

At the risk of sounding way to "tsk, tsk" towards a group in which I am should probably be included, much of what we read about that is perceived as the problem by those that have the time or interest to write about such things, is not what what concerns those that don't have that sort of time. If that makes sense.

People that worry about children getting into the Ivy Leagues and having 4 hours of structured, extra-curricular activities after school each day are ridiculously over-represented in those that write about this for the WAPO and NYT. Some things that really matter to people that follow politics closely (judge confirmations, for instance) don't even register with people who care about things that others may think shouldn't be important (whether you could imagine sharing a beer with a candidate). This is a perspective that is often lost by a small % that follow these things closely.

Thank you for indulging me. I will now go back to blogging about Hastert and Reid and personal enrichment - of which will play exactly 0% in the outcome of anyting.

Duke Strikes Back!

2006-10-11T17:55:00.000-07:00

Duke Cunningham sent a letter to the San Diego Union Tribune, lashing out at the paper, the reporter who broke the story, and the co-conspiritor who showered Duke with seven figures in gifts and cash. From the article:

-----

“I hurt more than anyone could imagine and without my faith your constant cruelty would destroy me,” he wrote.

Cunningham cited his religious faith again when he wrote, “The Lord's Prayer forgive me my debts as I would forgive. My first sin each night is the failure to forgive the U.T. Not just coverage but the brutal two and three pages each week that has nearly destroyed me and my family.”

He warned that the “truth will come out and you will find out how liablest [libelous] you have & will be.”

He also complained that Stern and other Copley reporters “only want to write about how I died not how I lived.” And he rattled off a long list of honors he said he earned as a congressman – “Education Man of the Year, Impact Aide Man of the Year, Library Man of the Year,” among others.

------

Needless to say, it seems Duke is having problems coming to terms with accepting guilt for his actions. He does seem to have a sense of humor though. In what I can only assume is a nod to irony, he handwrote the letter in the same penmanship he used to handwrite his bribery menu.

The article notes that Cunningham addressed the letter to "Copley News Tabloid" and underlined the word tabloid. I hope the author of the article typed this particular factoid with one hand, while cradling Copley's Pulitzer with the other.

Ranking Reasons To Dislike Hastert

2006-10-09T21:05:00.000-07:00

Just for fun, let's try to rank the reasons to either dislike Dennis Hastert, or at least think that the House could use some new leadership. My informal list, which I reserve the right to revise after I like, you know, think about it, has from biggest to smallest:

1) He personally made $1.5 million in 3 years from a land investment by earmarking $200 million for a freeway within 5 miles of the property.
2) He smeared George Soros by suggesting he may have gotten his money from running a drug cartel. Twice. And ignored written requests from Soros to clarify or apologize.
3) He threw a hissy fit because Rep. Jefferson's office was searched after dude had $100k in cash in his freezer. So instead of the story being about the oppositions guy with cash in the freezer, it was about the purported unconsitutionality of the search.
4) Abramoff occured on his watch
5) Duke Cunningham occured on his watch.
6) Bob Ney occured on his watch
7) What he did or didn't do with regards to Foley.
8) Saying it didn't make sense to rebuild New Orleans while they were still trying to rescue survivors (I actually agreed with him and thought it was sort of courageous to say - probably my favorite Hastert moment, but it was stupid to say it so soon).

I go back and forth on #1 and #2 on which is worse. I think the Soros thing is more dispicable, the earmark worse. If that makes sense.

What am I forgetting.

I'll Give You A Dollar Not To Steal One

2006-10-09T18:17:00.000-07:00

This article considers Mayor Bloombergs proposal to pay people for "good behavior." You know, like to "stay in school, stay at work and stay on track to rise out of poverty."

I'm usually all for using market forces. But.....First things first, don't people already get paid to "stay at work?" You know, by their employer. Secondly, I can't help but have flashbacks to a certain Chris Rock routine along these lines. He complains about people that say things like "I take care of MY kids." and "I got a job." by screaming something along the lines of "What the #%%&# do you want, a cookie."

More seriously, I do have problems with this justification:
------
A mayoral aide later explained that this behaviorist approach to fighting poverty has become popular in the developing world and has had a “phenomenal” effect on school attendance in Mexico.
------

My understanding was that they provide payouts to parents that keep kids in school in third world countries because the children's income from working would otherwise be necessary for the family to survive. Though I am sure there are some cases in NYC where children are helping sustain the family (through caring for younger siblings so a parent can work, for instance) I don't think New York City and Chiapas can be painted with the same brush.

Interesting that it is a Republican (registration at least) pushing this - very Nixon going to China. I would imagine this sort of proposal from a Democrat would get hammered by the right, successfully I would imagine. It would seem to be one of those issues, like the old welfare system, that would not play well with mainsteam America. It would be hard to justify to them paying someone in the underclass just to follow social norms everyone else follows - especially when those norms are already in the recipients' best interests to follow.

Ranchettes In CA Foothills

2006-10-09T09:21:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has driven around the Northern California Foothills could tell you this is happening. Smaller, 3-20 acre, gentleman's ranches replacing large tracts of foothills. A cool example of this - a couple miles from my cousin's home in Elk Grove, CA, former slugger Greg Vaughn has a ranchette where he seems to raise horses.

Not What You Want For Campaign Strategy

2006-10-08T21:45:00.000-07:00

From MSNBC "Rep. Don Sherwood, a Republican fighting for re-election in northeastern Pennsylvania, says in a TV ad that he is “truly sorry” for cheating on his wife but denies ever abusing the woman he had the affair with."

The old "I never beat that woman, only committed adultry with her" campaign slogan. Nice.

Gingrich Apparently Expert on Hypocrisy

2006-10-05T14:26:00.000-07:00

Newt Gingrich is sounding off on hypocrisy. "
"What we don't have to do is allow our friends on the left to lecture us on morality," Gingrich said at a party fundraiser in Greenville. "There's a certain stench of hypocrisy.""

Umm, if "Democrats are hypocritical" is going to be the party line, shouldn't Republicans find some else to bring it up. I mean, someone who didn't:

- Run for Congress on the platform "Let our Family Represent Your Family" while apparently carrying on an affair. And within three years haggling over divorce terms with the wife of that family while she's in the cancer ward?
- Have to resign from leadership because of another affair occuring while he was spearheading the Clinton/Monica ordeal?

Just because someone knows about a subject (such as hypocrisy) firsthand, it does not mean they are the best person to speak to the evils it. Quite to the contrary actually.

Man Arrested for Statement to Cheney?

2006-10-04T12:25:00.000-07:00

If the man's rendition is true, this falls somewhere between disheartening and scary. The fact that it apparently occured in front of a number of witnesses but the charges were dismissed by the local authorities seems to suggest he might have a legitimate concern (though I'm not sure about a lawsuit).

Today's Best Story

2006-09-30T18:04:00.000-07:00

This is from the Yahoo Game Recap of today's Dodgers/Giants game: "....the Dodgers danced on the mound, celebrating in their archrivals' ballpark."

The 1993, Piazza 2 homer, 12-1 Dodgers win keeping the 103 win Giants out of the playoffs is (unfortunately) one of the most memorable games of the last 18 years for this Dodger fan.

While we're going down memory lane... Other memorables off the top of my head in chronological order since then: Nomo 16-k game as a rookie (highlight of whole Nomo season - Dodger rookie record and first game of a 4 game stretch where he obliterated Koufax record for K's in 4 game stretch with 50 vs Koufax's 39), getting swept in 1996 (watched as a freshman in dorms in No-Cal - not a good situation but made me feel a little closer to home) Finley walk off slam game (against Giants - in case you have forgotten), Lima Time giving us first win in playoffs in 16 years, 9th inning back to back to back followed by Nomar walk off game.

OK, so obviously it's not ideal when, in the lifetime of current college freshman, your teams highlights include a bunch of random regular season games and a solitary playoff win. But now we've got another shot. And no good memories for all the young battery chuckers by the Bay.

Statistically, The Worst Starting Pitcher in a Decade?

2006-09-28T13:41:00.000-07:00

Edinson Volquez has an unpleasant distinction.
---------
Statistically speaking, he's the worst starting pitcher of the last century.......Volquez fell to 1-6 for the season, 1-10 for his career, but the really ugly number is his career ERA, which is 9.20 for 14 games (11 starts). Since 1900, no pitcher with at least 10 career starts has finished with an ERA of nine or higher.
---------
If you look Volquez up on ESPN, you see he was owned in 17% of leagues. It should probably tell us something when almost 1 in 5 leagues have an owner so bad they somehow ended up with and failed to drop the worst pitcher in over 100 years.

OSHA Alert

2006-09-26T14:40:00.000-07:00

This can't help the worker's comp insurance.

Today's Top Headline

2006-09-20T12:52:00.000-07:00

"Woman crashes when teaching dog to drive"
------
"She thought she would let the dog 'have a try' while she operated the accelerator and brake," the report said. "They did not make it far before crashing into an oncoming car."
-----
No comment really necessary I guess.

Al-Qaeda's Sense of Humor

2006-09-18T15:01:00.000-07:00

Rueters reports Pope Benedict's "comments on Tuesday sparked worldwide Muslim anger because they were seen as portraying Islam as a religion tainted by violence."

So today's "Times of London" article entitled "Al-Qaeda Threatens Jihad over Pope's Remarks" informs us:

------
An Iraqi militant group led by al-Qaeda has threatened to massacre Christians in response to remarks about Islam by Pope Benedict XVI that have caused offence across the Muslim world.
------

What Al-Qaeda lacks in general jolliness, they seem to make up for with a kick-ass dry wit and appreciation of irony.

The Market For Lodging During Notre Dame Games

2006-09-08T10:29:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal had a front page story ($ required) by Ilan Brat on how Notre Dames' success on the gridiron has caused a spike in hotel and lodging prices in South Bend during home games. The Comfort Suites charges up to $245 for a room, and the Marriott charges $649 for a room when Michigan is in town. Demand for the rooms is way up, and wealthy alum come from all over to watch big matchups - the local airport had to add 7 acres of parking for the nearly 300 private jets that sometimes now fly in for games.

So it's your basic supply and demand, demand has shot through the roof and look at the interesting (South Bend Marriott Price > Manhattan Waldor Price) result sort of story. But the author goes the extra mile to find someone who objects to the high prices. He interviews former Jesuit priest and current Notre Dame Executive MBA professor (and ex Jesuit priest) Joe Holt. He calls the high prices "an act of moral abdication." and says "It is the economic version of 'The devil made me do it.'" Holt says he intends to use it as a case study for his business ethics.

OK, I don't agree with any of that, but I can understand that there are people who make that case. The problem is, I'm not so sure Mr. Holt should be talking about the devil and moral abdication from charging a lot for lodging. The next paragraph of the article informs the reader that he rented his own home out for $1000 for a weekend last season, and is going to rent it for $1500 for a weekend this season.

Brilliant. The setup is too perfect - I have to assume the author did it on purpose to make Mr. Holt look foolish. Success!

Nightmare Mortgages

2006-09-06T14:54:00.000-07:00

Business Week has a cover story on "Nightmare Mortgages" - option-ARMs that are adjusting to levels homeowners can't afford any longer. Granted, most of these were sold to consumers by slimy mortgage brokers just killing time here on Earth before heading down to their special place in hell. But it still just blows my mind that people fell for this. Did people really think they could borrow money for 1% when they could get 4% + on any CD with a duration longer than 3 months? I mean, doesn't that just scream "There's a catch!"? You have to feel bad for people who got themselves into these situations, but I can't help wondering how they fell for it.

Senator Allen Funded by Hollywood?

2006-09-06T10:51:00.000-07:00

Today's Washington Post article on Senator Allen shows why the Post's political reporting is hopelessly biased. The headline of the article: "Entertainment Industry Donates to Allen's Bid." The first paragraph articulates the point, which, in short, is to show Sen. Allen as a hypocrite for criticizing Webb for having "Hollywood values":

U.S. Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) is a leading recipient of entertainment-related campaign contributions to members of Congress, a nonpartisan analysis released yesterday shows, even as the senator has been criticizing his Democratic opponent's ties to Hollywood.

The only problem is that the "nonpartisan analysis" cited by the article has a rather expansive view of an "entertainment-related campaign contribution." To arrive at their figures -- the study included companies such as Time Warner, Comcast, American Online and Univision. These are not exactly entities most would associate with the "Hollywood" crowd, but rather communications companies, some of whom are headquartered outside of California and have only a tangential relationship with Hollywood.

Reading the headline and first paragraph alone, you'd think that Allen was taking money from Barbara Streisand and friends. Nope. Univision. According to the shifty logic of these Post writers, it makes you a hypocrite to denounce the Hollywood values of your opponent if you take money from a company that delivers cable television.

Once again, the Post features political hit pieces on Republican candidates -- masquerading as reporting.

Should We Nationalize Wal-Mart?

2006-08-31T12:26:00.000-07:00

The economist Robert Samuelson says no. But in making the case, he provides a useful thought experiment revealing why Wal-mart might do more for the public as a greedy, cost-minimizing, profit-maximizing corporation than it would as a government agency. Good stuff.

Colorado: Geography Class Can't Have Stuff Related To, You Know, Geography

2006-08-24T16:10:00.000-07:00

A geography teacher in Colorado was placed on administrative leave after refusing to take down Mexican and Chinese flags he used as teaching aids in his geography class.

Meanwhile, in other states, teachers wouldn't get the boot for attempting to curse the principal with in-class Wicca ceremonies and sacrifices of third graders.

Why Libertarians Should Like "The Wire"

2006-08-06T16:48:00.000-07:00

Here's a great review of HBO's "The Wire," one of the all-time underrated shows on television. It has great storylines, great characters, plot and is challenging for viewers to the point of sometimes making "The Sopranos" look like "Friends." (Though "Deadwood" makes "The Wire" look like "Saved By The Bell.") But what makes it truly interesting is that the shows true culprits are not the criminals, ego-driven and career ladder climbing police or corrupt politicians. Rather:

----------
What "The Wire" says, repeatedly, is that The System -- government, business, law enforcement, everything that runs this country -- is broken and that the guardians of The System are too committed to defending the status quo to even try fixing it. It's not a case of corrupt or evil people choosing to ruin things for the rest of us; it's people of all moral calibers making decisions within the established context of their own institutions (the police force, City Hall, drug corners) without regard to how they affect the world at large.
-------

"The Wire" shows how difficult it is even for people with the best intentions to operate within the confines of bearucracy and politics (both office and election based). It's a lesson worth keeping in mind whenever you hear that the answer to a particular ill (crime, schools, etc.) is merely more resources.

Clutch = David Ortiz

2006-08-05T14:47:00.000-07:00

There's a tendency to think of certain athletes as more or less clutch than they really are because the events which confirm our perceptions stand out more. I kind of thought this was the case with David Ortiz. He won the WS for them with the Game 5 single, so I figure now whenever he wins a game now we think back to that and think "wow, that happens all the time." But I figured in reality he's probably not that much better in the clutch than he is at any other time.

Turns out that is wildly incorrect.

-------
Since the end of the 2004 regular season, Ortiz has come to the plate in a walk-off situations 19 times -- and reached base 16 times. He is 11-for-14 (.786), with 7 HR and 20 RBI.

In 2005 and 2006, he is 8-for-9, with 5 HR and 15 RBI!
---------

If your batting average in walk off situations over two seasons were .550, that would be amazing. When you hit a home run 55% of those times, that's otherworldly.

Do You Need A Couple Million Pounds of Powdered Milk?

2006-07-26T13:08:00.000-07:00

You should have talked to a rancher in 2003. The Washington Post has a story on how the Fderal Government virtualy gave away 390 million pounds of powdered milk to states who were to give it to drought stricken farmers.

They received less than 5 cents a ton for milk that normally sells around $200 a ton. Instead of being used to feed livestock, much was resold or passed through the hands of brokers who sent it on to New Zealand, Denmark and Latin America. The USDA was aware it was occuring, but had no way to police it once they handed it over to the states.

Dukakis and Wishful Thinking

2006-07-25T18:22:00.000-07:00

Michael Dukakis pops up in an op-ed in the New York Times today. He argues:

------
If we are really serious about turning back the tide of illegal immigration, we should start by raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to something closer to $8. The Massachusetts legislature recently voted to raise the state minimum to $8 and California may soon set its minimum even higher. Once the minimum wage has been significantly increased, we can begin vigorously enforcing the wage law and other basic labor standards.

Millions of illegal immigrants work for minimum and even sub-minimum wages in workplaces that don’t come close to meeting health and safety standards. It is nonsense to say, as President Bush did recently, that these jobs are filled by illegal immigrants because Americans won’t do them. Before we had mass illegal immigration in this country, hotel beds were made, office floors were cleaned, restaurant dishes were washed and crops were picked — by Americans.

Americans will work at jobs that are risky, dirty or unpleasant so long as they provide decent wages and working conditions, especially if employers also provide health insurance. Plenty of Americans now work in such jobs, from mining coal to picking up garbage. The difference is they are paid a decent wage and provided benefits for their labor.
-------

This strikes me as a reach; one of those instances where you want something really bad (increase minimum wage) so you think it is the answer for all problems (illegal immigration).

First, illegal immigrants and the peopl who hire them are by definition not showing much respect for labor laws. It seems there is a very real chance raising the minimum wage would encourage demand for illegal labor. With the minimum wage at $5.15, a landscaper in Houston who can hire help for $5 might still do the right thing and eat the payroll tax and Workers Comp, and hire a real employee for a total cost of around $6/hr. If minimum wage goes up to $8 plus payroll and workers comp, then paying $5/hr. cash sounds much more enticing. Dukakis' arguement is for increased inspections - though there is no reason you can't do that with a lower minimum wage.

Also, there's this small problem.
-----
If we raise the minimum wage, it’s possible (my emphasis) some low-end jobs may be lost; but more Americans would also be willing to work in such jobs, thereby denying them to people who aren’t supposed to be here in the first place.
-----
Anyone who thinks a 55% increase in the price of something means only "it's possible" demand (for labor in this case) will fall should probably not get to be published in the New York Times.

Moran's Misdealings

2006-06-21T15:34:00.000-07:00

Virginia's 8th Congressional District is currently occupied by Jim Moran. Apparently Moran has a lengthy history of questionable ethical dealings. Such as when he was forced to resign from the Alexandria City Council because of ethical problems. Of course, this made him well-suited for Congress.

Moran has recently bragged that when he becomes chairman of appropriations, he's going to earmark the sh** out of the appropriations bill. I'm not kidding. He actually said that. Points for candor, I guess.

At any rate, Winds of Change has compiled some of Moran's recent political lowlights. Check it out. The most egregious -- he sponsored a bankruptcy bill the same year he took $400,000 from MBNA.

(As an aside, Moran was my representative for about 3 months while we occupied a condo in Tyson's Corner. Now, I'm safely ensconced in Tom Davis' 11th...purple territory if there ever was such a thing.)

Here is a Post article on the politics of the eighth district. In short, despite facing a challenge from a two time war veteran, Moran is sitting just fine. Ah, the power of incumbency. Makes one yearn for term limits...

UPDATE: Check out this site for some GREAT Moran quotes. Unbelievable. It's well worth a read.

UPDATE: Welcome Porkbusters readers!

Hastert Enriching Self Through Earmarks

2006-06-19T14:37:00.000-07:00

This is a great way to make some money. You're Dennis Hastert. You and some partners buy up some property west of Chicago. Then you get $200 million in federal funds to help bring a highway within 5 miles of the property. Suddenly, with the new infrastructure coming in, a developer wants to buy your property and build 1,500 homes on it. So you and your partners sell, with much of the property going for over three times what you paid for it not three years ago. All told, in less than three years, you personally make $1.5 million from the deal.

Nothing wrong there. Here's the defense:

--------
Hastert press secretary Ron Bonjean said it is wrong to think that the speaker's backing of the parkway could positively affect his property investments because they are 5 miles from the proposed path of the highway. "It's too far away to have an effect," Bonjean said, adding, "The speaker has bought land like every American has a right to. . . . He is not benefiting from the parkway."
---------

That makes perfect sense. If you are a moron. As the article notes, people don't want to live next to a highway, but they do like to live close to it. Having a major expressway 5 miles away, instead of 45 miles, makes land more valuable. There is plenty of land in Murrietta and Temecula, CA that is more than 5 miles from Interstate 15, but is still plenty more valuable because of the link it provies to San Diego and Orange Counties. The same is true in this instance.

I don't doubt Hastert would have probably tried to earmark the funds even if he didn't own the land. And he may have purchased the land even if he didn't have the pull to earmark the funds. But you have to be completely clueless or outrageously arrogant to think it's OK to do both.

Update: Welcome Porkbusters! Please feel free to browse some of our more recent coverage of pork.

- Senator Glenn McConnell and his federally funded pet confederate submarine.

- Barbara Boxer attacking Coburn (“I don’t know where the heart is. I don’t know where the soul is. I don’t know where the common sense is.”) over an $11 million levy repair earmark CA legislators deemed imperative to saving homes. All while California was trying to figure out how to spend a multi billion dollar surplus and is working on a bond measure which includes $4 billion in levy repair. See here.

- Northrop Grumnan’s $500 billion handout for “business disruption” from Katrina.

And for those with an appetite for hardier corruption, you can read about the Rep. Jefferson case. Legal coverage here and here. Commentary here and here.

3 Out Of 10 Isn't Bad

2006-06-18T11:49:00.000-07:00

Here's Congressman Lynn Westmoreland on The Colbert Report. He is asked about co-sponsoring a bill to display the ten commandments in Congress (skip ahead to about 3 minutes and 30 seconds to see this part). Colbert asks him to name the 10 commandments and Westmoreland can come up with three before stating "Umm, I can't name them all."

If Westmoreland were quicker on his feet he could have pointed out that his inability to name even four of the ten is exactly why they need to be displayed.

Iran's Telling Slip of the Tongue

2006-06-15T12:16:00.000-07:00

This is pretty hysterical. It is the Iranian Foreign Minister and he is quoted as stating "We emphasize the peaceful nature of our nuclear weapons… I mean… of our nuclear power plant…"

The best part is that you can totally tell , even without the subtitles, when he says it. He's talking and then he completely stops, closes his eyes and sort of cringes for a second or two before proceeding. You can almost see him thinking to himself "Damnit Manouchehr! Power PLANT! Plant, not weapons. You've got to keep that story straight and stick to it."

How Running A Business Can Change You

2006-06-14T13:08:00.000-07:00

This is the CEO of Whole Foods:
------
"At the time I started my business, the Left had taught me that business and capitalism were based on exploitation: exploitation of consumers, workers, society, and the environment. I believed that "profit" was a necessary evil at best, and certainly not a desirable goal for society as a whole. However, becoming an entrepreneur completely changed my life. Everything I believed about business was proven to be wrong.

The most important thing I learned about business in my first year was that business wasn't based on exploitation or coercion at all. Instead I realized that business is based on voluntary cooperation. No one is forced to trade with a business; customers have competitive alternatives in the market place; employees have competitive alternatives for their labor; investors have different alternatives and places to invest their capital. Investors, labor, management, suppliers — they all need to cooperate to create value for their customers. If they do, then any realized profit can be divided amongst the creators of the value through competitive market dynamics.

In other words, business is not a zero-sum game with a winner and loser. It is a win, win, win, win game — and I really like that. However, I discovered despite my idealism that our customers thought our prices were too high, our employees thought they were underpaid, the vendors would not give us large discounts, the community was forever clamoring for donations, and the government was slapping us with endless fees, licenses, fines, and taxes.
------

The Largest Cities Through Time

2006-06-05T20:57:00.000-07:00

Here's a list on the largest cities in the world at various points in time. Interesting.

Jefferson's Corruption Web

2006-06-05T05:30:00.000-07:00

Well into week two of the Congressman Jefferson corruption story and the Post has finally started reporting on the story itself. Better late than never. This article details a corporate "web" of corruption, involving not just Jefferson but his entire family as well.

One interesting point, both his top aide and his business partner have pled guilty to conspiring to bribe him: Jefferson's secretive business negotiations have already yielded guilty pleas from one business partner, Vernon L. Jackson, and a former top aide, Brett M. Pfeffer. Both have confessed to conspiring to bribe the congressman. Jackson admitted giving Jefferson more than $400,000 in exchange for using his official position to promote high-tech business ventures in Africa.

Apparently Jefferson has a history of skirting the line with money, earning the nickname "Dollar Bill" from local journalists early in his political career. As a general rule, people who enter politics with the intention to make money are not the people you want in politics.

Tierney On Rent Control

2006-06-04T09:43:00.000-07:00

From yesterday's op-ed in the NYT ($ required).
-------
No matter how much you love your rent-stabilized apartment, no matter how smug you feel bragging to your friends about your deal, in your heart you know it's not fair you're paying so little. It's like buying stolen goods: you can revel in the low price, but you know it comes at someone else's expense.

And you know exactly who that someone is. You're living on his property. You're a squatter, but you don't want to admit it. So you tell yourself it's not really his property anyway, and you're more worthy of it than he is, and you couldn't survive anywhere else, and anyway this is all about something far more profound than money. But it's not.
--------

I would add it also comes at the expense of those adversely affected by the lower supply of quality housing rent control also leads to.

"Voices of Reform Project": Nice of You To Join Us

2006-06-01T09:13:00.000-07:00

Here is a new website for what is described as a:

-------
A bipartisan coalition of more than eighty Californians including professionals from government, academia, media, issue and community advocacy, labor and business today urged Governor Schwarzenegger and members of the State Legislature to support legislative redistricting reform.

The coalition includes "The coalition includes Former Congressman Leon Panetta; Former State Senate Republican Leader James Brulte; Former State Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg; League of Women Voters President Jackie Jacobberger; Former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher; Former State Treasurer Matt Fong; Former State Attorney General John Van de Kamp; California Common Cause Executive Director Kathay Feng; former Chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce George Kieffer; and People’s Advocate CEO Ted Costa. Leading the coalition are Democrat Fred Keeley, former Speaker pro Tem of the State Assembly, and Republican Dan Schnur, former Communications Director for Governor Wilson.
--------

Umm, I have a question. Wouldn't this coalition have been a little more useful 7 months ago? You know, when there was a ballot measure for exactly this sort of thing that that would have passed if this coalition could have swayed 800,000 people in California? Are they just now noticing the problem of - quoting their press release "the current redistricting system's incentives to create non-competitive districts and districts that unduly protects incumbents."?

I seem to remember there were some people that made that case at the time.

I'm glad to see this issue is getting attention. But it's pretty frustrating that this group is just now getting it's act together to push for redistricting reform.

Vaccintating Children Against Nicotine

2006-05-31T16:17:00.000-07:00

Here's a journal article on the ethics of vaccinating children so that nicotine will not provide a provide a neuro-biological response. Interesting discussion.

What stood out to me was actually an aside in the article. "In the case of nicotine vaccination there is no direct herd immunity effect since tobacco use is not an infectious condition (and since the risk posed by passive smoking is probably minuscule)." (My Emphasis)

I have heard that the dangers of second hand smoke may be overblown given the data that exists, but to hear a medical ethics journal call them "miniscule" is interesting.

Update: The anti-tobacco forces must be reeling. Today, in the Washington Post, is an op-ed urging health officials to promote smokeless tobacco to smokers for whom the patch and other nicotine delivery devices don't work. Of course, if we could vaccinate everyone......

Senate Leaders Okay With Search of Jefferson's Office

2006-05-31T06:24:00.000-07:00

This is why John Adams and the Framers decided there should be a bicameral legislature. Unlike the dolts in the House, who are wrong on both the constitutional issues and the politics, Frist and Durbin have no problem with the FBI search of Jefferson's office.

"No House member, no senator, nobody in government should be above the law of the land, period," Frist said of the search of the office of William J. Jefferson (D-La.), who has been accused of bribery.

This was interesting:

The raid threw Washington into tumult last week, inflaming congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, and reportedly prompting Gonzales and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to threaten to quit if the documents were returned.

I guess Gonzales and Mueller didn't like the idea of the House handcuffing the Executive branch's law enforcement function based on specious constitutional smokescreens.

"This debate is not over whether Congressman Jefferson is guilty of a criminal offense," Sensenbrenner said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "He cannot use the constitutional immunity of Congress to shield himself from that or any evidence of that. But it is about the ability of the Congress to be able to do its job free of coercion from the executive branch."

Sensenbrenner, Judiciary chair for the House, is either very misinformed as to the Speech and Debate clause, making some principled stand for unfathomable reasons, or has badly misjudged the politics of this situation. Or all three or some combination of the three.

I have lost faith in the Congressional leadership. A member of the opposing party is possibly hiding evidence relating to bribery charged in his office, and they choose that moment to make a stand against the FBI raiding their offices? Makes little sense to me. Particularly when that stand is predicated on bad legal arguments.

As a coworker remarked yesterday, maybe we should throw the entire House out, all 435 of them, and start over from scratch.

San Diego As Canary In Coal Mine

2006-05-29T08:18:00.000-07:00

You know how sometimes papers will run a weekend feature on some other city somewhere else. I guess the point is to make readers feel better - a sort of "Well, I guess our governance could be worse." The New York Times did that yesterday with America's Finest (Example of How Not To Run A) City - San Diego. Here's what caught my attention:
--------
He said that he took some comfort from the fact that many other large American cities were facing similar financial problems because of pension obligations, backlogs of expensive infrastructure needs and the rising cost of health care for city workers and retirees. He agreed with some analysts who describe San Diego as the canary in the coal mine of American cities. Its fate will point the way for dozens of others, Mr. Sanders said.
---------
I hope that is just spin to make San Diego not look so bad. But it strikes me as plausible. For instance, here is another example of a government with similar problems.

Wal-Mart, Nutrition, And $50 Billion In Savings

2006-05-28T13:29:00.000-07:00

This is from the Pittsburg Tribune-Review:

-------
A larger complaint against Wal-Mart charges that the giant retailer comes in and wipes out main street, puts an end to all those mom-'n-pops that are selling everything from hammers to salmon.

The other side of the story is that salmon is no longer a high-end delicacy, beyond the reach of the average household. With fresh fillets selling for $4.50 a pound in Wal-Mart's display cases, the price for an 8-ounce dinner portion is 44 cents lower than the current price of a Cheeseburger Happy Meal at McDonald's.

The end result is better nutrition in America, especially among lower-income households, and less poverty and unemployment in Wal-Mart's primary supply regions in southern Chile.
Altogether, Wal-Mart's prices, according to a study by M.I.T. economist Jerry Hausman and USDA economist Ephraim Leibtag, are saving U.S. consumers more than $50 billion a year, money that's spent elsewhere, boosting volume at other businesses and creating new enterprises, including mom-'n-pops.

The net impact? The director of economic policy for the 2004 Kerry-Edwards campaign, New York University economist Jason Furman, contends that Wal-Mart is "a progressive success story." With Wal-Mart's prices ranging from 8 percent to 40 percent lower than people would pay elsewhere, states Furman, the increase in buying power that Wal-Mart delivers, disproportionately to lower-income families, more than offsets any impact that the company has allegedly produced in the earnings of retail workers.
---------

Savings to consumers is a major reason I find hatred of Wal-Mart irrational. (Or more likely, just the rational result labor unions coordinated attack). I also don't get that worked up about how "bad" the jobs are. If 11,000 people apply for 400 jobs at the Oakland store, and 25,000 people apply for 325 jobs at the store outside Chicago, I find it hard to argue people are better off with the jobs - no matter how low paying.

Now people who share my belief can say the Kerry-Edwards economic policy director agrees with us.

Jefferson's Bribery: Grasping Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

2006-05-28T09:46:00.000-07:00

The Republican's would have had a hard time scripting it any better. With Duke, Ney, DeLay and Abramoff hanging over their heads, they were in desperate need of a Democrat hiding a $90,000 bribe in his freezer.

So Rep. Jefferson decides to help them out and do this. Allegedly. And instead of jumping on the opportunity to jump on corruption as a bipartisan issue to be dealt with harshly, the Republican in Congress decide it's time to take a stand on executive power? A stand which it is pretty much unanimously agreed has no legal standing. And a stand which provides political coverage to their opponents on an issue they could use a lot of help with. Not to mention that it would seem like the right thing to do to encourage a strong investigation of colleagues corrupting our democracy.
Congressional Republicans have spent the last couple of years poo-hooing pansified concerns over Presidential power concerns over NSA wire taps, detaining of US citizens and such. But when it comes to getting a warrant and performing a legal search on the office of a cash hiding congressman - then they're up in arms?

A little more than a decade ago the first plank of the Republican's Contract With America was "require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress." Times have changed.

McGovern's Sensible Progressiveness

2006-05-27T14:30:00.000-07:00

George McGovern's op-ed in the Los Angeles Times this week presents the view of the economic left I find more sensible.

VERY roughly speaking, one way to seperate economic liberals is their view of the relative responsibilities of business and the government. There are:

1) Those that instinctively view business in a negative light and constantly push for a larger burden on business so as to better workers conditions.
2) Those that are more comortable with allowing business to more freely create jobs and profits, and then looks to the government to fill in income or service gaps the market doesn't provide but that they feel society owes it's members.

I share McGovern's belief that the second strategy is more economically viable in a global economy. I also share the Kausian view that work is an inherent good - a social leveler and value teaching delivery device . So we shouldn't squelch increased job opportunities by increasing rigidness in labor markets or artificially pricing labor above both the point at which people are willing to work, and the marginal benifit of their labor to an employer.

I typically don't agree with the vast majority of liberal economic orthodoxy. But I'm more sympathetic to progressive positions that approach their goals from a position like McGovern - as opposed to trying to legislate Wal-Mart into providing health care.

New York Times Best Work of Fiction Over Last 25 Years

2006-05-26T20:12:00.000-07:00

I have been remiss not to link to last Sunday's feature in the NYT on the best American fiction of the last 25 years. I'm concerned it is about to fall behind the shield of NYT select very soon, so I wanted to point it out now so - if you're into that sort of thing - you don't miss it.

The link to the works getting multiple votes includes the Time's original reviews of each book, which are definitely interesting to look at years later. Here are the judges. Here is a week long discussion of the choices by authors and critics. Here is the Times' essay on the subject. And Here is the readers forum (Warning, this alternates between keen insight and "I just finished "Cat and the Hat" and am looking forward to the daunting undertaking that is "Green Eggs and Ham." Here are my picks for excluded works").

As a male should with any list, I have quite a few thoughts on this one. I'm going to try to get to them this weekend. And I will provide fair warning when doing so to allow most of you to know it is time to skip to the next post. But I do want to take the time to gloat a little and tell a tale of vindication.

During college, I spent two summers working at The Golden State Museum. (Interesting side note: The Golden State Museum was founded less than a decade ago to serve as California's first true museum of California history. It is my understanding that Maria Shriver has co-opted it into a museum "for women, history and arts." I have absolutely no comment on that.).

ANYWAYS, one summer was spent working in the museum store. Which basically meant I could spend 80% of my time reading. My boss was a caricature of a condescending, uppity lifelong museum curator. At a prior position I believe he had met the first President Bush and I have no doubt addressed him looking down his nose like he was speaking to an imbecile. So you can imagine how he talked to me.

One day he stopped by and we were speaking about how to arrange the coloring books or some other pressing matter. I was reading Don DeLillo's Underworld and he noticed it next to the register. Seeing only the title and cover (and apparently not knowing nearly as much of literature as he would have people believe) I think he thought it was some sort of mob story sold at airports. He sighed "Hmmm? I expected better of you." as he left.

Underworld garnered the second most votes of any work over the last 25 years (Beloved received the most. No, I'm serious.). Of fewer than 25 works that received more than one vote, 3 were by DeLillo.

Believe it or not, when you work in what is basically the garbage industry (the wife tries hard to spin it as "recycling." A valiant effort.) you come across a fair amount of pretension and condescension. I know, shocking. So it's sort of strange that few things stick out like that day back in college. Maybe it was my first experience with that sort of thing. In any case, when I saw the list, I couldn't help smiling and hoping my old boss saw it and was thinking of the same thing.

Pets Before People

2006-05-25T15:18:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, bipartisianship just means both parties have their priorities out of whack. This is one of those cases.
------
A television shot of a little boy losing his dog during Katrina rescue operations was the catalyst for the House to pass legislation Monday that would require pets to be considered in emergency-preparedness plans.

The bill, which passed 349-24, would require state and local preparedness offices to take into account pet owners, household pets and service animals when drawing up evacuation plans.

Offices that fail to do so would not qualify for grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
-------

This is the sort of thing that sounds reasonable only to congressman and people repeatedly dropped on their heads during infancy. In case Congress hasn't noticed, we have a hard enough time planning for and dealing with HUMANS. Now we're extorting states and localities to allocate time and resources to pets? Obviously, federalism goes out the door when we're dealing with Fido.

Rep. Tom Lantos (CA Democrat) described how the photograph of the boy losing his dog brought the bill about by saying "The dog was taken away from this little boy, and to watch his face was a singularly revealing and tragic experience. This legislation was born at that moment."

If Rep. Lantos thinks it's sad to watch a boy lose his dog, wait till he sees how sad it is when emergency officials being forced to spend time planning how to save a dog causes a boy to lose his mother.

Does Search of Jefferson's Office Violate the "Spirit" of the Constitution? (And Does it Matter?)

2006-05-25T07:29:00.000-07:00

In the ongoing saga of the Washington Post's horrendous coverage of the Jefferson bribery story: Now the Washington Post contends (on page A10) that the "Breach was more of the Spirit, Not Letter, of the Constitution."

This is a tricky way of saying that the Constitution does not protect Jefferson's office from a warranted search. Or in other words, the Washington Post was wrong here. And here. As explained in this post, the Speech and Debate Clause does not protect a place or the entirety of a Congressperson's files, it protects only materials closely connected to legislative acts. (As a general rule, if a party is arguing from the "spirit" of the law, they probably don't have the law on their side. "Spirit" arguments are often mere subterfuge.) Further, if the search does not violate the "letter" of constitution, more precisely the text of the Constitution as interpreted by Supreme Court in caselaw - it does not violate the Constitution.

Tellingly, practically nothing in the article even supports the author's "violate the spirit" theory:

"An official legislative act is immune, but interference with anything beyond that" is not covered by the constitutional provision that shields Congress from executive and judicial branch interference, said Michael J. Glennon, a former legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who teaches at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

But the taboo against searching congressional offices was a matter of tradition, not black-letter constitutional law. "It's really a matter of etiquette," said Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of constitutional law at Yale University. "I don't see any constitutional principle here."

In a series of cases during the 1960s and '70s, the court drew a protective line around papers, speeches and activities that are "essential" to legislative acts or the motives behind them, such as floor statements or committee reports. But it declined to protect anything not closely connected to legislative work, such as remarks to the press or constituent newsletters.

So two experts say there is no constitutional protection, and the author admits that the Supreme Court has "declined to protect anything not closely connected to legislative work." What was that about spirit?

But Stanley M. Brand, who was counsel to the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1983, said that "the problem is who watches them when they rummage to make sure they are not looking at legislative records."

The answer, Mr. Brand, is that no-one has to "watch" them. The trial judge will later rule on a motion to suppress evidence, and the government will not be able to use at trial any evidence shielded by the Speech and Debate Clause.

Also, why did the Post bury this story on page A10? The front page story is that Congress has made a bipartisan request that the Justice Department return the Jefferson files. This not so subtly suggests that the request has legal legitimacy. Only on page A10 do we discover that the search likley was constitutional according to the "letter" of the law.

The arrogance of these House members is amazing. In essence, they want to be able to decide for themselves what parts of a criminal investigation they comply with. ("Hey, Mr. Congressman-under-investigation-for-bribery, why don't you go ahead and send over whatever documents you feel like sending us relating to our bribery investigation? Thanks.") For obvious reasons, that is not how the process works. Essentially, these members of Congress want the US Capitol to be the one place in America beyond the reach of a search warrant. How about no.

UPDATE: Here's a post and comments over at Volokh on this issue.

ACLU: Don't Talk!

2006-05-24T14:14:00.000-07:00

This is the sort of story that you would read and think must be from The Onion, till you look up and see it is actually The New York Times.

-------
The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal administration.

"Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement," the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals.

"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.

Given the organization's longtime commitment to defending free speech, some former board members were shocked by the proposals.
---------

Other stories I await:

National Organization of Women only hiring males because when they hire females "the tramps always get knocked up"
The Annual Sierra Club Tire Bonfire
Product placement for PETA's meat rub, the major sponsor of The Cooking Channels weekly "How Your Soul Will Heal, Eating Our Veal" program.
Billy Graham branded abortion clinics

Eminent Domain Watch: Hercules, California and Wal-Mart

2006-05-24T13:32:00.000-07:00

It's pretty common to hear of cities using eminent domain to allow sales tax producing entities to come to their city. Hercules, California is actually doing the opposite. They are using eminent domain to prevent Wal-Mart from building a store by taking the 17 acres they planned to build it on.

The article quotes two citizens who oppose Wal-Mart. One says:"Wal-Mart will never understand what we want." In the next paragraph, he other says:"(Wal-Mart is) the worst thing that could happen to our community. They want to crush the competition."

Of course, this raises the question of how you can have any businesses in town, as I'm fairly certain every business wishes they could crush the competition. More importantly, I'm unclear how a store which "will never understand" what potential customers want would be able to "crush the competition."

Easterbrook: The Science is In On Global Warming

2006-05-24T13:22:00.000-07:00

Gregg Easterbrook has an op-ed in todays New York Times in which he writes:

------
As an environmental commentator, I have a long record of opposing alarmism. But based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert.
-------

He notes that scientific organizations that in the 90s were still declaring the jury was out on whether artificial warming was occuring have since all concluded it is the case. The organizations he mentions making the switch, and convincing him to switch, include: National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, and National Climatic Data Center.

He thinks President Bush was correct in withdrawing from Kyoto, and notes that even most of its signatories are ignoring it as well. But he thinks the answer is a system of tradeable greenhouse permits like we have for acid rain causing emissions. This would provide the financial incentive for reduction and the creation of new technologies. He also notes that when this was done with acid-rain causing emissions that the cost to industry turned out to be 10% of what they had forecasted when arguing against it.

Separation of Powers Does Not Preclude a Search of a Congressional Office

2006-05-24T08:30:00.000-07:00

Here is an excerpt from US v. Brewster, a 1972 Supreme Court case interpreting the Speech and Debate Clause:

Johnson thus stands as a unanimous holding that a Member of Congress may be prosecuted under a criminal statute provided that the Government's case does not rely on legislative acts or the motivation for legislative acts. A legislative act has consistently been defined as an act generally done in Congress in relation to the business before it. In sum, the Speech or Debate Clause prohibits inquiry only into those things generally said or done in the House or the Senate in the performance of official duties and into the motivation for those acts.

It is well known, of course, that Members of the Congress engage in many activities other than the purely legislative activities protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. These include a wide range of legitimate "errands" performed for constituents, the making of appointments with Government agencies, assistance in securing Government contracts, preparing so-called "news letters" to constituents, news releases, and speeches delivered outside the Congress. The range of these related activities has grown over the years. They are performed in part because they have come to be expected by constituents, and because they are a means of developing continuing support for future elections. Although these are entirely legitimate activities, they are political in nature rather than legislative, in the sense that term has been used by the Court in prior cases. But it has never been seriously contended that these political matters, however appropriate, have the protection afforded by the Speech or Debate Clause. Careful examination of the decided cases reveals that the Court has regarded the protection as reaching only those things "generally done in a [408 U.S. 501, 513] session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it," Kilbourn v. Thompson, supra, at 204, or things "said or done by him, as a representative, in the exercise of the functions of that office," Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1, 27 (1808).

This quote shows two things:
1.) There is little precedent for arguing that the Speech and Debate Clause protects a place, like Jefferson's congressional office. Rather, it protects activities. More specifically, legislative acts and not political acts.
2.) Any material in the realm of constituent services (which could include evidence relating to Jefferson's attempts to influence Nigerian government officials on behalf of US companies) will be deemed "political" rather than legislative, and will not receive protection.

At most, the Clause gives Jefferson an argument that some of the seized material, i.e. material relating to legislative acts, might be excludable evidence. According to the Brewster case, the Clause does not shield everything that transpires in his office.

William Jefferson, Bribery, and Separation of Powers

2006-05-23T11:01:00.000-07:00

There are many interesting facets to the William "I hid bribe money in my freezer" Jefferson story.

For one, there is the "I can't believe he could be so stupid" facet. It is perhaps the most visible and tangible display of public corruption in decades. Further, there is the added element of a New Orleans Congressman betraying his constituents, constituents who have been betrayed by several levels of government already.

Then there is the international bribery angle. According to one theory, the suitcase money was supposed to go to the Vice President of Nigeria to produce contracts for Jefferson's favorite companies.

There are political facets, such as whether the unfolding Jefferson story, as evidence of bipartisan corruption, punctures holes in the Democratic midterm election strategy of portraying the Republican Congress as a "culture of corruption."

And sports metaphors abound. Bribery in Congress is looking like steroids in baseball: People know there's a lot of it going on, but no-one is quite sure to what extent it pollutes the game.

Instead of all these possible angles, to these Washington Post writers, and these ones as well, and apparently most of the Washington press corps, it's a separation of powers issue? According to some, separation of powers precludes an FBI raid on a Congressional office in connection with a bribery investigation. If this is the rule, then all corrupt Congressmen must do to evade the law is make sure that evidence of their wrongdoing is stored at the office. As Viet Dinh puts it:

"But Viet D. Dinh, a former assistant attorney general in the Bush administration who is now a Georgetown University law professor, said that "the raid on his offices itself does not define a constitutional issue." The constitutional privilege for lawmakers does not "expand to insulate everything that goes on in a congressional office, especially if there's allegations of abuse of process or bribery," Dinh said. ". . . The fine line is whether or not it relates to a legislative process or not, not whether they've raided his office."

This DOJ Manual explains that the Speech and Debate Clause provides absolute immunity from civil suit or criminal prosecution for legislative acts.

"The Speech and Debate Clause provides the "legislative acts" of a Senator or a Representative "shall not be questioned in any place." It applies in criminal as well as civil litigation involving the Senator or Representative, and provides absolute immunity to United States Senators and Representatives while they are engaged in legislative acts. United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972); United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1976)."

The House maintains that the Clause gives them a right to refuse requests for information from the executive branch. But this only shields information related to actions within the legislative process (e.g. speeches, votes, bill writeups, etc.). It should not shield evidence related to a bribery investigation. Of course, every member of the House under investigation is going to claim that their office only contains information relating to legislative acts. But if the FBI cannot search the House, who can? Interpreting the Clause to be an absolute bar to the execution of warrants on Capitol offices would severely impede public corruption investigations because the subjects could hide evidence in their offices, maintain that it is covered by the Clause because it relates to the legislative process, and thereby hide behind the Constitution. The Framers intended the Clause to keep the executive branch from punishing legislators from engaging in speech and expressing their viewpoints -- not as a shield from bribery investigations.

Congressman William Jefferson Filmed Taking Cash

2006-05-22T11:35:00.000-07:00

Here's a story out of Louisiana that may eventually rival the Duke Cunningham corruption saga. The FBI filmed Congressman William Jefferson, a Democrat from Louisiana, taking $100,000 in cash from an investor who was wearing an FBI wire. Jefferson was the subject of a 14-month sting operation. This operation involved the first ever raid of a Congressional office.

Amazingly, Jefferson protests his innocence. This is despite the facts that:
1. He was audiotaped discussing illegal kickbacks for his children and potential bribes to African public officials.
2. His former staffer already has pled guilty to aiding and abetting bribery and testified that he took bribes on Jefferson's behalf.
3. Did I mention that he was videotaped taking $100,000 cash in a reddish-brown leather briefcase, putting it in his car, and $90,000 of it was later found in his apartment freezer?

But I'm sure he was innocent...

UPDATE: This NYT article relates that at a press conference, Jefferson said that prosecutors had chosen "to view the facts in the worst possible light." In what possible light does it look okay to take $100,000 from an FBI plant, stuff it in your car, take it home, wrap it in aluminum foil and hide it in your freezer?

The Time 100 People That Shape Our World

2006-05-18T12:46:00.000-07:00

Quick test. What do the following people have in common?

Renzo Piano, Nicolas Ghesquiere, Chen Guangcheng, and Andrew von Eschenbach.

If your answer was "99% of people haven't heard of any of them and you have to triple check the spelling of their names" then you're right. Extra credit though if you also guessed "All people picked ahead of Osama Bin Laden for the Time 100 People that Shape Our World."

Now I'm aware of the first rule of these lists. For those of you who are not, it is: You have to make the list wildly ridiculous and non-obvious. Then it shows how smart you are, plus people will talk about. (Obviously, awareness of this ploy and failure to fall for it are two entirely different things.)

But still, this is the guy who brought an end to irony, stopped political bickering and has united our country. OK, none of those popular but obviously absurd predictions floated about after September 11 actually occurred. And it's interesting to note that the sort of people who said stuff like that are probably the ones now choosing the guy who created The World of Warcraft over the guy whose helped bring war to a lot of the world.

But back to my point. No matter how good that wasabi salad dressing is, Osama needs to rank slightly above Rachael Ray And even though he got me my first job not involving selling gas or baseball cards, produced polo shirts which stay as bright as the day I bought them 9 years ago, and made it incredibly easy for anyone to dress and decorate their home like they have family in Conneticut, I'd be willing to bump Ralph Lauren as well.

I could understand if they were trying to make it "uplifting" (or some crap like that) and only included people they liked. But this can't be the case because they included Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and George W. Bush. So I just don't get it. It's the biggest mystery since Biggie and Tupac didn't crack the top 5 of VH1's 40 Biggest Celebrity Feuds. (As Bill Simmons noted, " Wait a second -- didn't both guys die? What else needed to happen? You're telling me that the Biggie-2Pac feud was slightly tamer than the Dixie Chicks and Toby Keith? Really? ")

I'm eagerly awaiting this years' version of Time's "Top 100 Power Hitters to play for the San Francisco Giants." I have a feeling Barry Bonds is finally going to top Omar Vizquel and Brett Butler.

Baseball Draft

2006-05-18T12:32:00.000-07:00

Danny Almonte is a Playstation All-American. I have no idea what that means, but I know you don't get it if you suck. He is expected to be drafted this year after graduating high school.

I would love it if the Dodgers drafted him. Then he could tutor Aaron Sele and other younger pitchers on the staff.

Some Thoughts on Border Security

2006-05-18T11:33:00.000-07:00

I heard a disturbing statistic the other day. The Department of Homeland Security has a total budget that is one-tenth that of the Department of Defense. I don't know what the precise allocation should be, but it strikes me that if we were serious about keeping a WMD out of our cities, we would be paying more attention to the measures we take to defend ourselves here.
Some might say that the best defense is a good offense. Having Special Forces patrolling the mountains of Pakistan until OBL is found and killed, removing a dictator with the will and the means to develop nuclear weapons and the motive to hand them to our enemies, removal of the Taliban -- all of these things were necessary.
But, it seems that eventually, somewhere, Islamic terrorists will get their hands on fissile material. The world is just too chaotic, and the stakes are too high, to operate on any other assumption. God forbid, and I hope it never happens. But I think it will. A poor desperate Russian scientist bought off by AQ, a nuclear Iran handing something to terrorists under the table, a stolen submarine -- there are many ways it could happen. So, if we proceed with this assumption, there is one all-important question: Are we doing enough to protect the United States, are we truly securing our borders?
It concerns me when I hear the oft-quoted statistic that only 5% (is it up to five percent now?) of cargo containers are checked at our ports. It concerns me when we have hundreds of miles of an open Southern border, border that is so poorly guarded that an estimated half-million people a year cross over into the shadows of our country. Are we trusting, then, that terrorists cannot enter Mexico? Keeping would-be terrorists out is the primary reason I am glad to see that the Senate is moving towards extending the border fence.
There is book coming out by Clark Kent Ervin, the former Inspector General of Homeland Security, detailing the holes that exist in our security framework. In it, he describes how in a simulation, agents were able to sneak bomb assembly materials onto planes at several major airports. That is just one example of many demonstrating that we have a ways to go. (Is he overstating the case to grind an axe or make a buck? I don't know, I haven't yet read the book.)
Security is a precondition for all other rights and privileges. The fact that we have not had another attack since 9-11 is fortuitous, and suggests that our beleaguered federal agencies are doing something right. But there is still much to be done.

What is a libertarian to do?

2006-05-16T18:12:00.000-07:00

Ryan Sager asks just this question today on Real Clear Politics. He also has some good data from a Pew and Gallup polls on exactly what % of people fall into particular political categories. Key points:

Depending on how you measure it, 9-20% of Americans can be classified as libertarians.
"The 20 percent figure comes from Gallup, which labels as libertarian voters who say they oppose the use of government either to "promote traditional values" or to "do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses." Gallup finds an equal number of populists (people who want more government intervention in both the economy and the culture). And it finds that 27 percent of Americans are conservative and 24 percent are liberal."
"Libertarians were the smallest group, as defined by Pew, followed by conservatives (15 percent), populists (16 percent) and liberals (18 percent). A full 42 percent of voters held no identifiable ideology (these are presumably the people who vote for whomever's tallest)."
"The Pew survey finds 50 percent of libertarians identifying as Republicans, 41 percent as Democrats."
"According to Pew's "political typology," libertarians used to be one of three groups that made up the Republican Party, along with social conservatives and economic conservatives. But, since 1994, they've been replaced by a group of voters Pew has called Populists, but most recently renamed Pro-Government Conservatives. In essence, it would seem, these Pro-Government Conservatives -- about 10 percent of the electorate, largely female and southern, and equally at ease with universal health care and banning controversial books from libraries -- are squeezing libertarians further and further toward the fringes of the GOP."

Sager points out if libertarians want to have any hopes of having either party take them seriously, they will need to become more involved. But he also points out it is difficult to organize a bunch of individualists, and hard to get involved in government a bunch of people who don't really like, you know, government.

Conservative Cage Match: Part II

2006-05-16T17:30:00.000-07:00

The New York Times reports Dr. Dobson and other prominent Christian conservatives are threatening to stay home during the midterms because the Republicans are all soft on abortion, gay marriage, obscenity (obscenity?). And such.

-------
"There is a growing feeling among conservatives that the only way to cure the problem is for Republicans to lose the Congressional elections this fall," said Richard Viguerie, a conservative direct-mail pioneer.
--------

Um, OK. That is great - if you're trying to win absurd statement of the year. Unless the Ayatollah takes over US government, they're gonna be hard pressed to find a time with a more religiously conservative guy in the White House and his party in Congress. (That doesn't mean Bush = Ayatollah. I'm just saying, Bush and this Congress is about as good as I would expect to get if I were them. Or as bad as I would expect to get for us social liberal types).

Of course, this is just a dance. The religious complain. Then the libertarian types (like me) complain. Then, because the religious types can actually win elections for people, Karl Rove will trot out some sort of anti-gay: adoption, marriage, driving in car pool lanes platform to appease these guys (cause really, what are people like me gonna do - have Jimmy Hoffa Jr. making economic policy?).

Then, assuming it works and Republicans stay in power, they will push it for like three days then drop it. It being the platform - and the bomb on Iran. Just kidding. Sort of.

(Incidentally, if you could bet Tradesports on things like "US bombs Iran", can you imagine the beta associated with news on Vice President Cheney? If he had another heart attack, the option would probably fall by like 80%. And if President Bush went to the hospital - even for a checkup - it would jump like 50%. You know, because of Cheney's plans to have the same planes from the president's funeral flyover just keep going to bomb Tehran. I'm kidding again of course. (Sort of.)).

Conservative Cage Match

2006-05-16T14:27:00.000-07:00

Here's a good response to David Brooks' concerning embrace of big government conservatism.

Just Like The Guy With Question Marks on His Suite Says

2006-05-16T13:55:00.000-07:00

If you're a huge Confederacy buff, there seems to be only one logical place for you. Congress. The best part of being in Congress is you can make sure the government provides money for your hobby. For instance, look at the current $97 million project to raise the Civil War submarine the Hunley.

------
Glenn McConnell, president pro tem of the state Senate, is the Hunley's biggest booster. He also has been the driving force behind the spiraling price tag for the preservation and promotion of the Confederate sub.

McConnell has pieced together the money, keeping the project out of the public arena and away from State House debate.

And he has personally authorized much of the spending of the project's public money in an arrangement the state's comptroller general says is obviously outside the framework the state has provided for disbursement of public funds.

Its a classic case study in hidden government, said John Crangle, head of the citizens watchdog group Common Cause.

Its a stealth strategy, Crangle said. The whole scheme involves rivers of underground money flowing to the Hunley from many sources, and the obvious intent is to not let people know.
-------

If you're curious how to describe someone who initially says a project will cost $5 - $10 million then get's taxpayers on the hook for many times that, here's how the paper does it: "The 58-year-old McConnell, a libertarian who often criticizes government spending." Nice.

This must have been what that Lesko guy with question marks on his suite must have been talking about on those commercials where he promised to tell you how to get the government to pay your bills, payr for your invention, or pay you to write your book or whatever else you needed money for. It seems McConnell is big on the Confederacy and The War of Northern Aggression.

--------
McConnell several years ago largely gave up his law practice. He spends much of his time and energy now on the Hunley project. He has continued to help run his Confederate memorabilia shop in North Charleston, which describes itself on its Web site as the nation's largest Civil War store.
---------

Umm, congratulations?

Why Luttig Is Leaving

2006-05-14T19:12:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal's front page article on the reasons for Judge Luttig leaving. It includes this:

-------
Judge Luttig, according to a person familiar with the court proceedings, put his own credibility on the line, drawing on his own experience in national-security law and confidence in Bush administration officials he knew. He argued to his colleagues that the government wouldn't have sought such extraordinary powers unless absolutely necessary, this person says.

Then, in November, the administration suddenly announced that it didn't consider Mr. Padilla an enemy combatant any more and would charge him in a regular federal court....A person familiar with the judge's thinking says it's evident [Luttig] felt the government had pulled "the carpet out from under him."

....Instead of granting what the government considered a pro forma request to transfer Mr. Padilla to civilian custody, Judge Luttig ordered the parties to submit arguments over the question. On Dec. 21, Judge Luttig delivered a judicial bombshell: a carefully worded order refusing to move Mr. Padilla until the Supreme Court decided what to do. The order all but accused the Bush administration of misconduct.
--------

The fact that the article begins:

-------
It didn't take long for the judge's anger to burst out into the open. The next month he wrote that moves such as the attorney general's cast doubt on the Bush administration's "credibility before the courts." Judge Luttig tried to block Mr. Padilla's transfer to civilian custody from the brig. (Read the opinion.) The administration's top litigator fired back that the judge "defies both law and logic."

The clash, which underscores the increasing skepticism among even some conservative jurists toward the Bush administration's sweeping theories of executive power, culminated yesterday in Judge Luttig's resignation. The 51-year-old judge, once considered a likely Bush nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, stepped down from his lifetime seat on the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to start a new career in Chicago as general counsel for Boeing Co.
--------

Hugh Hewitt's take is predictably sunny. He writes "And if that next opening is weeks away, his announcement today would not be an obstacle to his nomination at that point."

Hmm, I guess that is technically correct. The resignations would not be an obstacle. However, the fact that Luttig and the White House seem to detest each other might.

Every High School Boy's Worst Nightmare

2006-05-14T18:38:00.000-07:00

From New Scientist:

--------
Deaths from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year by 2050, mainly in developing countries. This could be prevented by soon-to-be-approved vaccines against the [sexually transmitted HPV] virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer . . . . [T]o prevent infection, girls will have to be vaccinated before they become sexually active, which could be a problem in many countries.

In the US, [however,] religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination . . . . "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, . . . [which] has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims . . . .
---------

High school boys the world over are hoping the Family Research Council fails. The potential of getting a cancer in 60 years is precisely what keeps our daughters chaste. Especiallly given approximately 0% of them are even aware the disease exists.

I expect the Family Research Council will follow shortly with opposition to:

Penicillin (encourages all sorts of risky behavior)
Lipitor (encourages consumption of fatty foods)
Casts and Crutches (encourages riding your bike too fast)

Good to know someone's looking out for us.

A Lot More Wal-Marts to Come In The West

2006-05-14T12:06:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting video showing the expansion of Wal-Mart. It is meant to show how Wal-Mart has expanded in clusters to take advantage of things like logistical and staffing efficiencies.

What struck me is how few Wal-Marts there are in the West vs. East. If you pause the video at 2004, the area East of the Mississippi has so many Wal-Mart points that the map is almost entirely blue, while the West is fairly sparse in comparison. Even taking population density into account, it looks like Wal-Mart has plenty of room to expand in th West - assuming cities let them.

Why Mexican-American's Should Vote In Mexican Elections

2006-05-11T20:33:00.000-07:00

Bill Mundell had an interesting op-ed in the San Diego Union-Tribune on Mexican-American's voting in Mexican elections. Executive Summary: It's good. Having lived in the US and seen what freer markets and economic reform can bring, they are the "natural constituency" to support and help bring about change in Mexico.

I would imagine that is the opposite of most people's gut reaction on the subject (due to assimilation and loyalty concerns). I'm willing to be convinced, if Mexico ever get's a political party that actually wants these sorts of reform which expats could support.

In October we interviewed Mr. Mundell on redistricting. You can read the interview here.

If It's Such A Big Problem, Why Can't The State Pay For It?

2006-05-07T11:59:00.000-07:00

Does anyone else find it amusing to put these stories side by side?

This story is about a fight over an amendment to remove $11 million in funding for California levees from the "emergency" Iraq War and Hurricane Relief Bill.

-------
Coburn's attack brought the state's two Democratic senators to the floor with impassioned speeches and a copy of a letter Schwarzenegger sent to the Oklahoma senator Tuesday.

Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein stressed that the request for the money is bipartisan and includes area Republicans - a reference to Reps. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River, and John Doolittle, R-Roseville, who both support the emergency funding.

"I am telling you these levee banks could breach at any time," pleaded Sen. Dianne Feinstein, as she pointed to a photograph of the Pocket area. "I am telling you that 100,000 people could lose their homes.

"Do I believe this is a life emergency?" Feinstein asked, referring to the threat of massive levee breaches. "Yes. ... This work has to be done."

In his letter, a portion of which was read by Boxer, Schwarzenegger said, "We cannot wait for disaster to strike and must use the lessons of Katrina to act now." Feinstein said the additional money would mean the 29 highest-priority erosion sites will be strengthened this summer.

Boxer attacked Coburn's amendment as "reckless." "I don't know where the heart is," she said. "I don't know where the soul is. I don't know where the common sense is."
---------

This story is about the huge, unexpected overflow in tax revenue California is seeing.

-------
officials at the Department of Finance say the state could end up with about $4 billion more in its bank accounts this year than the governor predicted in January when he released his proposed $125.6 billion spending plan for the 2006-07 fiscal year.
------

So let's recap. Congress is including money for levees in Calfifornia in a federal bill supposedly intended for Iraq and hurricane relief. Amusing, but unfortunately just par for the course at this point.

More amusing are theatrics over the assumption that without federal funding of $11 million there is no way to protect these homes - and that it is heartless to question it. Um, if this $11 million is so amazingly urgent, why can't Californian's be protected from the billions in extra revenue California finds itself with? Isn't California also currently working on a bond measure which has $4.09 BILLION for flood protection? But, for some reason, it's reckless for the federal government to consider not acting on this.

Just for fun, let's ad this story to the mix. The federal government's obligations and expenditures outpaced intake's last year by $760 billion last year.

United 93

2006-05-07T10:19:00.000-07:00

So the wife and I went out last night to celebrate her recent passage of the Virginia bar exam. Babysitter, dinner and a movie. When Mission Impossible III (my choice) sold out, we went to see United 93. I'll admit it was not our first choice, between the timing of its release (not even five years after 9-11) and Hollywood's general propensity to soak real world tragedies with distasteful histrionics and factual inaccuracies (see Pearl Harbor, JFK) -- I was very apprehensive. I was wrong to be. United 93 was one of the most impactful movies I have ever seen. I am not a movie critic, nor do I play one in the blogosphere, so let me just relay this example: There is a pause of about five seconds between the final scene of the movie and the credits where the screen is completely black. I have never in my life heard a more silent movie theater. Actually, I have never heard a more silent assembly of people. Not...one...sound. Further, no-one in our theater said a word as people filed out, most of them wiping their eyes. It was a natural response to a realistic depiction of real-world heroism from normal citizens. It was at once one of the most inspiring and most tragic movies I've watched.
Don't take my word for it, read George Will's column in today's Post. And, when you are ready, go see United 93. The barbarity and focus of the terrorists will horrify you. The emotion of the phone calls will move you. But most of all, the courage of the passengers will inspire you.

What Happens When Business Leaves California

2006-05-07T09:20:00.000-07:00

In San Diego at least, Buck Knives is THE example used when arguing that you can only push business expenses, regulation and taxes so far before business begins to leave. Buck Knives officially stopped production in El Cajon, CA in late 2004 and knives were being produced in Post Falls, ID by Feb. 2006. Inc. Magazine checks in a year later to tell the story of why they moved and see how it is working out.

-------
Despite the hiccups, CJ is ecstatic, almost evangelical, about the move. "It's delivered everything we hoped," he says. Electric bills are roughly 30 percent what they would have been if Buck had stayed in California; workers' comp 10 percent; and labor costs 75 percent. The move reduced overhead and freed up capital for investment and product development. "It has reinvigorated this company, from the engineers to the factory floor," he says. "I could not be happier to be here. We're excited. We're kicking butt. It's reanimated a sense of pride in the company."
-------

In case you missed the emphasis I added above, let me further drive home the point. Workers compensation in Idaho is 10% of what it cost them in California. If this does not show how broken California's workers' compensation system has become - and how unfriendly to employers California has made itself through legislation and regulation, then nothing will.

How The $100 Rebate For Gas Came and Went

2006-05-06T09:19:00.000-07:00

The New York Times has an interesting article outlining the rise and fall of Bill Frist's $100 for gas prices rebate idea. It's also scary in that it makes you realize how little thought goes into some policies before politicians call a press conference.

A group of Republican Senators calling themselves The Energy Working Group got together to try to come up with some ideas on gas prices before the Democrats beat them to the punch. But they weren't able to agree on anything. So:

--------
That night, Mr. Frist's chief of staff, Eric Ueland, and a handful of other Senate staff members — the worker bees who drive the machinery of Congress while their bosses take either the credit or the heat — came up with their own version of an idea that had been circulating among Democrats: a rebate to taxpayers, in this case for $100. Mr. Frist signed off and made plans to introduce it at a news conference the next day.

But the idea, part of a larger eight-point plan, fell flat. It was ridiculed by consumers and scorned by fellow Republicans in and out of Congress, including some of the seven senators who, like Mr. Thune, had stood beside Mr. Frist to announce it.
--------

You know there is a problem with a Republican proposal when even Rush Limbaugh is saying Senators are "treating us like we're a bunch of whores." and House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio is calling the plan insulting. (Obviously, the coup de grâce was when I argued "I would be hard pressed to think of a more blatantly pandering and stupid idea for the party of small government.")

Even the other members of the Energy Working Group quickly backed away from it and tried to pin it squarely on Frist. For example, Republican Senator reactions chronicled included:

One Republican, Senator John E. Sununu of New Hampshire, said that after he caught wind of it he quietly tried to steer leadership aides away. "I made it clear in no uncertain terms to some of the staff that this was bad politics and bad policy," Mr. Sununu said.......

"I never was in favor of that," Mr. Thune said Thursday. "We all got out there and tried to put our best face on it."......

"I think it hurt all of us," Mr. Cornyn said, referring to his Republican colleagues. "It appeared to be a nonserious response to a serious problem.".....

"It came out of the leader's office," Mr. Santorum said.......

Another group member, Senator Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana, said, "It wasn't mine." ..........

So, after proposing it on a Thursday, Frist had given up on it by the next Monday.

George Allen Continued

2006-05-05T17:21:00.000-07:00

Ryan Lizza has an update on his earlier article (The original article is here, and here is my post on it. ) In the update he writes:
-----------
Images of Allen are like a Civil War version of Where's Waldo, with the Confederate flag replacing the bespectacled cartoon character.
-----------
Clever.

Amongst other things, Lizza now notes that Allen also displayed Confederate Flags on his pickup truck while at UVA. This was despite the fact that, at the time, there was a lot of tension on campus over the use of the Confederate Flag during football games and Allen was a quarterback for UVA.

Obviously and as with all the other stuff, this doesn’t mean he was or is a racist. I do think it means he was going out of his way to not show he was not a racist. If that makes sense. And he didn’t seem take the issue of race relations anywhere near as seriously as he claims he does now.

Lizza also notes that in his first campaign ad for governor in 1993, Allen speaks in his office with a Confederate Flag on his bookshelf in the background. Allen had previously stated he removed the flag from his collection in 1992. But it seems he either just moved it to his bookshelf, or chose to bring it out when filming his commercial. This obviously doesn't mean he wants to bring back slavery, but i think it does suggest this is not merely a matter of High School fascination and indescretion.

Jordan, I'm curious how/if this new article affects your original thoughts, or how you now view Allen.

Even looking at this from a from a strictly pragmatic level, I would think Republican concern would be this: There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Republicans who want to be president. Isn’t it in Republican's best interests to maybe go with one of them so we don’t have to have this discussion?

Can any right minded Republican's really look forward to having to talking to Democratic colleague or friend they respect, and who they would like to respect them, and have to explain away and defend nooses, decades of associating with the Confederate Flag, opposing a Martin Luther King Holiday while fighting to preserve a holiday for Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, while initially accepting a membership at a social club deemed discriminatory to the extent that his three predecessors had refused? And trust me, there would be a ton of those conversations and that is exactly how they would be framed.

I know there are a number of ways to see the Confederate Flag. But given how it is viewed by so many and what it stands for to at least some undesireables, do Republicans want as their leader a guy who was displaying it in campaign commercials just last decade?

I think Allen's defenders are correct in that his actions in high school, college, as a state legislator and as a gubernatorial candidate DON’T necessarily provide any certain answers regarding racism or his views today. But I think they probably DO raise some important regarding his judgment. I mean, is it just me, or does it seem pretty obvious that as a general rule, if you want to run for president in the 21st century without facing questions about possible racism, you probably shouldn't have a lifelong association with flags a majority of people - at least to some degree - associate with racism.

I do agree that this may very well be intended as a hit piece – an attempt to dirty a possibly strong Republican candidate. And I have no doubt Hillary and Democratic strategists are eating this up if they do fear Allen. But that doesn’t mean there’s not some validity to the questions. And it doesn’t mean the questions aren’t concerning, worth considering, or going to cause more damage than Allen is worth just because Democrats are raising the questions.

Is this fair to Allen? I don't know. But I do know this. Sometimes when you play with fire, you get burned. When:

- In your teens your sporting Confederate flags and apparently vandalizing schools.
- In your 20s your sticking confederate flags on your car when African American’s at your school are making a big deal about how they’re not comfortable with that symbol.
- In your 30s your making votes regarding MLK Day and Confederacy related stuff which you're now not comfortable with because of how they portray your feelings on race and the Confederacy
-And in your 40s you’re kicking off your run for governor with a confederate flag in the background of your office (a year after you have recently been claiming you removed it).

Then you’ve probably opened the door to some of these questions, and questions about your judgement.

And, for me at least, it would seem you've probably closed the door to your being a desirable candidate for the Republican Party.

George Allen, Racism and High School

2006-05-04T19:40:00.000-07:00

Here's another article with a different perspective, from Townhall.com.

Ben, I agree with some of your points. Maybe I am infected with conspiracy theory, but the New republic article seems more like an early hit piece on a potential 2008 candidate than anything having real substance.

Before I destroy my future, let me first articulate the appropriate disclaimers: I don't support waiving the confederate flag. And although I'm now a recent Virginia resident, voter and homeowner, you won't EVER see me sporting the Stars and Bars. I don't consider myself Politically Correct in any way shape or form, and indeed, I somewhat despise that movement. I can see why the flag is offensive to many people, particularly blacks. But I can also see an argument that the flag is a symbol of southern culture or the Civil War. However, Allen's "fetish" with it, if it is indeed as detailed and long lasting as the New Republic article asserts, I find pretty weird.

BUT HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT --

If the best evidence for Allen's supposed racist past is the confederate flag pin he wore and the car he drove in high school, that's weak. At most that means he might have been racist when he was young and dumb. Eighteen year olds do stupid things and have stupid views all the time. The man is in his fifties now. Or take what might be most direct accusation, that he and some friends spray-painted a mostly-black rival high school before a football game. Assume the worst, that George Allen himself sprayed racists epithets on walls (as opposed to being part of a group that did it but not doing it himself.) EVEN if it is true, it was over thirty years ago. Are we really going to disqualify people for office based on views they had or mistakes they made in high school? Would anyone be left standing? Allen might not have a racist bone in his body. He might harbor some racist views. Or he might be a huge civil war buff. My only point is that he should be judged on his record and views from his adult life, not his high school life.

Or consider the noose hanging from the tree at his house/office (was it his house or his law office? sources differ). The guy obviously likes all thing Southern, and it very well could indicate his tough on crime mentality (string 'em up like the Wild West) -- as he says. It also could have been part of a collection of historical objects from a foregone time period (along with a wagon wheel). If someone had Swatzika emblems in their house as part of a World War II memorabilia collection - would you assume he/she was anti-Semitic? I probably would not.

Ben, I think you are right on point regarding Allen's story about driving through the racist south having made a huge impression on him. Seems too convenient. Whatever impression his drive through the south made he obviously forgot by the time he was sporting a confederate flag in high school.

However, on the whole, the article seems like early, early spin against a candidate that is the leading McCain alternative, aimed to hit before people outside the state or DC area know him. If people across the country associate the terms "George Allen" and "racist" -- then he's done. Either way, he better move fast, or he will not be the best candidate for the Republican party regardless of his true views.

George Allen And Race Problems?

2006-05-04T13:27:00.000-07:00

Does anyone else tend to confuse the two guys from Virginia that want to be President? Maybe it's just me, but even though I've seen them on TV and read about them countless times, I still get them confused. I mean, they both try to trade on the "Southern" thing, even though neither one was originally from the South. They both were governors at some point. One had a dad in football, but it's not the one whose dad you could call "Pop Warner." And they both seem to want to be president way to much to be any good at it.

If you share my problem, you should read The New Republic's article on George Allen. (For the record, he is the Republican Senator who used to be governor). I know people will say it's The New Republic, so it has an agenda, etc. Even given that, it still got my attention. And I have no doubt I'll remember who George Allen is now.

You know those people that find religion at some point in their life and are way more over the top about it than someone whose been with it all their life? That's sort of how Allen comes across with the South - and, to some extent, The Confederacy. A cowboy boot-wearin' guy whose campaign manager boasts of his "authenticity" when he spits his tobacco and almost hits an approaching female, he's also a guy with no ties to the South before college whose mother was a Frenchwoman ashamed of her American citizenship who found the country "infantile." The most worrisome stuff has to do with race - particularly from his younger years. Some of the issues the piece touches upon:

Until he was governor, he had a Confederate Flag and noose prominently displayed at his home. He said these were part of his flag collection and Western motif. (I have a general rule for people in office or who hope to run for office: You should avoid confederate flags and symbols of oppression as part of your interior design. Nothing good can come of it.)
In high school (in So-Cal) he drove a Mustang with a Confederate flag on the front.
Classmates from high school are quoted as saying he "plastered the school with confederate flags."
He wore a Confederate flag pin in his formal senior portrait for high school.
On the eve of a game against a largely African-American high school, he and some friends vandalized the school with racially tinged (Die Whitey, Burn Baby Burn) meant to look like the work of people from the African-American school. (Allen admits to the vandalism but remembers it as non-racial stuff. The four former classmates and one administrator (who is not an Allen hater, he says he would strongly consider voting for him) disagree with Allen's version).
Allen cannot be accused of being soft of enforcing rules. As the oldest he was often responsible for putting siblings to bed on time. At various times when they gave him some grief about not wanting to go to bed it seems he: threw a brother through a sliding glass window, tackled a brother and broke his collarbone, dragged a sister up the stairs by her hair.

The first two sections of the article touch upon stuff like this, as well as some things from his time in state government (not wanting a MLK holiday - partially because the day was used to celebrate Stonewall Jackson). But I actually found the last section the most disturbing. This is when the author (Ryan Lizza) interviews Allen.

Allen points to large amount of work he has put into bills involving race over the last 10 years (he has) and talks about how from an early age he seems to have had a pretty deep understanding of the South's racial history and violence occurring during the 1960's. Yet he tries to explain away the questions from his past (which he never denies - though I guess that is hard when there's pictures and stuff) by claiming not to recall exactly or spinning it as something done because he liked to "upset people."

Something here doesn't add up. You can't speak passionately about having understood at a young age the ugliness and importance of racial lynchings and such, but then act in ways which completely fly in the face of this understanding - especially when you live in a swanky part of LA - and that LA is not Louisiana. The story of how his trip to the South at a young age made an imprint on him can't be entirely true. Either it didn't make a big enough imprint that he would do some of the things he doesn't deny doing, or he made the story up in part of his recent spin cycle to clean up his image.

Like George Allen, I went to high school in California. And I had classmates who were into the Confederate flag. Many of these would probably just claim they too liked to mess with people, or they liked the authenticity of the South, or the Dukes of Hazard, or whatever. I'm not prepared to say these people were racist. And I'm not prepared to say they weren't. But I am prepared to say there was something off with them. Even as someone who has serious concerns about modern "political correctness" and "sensitivity" at the best, I find this embrace of the Confederacy must include at least enough ignorance/insensitivity to be worrisome. Senator Allen's explenations in no way alleviate my concerns

I'm still open to Senator Allen or someone else disproving some of the allegations or convincing me I'm wrong on this. But, even given the possible bias one could argue comes from a New Republic profile, I'm fairly disturbed at this point. It would take a lot before I could see myself, in good conscious, supporting George Allen for anything.

Update: See here for a later post on this issue with updated info.

al-Qaeda: Defeated in Iraq?

2006-05-02T13:46:00.000-07:00

It seems a bit early to say. But this post over at Strategy Page delineates three reasons AQ has "lost" and is now retreating from Iraq. (HT: Barone Blog)
1. They failed to realize the terrain had shifted on the media battlefield, now that CNN has rival news networks and blogs which give more balanced coverage. [Question: then why has US support for the war dropped?]
2. They underestimated Bush's resolve.
3. [Here is where it gets interesting] They waged a war against Iraqi civilians:

The third mistake was to wage a campaign of terror against Iraqi civilians. This was intended to intimidate them into at least acquiescing to al Qaeda's presence, if not supporting al Qaeda at all. It didn't work. Instead, as the car bombs went off , and drew CNN headlines in the United States, al Qaeda managed to become more and more unpopular with Iraqis. Even the Arab Sunnis began to view the Americans, who had displaced them from the power they had held under Saddam, as a better option than supporting al Qaeda. Eventually, the Sunnis joined the democratic process and when that happened, al Qaeda's eventual defeat was assured with increasing Sunni participation over three elections in the space of less than a year.

The first two reasons are debatable, but I certainly agree with the third one, as noted here [link forthcoming when I can find it]. AQ's greatest mistake was to start attacking Iraqi civilians. For the first time in modern history, aggressive and violent terrorist tactics were killing innocent Muslims, and I would add the wedding bombing in Jordan to this list. Public support in Iraq dropped dramatically, especially among the Sunnis as noted above. The hope is that broader support for AQ in the Arab world will drop not far behind, bringing down with it the financial support, logistical support and safe harboring that AQ needs to survive.

If this happens -- the most beneficial result of the war in Iraq, speaking strictly in terms of American security, may become the unintended drop in Arab support for Islamofascist terrorism precipitated by violence against Iraqi civilians. Very ironic.

Disgusting Corporate Welfare: Northrop Grumnan

2006-05-01T19:40:00.000-07:00

The weasels in Congress are trying to sneak through a $500 million handout to Northrop Grumnan for "business disruption" from Katrina.

Um, I think there is an insurance policy a company can get to handle this "business disruption" or which we speak. What was it called again? Oh year, "business disruption insurance."

I'm not real clear why the American taxpayer is transferring half a billion to a company which - see here - is very profitable and doing just fine without it. Besides the whole "congress is a bunch of whores" thing. (Sorry about the language. I generally like to keep this a family friendly blog. And that simile is grossly unfair to whores.).

Update: This story is in today's Wall Street Journal as well ($ required. Page A4). The Mississippi delegation and Republican Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran are the ones trying to push this. Refreshingly, the White House opposes it. Northrop tried to get this through in December and failed. Northrop the aid will end up amounting to "only" $140 million to $200 million. A Northrop spokesman is quoted in the story:

"Most of the damages inflicted in Northrop Gruman's operations is adjudicated through insurance claims and legal processes, but these are slow and cumbersome - and this resolution will take years...... Without near term and timely supplemental funding, the recovery of the shipyards will be significantly delayed and further increase the already delayed delivery schedules and cost of Navy ships."

Now I understand. The government can avoid paying more for ships if they give Northrop a couple hundred million dollars. Sounds like a bargain.

Of course, Northrop's argument is ridiculous. When bad things happen to companies, it should be paid for by the companies and their insurance, not tax payers. They had over $2 billion in cash flow from operating activities last year. They have plenty of cash for recovery just from normal operations.

It's hard to argue that you desperately need a handout of between $140 million and and $500 million when, since you last tried to make this argument, you have spent $879 million on dividends and stock repurchases.

I'm also unclear why - even if the problem was having the cash on hand for repairs (which is obviously not) Northrop wouldn't just ask for a loan. Let alone go to financial markets awash with capital - financial markets which have already given Northrop almost $5 billion in loans.

The answer, of course, if corporate welfare. Northrop thinks if they throw out a couple million in lobbyine with "Katrina" and "national defense" that they will be able to cash in.

Gas Rebate

2006-05-01T12:33:00.000-07:00

Ben, while I think Frist's proposal is a bit of a stunt, it seems better than some of the other alternatives. You could make the argument that it is more small government than a direct regulation of producers (e.g., windfall tax). It might marginally boost demand, but since most consumers drive a fixed amount (commuting to work and back) I would think the more likely effect would be $100 bucks of budgetary relief. In that regard, it is closer to handing hungry people money for food than a law requiring a supermarket sell them things at a certain price or heavily taxing profitable supermarkets.
Having said that, the money might be better spent in other ways, as I'm not sure it will help the problem in a long-term way. $100 is only a couple tanks of gas. Taking the long-term view (and putting aside, for the sake of argument, the budget hit of rising gas prices for those living on tight margins) -- higher gas prices should lead to improved policy: more conservation, less driving and more carpooling and public transit, purchasing more efficient vehicles, and less dependence on foreign oil; increased investment in alternative fuel sources; more investment in domestic production; increased investment in refining; and less dependence on foreign oil (did I say that twice?).

In other news, in case you missed it, Dennis Hastert is one large dude.

Comparing Darfur and Iraq

2006-05-01T12:30:00.000-07:00

Reason's Hit and Run group blog is one of my favorites and I usually agree to some extent with what you find there. But I think this from Tim Kavanaugh is way off base (As is Instapundit, who agrees with him):

-------
I like Clooney and I don't want to make the umpteenth cheap shot about Hollywood stars and their political campaigns. I think military intervention in Darfur is a non-starter, and I'm glad about that. But what's the clear categorical distinction between intervening in Iraq (which I think it's fair to say Clooney and many other Darfur hawks opposed) and this one? Why does it always seem like progressives support any intervention that clearly does not advance any American interests? (I don't think invading Iraq advanced our national interests, but people made that case, which you definitely can't in the case of Sudan.)
-------

The first difference I see is the immediacy of the violence. Somewhere between 180,000 and 300,000 have been killed in Darfur since 2003 and the violence, burning, raping, etc. is continuing. At the time of his removal, Saddam was not causing an immediate genocide. He was a bad dude, had done similar stuff in the past and there were arguments based on terrorism and national security. It seems logical for someone like Clooney to see the distinction between a situation where 2 million people are currently displaced and genocide is occurring, and a situation with past occurrences and the possibility of future occurrences. I don't understand why Cavanaugh and Reynolds would seem to suggest there is not a real distinction there.

I also think it is important to note that what someone like Clooney is calling for is not direct US force engagement in Sudan - which is what they may have opposed in Iraq. It seems they are asking for more UN engagement, political pressure on Khartoum, and exploring ways to help the African Union send more troops or use them more effectively. 7,000 African Union Troops patrol an area the size of France.

Those two items strike me as obvious distinctions - I'm not sure what I could be missing.

Incidently, I saw Clooney on Real Time and I thought he was an excellent ambassador for the cause. He went out of his way to avoid taking shots at the president and make it a political issue (even though Maher seemed to try to do so a little, and bait Clooney into doing the same). And he's making an effort to work with both sides by involving people like Obama and Brownback at the same time.

I'm not saying Clooney shouldn't be critiqued because this is an important cause to often ignored, or that there isn't some truth to the larger point about some people opposing US action when it helps US interests. But I am disappointed that such a seemingly blatant false analogy is tossed out and could discredit the efforts for Darfur.

A Good Cause

2006-04-30T17:19:00.000-07:00

I've never been a big "go check out this cause and maybe give a couple bucks" type of guy. The thought generally leaves me with a strange feeling. Sort of like combining sleazy hucksterism and showy do-goodiness - like a crossing a used car dealer and UC Santa Cruz undergrad. But Chris is a good guy. And you can't argue with the cause or organization.

Gas Makes Republicans Stupid

2006-04-30T16:47:00.000-07:00

OK, so I made fun of Nancy Pelosi for saying stupid things regarding gas prices. But Bill Frist and some of his Republican buddies are actually worse. Frist is trying to pass a $100 "rebate check" to help "ease the pain" Americans are feeling at the pump.

I would be hard pressed to think of a more blatantly pandering and stupid idea for the party of small government.

Update: You have to like this picture.

What is the deal with ethanol?

2006-04-30T11:27:00.000-07:00

Here is a great article in Slate entitled "Corn Dog" by Robert Bryce that questions the efficacy of ethanol as an alternative fuel source. I have often wondered whether ethanol is feasible and worth the billions we've dumped into it thus far. My unsophisticated reasoning went as follows: "We have spent billions over decades, and it is barely being used. Can't be that great."

Well, Bryce's article adds another layer of sophistication to my reasoning. He points out the following problems: 1. Adding ethanol will increase costs and prices of gas by adding another level to the supply chain. 2. It may take more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol that it contains. By my calculations, that's bad. 3. The amount of ethanol that the legislation calls for is a drop in the well of energy consumption. In other words, it's too small to make a dent in our oil imports.

If you want the studies, read the article. But the gist of it is that some engineers and scientists at Bizzerkely concluded that it takes 98000 BTU's of energy to make a gallon of ethanol, which contains 76000 BTU's. That's a net loss. (BTU is British Thermal Unit, a unit of energy). By contrast, gasoline takes 22000 to make and produces 116000. Also, when added to gasoline, ethanol will lower the miles per gallon that can be achieved.

If these things are true, the ethanol subsidy seems like a waste of money. It's perhaps smarter to invest in solar cells, hydrogen and other clean sources of energy that have a better chance of yielding results and reducing our oil dependence.

18 Families With $185 Billion Killed Estate Tax?

2006-04-30T10:22:00.000-07:00

There's an interesting report claiming that the fight against the estate tax was a 10 year effort by some of the nations richest families. The families include those associated with Wal-Mart, Koch Industries, Mars Candy Gallo Winery, Nordstrom, and Campbell's Soup. The report claims the 18 families have collective wealth of $185 billion. They invested millions over the last decade. From the press release:

--------
These families have sought to keep their activities anonymous by using associations to represent them and by forming a massive coalition of business and trade associations dedicated to pushing for estate tax repeal. The report details the groups they have hidden behind – the trade associations they have used, the lobbyists they have hired, and the anti-estate tax political action committees, 527s and organizations to which they have donated heavily.

In a massive public relations campaign, the families have also misled the country by giving the mistaken impression that the estate tax affects most Americans. In particular, they have used small businesses and family farms as poster children for repeal, saying that the estate tax destroys both of these groups. But just more than one-fourth of one percent of all estates will owe any estate taxes in 2006. And the American Farm Bureau, a member of the anti-estate tax coalition, was unable when asked by The New York Times to cite a single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of estate tax liability.
-------

I don't really feel strongly about the estate tax one way or the other and understand both sides to the argument. But I did usually feel the arguments used to fight it (family farms, etc.) were pretty much a sham. This seems to confirm that.

How The Union's Sell Out Teachers' Retirement

2006-04-29T16:02:00.000-07:00

If you every had any doubt that the teachers' unions don't always act in the best interests of teachers, you need to read this LA Times article.

-------
In what might seem an unlikely partnership, the unions endorse investment providers, even specific products, and the companies reciprocate with financial support. They sponsor union conferences, advertise in union publications or make direct payments to union treasuries.
-------

For example, the National Education Association (the nations largest teachers union) received $50 million in royalties in 2004. And if you think they are getting royalties because they are steering teachers towards the lowest cost, best investment option - then you're wrong.

-------
Many teachers say they presume an endorsement means their union has used its clout to get the best price, as unions do on products from eyeglasses to automobiles. But when it comes to retirement accounts, union backing is often a sign that the product will cost more, not less.

Buyers of an NEA-endorsed annuity sold by Security Benefit Life Insurance Co. pay annual fees totaling at least 1.73% of their savings. That is about 10 times as much as they would pay in 403(b) plans available from Vanguard Group, T. Rowe Price and other low-cost mutual fund providers.

The costliest option in the NEA-endorsed plan charges 4.85% a year. That means an investor would have to earn a return of nearly 5% just to break even.
--------

So what's the union's defense?

-------
Union leaders defend the endorsement deals and the prevalence of high-fee annuities. They say that teachers get valuable advice from brokers and financial advisors in return for the fees, and that the companies' contributions to union coffers help pay employee salaries and other union expenses.
-------

This, of course, is the highest of ironies. The "advice" teachers are paying 2-5% a year for is actually faulty. In just about every case I would imagine low cost lifestyle or index funds are better choices than annuities. Especially when one of the major selling points of annuities is tax advantages, which is superfluous in tax free retirement accounts.

This "advice" union leaders are defending is simply sales people pushing teachers towards the highest commission investment vehicles. Teachers who trust their union has chosen for them an investment advisor who looks out for their best interests - as many seem to do - can have tens of thousands of dollars lost in fees and lost earnings. Of course, the investment company makes a lot more company and kicks back some of it to the unions where "the companies' contributions to union coffers help pay employee salaries ." So I'm sure all the teacher's don't mind.

I mean, we all know teachers are there to help support teachers union officials. Or was it the other way around? In any case, the investment companies spend $4,000 on steak dinners for Union officials, and they advertise in union newsletters - so I'm sure the teachers won't mind missing out on tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in their golden years.

The former head of the LA teachers union is a little more slippery - though just as disingenuous - in his explanation for why LA teachers are forced to choose from only high cost options.

-------
Alberto Valdivia, said the union did not endorse low-cost plans because it wanted teachers to have access to the investment advice offered by sales brokers."Teachers are trained as educators, not financial managers,"

Valdivia said. "What we are concerned about is guided, safe, secure investments."
--------

So if I understand Mr. Vadivia correctly, he is saying

1) Teachers are too simple minded to figure out their own finances. Even though tens of millions of other people do.
2) Mr. Valdivia has never heard of the so called "target maturity" or "lifestyle funds" that are based on the portfolio allocation appropriate for different ages. They are an easy way for those not comfortable with choosing their allocations. It is based upon research vastly superior to anything an annuity and life insurance salesman will give you - and costs .3% - .8% - was opposed to the 2%-5% you pay for crappy advice from a commission sales person. (His ignorance is understandable. They are only offered by a number of obscure investment houses. You know, like Fidelity, Vanguard, and T. Rowe Price.)

Obviously, this is not what he is saying. He is just blowing smoke to justify the unions selling out their members for personal gain and growth of union size and power.

Hopefully, more unions will actually work in the best interests of teachers. A good example would be the teachers union in Wisconsin. It has provided members with low cost equities options (starting at .35%) and has ignored pressure from the National Education Association to push members into plan which result in kickbacks to the union from investment companies.

LA Times Distorts Reason For Writer's Suspension

2006-04-29T14:32:00.000-07:00

If you have not hear about the Michael Hiltzik affair, it is interesting reading and well worth reading it unfold over at Patterico. Hiltzik's has been suspended and will be reassigned (in addition to no longer having the blog. But it is worth noting the LA Times seems to distort what he did wrong. The editors write:

-------
But employing pseudonyms constitutes deception and violates a central tenet of The TimesÂ ethics guidelines: Staff members must not misrepresent themselves and must not conceal their affiliation with The Times. This rule applies equally to the newspaper and the Web world.
--------

Of course, the problem is not that he used pseudonyms -a lott of people do that and no one complains. The problem was that he used pseudonyms to engage in "sock puppetry." He created "Masha" and "workingjournalist" (ed. Commenter DJ correctly pointed out Hiltzik actualy used "Mikekoshi" and "NoFanOfCableCos". Masha and "workingjournalist are from LA Times computers and seem to be the same person, but are as yet unidentified. Thank you for the correction DJ) and used them to attack his critics and support his (Hiltzik's) writing. It would be like if I created a bunch of different names and commented on how brilliant this post is - and vehemently disagreed with anyone who questioned the brilliance of this post. That's very different from me going to a different blog and commenting under a pseudonym on a matter not directly related to me. It really seems like the LA Times is mischaracterizing the matter.

The mischaracterization is strange because I'm sure some would argue that - even with the real facts - suspension and yanking the column could be seen as harsh given neither were related to the matter at hand. Maybe their is a shorter leash for those already disciplined and reassigned once in the past.

Public Corruption + Prostitutes. Now We're Talkin'!

2006-04-27T10:18:00.000-07:00

Remember when Norm McDonald used to do Weekend Update on SNL and he inevitably , after a dramatic pause, throw out "crack whores." He seemed to understand that the concept of prostitution (an especially prostitution for inner city drugs) made anything funnier.

Well, it now seems that disgraced former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham was paying attention. The Wall Street Journal reports (and was kind enough to make it the one free article of the day):

-------
investigators are investigating whether two contractors implicated in the bribery of former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham supplied him with prostitutes and free use of a limousine and hotel suites, pursuing evidence that could broaden their long-running inquiry.
--------

Hey, what's the use in getting bribed for millions if you can't enjoy your money (though I guess it wasn't his money) and free time? Pushing through millions of wasted taxpayers dollars to your co-conspirators so you can have a used Rolls Royce, and fancy carpets is difficult, stressful work. I see no reason why Rep. Cunningham didn't deserve the physical comfort and stress relief DC's finest escort services could provide.

The Marshall Plan for Mexico?

2006-04-26T21:08:00.000-07:00

So on the list of wacky ideas in dealing with the immigration problem, this one is a title-contender: Stephen Hill in the Washington Post advocates a "Marshall Plan" for Mexico. [link to be added]. In other words, the United States gives billions of dollars in subsidies to build education, infrastructure, homes, etc. in Mexico -- with the eventual goal of raising living standards and decreasing illegal immigration. After all, a prosperous neighbor will be less likely to send its citizens over the border, right? The second supposed effect will be that US retirees start moving to Mexico where things are cheaper. After all, why move to Arizona if you can get a similar climate for 1/2 the price? Makes some sense.

Barone comments on the plan here. [Note: I would hyperlink this but I am using my wife's Mac PowerBook. It's so powerful that I can't even hyperlink in blogger. Wonderful.] [UPDATE: Nevermind I fixed it.]

I share Barone's skepticism (i.e., this is "wacky, pie in the sky stuff"). To me, there are three main problems with the Mexico Marshall Plan:

1.) Since 1994, we have already been partially financing an increase in Mexico's living standards in the form of NAFTA. As I understand the effects of NAFTA, we lose manufacturing jobs, but gain cheaper products, whereas Mexico gains manufacturing jobs and income. In the long run (and maybe it has already started), Mexico's increased wealth allows them to purchase our higher end products and services and we gain new markets.

Whether the benefits of NAFTA to the US are worth the lost manufacturing jobs can be debated, but I think it's pretty clear that Mexico benefits from it. (As an aside, I think NAFTA does benefit the US economy, and whatever lost job effect it has seems to be small on the whole, as the economy has added millions of jobs and grown robustly since 1994).

Of course, whatever benefit Mexico has gained from NAFTA, it hasn't been enough to offset the incentives to immigrate because 400,000 citizens a year are still coming across the border. So if NAFTA has not been enough to slow immigration, what reason is there to believe that massive subsidies will be? Especially when the effects of such a plan are unlikely to be felt for decades.

2.) Besides that, would it even work? I have serious doubts. Even putting aside efficiency and waste issues (which are paramount concerns whenever the government is handing out hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars) -- how long would it take for such investments to have any real effect? My guess is quite some time, probably decades. At current rates, millions more will have immigrated. Besides that, we have enough problems with some of our own public schools, despite billions spent every year. What makes us think we could build a good school system in another country?

3.) The Mexican Marshall Plan is unlikely to ever get public support. Like snowball's chance in hell. The (real) Marshall Plan was predicated on the idea that it was in the world's best interest to rebuild war-ravaged countries, especially their infrastructure, which was utterly decimated in World War II. As I understand the history, it was barely popular even then, and Truman had to really sell it to the public. Given that the US has a.) not fought a war with Mexico (since the mid-1800's anyway), and b.) has not destroyed Mexico's infrastructure in armed conflict -- the chances that there would be public support for a Mexico Marshall Plan are remote. The idea is a total and complete non-starter.

It does make an interesting point regarding the migration of US retirees to Mexico. This could be a trend because Mexico has such a great climate accessible at a low cost. For it to really catch fire, however, I think some property system has to be put into place whereby US citizens can actually own property in Mexico and have protected rights. I've heard that the current system is highly-biased against non-citizens -- non-citizens can only get 99 year leases, they are not able to pass their properties to their kids, etc. These types of regulations, to the extend they still exist, need to be swept away if Mexico really wants to encourage foreigners and US retirees to settle down and invest there. Who wants to buy land in a country that won't let you keep it?

As to allowing Mexican doctors to treat US citizens and be reimbursed by Medicare, while a good idea in theory, the administrative costs and fraud-policing would be staggering. From what I understand, it's difficult enough keeping medical providers in the US from fleecing the federal government through Medicare fraud. And here the violators can be arrested, fined, jailed, etc. Not to dismiss the idea out of hand, maybe a licensing program could help. Certain licensed providers could provide Medicare-reimbursable care, but only after going through some certification process developed by the US government and implemented and monitored by Mexico.

Gas Prices Make Politicians Say Stupid Things: Pelosi Edition

2006-04-26T17:27:00.000-07:00

Nancy Pelosi went on a little rant and had this to say:

-------
We have two oilmen in the White House. the logical follow-up from that is $3 a gallon gasoline. there is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect.
-------

Kos thinks more of this "might actually start inspiring Democrats to hit the polls this November." He's right, assuming they abandon all capacity for rational thought. President Bush has done plenty that Democrats can get all worked up about. High gas prices is not one of them.

President Bush has definately taken many pro-energy stances. The list of proposals he has favored or probably favors include: trying to open ANWR to drilling, leasing federal lands for drilling, loosening environmental restrictions for refineries, pushing nuclear power, and passing an energy bill so laden with pork that it actually included a program to provide big power with ten billion $1 bills to be burned instead of fossil fuels. (That last one is probably not true - but there was alot of wasteful programs).

But all these things - which Democrats hammer him for - would INCREASE the supply of oil and gas. This would lead to a DECREASE in the price of gas. I don't see how that isn't fairly obvious.

Now, these programs would no doubt also increase domestic energy companies profits. (Domestic profits could increase even when price decreases if the quantity increase more than makes up for the change in world prices). But that is not the same as his policies leading to higher prices. The policies which lead to higher prices actually come from Ms. Pelosi's party. Of course, we shouldn't care about any of this.

Gas Prices: You Shouldn't Care

2006-04-26T13:30:00.000-07:00

Daniel Drezner asks why a spike in gas prices is considered a political crisis. He thinks it is because:

Being tied to the Middle East, coverage can always include that political twist
It's one of the few things actually controlled by a real cartel
Gasoline is the one commodity both genders have close to perfect information and may be mobilized to seek a political solution.

I think the real answer is pretty simple: politicians make it a political crisis because they think it will make them more popular. What interests me is the warped way by which gas prices become such a major part of the national discussion in general.

I think all of Dan's reasons are valid. But I think the major issue is that there is not much short term elasticity for gas. As prices go up, we pretty much have to continue to buy it and people hate that. Mass transit isn't feasible in most places outside of cities where the jobs are densely gathered. Even when it is feasible, in many cases you are basically agreeing to stand in a crowded area amongst questionable companions for like 12 cents an hour. Car pooling is lame: You add like an hour to your trip by having coordinate and meet up with someone you probably wouldn't want to spend time alone with otherwise and it saves like $1.23. Definitely not worth it. And transaction costs and other factors make implausible to sell your SUV and buy a Toyota Tercel. Plus, then you would have to drive in a Tercel.

So, unless you or the market thinks your time is pretty worthless, you probably just have to eat the extra cost. People don't like that because price increases for necessities smell unfair. We don't mind paying $10 a gallon for bottled water and coffee because we control our consumption of those items. But we're over a barrel on gas prices and people don't like that.

To me, this is when things get interesting. Because there is nothing we can do about it, and because it is something which effects pretty much everyone, gas prices become a shared experience around which there is mutual agreement and which can fill in conversation gaps. Just like male co-workers may never speak unless discussing sports, or everyone comments on the weather, rising gas prices is a safe subject by which to break the ice with others, or fill in gaps in conversations with semi-acquaintances, friends and family. Next to water coolers the country over "Looks like gas is going to crack $3" is added to the usual repertoire of "Looks like rain." and "Must be April, both Wood and Pryor are on the DL."

Of course, amongst people that actually think about it, no one REALLY cares. We don't really care about our cubicle-mate's 10 day forecast or uninformed opinion on Drew Brees vs. Philip Rivers. And we definitely don't care that the Mobil that sells syringes and razor blades over on MLK Blvd. has 3 cent a gallon cheaper gas. But we still talk about it. A lot. It's a neutral, comfortable area of agreement.

For this reason, it also becomes something the local news can pump. This is important because research has shown the local news should only lead with a story related to sex criminals five times a week or it risks losing its novelty. So they are constantly looking for a topic to break things up. Sending some guy to stand in front of a gas station fits this perfectly. It's a great graphic and with the proper tease (Study says gas could be $40 a gallon! News, at 11!) people will keep the TV on after ER. Through a non-virtuous cycle, seeing it on TV makes it a bigger issue, leading to more conversations, more stories, etc. etc.

So you have something which affects everyone, everyone talks about it, and it's on the news all the time. So naturally, the path of destruction between a congressman's office and the nearest camera is breathtaking.

Of course, it shouldn't be. Higher gas prices definitely hurt those with lower income. And I'm sure Wal-Mart sold fewer Peeps this Easter because this reduction in disposable income affected some people's spending. But if your driving 12,000 miles a year at 30 mpg and gas goes from $2 to $3/gallon, we're talking about a dollar a day. Even in an SUV getting 20 mpg we're not even talking about $2 a day. I'd say 85% of us can swing that with little problem. Skip a soda at lunch and you're back even.

The amount we have to hear about gas prices is stupidly disproportionate to its actual importance and our ability to do much about it by complaining or sending stupid forwards with a plan to not buy gas on Tuesday and to boycott Exxon until they bring the price down to $1.50/gallon. If politicians are serious about helping us keep our hard earned cash, then they should look at how Scary Movie 4 managed to gross $40 million in its first week.

Government Debt Accounting Manipulations

2006-04-25T09:58:00.000-07:00

The US Government and General Motors both have stupidly enourmous health care and retirement obligations. Even if you only intend to read the Comics Section, it is nearly impossible to pick up a paper without being confronted by an article on how GM lost over $10 billion last year, is facing possible bankruptcy, and doing everything they can to try to stay afloat. But the federal government's obligations don't seem to covered with the same urgency.

As David Broder points out recently, this is because of the way the government accounts for its spending. The Feds don't count future obligations incurred during the period as part of the deficit. If you count the real different between money received and new obligations and expenditures for last year, the budget deficit would be $760 billion. $319 billion sounds bad enough - $760 billion is much worse.

The federal government (rightfully) forces GM to provide an accurate measure of their financial situation by providing numbers that reflect all the obligations the company has. That (in addition to not so hot current sales) is the reason for the $10 billion loss and all the concern over GM going bankrup. But the government does not force itself to operate under the same rules. And the government's budget problems thus appear half as large they actually are - with no one much interested in doing anything about it.

Campaign Donations Going Straight To The Politicians Pocket

2006-04-15T10:57:00.000-07:00

Here's another example of a politician paying a spouse (and in this case, another associate living in their home) to raise funds for their campaign. Which means, another case of donor money going directly to a politician. About $158,000 in this case it seems. Tony and Audra Strickland (R- Moorepark) are both Republican politicians, so they are really set as they can both pay each other.

Tony is running for CA controller, meaning he would manage and audit the state's finances. He seems to have the requisite experience of providing parties (himself in this case) financial benefit while just (probably) squeaking by within the law.

I see no reason why this sort of arrangement should be legal. See Congressman Doolittle for another example of this, and how it leads to - suprise! - lobbyist who donate having pork thrown their way.

Worst Birthday Present Ever

2006-04-14T12:34:00.000-07:00

So I got an email from ING Direct wishing me a happy birthday. Nice gesture I guess. Whatever. But they also offered me a present. As a special birthday gift, they offered me 25% off any ING Direct Gear from the ING Direct Shop. That's right, for only $300, as opposed to $400, I can purchase an ING Direct Branded mountain bike. Since I'm on more of a budget, I'm looking more at the ING Direct Pajamas, for $30. Or ING Direct Pillowcases, for $15.

I'm not sure what to make of this. I have a hard time understanding when a lame company (ING Direct is great, but we're talking about a Dutch Financial Conglomerate here, not the Dodgers) decides they are going to try to convince people to pay a bunch of money to advertise for the company. Especially when it involves wearing alot of Orange. They can't really think people appreciate this. Can they? Do some people actually appreciate this? That would be a huge argument for reprasentative democracy.

My hope is that they are trying to appeal to us through irony. They must figure, "Well, if someone wants to spend $30 on an ING childrens watch (also known as "Sure to Get You Ridiculed On The Playground Watch"), then great. We make some money. And everyone else will think the idea of an ING direct DodgeBall is funny, so it's like a branding thing."

The alternative is too depressing to seriously consider.

This is where it would be cool/ironic to direct you to a Cafe Press site with all sorts of Democracy Market travel mugs and stuff. But that is too much work.

Quite Possibly The Worst Ad Ever

2006-04-10T10:34:00.000-07:00

I'm glad someone else noticed.

You've probably seen this ad for Century 21 Real Estate. It's the one the husband and wife are having a discussion over whether they can afford to buy a home. The wife comes across as exasperating and belittling. At one point she exclaims "What?" with an exasperated, emasculating look which is the equivalent of mass media neutering to any man watching. The woman comes across as a domineering, greedy (she wants the better house) spouse, while the man is a gutless, spineless ninny for worrying that buying a house possibly beyond their comfort level and best economic interests.

So at this point, the ad already turns off most sane and rational people. But it then gets creepy because we hear their real estate agent come over the speaker phone, chipping in "You guys can do this John." Prompting him to give in a agree to buy the house.

Apparently, this is supposed to make us think there is value to a Century 21 Real Estate agent. It might do that. If you are a complete moron. First off, who wants a real estate agent eavesdropping on a husband and wife's most intimate conversations. If I'm going to get brow-beaten and emasculated by my wife, I'd prefer not to have an audience.

More importantly, OF COURSE THE REAL ESTATE AGENT TELLS THEM TO BUY THE EXPENSIVE HOUSE. To begin with, the more expensive of a house they purchase, the larger her commission. Furthermore, if they buy this house then her work showing them homes is over, but if they decide they need to keep looking it means she will have to do more work (and get a smaller commission if the house they ultimately purchase is cheaper).

This ad shows exactly what people don't want from a real estate agent - being pressured to purchase a home so that the realtor can collect commission and move on to garner and help other clients. If the agent said, "You know, this may be too much home for you. I want you to be able to fund your retirement, children's college fund and, most importantly, to feel absolutely comfortable with your purchase. If we look hard, we can find what you need in this school district for a lower price. So we're going to keep looking." That would show some value. I mean, the guy may have been neutered by his wife in front of an audience, but at least he would be able to sleep at night.

Barone Post on Teacher's Unions and Democrats

2006-04-10T05:23:00.000-07:00

Barone has a brilliant post that succintly explains why the alliance between Democrats and the teacher's unions has produced failed education policies and cost billions of dollars. In short, it's the teachers, stupid! Namely, the union protections that work against accountability and make it near impossible to remove poor teachers.

Great stuff.

Prehistoric Cave Art is Really Teenager Graffiti

2006-04-09T10:00:00.000-07:00

According to a new book.

Romney to Sign a Mass. Mandate of Health Insurance

2006-04-05T11:48:00.000-07:00

This is stale news by now (I meant to post days earlier), but Gov. Mitt Romney is expected to sign a bill mandating health insurance for all citizens, with subsidies for the poor:

As I posted a while back, I find the logic of this approach to be quite sound: Health costs for the uninsured are put on the public, because uninsured don't utilize preventative care as much and get hospital ER care for dire needs. The taxpayer picks up the tab. Therefore, the state has an incentive to and justification for demanding that all citizens have health insurance. Why not just mandate it, offer a stripped-down bare bones basic insurance plan that is affordable for the masses, and then subsidize whomever cannot afford it?

Romney is definitely running for president, and I think this will be a definite accomplishment. Next to determining how to afford Social Security and Medicare for the baby-boomers, extending health insurance to the uninsured will be THE domestic issue of the coming decade(s).

Bush Is Right On Immigration

2006-04-02T19:41:00.000-07:00

I think Bush is taking the right stand on the immigration issue. See George Will's recent WaPo article: “Guard the Borders, and Face Facts Too.”

He explains why Bush is right to be promoting the tougher borders plus a guest worker package.

Like almost everyone, I agree that tougher enforcement of the borders is needed. The first reason is national security. If unauthorized entry into this country through the southern border can be done with so little effort that an estimate 900,000 come over annually, then it is only a matter of time before terrorist operatives figure that out. I would imagine that fake Guatemalan papers are not all that difficult to obtain, and would raise much less suspicion, than entry from any country in the Middle East.

Second, it undermines the rule of law. At George Will rightly notes, a nation's control of its borders is a basic and fundamental attribute of sovereignty. Illegal entry that is tolerated and even encouraged, and then exploited by many employers, undermines the respect for law on many levels. I cannot think of another area where open flouting of laws by so many (including the employers who exploit under the table labor) is accepted.

A third reason is basic fairness. Yes, we are a nation of immigrants. Yes, we have benefited and continue to benefit from the economic and cultural contribution that many immigrants make to society. But tolerating illegal immigration strikes me as profoundly unfair to the willing and eager immigrants, from all over the world, waiting in line. It is just basic playground morality. Those who cut in line are cheating the rest who wait. It is especially unfair when not everyone in line gets in.

As sad as it might be, a fence may be part of the solution. From what I’ve read, it has slowed unauthorized immigration along the Southern Border in California. Is it worth the cost? I don’t know. Should it be explored? I think so.

Having said all that, a guest worker program is a necessary, maybe even vital, component of the solution. Just as with most problems (energy policy and drug policy come to mind) – we have to address both supply and demand. Tougher borders are a supply-side measure, and important. But having a viable guest worker program could reduce demand for illegal immigration. Why? People hop the border primarily for one reason: Jobs. There are service sector, agricultural, and domestic jobs that American citizens seem unwilling to do, at least at the comparatively paltry wages they pay. As long as there is a giant job magnet, there will be people willing to take the risks. A vital way to address the issue is to give willing workers an opportunity to earn a wage and earn their citizenship.

Even if a guest worker program does not reduce the flow of illegal immigration, it is a necessary simply because something has to be done with the (estimated) 11 million undocumented immigrants already here. Deportation on that kind of scale, even assuming the government could find 11 million people scattered about the country, is just infeasible. It would involve an intolerable level of government intrusiveness into all reaches and corners of life. For the vast majority of those here, a program that requires payment of back taxes, learning English and years of work and contribution before qualifying for citizenship is the most fair and realistic way to address their status. Those who aren't willing to keep that bargain can be deported. After all, the government will know where they are, a marked improvement from the current situation.

I can understand the frustration many feel at the idea of illegal immigrants flouting our laws, working without paying taxes, and helping themselves to the benefits this country offers. But frustration is no reason to support solely punitive measures that don't address both aspects of the problem. A guest worker program needs to be in place, or we will have to rely on more and more aggressive, costly and draconian measures to keep out people who want the jobs that are here, with little guarantee of success. Bush has this one right. (As does McCain.)

Lott Loves Pork - Hates Public Right To Know About It

2006-03-31T10:02:00.000-08:00

In the grand scheme of things, this , covered here by Mark Tapscott, was possibly the most important thing that took place this week. But it received little attention. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, and Sen. Barrack Obama, D-IL tried to include Amendment 3175 on the Lobbying Reform Bill. This would have directed "the U.S. Office of Management and Budget to establish a publicly available database of the more than $300 billion the federal government spends each year via contracts and grants to more than 30,000 groups, businesses and organizations."

This would have been a good step in making pork projects more transparent (My current favorite is McCain's website outlining the various pork in different bills). It would not have been a huge step, but anything which makes it easier for the press, public and bloggers to point out some of the ridiculous projects and see who is benefiting would have been a good step. It would have given each entity which receives funds a unique identifier, making it easier to research how much particular groups are able to get.

Congress has already made this sort of disclosure mandatory for private business, non-profits, and non governmental organizations mandatory.

This amendment was killed when Trent Lott raised a "Rule 22 Point of Order," which has to do with the amendments germaneness to the matter addressed by the bill - ethics.

Of course, Lott did not kill the bill because it was not germane to ethics. He killed it because it was much too germane to ethics as it would make it easier for the public to identify the unethical allocation of federal funds.

Lott then offered his own, toothless, proposal for earmark reform and the bill passed 90-8. Coburn voted against it and issued the following statement.

---------
ÂKeeping serious pork reform out of this lobbying reform bill was like removing alcohol from the agenda of an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. Earmark abuse was at the center of the Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham scandals yet the Senate failed to clamp down on what Abramoff described as the Âearmark favor factoryÂ in Congress. This bill will not change how members of Congress and lobbyists interact. In fact, by rejecting an amendment by Senator John Ensign (R-NV) that would have given Senators greater power to block egregious earmarks the Senate voted to protect business as usual,Â Dr. Coburn said.

ÂIn the wake of the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals Congress could have crafted serious reform legislation. Unfortunately, the Senate put public relations ahead of real reform and chose to wash the outside of the cup while leaving the inside filthy. The problem in Washington is not lobbyists; the problem is Congress,Â Dr. Coburn said.

ÂSince the Senate has decided earmark reform is not a priority in the context of lobbying reform I am convinced that the American people, now more than ever, deserve an extended and thorough debate on each individual earmark or pork project Senators propose this year. Earmarks are a gateway drug that leads to spending addictions and the excesses revealed by the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals. Debating each and every earmark will help give the American people the honest reform debate they deserve,Â Dr. Coburn said.
----------

Coburn hits the nail on the head when he states "The problem in Washington is not lobbyists; the problem is Congress." Lobbyists are often despicable and I would imagine a net negative. But they are only operating (mostly) legally in a system which Congress has set up. If Congress really wanted to help advance ethics and do what was in the public interest, earmarking reform is a logical place to start. It is not a silver bullet, but it is among the low hanging fruit of the problem.

Which should make the reason for their failure to act fairly evident.