Vote for Liberals at Your/Our Peril

And I think it was Republicans that someone recently told me they didn't vote for because they want to control too much of our lives.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/disparities_in_income_wealth.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/edwards_still_doesnt_get_it.html

Wow, What a Novel Concept!

"Less than 20 percent of the budget is available for education, highways, housing and courts, discretionary programs that are being further squeezed by an increasingly expensive military." (Democrats Pledge to Restrain Spending, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500549.html)

Hmm, drop education and housing, and you approach what is actually in the Constitution, the document by which we are supposed to live by.

In the Interests of Full Disclosure...

Whatta shocker; someone/thing else calling for a "roll back" (Please, don't insult me; it's a hike) of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in order to pay for the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. This time, it's the Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/16294900.htm).

Here's my favorite passage:
"Hiking the marginal income tax rate for the wealthiest taxpayers - those earning $200,000 per year or more - would raise about $800 billion over 10 years. Doing so would rightly require some financial sacrifice from the taxpayers who have enjoyed most of the benefit from the Bush tax cuts."
It never ceases to amaze me that liberals think the effects of a tax cut/hike stop there. Basically, that rich people will simply have less money. Who could get mad about that? But, as my friend Peek once told me, rich people do not put their spare cash in a bag and bury it in the backyard. That is the only way it would not be put to work and cycle it's way back through the economy. They either invest it, possibly creating new ventures and, subsequently, new jobs. Or, they spend it, keeping other ventures (by now, more likely established businesses) in business and people employed.

But hey, that kinda talk won't appeal to emotions, will it? That won't sell papers or advance an envy-agenda.

I'll be the first one to agree that deficits, as a matter of principle, and regardless if they are below 2% of GDP (I do have some practical business sense) are not desirable. It is not advisable to spend beyond one's means. But, by the same token, why are spending cuts never seriously entertained?? Government spending is the real problem behind deficits. And by that I do not simply mean excessive earmarks. I mean any and almost all social spending: retirement security, health care, etc. Why don't people take care of themselves and their families?

This country is, in my mind, on (if only slightly) a downward trend as long as government intrudes into the free market and free society in such a way.

Kinda Sad

Not one mention of school choice in Mort Kondracke's report on changes proposed by the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce to improve (presumably) public education(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/needed_a_governor_to_launch_ra.html). Zero, zip, nada. No mention of the correlation between increased liberty and societal progress. Zilcho.

Tell me again why parents can't use public funds allotted to their children to pick which schools they attend???

My New Krugman

I like to consider myself fair, and honest, with regard to the articles and opinions I read. Sure, I tend to agree much more with conservative/libertarian pieces I read, but how to what degree would I know that if I didn't read stuff I knew slanted the other way? That part of my reading took a sizable hit when the New York Times decided a year or so ago to make their columnists accessible only via paid subscription. Only very infrequently, thanks mostly to the gentlemen at RealClearPolitics.com, can I catch one of their articles as syndicated through another paper. For a fleeting moment, I thought Maureen Dowd was the left's answer to Ann Coulter. Even though I generally disagreed with her, she made me laugh. Alas, her ability to make me laugh lasted for a piece or two, while my impression of her snootiness continues. Bob Herbert occasionally has a good, honest, personal piece. But then he goes and shows his true liberal colors. The one I miss the most, however, is Paul Krugman, if only because we share a bit (and I mean just a bit) of academic background in economics.

Rejoice! I have found a new leftie columnist I like to read regularly: Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post and American Prospect. This guy takes positions opposite mine on everything from the minimum wage (that which contributes to unemployment, particularly amongst youth), the estate tax (which makes death a taxable event), unions (which retard economic growth and intrude on the free market) and more. I have to say, though, I did agree with him on the inevitable political realignment from Democrat to Republican in the northeast, much like the south turning the other direction in the last decade or so.

He wrote a good one Thursday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120601671.html), starting off by casting his lot with those who thought ads run against Harold Ford in the recent Tenessee senate campaign were racist. He most surely has in mind the one with the lady claiming she "met Harold at the Playboy party...hey Harold, call me." Joshua Marshall over at TalkingPointsMemo.com was the first one I can remember who raised a stink about that ad. In an email exchange, he said he'd give me, and by extension my wife, who agreed with me (two native southerners from Texas), the benefit of the doubt that I was "just acting stupid and not the real deal." Gee, thanks, but 3 college degrees between us tell me differently. Where, in the ad, was the N-word used? Where, in the ad, did it say African-Americans were in any way inferior to Americans of other descent? I guess some of us are more colorblind than others.

Then, unfortunately, he goes the disingenuous demagogue route by claiming that Republicans "blocked stem cell research." This kinda stuff really peeves me. They did NO...SUCH...THING! What they did do was strictly limited federal funding of such research. (Unfortunately, however, many of them did do it on the grounds that it would be funding the destruction of life. That's true, and personally, I would not want my taxes going to fund such practices, but how about taking the if-it's-really-as-promising-as-is-claimed-to-be,-why-are-private-investor-funds-not-enough? Someone once said "the market is smart; government is dumb.") It's one thing to have an opinion. I can at least respect that. But don't intentionally mislead people. What good does it do to be anything less than honest??

Finally, he wouldn't be a true liberal if he didn't rail against Wal-Mart. My favorite passage here was "expands this practice...of offering low wages and no benefits...threatening the living standards of unionized retail workers". What?? Exactly what kind of living standards should people who work retail jobs have? I worked retail. My sister worked retail. Most of my friends worked retail. But, we worked retail when we were either living with our parents and/or going to school. I remember when one day I thought to myself 'I don't want to go through life supporting myself on these wages,' so I got off my ass and went to school. It says a lot about a person who parks his/her life working behind a cash register (slacker) and even more about their enablers (democrats, unions, liberals). Retail unions combine with wage controls (minimum wage rates) to suck ambition from people. Moreover, they keep many teens from getting their foot in the door of the workplace. Think about it: isn't that who low hourly-wage jobs are perfect for, those just breaking into the workforce who don't need to support themselves?

There does seem to be one difference between Meyerson and Krugman. Krugman is highly educated in economics, whereas I see no such evidence that Meyerson is. When one speaks about economic matters, he knows what he's talking about. The other one does not. One would tend to think, therefore, that one can be taken seriously. But it has always seemed blasphemous to me for an economist to support liberal policies, which, more times than not, intrude on the free market and retard growth.

Eddie Murray, anyone?

To borrow a line from Michael Corleone, "I'm with you now, Cowboys. I'm with you now."

I have been wary of giving too much of my time to the Pokes in recent years, for more reasons than one. For one, I just recently finished graduate school. Second, the Mavericks ascendancy in the N.B.A. has coincided with the continued, prolonged swoon for the Cowboys.

But mostly, the Cowboys haven't worth my undivided attention for 3+ hours every Sunday, not to mention the countless additional minutes/hours reading about them. Actually, that was made easier when the Dallas Morning News started charging to read more than one Cowboy story a day on their website. That was actually not a bad idea on their part, given the 'Boys popularity. They just picked a bad time to do it; during their decline. Then, they were trying to plug holes around Troy Aikman with band aids, trying to prevent him from absorbing the next concussion. The only real thing of interest concerning the Star was Emmitt Smith's pursuit of the all-time rushing record, which he eventually captured. That was great and noteworthy, but it was not going to win any Super Bowls. Charging for coverage of a franchise in decline was like raising taxes at the onset of a recession.

I'm almost as big a Cowboys fan as the next guy, but if you don't have the feeling that 'it's there this year', shouldn't you direct your focus to something more productive? At least the Mavericks had a young core they were/are building on to try and get somewhere. That, in my mind, has been the Cowboys' problem, mainly and if only at what is often referred to as the most important position on the field: quarterback. The selection of Quincy Carter a few years ago wasn't exactly me with enthusiasm, but when Bill Parcells signed on, they actually went to the playoffs. There was promise. A young qb playing a young team that was shedding the last of it's older players from the glory decade of the 90s (with the notable exceptions of Larry Allen and Darren Woodson). Then Q failed a drug test. Great. The next steps at qb gave me no confidence. Nothing against Vinny Testaverde or Drew Bledsoe, but they were older veterans, perfect examples of a band aid in my mind, and at the most important position. Following the Cowboys from the late 70s, I had come to learn that they were best when they invested time in a young qb. That was probably the hope of most fans when Jerry Jones signed Chad Hutchinson, and then Drew Henson. But they did not pan out. Maybe it's not so easy to turn back to football after having given baseball a try. Who knows? Turns out, however, that Q's dirty pee may have helped plant the seed that is being borne out today (see Randy Galloway's article, "Romo's rise aided by Quincy's demise", from last week's Fort Worth Star Telegram: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/columnists/randy_galloway/16139753.htm).

While I was running this morning, I started to wonder just how much Tony Romo's insertion and play at qb has helped the Pokes mentally. When you include Vanderjagt's wobbliness, did it at all exist in any of their minds that regardless of how hard they played that they were just an interception or missed field goal away from losing? They have been, after all, hovering around the top five in both offense and defense for most of the season. Did that contribute at all to their penalties, which they seemed to have a lot of, or dropped passes (excluding Terrell Owens. He continues to be consistent in that area) or the like? Who knows? Then Romo comes in and passes for 300+ yards in this game and that, with an interception or two, and BOOM! They take over first in the division (with a little help from a collapsing New York Giant team). Bledsoe could easily have thrown either of those two INTs yesterday, but could he have scrambled and hit his tight end in stride yesterday, like Romo hit Witten? The only thing they needed now was a kicker they could count on. Voila! Exit Mike Vanderjagt, enter Martin Gramatica, he of the exuberantly celebratory Grammatica kicking clan. Does anyone now remember that he missed the first of his four attempts yesterday? Ha!

Take it for what it is, but I think the team now feels as if they have a qb and kicker who has their back.

R.I.P.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061116/ap_on_bi_ge/obit_friedman

Bummer. The world should be so lucky to have had him live, and work as long as he did.

People Must Be Educated

There's just no logical way to argue Michael Medved's point today (http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/2b572ec8-2f34-4bb8-8fc9-ba31391adf50) that the minimum wage is bad policy, not to mention the demagoguery used to promote it. None. Like I said recently, it is to the Democratic Party (this affects 2% of the population) what flag-burning is to the republicans (a few hundred people have burned the flag).

I'm all for states putting the issue up for referendum. More power to 'em. The people speak, and at the state level, that's federalism. That's good. That’s the way everything not explicitly described in the Constitution should be handled (damn Welfare Clause!) The same can be said for those in congress who vote for it when, as Medved cites, more than 80% of the public is for it. Both instances are government intrusion into the private sector.

The problem is the fact that people are actually for it. If a person understands that it does indeed contribute to unemployment, especially the teen and minority demographic, but he/she still wants it, fine. If he/she can live with that trade-off, so be it.

movie review: match point

eh, it didn't completely work for me. it seemed very by-the-numbers, the actors going through the motions. from a kiss to "shall we go to your place or mine?" geez, let's move the plot along, shall we? i didn't buy the attraction between the tennis dude and the american girl. it seemed contrived. in a wheat field in the rain? then she turns from wanting to relegate it to an isolated incident to being psychotic about him (granted, she went back home for a spell, so some time passed). the overarching story and most details i was cool with, except for those two characters and their fling. it was also interesting that that was one of the few woody allen movies in which he didn't play a part. he's kinda like clint eastwood in that regard.
i liked the british tone. it reminded me of another couple of british movies about adultery (are all british movies about that?): damage with jeremy irons and juliette binoche and separate lies with tom wilkinson, emily watson and rupert everett. i liked the latter the most. i bought into the acting more. i dig wilkinson.

Pardon me...

But a) the expansion (i.e. increased funding) of the education department in connection with No Child Left Behind, b) the medicare prescription drug bill, c) the 6,000+ earmark-stained highway bill, d) the farm bill, etc. You'll excuse this small-government conservative for wondering if the vice president is living in a parallel universe. I take with a grain of salt anything the administration says with regard to spending restraint.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/cheneys_optimism_and_mine.html

What Rudy Could Do

Someone like Rudy might be good for the country, contingent on his views on judicial appointments. He's pro-choice. That is what would garner him many non-gop electoral votes. If he came out for W-like judicial appointments (one of a couple W stances/accomplishments about which there should be unabashed conservative pride), he could reconcile the two and show the real problem with rulings like Roe v. Wade (this is provided social conservatives are not as overbearing on legal conservatives as they are with regard to economic conservatives, which is my primary interest in conservatism).

He could say "I believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution. Does that mean I am no longer generally pro-choice? No. It means that I understand and have respect for the Constitution, particularly the 10th amendment. I believe, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the time, that such issues (gay marriage) should be decided at the state level."

Are We There Yet?

I was thinking the other night...

It seems a little disappointing to me that, in three races, the better candidate is likely to lose. I'm thinking DeWine (not as likely as...), Santorum and Mark Kennedy. All three appear to me, based in part on the debates I've seen, to be the better of the candidates in their respective races. Santorum appears much more passionate than Casey, and more solid. Klobuchar seems a bit jittery next to Kennedy's calm demeanor. And I just can't believe that Ohioans would vote to put someone like Brown, and all he stands for and with the votes to prove it, over someone like DeWine.

Those three baffle me. I can only chalk it up to climate, particularly in DeWine's case. Burns, Talent and Corker, however, are just facing good, solid and sometimes smooth candidates. The only one of those that I can see has done anything notable to hurt himself is Burns.

I have also seen recently why third party candidates, for the most part, remain on the fringe and are not taken seriously. There was a debate this weekend amongst the many candidates for Henry Cuellar's seat here in the San Antonio are (he, incidentally, was absent). An Independent candidate looked uncomfortable, as if he was up there because he lost a bet or something. The candidate from the Constitution party had no clue about the minimum wage and the Clean Air act. He came out and said he didn't really have an opinion on the former while he claimed to not know much about the latter. He was certainly a contrast to that party's candidate for President a couple years ago. And then there was the fire-breathing Libertarian candidate for the Montana Senate seat. "Impeach Bush" this and "Impeach Bush" that!

This is kinda why I'm looking forward to November 8th.

Trickery

Greer is getting too smart for me. Last night, after about an hour of getting on to the girls about going to bed, I went to bed. When I was brushing my teeth I heard Greer right outside my door calling me. I told her that if she was out of her bed I was going to swat her bottom. When I opened my door she was standing there and coyly looked at me and said, "I love you." Downstairs Chris started laughing, then Greer smiled (knowing she got me), and Reese started laughing. Needless to say, I didn't spank her, but told her I loved her, too, and that she needed to go to bed. Her and Reese ran off giggling into their room.

My Enlightened Wife

It's funny what can inspire one to a revelation.

We were headed to eat at Johnny Carino's when we saw a bumper sticker that read "Marriage = (figure of a man) + (figure of a woman)". I don't remember what we were talking about at the time, but Jenny pondered aloud "You know those polls that always say a solid majority says the country is going in the wrong direction? What are the chances that when people answer 'yes', they have such things in mind?"

I was floored. I had never thought about it like that. I felt fooled by the media again because those poll results are usually always published right before or after the president's approval rating; the current president. Even though I know for a fact that the economy is strong, for those who choose to be involved, I always thought for sure that was a major component of peoples' answers to that question. I honestly never thought further than that; what more could it mean.

It all-of-a-sudden is completely believable to me that such a high percentage (63% in the latest realclearpolitics.com average) does indeed believe that. Only now, I think many of them are thinking about, for one, the assault on marriage as it is traditionally viewed. I personally do not have a problem if homosexual partner, if recognized under the law as such, has the same rights as a heterosexual spouse. But I stop short of declaring them as 'married'. I can't really put my finger on it, but, to me, just like the bumper sticker read, marriage is between a man and a woman. That's just what I believe, and I don't think I have to justify that to anyone.

Or how about the disrespect/callous disregard/cold-blooded attitude toward innocent, unborn life? True, one of W's best accomplishments is how he has populated the federal bench, but for the moment, let's leave aside the constitutional aspect (this clearly should be an individual state issue, if the liberal wing of the Supreme Court had any respect for the Constitution). Is abortion not the absolute worst example of shirking one's (or two's) responsibility?? 5,000+ women have actually signed a petition in Ms. magazine declaring they've had one. Is this something to be proud of?? My attitude toward this is summed up by another bumper sticker we saw a while back: "Having an abortion doesn't make you unpregnant; It makes you the mother of a dead baby". How can those who have had, or compelled one to have an abortion (which some unbelievably deduce to a "surgical procedure") , look at a baby and not become ill??

I could go on and on about frivolous lawsuits filed on behalf of those who refuse to bear any personal responsibility, children born out of wedlock (or worse, to single mothers), not being able to say "God" in the public square (the Constitution only said "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion"), the demand for pornography, etc. Alas, there are only so many minutes in the day. Say what you will, but if people are thinking about these things when answering that poll question, and I believe they are, I don't think such disatisfaction can be linked with the current group in power in D.C.

What Am I Missing?

Officer: Were you the only one with the baby at the time?
Accused: Yes.
Officer(to doctor or doctors): Are these injuries consistent with an accident(s)?
Doctor(s): No.
Officer(to the accused): Ma'am/sir, if you would, step to this spot right here (trap door) while I place this noose around your neck, please. Thank you.
snap!
Officer(to doctor): You may use his/her organs for transplants.
--
Taxpayer money saved.
Society cleansed of a lowest common denominator.
People in need of a new organ saved.

====

UPDATE: Woman charged with injuring a 7-month-old baby
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA092806.childinjured.en.25359976.html

How I See It

I read a couple articles and looked at a couple polls this morning before going running. I also saw a bit of a campaign appearance by Tester, who holds an outside-the-margin-of-error lead in his race to unseat Burns in Montana. When this heavy-set man with a flat top said "I'm one of you", I believed it, and I'm guessing most in the audience did, too. Santorum also seems to be a goner. I held out hope for him as recently as a week ago, but I just don't think it's going to happen. With a little more than a month to go, barring the proverbial gaffe, unforeseen event or startling revelation, I think the GOP should prepare to lose two seats for sure (Nominally, three, if you count Rhode Island. But I say 'good riddance' to Chaffee, and shame on the GOP for running so hard against the more conservative Laffey in the primary.)
Then there is Ohio and Missouri. While Brown's lead on DeWine is less than half of Casey's on Santorum, Ohio's reported climate for republicans makes that seat look like a decent bet to change hands, and to an avowed hard-left liberal, no less. The true remaining toss-up I think is Missouri. Talent has less than a percentage point lead (www.realclearpolitics.com) over McCaskill, but I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled that one off.
The only possible GOP pickup looks to be in New Jersey, and look what it takes to accomplish that! I think Kean is benefiting from those folks' weariness for all that voting democratic has brought them. Hopes look to be dimming, if only slightly, for McGavick in Washington, Kennedy in Minnesota and Steele in Maryland (I have more hope for the latter than either of the former.) Right now, I'm thinking the Senate will look like this in January: 52R, 46D, 2I. (My gut also tells me the GOP will hold the House. What kind of defeat/victory the right/left will see that as remains to be seen.)

Good move, Mr. Daley

"In vetoing the ordinance, Mayor Daley cited a potential loss of jobs. In recent weeks, several big retailers had written to his office to oppose the ordinance. "I understand and share a desire to ensure that everyone who works in the city of Chicago earns a decent wage," the mayor wrote to the aldermen yesterday. "But I do not believe that this ordinance, well intentioned as it may be, would achieve that end. Rather, I believe that it would drive jobs and business from our city."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115799249720159515.html?mod=us_business_whats_news

I love how this Wal-Mart vs. Chicago City Council affair is unfolding. It's unfortunate, however, that, as usual, the ones who liberal public policymakers claim to stand for are the ones that end up being hurt. The same goes for school choice, vouchers. One of these days, Democrats are going to wake up and realize that the only supporters they have left are unions. By 'only', I mean just union members. But by then, unions might not exist due to right-to-work-friendly public bodies. This is a free country. Firms can set up shop anywhere they want. By passing legislations/ordinances mandating certain pay and benefit levels, the likes of Chicago and Maryland are saying they do not want for their citizens the consumer surplus that comes with low-priced goods, not to mention employment. So, thanks to such public representatives, the economic gap between life in the city and life in the suburbs widens. It's not as if Wal-Mart does not already pay such wages as those being mandated, and offer certain benefits. They do. But, they apparently do not wish to expand into areas where they would be overregulated and instructed how to conduct their own business. Their bottom line and growth over the years has conveyed to them that they must be doing something right.

This is what gives me pause when considering employment in such municipalities. One of these days, people will wake up and realize that voting for liberals/Democrats is against their own interests (save, of course, for trial lawyers, union members, etc.).

Nothing Should Be Free

"A reported 30 million Americans — one in four workers — make less than $8.70 an hour, which is not enough to lift an American family of four out of poverty.
"These days, productivity is high, unemployment is low and 30 million Americans can't keep their heads above water."
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/vlanda/stories/
MYSA090406.2O.landa.2122d8f.html

Harold Meyerson wrote something similar last week for the American Prospect and the Washington Post, although his was much sappier and bitter.

During the debate to raise the minimum wage recently, it was reported that the number of minimum wage-earners who support a family was less than 10%. No doubt there is some overlap between that figure and the 30 million who make less than $8.70/hour. Most who make that much are not the primary breadwinners in the family. They are more likely the stay-at-home spouse looking for a little extra income, the senior citizen looking to supplement retirement savings or the teenager living at home working his/her first job. Incidentally, the latter represents the worker who is most hurt by the minimum wage. As long as an employer has to pay a government-mandated wage, he/she may as well hire someone with more work experience thereby depriving the inexperienced teen the chance to ascend that first rung on the work ladder up.

Despite the >10% figure, it should be said that it's on the provider(s) of the household to do better. We live in a country where education is the key to getting ahead. (Thanks to anti-choice teachers' unions, that's even hard to get for some.) And that's not a bad thing. It's a fact of life. I knew working for and supporting myself on approximately double the minimum wage (before it was raised the last time) wasn't going to cut it, so I did something about it. The government, whether local, state or federal, only hurts people when it sets such a wage floor. Not only does it price people out of the labor market, it encourages those who are hired at that wage to park their lives there.

Incidentally, the reason why the minimum wage failed recently was that Democrats insisted on sticking it to people who worked hard enough to attain a sizable estate. They want to help and improve the lives of the poor, but when they earn too much, they want to confiscate more than half of it when you die.

Bizarro

"Obesity is now the chief nutritional woe facing America’s poor."
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7853537&fsrc=nwl (sub req)

Is it just me, or is that a little ironic? I has always fascinated me how homeless people can be fat. Doesn't that indicate that, of the things they are not getting enough, food isn't one of them?

Don't Live There!

"highway robbery"
"There's somethin' goin' on here."

Those were the words used by a local news radio morning show personality when describing the $10,000/year being charged for home insurance in New Orleans, to which I must say, game a break...please! A freaking H-U-R-R-I-C-A-N-E blew through there a year ago! What was it, a category 4 or 5, and the levees were only strong enough for a 3 (I'd have to research the facts, hence the question mark to follow)? The big one finally hit, and there's no guarantee there will not be another one in the future. Those (above) are the words of nutty conspiracy theorists. The residents of New Orleans were apparently getting by on the cheap with regard to insurance before. It should be expensive to live in (a) hurricane alley. They should have to contribute more to the pool, regardless of their income/wealth. People do NOT have to live there. As a lady called in and told the show this morning, the insurance industry is "highly regulated". They have extra, non-market costs (whether explicit or implicit) that they have to pay.

There is the solution to the problem; cut the red tape. As with many other issues (health care, K-12 education, smoking bans, etc.), there is too much government involvement/intervention. The more deregulation, the better. Let private enterprise take care of itself. If another insurance company deems insurance too expensive, it will swoop in, charge a lower price, gain market share and force others to follow. Everyone will benefit. If not, so be it. That's the going rate.

It's Ultimately Up to the People

"When you vote this November, remember which party (Democrat) places unionizing the largest private employer’s workers over jobs and low retail prices for the communities and families who need them the most."
"Wal-Mart also announced this month that it is raising wages by an average of six percent for employees in over 1,200 of its 4,000 U.S. stores. Further, the company offers qualifying employees a menu of 18 healthcare plans, some costing as little as $11 per month."
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HermanCain/
2006/08/22/hezbocrats_attack_wal-mart

"One estimate is that Wal-Mart saves the average household as much as $2,300 a year."
"In Democratic politicians’ contempt for Wal-Mart, there is an element of snobbery."
http://article.nationalreview.com/
?q=ZmU4MjM4NmQ1OWU1NTYzMDdiMmJiNjg4OWRmMTU5ZTA=

"It's clearly the company's fault, at least from a skewed senatorial perspective, that all Americans cannot live a comfortable middle-class life. How dare it pay prevailing retail wages?"
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/
la-ed-walmart23aug23,0,2463162.story

"When in history has a store clerk had a claim on the middle class life … home ownership, a late model car or two?"
http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/
2006/08/democrats_war_o.html

"Compounding the electoral asininity is the glorious hypocrisy of it all. Hillary Rodham Clinton - who returned a donation from the devilish retailer - was on Wal-Mart's board of directors from the mid-1980s until the 1992 presidential campaign. If the store's policies are so un-Progressive, how come it never occurred to her to do anything about it until now? Similarly, former would-be first lady Teresa Heinz attacked the store in 2004, saying it "destroys communities" - which apparently never stopped her from hawking her ketchup there or owning $1 million in Wal-Mart stock. Even Lamont, the golden boy of the new yuppie populism, owns a few thousand bucks of Wal-Mart stock."
"It's horrific politics and silly public policy - but a joy to watch."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006
/08/walmart_drives_democrats_batty.html

"...it is unlikely that there is any single organization on the planet that alleviates poverty so effectively for so many people."
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082206D

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/washington/17dems.html?ex=1156651200&en=babcc417c997b486&ei=5070

====

I could cut and paste these wonderful excerpts from responses to the democrats' Wal-Mart bashing (as reported in the concluding new york times article) all day. This is just one big fat curve ball lobbed over the plate (that's a baseball reference for you hippies) for conservatives to knock out of the park. And, as you can see, they have, responding all the way up to yesterday. I'm anxious to see more.

Even though i disagree with him (as exemplified in a previous post), at least Robert Kuttner, in the only liberal piece I have seen in response to the story, addresses the bigger picture.

While I was reading a piece earlier today on the 20 most expensive places to rent (Interestingly, 18 of them happened to be in predominantly blue states. Hmm...), I started thinking about the Wal-Mart issue. It seems many of them are located in the suburbs, which tend to be more conservative, while the number is lower the closer to downtown one goes, where it becomes more liberal. So, those who live in the suburbs, and tend to make more in a year, have easier access to lower priced goods, whereas those who live in the inner cities, where the less affluent tend to live, would seem to have to pay more. (It should be said that there are some affluent people who live downtown and uptown, but, nose firmly in the air, do not wish to have the stain on their area that such a store as Wal-Mart represents to them.)

This seems to be another example (school choice comes to mind) where the poorer among us are losing out. Their elected representatives are failing them, or, rather, have their leash held by unions. How else to explain recent anti-Wal-Mart legislation passed in Maryland (which has since, fortunately, been struck down in court due to violation of equal protection) and Chicago? How many more such examples need to occur before inner-city residents realize that they are voting for people who are putting them second to special-interests (unions)?

Un-zombie the Populace

"The pills are a concentrated dose of the same drug found in many regular birth-control pills. When a woman takes the pills within 72 hours of unprotected sex, they can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. If she already is pregnant, the pills have no effect."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/
082506dnmatmorningafter.2e86d579.html

When I look up the word "risk" in the Encarta Dictionary (the reference provided by Microsoft Outlook), I see, among others, the following definitions: "1. chance of something going wrong, the danger that injury, damage, or loss will occur. 2. somebody or something hazardous, somebody or something likely to cause injury, damage, or loss."

Is that what we have come to, to equate the conception of an innocent child to something going "wrong", something "hazardous"?? When did this happen? Do I only notice this now after having two daughters of my own?? Now that I think of it, I've probably seen such phrases as "risk of pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease..." How are those two results on the same plane??

The group Garbage used to be one of my favorite musical acts. I was a big fan in the time immediately following their second album Version 2.0. As much as I dug/dig her voice when she's on, Shirley Manson once said something that really tangled some words. She said she feared reproductive freedom was under attack. I thought to myself 'Yeah, maybe for hookers who work for pimps who sometimes force them to have sex.' People are free to reproduce or not. If you do not want to reproduce, either now or ever, don't have sex. If you do, use protection that prevents conception. If, however, you become pregnant, viewing it as something that went "wrong" or something "hazardous", and terminate that pregnancy because you do not want to bear the responsibility for your actions, shame on you.

Letting it go

Y'know, maybe I complain too much. Maybe I should back off perfection. Maybe I don't see the forest for the trees. Maybe I miss how good things are economically when I think of how they could be better. Sure, the public and private sector could save oodles of money and/or redirect it to better, more productive ventures if there were one simple tax rate than that which we have today. Oops! See, there's an example of looking past the good for the perfect. Federal revenues are as high as they've ever been, doing their best to counteract the spending that is largely to blame for the budget deficit.
Apparently, Robert Kuttner doesn't see it that way (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11890). Either that or he's trying to commune with John Kenneth Galbraith, every liberal economist's idol, like Obi-Wan Kenobi would with Qui-Gon Jinn. Seems to me all the changes over which he laments were good changes and those that have contributed to the explosion in U.S. GDP from “a generation ago”:
“More industries were regulated.” There used to be more red, bureaucratic red-tape through which to cut to do business;
The minimum wage went from “half the average wage” to “below one - third”. This is as much a matter of principle as it is economics. A minimum wage prices workers out of the market (although one result of that is, for example, self-checkout lines at the grocery store, which I like very much) and is viewed by many as a form of social promotion;
Enforcement of “workers' right(s) to organize” has waned. The existence of unions simply impedes the ability of companies to compete, especially with ever-freer trade, which itself raises living standards. It’s a wonder unions have had the smarts to make concessions faced with the realization that avoidance thereof could mean obsolescence for the domestic companies for which they work. (One of the last strong unions, that of public school teachers, will soon be brought to its knees once more parents start lobbying for more choice as to what school earns the taxes they pay to educate their kids);
“Funny-money worker-savings plans.” Don’t defined contribution plans offer people more control over their retirement savings than defined benefit plans??; and,
“Taxation was progressive.” Last I checked, the federal tax code has 6 brackets. Talk about your inconvenient truths.

I tend to be skeptical when I hear or read of writers, politicians, academics and the like pretending to know about the middle class, whether upper or lower. An exchange a few years ago between Al Hunt and Robert Novak on CNN’s defunct Capital Gang always comes to mind. Hunt told Novak (paraphrasing) “I don’t want to raise taxes on everybody. I want to raise taxes on people like you and I.” That simply displayed of sad ignorance of real life out here in the flyover land. Not all upper middle class people are writers. Some own businesses that employ the rest of the middle class. What do you think happens, or becomes possible, when you raise their taxes, or burden them with regulations?

The middle class, in my experience, is not all that different from what it was when I grew up. My education is probably the reason I make twice as much what my dad did when he was supporting my mom, sister and myself. People’s decision to have a two-earner household is just that; their decision. If people cannot live within their means, or they choose not to advance in life, why should I help push them into the middle class with my taxes?

Forbes magazine's Rich Karlgaard brought up a wonderfully insightful point that, for reasons I shall explain, I am almost ashamed I did not think of: since when can one support a middle-class lifestyle when he/she just barely makes double-digit dollars/hour?? Until I graduated college the first time in 1996, I don't believe I ever made more than double the minimum wage. Some of that time (right after graduating high school), I was still living at home. During the rest of it, I had one or two roommates. All the while I was in school. I never dreamed of parking my life at such a wage.
From the time I started studying economics in graduate school, I have never been able to understand the existence of liberal economists like Kuttner, Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, etc. (I honestly had never heard of Galbraith until he died) It’s one thing to read some yahoo like Dennis Kucinich talk about “excessive oil company profits”. The man studied speech communications in school. He doesn’t know any better. It’s quite another when someone trained in economics openly proposes government intervention, of any kind to any degree, into the private sector, or uses the word “excessive” to describe such profits. I read their publications because I find their views fascinating. I’m curious. I’m trying to figure them out. Maybe that’s another thing I need to back off from.

(shaking my head)

"Joe Lieberman is out of step with the people of Connecticut," Kerry added, insisting Lieberman's stance on Iraq, "shows you just why he got in trouble with the Democrats there."
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/story?id=2334709&page=1

This seems so petty to me. It appears to be all about party loyalty now. Was it 90% of the time Lieberman has voted in a liberal manner? And they are completely abandoning him for...his support of deposing Saddam Hussein?? Not because he voted for pro-life judges. Not because he voted for "tax cuts for the wealthy" (ugh, I HATE even using that phrase in quotes!) Not because he voted for more domestic energy production. Not because he voted for tightening bankruptcy rules. He is on his own because he supports helping Iraq. How does it appeal to the non-partisan populace when, given two candidates who, by all accounts, are similar in every way except where they stand on this single issue, Democrats (with the exception of Pryor, Salazar and B. Nelson) go with the guy who wants to just give up and get out now? Throw in the fact that Lieberman is generally regarded as a likable guy. There are few who are less partisan. Ironically, it seems like the only people who are helped by Lieberman's independent bid are Connecticut's moderate republican congressmen, none of whom have necessarily easy paths to re-election.

and they wonder why they are likened to communists??

“I think our party pretty much across the board agrees that people who work hard should be able to support their families. When a company like Wal-Mart fails to meet its corporate responsibility, it make it impossible for that to occur.”
-Former North Carolina Senator and Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards

“Who can disagree with the proposition that corporations should provide affordable health care, pay decent wages, protect American jobs and help provide a safe and just workplace?”
-Wake Up Wal-Mart communications director Chris Kofinis
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/washington/17dems.html?ei=5065&en=9025372a18740903&ex=1156478400&partner=MYWAY
&pagewanted=print

god love 'em, those i-know-how-to-allocate-resources-better-than-the-free-market experts! last i checked, a corporation has a responsibility to one group of people: it's shareholders. these people have no concept of personal responsibility and liberty. none. zero. zilch. nada. if a person cannot support his/her family by working hard for one employer, perhaps he should go to work for another employer who will pay him/her more. maybe they should consider finding more work. maybe they should add some extra training or education. y'know, i wasn't at any of the interviews for any of the employees of wal-mart, but i'd go out on a limb and guess that none of them were given the luca brasi treatment when they decided to sign on the dotted line. when THEY decided, NOT wal-mart!

competition improves

I was stoked this morning when, listening to the radio while putting my lunch together, I finally heard of a group organized to lobby for school choice: www.texansforschoolchoice.com. As some may know, my interest and advocacy for this was born during the months after Greer was born and I took a class from a professor who wrote a book on the topic.

What if you were relegated to the doctor(s) or dentist(s) in your geographical area? What if you felt more comfortable with a gynecologist who practiced 5 miles away, but your insurance paid nothing unless the doctor was located within a 3 mile radius of your home? Wouldn't you want to choose your own proctologist instead of the insurance company doing it for you? Isn't the education of your child as important? Don't you think you should have the right to send your child to the school of your choice using the taxes you pay, to pay for it? If your child was more inclined to, say, architecture, science, biology, social studies, art, mechanics, math, etc., wouldn't you want to put him/her in a school that specializes in such an area instead of sending them to a cookie-cutter school where, with little deviation, every child learns the exact same thing?
The way to reform and improve public education is to make schools, whether public, private or home-based, compete with each other. Competition has made nearly everything in American life better; why not K-12 education? It would still be public in that every child would have the equivalent of state-public-school-funding-per-child attached to them. However, it would go with them to pay for whatever school their parents choose, including home schooling.

The way to reform schools and the quality of education is NOT through increased funding and teacher pay. As funding has grown, quality, at best, has remained the same (http://www.txccri.org/publications/2004-05-sf-TCCRI-TPPF-Myths.pdf). How would more money help? Also, when you divide the average public school teacher salary in Texas (a little over $40,000) by 75% (assuming a 9-month school-year), they make as much as some of the rest of us do in the private sector. Regardless, I personally do not consider them underpaid. In my mind, one is underpaid only if another employer is willing to pay them more. In that case, the choice is theirs'. If $40,000/year is not enough, work during the summer. Otherwise, enjoy the extra two months (as compared to some of the rest of us).

If teacher pay is low, it is held back by the existence of the unions to which they belong. Unions do little more than provide job protection and benefits to the slackers amongst them. (If you were educated in Texas public schools, you can remember some of the good and bad.) I would guess that those that are active in the union are made up in good part by such slackers. If a teacher is good, and he/she knows it, what do they have to worry about? There will always be demand for their services. There are probably some good teachers that are amongst active union members because they feel like they have no help from home. In this case, it's the parents that are the slackers. Wouldn't parental school choice require them to become more involved?

Some of the main points made by those opposed to allowing parents to choose (i.e. asking 'Big Brother' for permission) would be laughable if they weren't so sad. Accountability. You hear this mainly for the educational bureaucrats who think they know it all. Isn't the quality of a child's education ultimately accountable to the parents?? Shouldn't schools be accountable to them?? I have a fairly good recollection of what I learned in what grade, particularly in math. I’m sure with a little research, I could find out more. That’s not to mention what my wife remembers.

Property values. A percentage of property values in some areas reflect the quality of the schools in the area/school district. This has been the band-aid method most parents have used to ensure the best education possible for their kids. They “vote with their feet”, and move to where the most highly rated schools are. Hence, property values rise. At least these parents are involved, but, alas, a public school is a public school is a public school. All administrators have to do is look out the window, see all the houses that surround their school and know they do not have to compete for those parents’ business. There’s less (not necessarily ‘no’) pressure. Many parents have played this game because they figured it was all they could do…until now. They just need to ask themselves what’s more important, the quality of their child's education or the value of the property upon which one's house rests?? Of, if they are still convinced their kids are receiving the best education possible, what about the children who either lack quality parenting or whose parents do not have the means to afford more than the very worst public schools?

Lack of capacity at private schools (http://www.texans4fairfunding.org/). Have they not heard of the American ability to adapt?? If a private school brings in more and more students, they would do what any company in the private sector would do in a similar situation; they would expand operations i.e. add teachers, facilities, tools and instruments of learning, etc. It is not a tough concept to grasp. One of my personal favorites is that it would not be the "parents who have the choice; it would be the private schools' who would have the choice to accept or reject." So? Parents would have to find another school. My guess is that the most rejected type of student would be the troublemaker. Rejecting these students would have two beneficial results. First, it would force the parent(s) to be more involved, if only to straighten his/her child out. The child is probably the troublemaking sort due to a lack of such attention in the first place. Second, it would free the classroom of such scalawags thereby allowing teachers to TEACH!

The only people who should really be worried about school choice are parents who are not currently as involved as they should be, the teachers of the lowest quality and the bureaucrats who would equate to fat that is trimmed by free-market competition. If you've ever seen Total Recall, they remind me of the Ronny Cox villain Vilos Cohaagen. School Choice is the rock in the middle of the mountain that has the martian handprint carved out of it. Once parents are allowed to depress that rock, new life will be breathed into our children's education.

voting third party

If you are a voter who usually votes Republican,
If you are disgruntled by the growth in the size and spending of the federal government,
If your congressman/senator is not in the Coburn, Flake, Hensarling, Pence, Paul, et al mode and has not voted to reject such growth,
Vote libertarian this November.

You may have heard, been advised or actually already believe that voting for a third party is "wasting your vote". Actually, "wasting your vote" is when you stay home and do not vote at all. Doing such is one reason many believe Republicans will suffer losses this fall. "Wasting your vote" smacks of a herd mentality: "No one else is going to vote third party, so why waste your vote?" I myself have never bought into the fact that it is "wasting your vote" if you research all the candidates and find out that a third party candidate most closely reflects your beliefs. I believe "wasting your vote" is more accurately reflected in voting how you believe everyone else does or will. If we all behaved that way in the private sector, we would all use the exact same toothpaste, or put on our pants the exact same way, or eat the exact same foods, or read the exact same books, or listen to the exact same music, or go to the exact same tourist destination, etc.?

I know some who say voting Libertarian/third party, if you normally vote Republican, will do nothing more than contribute to liberal democrats regaining control of Congress. That indeed could happen, and it would be the worst possible outcome. It's why Bill Clinton was elected President. But what good is it to be in power if you do not use it to advance the ideas that put you there?? If Republicans are not brought to heel, they will never get the message. If they continue to be re-elected, nothing will change. Why would it? They will have the impression that everything is OK, that there is no objection to the way they have voted. While Bush has been in office, those good things that Congress has done that come immediately to mind are few: cut taxes, tighten bankruptcy laws, confirm judges who will presumably hew closely to the Constitution and funded the fight against terrorists. Those are outnumbered, by more than 3 to 1, by the bad things: Sarbanes/Oxley, the Medicare Prescription Drug bill, added to the complexity of the tax code (as if that was possible), McCain/Feingold/Shays/Meehan, No Child Left Behind, exponentially increased earmarks, increased funding for embryonic stem cell research, continued subsidies to farmers, increased the minimum wage (the house), kept costs of funding the fight against terrorists off the official books, interceded into the Terri Schiavo case, failed to carve private accounts out of social security, increased the debt ceiling, failed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy production, etc.

If ever there was a time to "risk" GOP control of Congress, it would seem to be now while there is, nominally speaking, a Republican in the White House. There would no doubt be consequences. Thanks to the unserious John Conyers, silly impeachment charges might be brought against the President. Confirming judges who have respect for the Constitution might become more difficult. On the other hand, however, any proposed tax hike would likely bring out a second veto from Bush. He might even find it in himself to veto any new spending or federal programs sent to him by Congress. Plus, and biggest of all in my mind, it would decrease the chances that the White House will be lost to democrats in 2008. Potential nominees could point to any tax-raising, security-reducing, regulation-increasing, economic-retarding measure sent to Bush by a Democrat-controlled Congress and say "If a Democrat is elected President (next year), all those bills will become law."

Now, if only the Libertarian party would make at least one big push to introduce themselves to the public at large...

the worst

LINDALE, Texas - An infant was found dead in a hot, parked vehicle outside Lindale City Hall on Tuesday after being left inside by one of the town's reserve police officers, authorities said.

The officer parked his truck Tuesday morning and drove a police car to a law-enforcement class in another town. About 3:20 p.m., the man contacted Lindale police in a panic and said he did not recall taking his infant to day care that day, Justice of the Peace James R. Cowart told The Associated Press.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/
latestnews/stories/081006dntextlindale.9db3f3a.html
----
i don't understand how something like this can happen, involving parent and child. by no means to i want to dump on the guy. imagining what he must be going through right now, as a result of what appears to be a horrible accident, makes me ill inside.

that said, in the 3 1/2 years i've been a daddy, if one, or both of my girls and i are in an unfamiliar or uncontrollable environment (pretty much anywhere that is not our house) i'm all over 'em. i believe that makes me what is referred to as a 'chopper parent'. while i'm unbuckling my youngest from her carseat, my head is on a swivel keeping an eye on my oldest. before that, when each of them was just months old, when we'd be on our way somewhere, i was always looking in the rearview mirror at the mirror positioned in front of them. when we're at a skating rink or a jumpy house playland, even though my trusted family (and that of my wife) and/or friends might be near them to keep an eye on them while i'm tending to something else, i always have a visual 'leash' on them (i look for them every 5 minutes or so just so i know the general area they are in). i suppose i basically reflect something my wife once told me: "i know you're the only one that loves them as much as i do." when they are in my charge, i'm thinking of nothing else. i don't know, maybe it'd be different if i was looking more forward to where i was going after dropping them off. still, i can't imagine something like this happening to me. i forget keys, books, shades, etc. i can't imagine anything making me forget my girls.

"keep rock n roll evil"

the missus and i went to the family values show friday night. actually, we caught the last half of it, since it started at 2. we arrived in time enough to hear the last part of stone sour's set and see the deftones and korn, which was all we really wanted to see anyway. it was nice to have a night out, just her and i. however, even though tickets were only $10+ apiece, i think for the first time i learned firsthand the phrase "time is money". the $10 tickets we bought were lawn seats. we hadn't planned on going to this show, just deciding spur-of-the-moment last week to go. i think next time, i want to be closer to the stage.

speaking of music, this week slayer releases christ illusion. no one rocks like they do. who is a cooler vocalist than tom araya and who, outside of possibly ac/dc, has stayed truer to form, or even improved, since their first record?? i caught them performing on the henry rollins show last week at my sister's house (my brother in law is a fan, too, much to my sister's consternation, heh). i've been a fan of theirs since 88s south of heaven. i remember the first time i listened to that cassette (i'm dating myself here), a teammate of mine on our high school football team let me borrow it on the way back home from a road game. the breaks were so very brief between songs (with it being virtually nonexistent between tracks 1 and 2, south of heaven and silent scream) that i thought there were only a few songs on the 10-song record. even though i backfilled my collection with reign in blood and hell awaits, my fandom grew in the 90s, the time during which original drummer dave lombardo left and was replaced by paul bostaph. at the time, i still naive enough to think that the only drummers who could play like that were already in major bands, like lars ulrich, louie clemente, charlie benante, nick menza, etc. the more i heard, the more i thought 'ok, bostaph can do the job well'. then he left and eventually lombardo came back to "the only band he should ever play in" according to a dude from mtv. i didn't think much of it because it was obvious either could do the job. then i saw them perform on rollins' show, and watched the exclusive online clip of them performing disciple from their last album god hates us all. wow! lombardo made it look so effortless playing cult.

i've also heard jihad, a cover of born to be wild (heh, a little bit different from, say, the cult's version) and another song, the title of which i forget, from the record on sirius' heavy metal channel, hard attack. i'm anxious to hear the rest of it!

well yeah...duh!

"Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, a staunch pro-Syrian and close ally of Hezbollah, charged that Israel is trying to pressure Lebanon to accept its conditions for a cease-fire , which include Hezbollah's disarmament and ouster from a swath of south Lebanon."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/
ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel_770;_
--
what he wants would result from proportionate use of power. disproportionate power ends hostilities.
geez, and they accuse us of being warmongers because the government is "hostage to the defense industry". more and more, i'm starting to understand what (i believe it was) truman meant when he said that nuking japan probably saved more lives in the long run. when one country doesn't overpower the other, it makes for a never-ending conflict.
i hope they keep severing ways of travel between lebanon and syria. that should dry the hezbollah swamp.

just wondering

from time to time, i can't help but wonder about hw's decision to kick iraq out of kuwait. before, i've phrased it 'would reagan have done that?' invading kuwait wasn't a good idea on saddam's part, and it's not like the world, including other arab states, wasn't with us in kicking him out. i wonder how much of a factor was the urge to use our military for something.

admirably disagreeing

Last night the House voted to seriously scale back the estate tax (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072800337_2.html). A qualified good. They also voted to raise the minimum wage by a couple bucks, gradually, over a few years. Unqualified bad. I look at the former issue as a principled one. I look at the latter through an economic and, subsequently, a social lense.

Taxing, at death, wealth that someone has built up over a lifetime, be it $10,000 or $10,000,000, is wrong. Some of that wealth has already been taxed, so it amounts to double-taxation. My wife and I live a middle class life, so it's not as if I have a big, direct interest in this. It’s just a matter of principle. People are taxed their entire lives and to tax what they earn, save up and leave to their heirs is just unfair.

The minimum wage is a job killer. It is not explicitly so, hence it's harder to make a direct connection. Will an employee at, say, a fast food restaurant lose their job the day after the hike goes into effect? Most likely not. But small businessmen and managers will take it into account when making future hiring plans. It is Economics 101: raise the costs in one area of a business and either other costs are cut or the higher expenses are passed onto consumers. If the latter is chosen, it will not be for long because it's almost a certainty that not all one's competitors will follow suit. What they will probably do is either hold off on giving raises and/or squeeze more out of the employees they have rather than hire more. Voila! One less job created. One less job, one might note, for younger people who are trying to get their foot in the door and acquire some work experience. Is it any wonder teen unemployment is as high as it is?

This compromise appears to be an example of the perfect not getting in the way of the good. I can respect that. I suppose, however, I’m a perfectionist. I couldn't have voted for it for two reasons. In addition to the aforementioned argument against the minimum wage, it has a ratchet effect. It will never come down. It would be too politically poisonous to come out in favor of abolishing it outright. Congress has done well to do nothing to it in almost 10 years, thereby having the effect of it decrease in real value. Also, I can't imagine myself as a bureaucrat who knows where the line should be drawn between who gets to pass their wealth on tax free, who has to pay 15% and who has to fork over 30%. That is discriminatory to me.

What GOP leaders did by packaging the two issues was, I must admit, a deft bit of legislative maneuvering. Raising the minimum wage is reminiscent of passing a prescription drug bill. They can say they voted to raise it thereby blunting it as an issue in the fall elections, where a similar raise is on several state ballots. Fortunately, this move will probably come at a lesser cost than the drug bill. Even though I myself wouldn't have voted for it, I admire the move.

...and now to the nba (07/27/2006)

i was just reading buck harvey's column in the san antonio express news about the spurs offseason moves (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/bharvey/
stories/MYSA072706.1C.COL.BKNharvey.spurs.32a5c57.html) and couldn't help but think.

i have tried to keep my enthusiasm in check with regard to the mavs' offseason moves as compared with those of the spurs. that 2nd round playoff series could have, after all, gone either way with a different bounce of the ball. but it seems like avery is starting to get more of the team he wants. i liked marquis daniels and always wondered exactly what it was about him that didn't mesh with avery (i was told by sefko it was a "lack of fire"), but they did get an arguably better backup for dirk in croshere. and they probably benefited, if only from a chemistry standpoint, in getting anthony johnson as opposed to mike james. i'm still a little (pleasantly) surprised they were able to keep mbenga. add in the reacquisition of buckner and the draft and progress of ager, and one could say they've upgraded their roster. i'm curious to see the experts' offseason grades.

the spurs, on the other hand...i can't believe pryzbilla chose the blazers. i stepped back and reminded myself that they still have the rest of their starting five, plus finley, in place from last year. but add their overall age to the center situation and i just got a weird vibe so far this offseason.
i say all this with the knowledge that the spurs will have more future draft picks than they had this year and they are setting themselves up to be able to sign some free agents in a couple of years. given duncan's age, is it fair to say, with all due respect to parker and ginobili, that they will be making a final push in that time span (a couple years from now) to win once or twice more around duncan?

my nomination to realclearpolitics for 'political video of the day' (07/26/2006)

i know this probably won't make it, because it doesn't measure up in humor to past videos, and probably because i don't have the actual clip (although one should be available a time or two per week), but i would like to nominate the trio i call 'the 3 stooges of c-span after hours'. do you know to whom i refer? congressmen tim ryan of ohio and kendrick meek of florida, and congresswomen debbie wasserman shultz, also of florida, democrats all. these bozos, with few exceptions, take special order speeches and colloquys to new heights, keeping the house open past midnight sometimes just to hear themselves talk. poor mr. meek often looks like he's going to fall over from exhaustion.

given the time in which they like to take the floor, i don't get to see them all the time. but when i do, i have come to adopt it as a guilty pleasure. last night was one such night. they were talking past 10:30 cst, and the only reason i saw them was due to the fact that i had just returned home from class. last night was one of those nights when they broke out there big rubber stamp, the stamp they claim the house uses for all president bush wants. hello! he's a republican and they control the house! mr. ryan was in peak form last night, proclaiming all they would do in the "first 100 hours" should they wrest control of the house from republicans in november. the minimum wage stuck out, perhaps because i have researched the topic in my studies. he was quick to point out what a positive, immediate, "direct" effect it would have on millions. in the process, he exemplified the short-run vision that infects the democratic party (republicans are occasionally guilty of this, also). sure, a few million would receive an immediate raise, but his static way of thinking blinds him from seeing that many more will not be hired because of the added expense of taking on in- or lesser-experienced help. they DON'T...GET IT!

i have a difficult time taking people like this too seriously. mr. meek is the only one who comes close to having 'real world' experience, having been a highway patrolman. mr. ryan and ms. wasserman schultz have law and political science degrees. i love politics, and thought about looking into that for a masters, but figured it wasn't practical in the 'REAL WORLD'. and mr. ryan is a lawyer...nuff said.

so if you can find a particularly juicy piece of video of them displaying their talents, i nominate it. if not, i can always have them to myself

well said (07/25/2006)

"Let's not speak any more about proportionality. It's another liberal code word for accepting defeat."
-Jed Babbin

"disproportionality" is for p***ies, (07/25/2006)

and deserved for those who bring a knife to a gunfight.
"The dire consequences of proportionality are so clear that it makes you wonder if it is a fig leaf for anti-Israel sentiment in general. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that proportionality is madness. For Israel, a small country within reach, as we are finding out, of a missile launched from any enemy's back yard, proportionality is not only inapplicable, it is suicide. The last thing it needs is a war of attrition. It is not good enough to take out this or that missile battery. It is necessary to re-establish deterrence: You slap me, I will punch out your lights."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/
2006/07/a_proportionate_response_is_ma.html
==
propaganda exists as long as there are suckers to lap it up.
"Of course Israel has the right to defend itself against Hezbollah's rocket attacks. But how can this utterly disproportionate, seemingly indiscriminate carnage be anything but counterproductive?"

"you go, fidel! you rule!" (07/21/2006)

"The communist leader, wearing his usual olive green military fatigues, slowly descended the airplane Thursday to cries of "Fidel! Fidel!" from well-wishers behind police cordons at the airport in the central city of Cordoba." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060721/
ap_on_re_la_am_ca/south_america_trade_1)

you know what this reminds me of? natural born killers, with fidel playing the part of mickey and mallory. you could substitute any one of saddam, kim or the like instead, although i suppose most people who cheer them do so for fear of their lives if they don't.

you know, the fdi (07/20/2006)

i am as much into what is going on in lebanon right now as the next person, but there was a story in the journal yesterday that merits some attention. exports from the u.s. have increased 10% over the past year. the strongest growth came in the form of capital goods. yes, goods that come from manufacturers. you know, the same ones we hear are that have had such a hard time the last few years, the main reason the u.s. has such a large "trade deficit", as they like to call it (or, as i like to call it, the foreign direct investment surplus).
this is just further proof that the current account of the u.s. looks the way it does not because of a manufacturing decline. or even, for that matter, "over-consumption". even when one thinks about the auto industry...the u.s. auto industry is not in decline; u.s. autoMAKERS are. go tell the domestic toyota, honda, nissan, hyundai, etc. manufacturing plants and employees that the u.s. no longer has an auto industry. we still do, it's just under different management, and it's WORKING! such manufacturing plants push the current account in the direction it leans, but in the way of foreign (japan's toyota) direct investment (manufacturing). fdi is the flip side of a "trade deficit". is "eliminating the trade deficit", like too many clowns in d.c. think should be a goal, worth putting all those people who make those toyotas (i'm partial to toyota, since i've driven 4 in my life, two of which we currently own) out of work? that would sure tip things closer to balance.

To paraphrase Dick Armey, "The market is smart; government is dumb." (07/20/2006)

"Those families who wake up every morning to face another day with a deadly disease or a disability will not forget this decision by the president to stand in the way of sound science and medical research."
-Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).

Amazing. It’s amazing to me the things that politicos can find it in themselves to say. And that's just one example. Actually, they say some of the things they say because some people are gullible enough (that’s the topic of another post) to believe it without doing a fact check. Stem-cell research, as the President explicitly pointed out yesterday, is not banned. He did not outlaw it yesterday with his first veto. The only thing he did was refuse to allow expanded federal support. (Sidenote: Thank goodness he finally denied federal funding for something!) The federal government has no more business supporting this type of research, where a human embryo is created specifically to be the subject of research, research that requires the destruction of said embryo, anymore than it should be in the business of providing funds for abortions. And please, I don’t want to hear any business about how abortion is a constitutional right (albeit via “emanations and penumbras”); so is owning a gun, but no one is demanding Uncle Sam buy him/her a gun. The more promising the research, the more funding, PRIVATE funding, it will attract. The market takes care of these things. Taxpayers only stand to lose when Congress jumps in to fund something they deem worthy of more than the private sector is providing.

ahh, federalism: it's a beautiful thing! (07/18/2006)

"State lawmakers are offering more than 500 bills this year targeting state-mandated services, illegal aliens and the employers who hire them, responding to a growing chorus of public opinion nationwide calling for stricter enforcement of immigration laws.
"With federal immigration reform stalled on Capitol Hill, several states are proposing their own laws. More than 500 bills have been introduced this year covering a variety of topics, including employment, access to public benefits and voting rights, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060717-114643-5345r.htm

nicolas cage borders on an exception (07/18/2006)

mrs. me and i watched the weather man this weekend. i read that movie was a downer. she put it on our netflix q. i actually liked it, and didn't really think it...at least it didn't end up as a downer. the guy definitely had issues, but he tried. i thought he was delusional in thinking he could get his wife back. it looked like a wonder she ever married him. i like how he handled each of his kids' respective problems, especially the girl. i thought it ended up on a happy enough note to pretty much cancel out the downer stuff.
i still don't think much of the acting profession, but i'm starting to dig and appreciate the choices in roles/movies nicolas cage makes e.g. bringing out the dead, matchstick men, lord of war, etc. (nevermind the gone in 60 seconds, snake eyes, national treasure types, which they all make) while he usually plays an ordinary guy, those guys rarely have 9-5 (why is the phrase not "8-5"? was there a time when a lunch hour was not given?), wife and kids, house and pets-type ordinary, normal lives. while there might be a better actor (not that being able to pretend to be others better than another is something to be particularly proud of), few make more interesting movies.
the best i can say about him is this. when i pick out a nicolas cage movie, it feels more like when i am picking out a movie because of who directed it; not who acted in it.

thumbs up (07/14/2006)

ho-hum. i feel like something is missing on fridays now. even though i don't watch nearly as many movies as i used to and i've found that our politics don't match, i miss roger ebert's movie reviews. in my opinion, there are few better at doing what they do than roger is at reviewing movies. i was a fan of siskel & ebert going back to the "sneak preview" days. i dug the movie aspect of it, but then started to dig the debate aspect of it. then, right around the time siskel passed (unfortunately), i started reading their reviews online and felt i learned a lot about movies, or at least what to look for.

i've been reading roger's reviews, answer man, etc. every friday since about 1998. it seems like his website, with due respect to jim emerson, has been frozen in time for the last couple weeks. here's one person who hopes it thaws soon.

get well, roger.

"don't wanna talk about politics!" (07/14/2006)

i must admit, when i first saw "hopes for a 'better' president", i felt a big 'groan' coming on. plus, i was a little dissappointed to see it was attributed to the vocalist of one of my very favorite musical acts, korn. but, alas, it was one in another long line of slanted headlines. actually, it kinda took my breath away because jonathan davis did just about the opposite of many who try to come off as experts when he said "But what do we really know? Maybe he (Bush) is doing the right thing, you don't know." it's hard to pin him down based on what he said (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1536179/20060712/korn.jhtml). you think he's a liberal when he says "global warming and abortion issues", but then he sounds conservative/libertarian when he says "my gun rights" (my emphasis added). then you go back and reread and look at how he prefaced that passage. he used the words "human life". when talking about abortion, don't most liberals lean on the words "choice" and "privacy"? then, he sounds positively like a realist, albeit again slightly conservative/libertarian, when he acknowledges the role oil plays in our lives.

you'd need him to answer some questions more definitively to find out where specifically he stands on certain issues, but overall, it was somewhat refreshing.

look ahead (07/13/2006)

apparently, at least according to some media, reparations are gaining momentum (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2171984&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312). in case you don't know, reparations are the ridiculous notion that either the u.s. (government), businesses with an ancestry reaching back beyond the civil war (how many of those are there?) or some combination of both should pay money to those who can prove that their ancestors were slaves.

i'm quite certain that i am in the majority, a big majority (i don't know if he's part of this majority, but dave chappelle did a funny skit on his show about what would result), when i say that this is a ridiculous idea. consequently, i hesitate to make a suggestion on how it should be done should that day, heaven forbid, ever come when reparations actually happen. but i had a good idea this morning. all welfare and charity of any type that has gone to such descendants should be deducted from the final total.

mommies (07/13/2006)

i would like to give props and show my appreciation to my wife and all other good mommies out there. last night, being just the latest example, our youngest (1 year 9 months) cried out in the middle of the night. we think she's starting to dream. she's been doing this for at least a few weeks. usually, i'm wired to sleep right through it. but, i am willing, if mommy wakes me up, to wake up and help. so i did last night. but, when i went in and tried to pat her back, she pushed away my hand and kept whining. so i left and my wife went in.
although sometimes daddy is good enough, that's the exception to the rule. there's that special bond between mommy and child. they feel more comforted by mommy, although when mommy's not around, daddy will suffice, heh. i want to say how fortunate i feel, and my girls should feel, to have a mommy that is dedicated to servicing that bond. i appreciate her because, on such mornings, i see how tired she is, she looks, when she gets out of bed.

it's the DYNAMIC economy, stupid! (07/12/2006)

i've been reading the news the last couple of days about the smaller-than-expected federal budget deficit. first of all, it is much larger than it needs to be due to the excessive (non-military, non-homeland security) spending and government growth that has occurred under w, but that's another story. while i agree with bruce bartlett's assertion back in march that the increased revenue seen over the past year or so is due to the cyclical nature of the economy, it's hard to agree with him that it is the sole or biggest reason. hasn't federal revenue growth almost always followed tax reductions? this time reminds me of when clinton signed a gop cut in the capital gains in the late 90s. a surplus resulted.

the wall street journal editorial page broke out the "soak the rich" phrase again this morning, as sarcastically as they did a few months ago. i'm wondering when the democrats and liberals are going to get it. the wealthy appear to pay more when taxes are decreased, the marginal and investment types. aren't they supposed to be happy when the rich pay more? isn't that one area where they agree with adam smith? either they truly believe that our economy is a static one, where simply raising or cutting taxes will increase or decrease revenues by a commensurate amount, or...is it possible that they actually prefer to bring more revenue to the treasury, from the wealthy, in a manner that looks as if the rich are being penalized for success? do they actually envy the wealthy, or feel so much guilt for sharing that company (corzine, dayton, kerry, etc.), that they would risk less federal revenue?

obviously, this is prime time not only to push to make all of w's tax cuts permanent, but to go a step or two further and push for the national sales tax or (my personal preference) a flat tax.

said perfectly by the editorial page of the las vegas review-journal today (07/12/2006)

"But make no mistake -- this vast tide of government income does highlight that the only reason there's still a deficit is because Congress is spending money hand over fist -- and because the president keeps signing off on their Christmas lists."
this is why i will probably go back to voting libertarian this year.

and so it begins (07/12/2006)

now that it has been almost a month and the dust has settled since my beloved mavericks blew a 2 3/4 games-to-none lead in the nba finals, i get can get back to some important stuff. man, those playoffs took me out of it, and it out of me. damn!

actually, i can finally get to publicly expressing my opinion on the goings-on in the u.s. and the world. (see my profile for more)

i will start with a gem co-written for the chicago sun-times by our former senate majority leader tom daschle entitled "Immigration reform won't give average American job security" (http://www.chicagosuntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref10.html).
the crux of it is how congress is basically wasting time trying to come up with immigration reform when it should first find "ways to strengthen and protect America's middle-class jobs". interesting. congress should cease efforts aimed at least partially at securing the border, one of the main functions, one would think, of the federal government, until it interferes in the private sector, past actions of which have already put a drag on economic activity (taxes, regulations, etc.). i'm not sure i agree with that. i think i agree with mr. chapman of the rival tribune when he said the best job security is job insecurity. shouldn't at least a little job insecurity, knowing that you are not entitled to your job, make you that much better of a worker? wouldn't that tend to give you a leg up when job cuts come around, or worse, when looking for another job? too much "job security" and the u.s. will start to look like europe. it seems that over there "job security" has an inverse relationship to job creation.

if you want the complete picture on what contributes to unemployment amongst "school drop-outs, unskilled laborers, and young African-American males", you must include the minimum wage in the conversation. fortunately, there are enough senators and congressmen who know that the minimum wage hurts the ones, the aforementioned, that it is meant to help by pricing them out of the market, and therefore have defeated efforts to raise it. on the bright side, however, the minimum wage surely has helped to bring about the innovations in self-service in places such as gas stations and grocery stores.

it seems that mr. daschle speaks for those who are unaware of a concept known as creative destruction. most, though not all, jobs sent overseas are low-paying, more lowly skilled jobs. when companies do that, one thing they are freed up to do is expand and create more high-paying jobs. while india, china and the like are labor abundant, the u.s. is capital and land abundant. highly skilled workers are needed to work that capital. that's why, if nothing else, mom and dad always said "get a college education".

ah, "an honest accounting of the nation's true unemployment rate" would also include the household survey, which takes into account the self-employed, the entrepreneur's who make america go. while the business survey recently said a "lower-than-expected" 120K jobs were recently created, the household survey said more than 350K were created! this is, unfortunately, one of the best kept secrets from the american people.

this piece, particularly the part about all the tax cuts and credits, reminds me of that ridiculous piece on the the daily kos the other day with regard to "libertarian dems". the solution to the vast majority of problems/issues these days is not more and more government, or in the case of this article, a more and more convoluted income tax code. we ought to just strip away 99% of business regulations (i suppose there are a couple good ones out there) and streamline the tax code, be it via a flat tax or a national sales tax. that right there is the purest way to encourage people to save and invest more.

leave them alone and see what happens.