July 31, 2007Happy Birthday, Dear Milton...Dallas Fed economist and policy adviser, Thomas Siems, writes a guest editorial in the WSJ today (paid link) on the one man whose greatness we all agree on around here. Thanks to his unwavering support for free enterprise and open markets, Friedman's ideas have elevated standards of living for a rising share of the world's population. More and more people are free to choose their path in the economy, acting in their own self-interest by engaging in mutually beneficial exchange under the rule of law. More and more central banks have followed Friedman's advice and taken control of money growth; indeed, inflation has fallen around the world in developed economies, emerging markets and even among most less-developed nations. And more and more nations are engaged in trade with each other, seeing new markets as a source of greater opportunities and additional resources. A great gift to world, 95 years ago. Hat-tip: Everyday Economist
Posted by jk at 3:18 PM
| What do you think? [0]
Veto!It is accepted that the GOP is in a heap o' trouble in the next election. I do not dispute that. As the FBI raids Sen. Ted Stevens's (R - Leavenworth) house, the GOP will have more seats to defend, the war is unpopular and the base is enervated and split on immigration and trade. I think quite a few of these could be fixed by a public fight over the farm bill. Yes, Senator Grassley (E85 - Iowa) would likely crumble, but you've got to break some eggs to make an omelet. The WSJ Ed Page is calling for a veto as well: The overstuffed farm bill now waddling through Congress -- toward a possible veto by President Bush -- has attracted so much waste that everyone with a genuine interest in agriculture is feeling disheartened. Yet the bill has earned unlikely support from the labor union lobby. This could energize the base and differentiate the GOP from the Democrats, who will be led in 2008 by the most pro-big-government candidate since FDR. And it would be the right thing to do. Find your inner Grover Cleveland, Mr. President!
Posted by jk at 1:00 PM
| What do you think? [0]
Dem Clyburn: "real big problem for us"... if General Petraeus's report on Iraq in September is good. In fairness, by “us” he seems to be referring to the House Democratic leadership, not the left as a whole. Is that really any better? The Dems have long staked their electoral successes on a loss in Iraq. The only difference here is that they're admitting to it.
But jk thinks:
The Democratic leadership, and many pundits on both sides, have an advance copy of General Patraeus's report. It will be "mixed" with a few minor successes and calls to continue. I don't scream at the TV a lot, but I do every time somebody tells me what is in a report that will be delivered to congress in six or eight weeks. Leader Reid, of course, got his copy before the troops were transported over there. I wonder if he got the new Harry Potter book early as well. Cal!John Karol is an independent filmmaker whose latest film is sure to please jk. He discusses his latest film in the NY Sun:
Coolidge on taxes and farm subsidies:
We could use a man like Coolidge in 2008.
But jk thinks:
Silent Cal, come home we need you! Larry Kudlow tells people: "What do you mean? Harding was great -- he gave us President Coolidge!" Posted by: jk at July 31, 2007 12:35 PM
But jk thinks:
Goofy fact #372: Senator McNary, whose bill was vetoed, was Willkie's running mate in 1940. They did not see eye to eye. Posted by: jk at July 31, 2007 12:39 PMJuly 30, 2007Time may not existTim Folger tells, in Discover Magazine, that as scientists slice time into smaller and smaller slices, it appears not to exist: "One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,” says Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France. “It is an issue that many theorists have puzzled about. It may be that the best way to think about quantum reality is to give up the notion of time—that the fundamental description of the universe must be timeless.” Hat-tip: Samizdata, one of whom suggests "Remember this next time you turn up late for an appointment. "
Posted by jk at 5:11 PM
| What do you think? [1]
But AlexC thinks:
Sometimes it seems that at the higher levels of theoretical physics lies an obfuscating cloud of bullshit engineering to provide perpetual salaries to those involved in the craft. It's hard to test most, if not all of it. Yet they all work of each other's previous work. A whole lot of faith over there. Long Tail in AccuracyMickey Kaus makes an interesting point. Print editors introduce ambiguity and error when they edit a piece to fit in a restricted space. We don't kill no widows in these parts: Note to NYT's Andrew Adam Newman: That's my quote, buddy--which explains why Steven den Beste, to whom you attribute it, had those two little marks on either end.... P.S. This is the classic sort of error usually introduced by an editor trying to save space. Print editors do have to save space. But web editors don't. That's a major, unremarked virtue of blogs over newspapers when it comes to the newspaper's alleged unique selling proposition: accuracy. In fact, the need to fit copy to a limited space is a powerful error-creating machine in both dailies and magazines. Harried print editors compress, and get it wrong. Or they fool around trying to simplify attribution and get it wrong. Or they guiltlessly edit quotes within quotation marks and (by definition) get them wrong. ... In cyberspace,, if it takes one more line to get it right, you can take one more line. I haven't killed a widow in so long I've forgotten what it feels like. People look at the "demand-side" of The Long Tail. Maybe it is the business I am in, but I am more intrigued by what enables it. The move from scarcity to abundance is the foundation of Long Tail businesses. Wal*Mart has to fight scarcity of shelf space, as does the video store. Amazon, iTunes, and Netflix have an abundance of (virtual) shelf space and can pursue long tail strategies. The blogger likewise has an abundance of column inches. Individual Health CareWhen I saluted the President's plan to provide $15,000 tax deductions, some good objections were raised: would a large deduction encourage over insurance; and, would tax-neutrality really shift people from employer to individual insurance? The bias toward over-insurance is a good point. Since the plan is just an inchoate idea at this point, I think it is futile to discuss specific amounts. The efficacy of moving people toward individual policies has two engines: employers and employees. Of course, many employees will want the status quo. If you have a good plan at a stable job, it is pretty attractive. If you worry about keeping your job and concomitantly your health insurance, you may see the wisdom in a portable, self funded plan. Even more likely, employers who are tired of the hassles or unable to afford group plans have every incentive to shift this onto their employees. The WSJ News Pages (not my crazy friends on the Ed Page) carry the story today of a Utah man who uses the Heath Reimbursement Arrangement as a tax neutral vehicle for employer contributions to personal health insurance. The article is very interesting -- let me know if you'd like me to mail it to you. They have also posted a video with an overview: There are some problems with the Zane Benefits approach. It is built, explicitly, on the existence of State mandates to cover the uninsurable. I highlight it as an innovation and to show the intense employer and employee advantages to shifting to an individual model. Should this take off or be expanded, we would see unknowable innovations in individual insurance that would change the game. Good News from IraqAn op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "A War We Just Might Win" proclaims:
I thought Harry Reid already said we lost?
But jk thinks:
Merciful Zeus. That is as upbeat a report on "the surge" as I have read on a milblog or in the Weekly Standard -- on the Ed Page of the Grey Lady! HB didn't say it, but I will. Read the whole thing. Read it to your Senator.
But AlexC thinks:
When a major political party stakes it's electoral victory on military defeat abroad, is it anyone that when they win, they don't/won't notice what's going on? "We won! It's cause we're losing! Yay!" Posted by: AlexC at July 30, 2007 11:45 AM
But jk thinks:
Before you conclude that the NYTimes has joined the forces of light and modernity, read Don Surber. Posted by: jk at July 30, 2007 12:36 PMIraqi Sports NewsThe WSJ Ed Page says "An old saw has it that the best proof of a man's loyalties lies in the sports teams he roots for." As many Democrats and Republicans have called for splitting Iraq into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia nations, the editorial (paid link) uses the pride in the team's 1-0 victory over Saudi Arabia to say that Iraq is not "a notional country." It is easy to get carried away by the symbolism of a single soccer victory. Still, it was remarkable that the winning team -- known as the "Lions of the Two Rivers" -- was Iraqi in the broadest sense of the word. Younis Mahmoud, the team captain who scored the winning goal, is Turkman. Teammate Hawar Mulla Mohammed, who put the ball into position, is Kurdish. Goalkeeper Noor Sabri is Shiite Arab. July 29, 2007Welcome Mister Prime Minister
Posted by jk at 5:09 PM
| What do you think? [2]
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
It'll become even stronger when Brown stops keeping the chair warm for the next, elected PM,...hopefully someone from a resurgent Tory Party. So long as Labor keeps giving in to every Muslim in Manchester. Englandistan is a place to seriously worry about. Posted by: TrekMedic251 at July 29, 2007 10:26 PM
But jk thinks:
Maybe I have been jaundiced by reading Samizdata, but it seems the Tories need a little more philosophical house cleaning before their resurgence. While they finally have a somewhat charismatic leader in David Cameron, their civil liberties positions are frightening and they would likely be less of a strong ally than the Blair-Brown Labourites. Posted by: jk at July 30, 2007 10:52 AMCocktail Party QuestionA progressive brother-in-law encountered a conservative brother-in-law at a party (they are not related except through me). Prog asks Conz "If you could change one thing, enact one law to make things the way you wish they would be, what would you do?" Conz answers Prog with a call for consumption based taxation. "That's a good one," thinks I. When the question is asked back, Prog tells Conz "I would investigate every provider of insurance: health, car, fire -- all of them are cheating us." It's pretty easy for me to choose sides on that one, but it got me thinking of my response. Consumption tax may be the best answer. Education money following students and/or dismantling the teacher's unions would be up there (Prog is a teacher and proud union member, the time would have to be right for me to float that). After all my bellyaching on Berkeley Square Blog and ThreeSources, I guess I'll have to choose the replacement of the FDA with private counterparts, based on the model of Underwriter's Laboratories, CSA, and VDE. Like the whiners at town hall meetings, that would affect me directly; that would be the difference between MS being cured in my lifetime or not. It's Sunday, you're granted one legislative wish from jk's brother-in-law. What's your pleasure?
But AlexC thinks:
First, I would grant myself unlimited legislative wishes. Then I'd enact the FairTax, a plan for a consumption based tax. Your bro-in-law was right to suggest it. Then I'd revoke my unlimited wishes. It's a burden, all those abilities. Posted by: AlexC at July 29, 2007 4:22 PM
But jk thinks:
Indeed. Plus then there'd be nothing to blog about. Posted by: jk at July 29, 2007 5:25 PM
But AlexC thinks:
Negative. We would need to document the mountain of successes. The blogosphere would be a busy place. Posted by: AlexC at July 29, 2007 11:47 PM
But Harrison Bergeron thinks:
I must defer to Hayek on this answer: "I would enact a law that if Congress does anything for one American, it must do it for all Americans." Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at July 30, 2007 9:49 AMFederalism's ComebackWhen was the last presidential election where Federalism was even on the agenda? I don't know either. However, it seems to have been coming back this season. First was Mitt Romney, whose term as Massachusetts' governor taught him some lessons on federal government's mandates. Fred! has another opinion piece out discussing the topic at length and includes his experience in the Senate. Federalism is not an 18th century notion. Or a 19th century notion. It retains its force as a basic principle in the 21st century, because when federalism is ignored, accountability, innovation, and public confidence in government at all levels suffer. Read it all... It's also coming up as part of Fred!'s speeches on the "stump." Addressing the American Legislative Exchange Council, Thompson didn't give the typical stump speech, The Morning Call's Brian Callaway reported. Instead, he told them exactly what they wanted to hear: states need more freedom to manage their own affairs. [and that's ok. -ed] July 28, 2007Bonds & the Home RunIn a more enlightened age, when the risks and the costs of these medical miracles come down, we'll look back on Bonds' triumph as a victory for all of us. We'll see our booing of him as symptoms of a silly, Luddite phobia of manipulating our own bodies. I'm sure there was an equal outcry when makeup was invented. And hair dye and the Wonder bra. How our ancestors went on, I have no idea. I'm wondering if the pitch that goes over the fence is going to a sandbagged "i want to be the one that threw that pitch" kind of deal. Because at least he should work for it.
But jk thinks:
It really is an interesting question. "Isn't that what Jefferson meant when he wrote that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing? Or do you really think the dude was just talking about stamps and tea?" A blogger long ago asked journalists who were beating up on McGwire and Bonds: "What if there were a drug that would boost your IQ 20 points and improve your memory with the same long term risks as steroids?" I'm sorry I've forgotten who it was, but the suggestion was that that people would enhance their own careers if the compounds existed, yet they are quick to leap on athletes. That said, it doesn't help that he is a complete asshole... Posted by: jk at July 29, 2007 2:16 PM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
Is it any wonder why McGuire got out of the game before confronting this PR nightmare? I guess steroids do make you stupid. Posted by: TrekMedic251 at July 29, 2007 10:28 PMSecond LinkExcaliburBlog seeks to use an Army of Davids/Wisdom of Crowds approach to military, national security, and counterinsurgency development. I doubt I will be submitting any aircraft designs, but it is an interesting read and a good source for non-mainstream views and news about the War Hat tip to Terri, who is credited as the first link to the blog. Review CornerI gave it away in a previous post, but I'd highly encourage everybody to buy and read Amity Shlaes's The Forgotten Man. I don't suspect that we have a lot of "New Dealers" in ThreeSources Land who idolize FDR's economic policies. We fight every day against the New Deal legacy. To look at the US under President Coolidge, where the book begins, is to see a completely different national attitude toward freedom, property rights, and the right to contract. I recommend this book for two reasons. It has a powerful narrative that few nonfiction books can claim. Even though you generally know the ending of each section, the book is a real page turner. The characters are lit brightly through deed and anecdote. I'm no expert on the period by any means, yet I came away with a clear feel for Presidents Coolidge, Hoover, and Roosevelt, as well as losing candidates Alf Landon and (the book's hero) Wendell Willkie. Andrew Mellon, Justice Brandies, Harold Ickes the elder, Rex Tugwell, Samuel Insull, Father Devine, Huey Long, Father Coughlin. It has a large and bright cast that comes to life. Exciting, yes, but the story was all too real. The other thing I enjoyed was Shlaes's detailing the extent of FDR's collectivist instincts. Call me naive but I was shocked. FDR wanted state control of everything and had the Supreme Court not clipped his wings, we'd be living in a country where Senator Clinton's polity would be considered laissez faire. It is truly astonishing. Shlaes wears her heart on her sleeve. Heroes and villains are as clear in "The Forgotten Man" as in an Ayn Rand novel. You’ve read Shlaes in the Wall Street Journal; to her and me the collectivists are villans. She doesn't impute bad motives but she shows it as a battle of individualists vs. collectivists -- and she details how FDR's policies made the depression worse and longer. It was WWII that brought the country out, and one component was that President Roosevelt needed to ameliorate his methods and political battles to create a united front to win the war. We all celebrate FDR's war leadership, and the book ends before Pearl Harbor. His first two terms are scrutinized as are the events leading up to them. The Publisher's Weekly review says "It's also a thoughtful, even-tempered corrective to too often unbalanced celebrations of FDR and his administration's pathbreaking policies" Me, I give it five stars. UPDATE: I got a nice thank you from Ms. Shlaes. I'm glad I did not call her a grouch.
But AlexC thinks:
Maybe you'll get the next book for free. ;) If you want to learn more about FDR's socialism, check out FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression. It's really shocking... I'll have to look for this one. Posted by: AlexC at July 28, 2007 11:04 PMJuly 27, 2007Edwards DrivelJohn Edwards has officially lost his mind. This speech borders on conspiracy theory. Also, I hate to trouble him with facts, but someone should tell Edwards that the top 25% of income earners pay 85% of all income taxes. Personally, I think I would classify that as more than their fair share. I wonder what he thinks they should pay. The populist nonsense rolls on...
But jk thinks:
I make a lot less than $100 Million, and I hate listening to him too -- I must admit he's probably right about that part. Posted by: jk at July 27, 2007 6:28 PMImmigration Redux RemixLet the record show that I didn't start it this time. Former Deputy Editor of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, George Melloan, has a guest editorial today (paid link). He contrasts the arresting of workers in Arizona against news that potatoes are rotting in the ground in Idaho because of insufficient labor to harvest them. It's all my arguments that have not convinced anybody around here yet: Still, the $13 trillion American economy demands labor. Mexico has had a high birth rate (although it is rapidly slowing) and can supply the needed workers, with benefits on both sides of the border. But the U.S. political class can only talk of new barriers. Why is this such a hard equation for politicians? The longer this problem festers, the more likely it will push the Mexican polity to turn away from being an uneasy friend of the U.S. to becoming a troublesome enemy. But there was a new twist I enjoyed: The fundamental mistake, one that American politicians have made over and over again, is the belief that the government's police powers can overwhelm powerful market forces. Richard Nixon and the Congress attempted this feat in 1971 with wage and price controls, stalling American growth for a decade. Simpson-Mazzoli was a similar effort to strong-arm a key market -- for labor -- by threatening something that proved to be unenforceable, jail sentences for employers of illegal aliens. Luckily, that didn't shut off the labor supply from Mexico, it just drove it underground. Estimates are that there at least 12 million illegals in the U.S. and that may be far lower than the actual number. Nixon wage and price controls. Blanket government interference in opposition to market forces. Why not institute a guest worker program instead of a fence? My friend Robert Halbrook, a retired lawyer living in Tucson, Ariz., is aware that politics are not always logical or even rational, but offers a logical solution nonetheless: Legislators must do away with all the threats and penalties that drive labor and its employers underground. It must be made possible for illegal workers to achieve legal status without fear. That way Mexicans can come to the U.S. to fill jobs and go home safe in the knowledge that when their work is demanded they will be able to come back again. Many will go back with skills learned in the U.S., enabling them to earn a living at home. Most, he believes, do not crave U.S. citizenship. Why should they want to cope with a new language and culture, if they can return home without penalty? They just want to feed their families and try to move up the economic ladder.
But sugarchuck thinks:
Why not institute a guest worker program and a fence! Posted by: sugarchuck at July 27, 2007 1:12 PM
But jk thinks:
That's what I suggested in November of 2005... Posted by: jk at July 27, 2007 3:50 PMJuly 26, 2007Immigration ReduxAdmitting you have a problem is usually the first step. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he's floating a plan that would grant legal status to the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants, but offer no path to citizenship. Amnesty? Did he say Amnesty? I thought the previous bill specifically was not amnesty! Fred! & the Hazelton DecisionFred Thompson is the first non-Presidential candidate with an exploratory committee to comment on the Hazelton decision. Let’s be clear about what’s going on here. No matter what some groups may be trying to do to muddy the water and portray Hazleton’s law as something playing to an uglier agenda, this law is not about legal immigration. This law is about dealing with the illegal immigration problem in Hazleton. The town’s mayor and city officials made this clear from the beginning, and it seems like they took a common sense approach. The decision sets up the situation where a city or state wants a law enforced but federal law prohibits it, leaving it to the federal government, who don't want to enforce it.
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
An interesting exercise in the 10th Amendment, if nothing else. Sadly, it'll be years before it gets in front of the Supremes, where Justice Roberts SHOULD stick to his stare decisis (sp?) philosophy. Posted by: TrekMedic251 at July 26, 2007 10:13 PM
But jk thinks:
Here we go again... I don't think the Hazleton law is a good idea. And I think it is a bad case for enforcement types to "get behind." Let me, humbly, suggest how your side should proceed (you're welcome). Those seeking stricter enforcement should "Know thy enemy" and should champion legislation and tactics that meet their goals and arouse the least opposition and suspicion from those who see it the other way. Like President Bush goes too far toward praising Islam so that he is difficult to attack as being anti-Muslim, I would suggest that y'all are very cautious on two fronts. First, you should bend over backwards to demonstrate that you are not racist and would accept no law that interferes with legal immigrants and Hispanic citizens. Second, you should assure the business community (and its toadies like me) that you do not want to disrupt the economy nor place onerous regulations on business. You should find laws and tactics that support your goals and are good politics. Instead, the "enforcers" I know immediately hop on any proposal that they feel will harm illegal immigrants. Let's pardon the border guards who misbehaved (because they were shooting at an illegal); let's protest the pizza parlor that accepts Pesos ('cause that would be a convenience to illegals); let's all get behind the Hazleton law ('cause then illegals won't have any place to live or work). You cover the Pennsylvania beat, ac, and if I am missing subtleties in the Hazleton law, I look forward to elucidation. But you're asking every landlord and employer to be an INS agent. How can you be sure whom you're renting the basement to? I don't want to be fined, I better not rent to any Latinos. It seems to punish employers and landlords for something that is not their problem. What a GrouchJonathan V. Last is a great blogger at Galley Slaves, a superb journalist from the Weekly Standard, and is technically my "sire," as I started watching Buffy mostly on his recommendation. I was stunned to read his "Casual" column in last week's Weekly Standard (paid link). The casual column is a short piece that runs right after the Masthead and gives writers a chance to cover a light topic or personal reflection. They're frequently fun and a few have stuck with me. Last's is the first one that has angered me: I think he is at least a few years younger than me, but he thought it was time for a curmudgeonly old fart column: As if that weren't dispiriting enough, my friend Phillip Longman tells me that progress is actually slowing down. Between 1910 and 1960, indoor plumbing, electricity, and automobiles became common. Jet airplanes were invented, and a space program was begun that in a few short years would put a man on the moon. Nuclear power, plastics, lasers, and computers--the stuff of science fiction in 1910--all had been developed by 1960. Okay, the Internet crack is a joke. Last is a professional journalist and is uneasy with the blogger/"Army of Davids" culture. Fine. Galley Slaves has three political writers who do no politics. They discuss Philadelphia sports, pop culture, video games, &c. Last, David Skinner, and Victorino Matus are modern young men and his disregarding the advances of the last 47 years is out of character. To be fair, he is complaining that the futurist visions of his youth have not panned out. There's certainly truth to that.” Where once they dreamed of advanced food pills, we're shopping for heirloom tomatoes at farmers' markets." To claim the computer was created in 1960 and that his xBox is just derivative achievement is incomprehensible. That a professional journalist doesn't see the value of Google® or cell phones or that the sports fan doesn't mention satellite or HiDef Plasma televisions is dishonest. Laugh at the iPhone all you want, but take it back to 1965 and show it to a kid who has a black, rotary phone in his home and a color TV in the family room if he is very lucky. I think he'd be pretty impressed. Take the back off and show it to his engineer Dad. Heirloom tomatoes? That's a sign of wealth. In the end, that's what gets me. He can make fun of the Internet or the iPhone if he wants, but his derision carries him down the Paul Krugman path of denying that our freedom and innovation have created wealth, better lives, and a foundation for even more incredible achievement. UPDATE: Ah yes, one advance is the search engine, where anyone you call "a grouch" on the Internet can find you. I received a kind email from JVL, who stands by his point and hopes I am enyoing the Season 8 comic books.
But AlexC thinks:
The baby boomers promised us rocket cars by the year 2000 and vacations on the moon. I blame them for grinding progress to a halt. Must've been all that dope and free love. Damned hippies. Posted by: AlexC at July 26, 2007 6:26 PMI Can't Even CancelSadly, I let my TNR digital subscription lapse a few months ago. They booted the price up a bit and I was going back and forth whether I would renew. It has lost some of its luster after Peter Beinart left, and the loonies are getting many more column inches than they used to. Now that "Scott Thomas" has outed himself, I wish my subscription were current. I would love to cancel in high dudgeon. We have not discussed it at ThreeSources, but I bet you've all followed the story. The pseudonymous Thomas wrote "anecdotal diaries" of life in Iraq as an American soldier. In his stories, he and his compatriots disrespected Iraqis and acted dishonorably and unprofessionally. He claimed that he himself had cruelly insulted a woman who had been disfigured by an IED. His friends destroyed infrastructure in their Bradley fighting vehicles and always swerved to kill dogs. He didn't get to "Gengis Khan," but it was only a matter of time. Now that many military bloggers have disputed his tales, he takes to the TNR blog to out himself and defend his fellow soldiers against charges that they are -- it gets pretty weird here -- charges that they are honorable and decent. It seems those who say the military is not loaded with psychopaths and sadists are chickenhawks. It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name. We are too psychotic sadists, dammit! How dare you question my lack of patriotism! Beauchamp/Thomas is a Private and he may have actually done or seen some of the unprofessional incidents he describes, though I suspect some serious hyperbole. Most telling is that TNR -- the least moonbatty of Democratic mags -- chooses to represent our brave men and women by this cowardly example. The commenters on The Plank are all rallying around Beauchamp and ridiculing those who have dared question his perfidy. UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett have covered this well. Hugh links to a Wikipedia entry on TNR "controversies."
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
All right, now that he's outed himself... Court-martial the little **** for whatever he claimed to do, which is what should have been done to John Kerry after his Congressional testimony in the 1970s. If his claims are not true, then he's lying, and worse, lying about his fellow soldiers. That's "conduct unbecoming." A CO will take issue either way with troops insulting a disfigured contractor, or one of his troops lying about the others doing it. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 26, 2007 5:10 PM
But jk thinks:
Absolutely right. Posted by: jk at July 26, 2007 5:13 PMBack to the CavesSamizdat Jonathan Pearce makes a good point about the "buy local" movement. In addition to its being chosen poverty, localized weather phenomena can threaten food supplies. The current UK floods have devastated crops in East Anglia. As I mentioned in a previous post, the terrible summer of 1845 led to the Irish famine. In centuries past, bad weather was not just destructive in some ways but it also meant people starved in their millions. That is unlikely to happen now. And one reason for that is that we are no longer reliant on home-grown food. Food production is not only much greater because of modern techniques, drainage, use of fertilisers and machinery, but also because the 60m souls on this sodden island have access to a global market for food. John Fund, meanwhile, provides the perfect segue. In the Political Diary today, he writes "In case You've Been Missing Teresa Heinz..." The outspoken Elizabeth Edwards has made headlines by suggesting Hillary Clinton isn't standing up for women sufficiently. She also antagonized many potential crossover voters by calling her gun-owning North Carolina Republican neighbors "scary." Now she is touting her belief that Americans should eat only locally-grown fruit to reduce the "carbon footprint" caused by transporting fruit across state and national boundaries. I think I'll avoid the "Buy Local" craze. Not only am I philosophically opposed, I really don't fancy the taste of hay.
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Let's see the Edwards do, instead of just speaking. Let them lead "the simple life" by buying a farm out in, say, Kansas. Let's see them *completely* eliminate their carbon footprints by consuming nothing that they produce themselves. After all, driving across town will generate pollution. Similarly, using their own farm machinery also generates pollution, so whatever they create, let them do it by hand. Let's see Johnny Boy hack down trees and build a truly carbon-neutral house. No running water, of course, because the piping requires that metal be mined, smelted, etc. And who wouldn't want to live this way? Look at all the millions of happy people in Zimbabwe who live completely carbon-neutral lives by consuming pretty much only what they themselves produce. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 26, 2007 1:47 PM
But jk thinks:
She'll "probably never eat a tangerine again," Perry! How can you question such sacrifice? "Antoine, bring me something local. And then please check the toilet in the South Wing. It's gurgling." Posted by: jk at July 26, 2007 3:27 PMTryin' to Reason with Hurricane SeasonI was a Jimmy Buffet fan before I discovered jazz. That is one of his many funny song titles. Germaine today. WSI Corp., a private forecasting entity, was reported to be backing off its predictions for 2007. I meant to post but saw that Terri had beat me to it. Today, DAWG-deniers' patron saint Dr. William Gray is a little less sanguine. He still looks for an active season with an above average number of major storms. Yet Gray is trying to get out front of the news coverage and dissever links to global warming. Some scientists, journalists and activists see a direct link between the post-1995 upswing in Atlantic hurricanes and global warming brought on by human-induced greenhouse gas increases. This belief, however, is unsupported by long-term Atlantic and global observations. He offers another hypothesis: My Colorado State University colleagues and I attribute the increase in hurricane activity to the speed-up of water circulating in the Atlantic Ocean. This circulation began to strengthen in 1995 -- at exactly the same time that Atlantic hurricane activity showed a large upswing. Dr. Popper would suggest that both theories are exposed to rigorous academic discussion and experimentation. But Dr. Gray points out that it might not work that way. The warming theorists -- most of whom, no doubt, earnestly believe that human activity has triggered nature's wrath -- have the ears of the news media. But there is another plausible explanation, supported by decades of physical observation. The spate of recent destructive hurricanes may have little or nothing to do with greenhouse gases and climate change, and everything to do with the Atlantic Ocean's currents. But that would reinstate Copernicus and the heliocentric universe. And many men cannot accept that the 'verse does not revolve around us.
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
All the hot air coming out of DC (and everywhere that staged a Live Earth concert)is pushing the storms out to sea before they make landfall. And anyway, don't you know by now,...if Nostra-Gore-mus didn't predict it, it won't come true? Posted by: TrekMedic251 at July 26, 2007 10:18 PMJuly 25, 2007Again, Bullwinkle?That Special Prosecutor trick never works! But it would be great for l’Affaire Gonzales. AP: WASHINGTON - Angry senators suggested a special prosecutor should investigate misconduct at the Justice Department, accusing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Tuesday of deceit on the prosecutor firings and President Bush's eavesdropping program. I choked when I heard Sen. Arlen Specter (RINO - PA) suggesting it. It's a bad idea to begin with (cf Fitzgerald, Starr), but especially worrisome when there has been no crime.
But AlexC thinks:
I'd love to see Congress take the President to court. (SCOTUS, natch) Then we'd settle this separation of powers debate. Posted by: AlexC at July 25, 2007 5:50 PM
But johngalt thinks:
The best part of Specter's Special Prosecutor threat was that he threatened the Attorney General himself with the spectre (no pun intended) of "the Attorney General has the power to appoint a Special Prosecutor..." or someone else could do it, he added. Posted by: johngalt at July 26, 2007 2:59 PM
But jk thinks:
The WSJ had a nice editorial today on this. I love the lede: Here we go again. Democrats in Congress have made little headway in their own investigations into the non-scandal over the firings of nine U.S. Attorneys last year, so they've hit upon another strategy: Get the Justice Department to do the investigating for them. And right on cue, Republican Senator Arlen Specter has joined the call for a special counsel to investigate the dismissals. Now, there's a truly bad idea. "Right on cue." They assert that a "pinata" AG will be better for the administration than investigations, prosecutors, and conformation hearings. Posted by: jk at July 26, 2007 3:20 PM Rudy!An LATimes editorial calls Mayor Giuliani The Federalist Candidate Giuliani argues that the best way to reduce tension about social issues is to allow states, rather than the federal government, to take the lead in responding to them. That would allow socially conservative and liberal states to each set rules that reflect the prevailing values inside their borders. Rather than perpetual combat in Washington, he insists, the nation could reach a new equilibrium as different states gravitated to different solutions. I'm glad to hear Federalism qua Federalism get good press. The trouble, highlighted in this article, is that everybody has an issue that he or she feels supersedes Federalism. For Hizzoner, sadly, that is gun control. I would argue that the 2nd Amendment makes gun rights supersede Federalism. Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by jk at 2:41 PM
| What do you think? [0]
Why Government Can't Succeed.I read hb's charming post on the success of private efforts to help Katrina victims, complete with his admonition that "the inability to provide ample support is not confined to the administration, but rather to government itself." Shortly after that, I read this editorial, Union Doozy, in the Wall Street Journal. The contrast is explicit. The State of Indiana contracts with private companies to deliver state welfare services, using the efficiency of the private sector. Unfortunately for AFSCME, the program is a mad success and they have to get their Democratic lapdogs in the 110th Congress to overrule the State law (so much for laboratories of democracy, Justice Brandeis!) Indiana's goal is to deliver welfare benefits more efficiently to those who qualify for them. Its reform aims to save $500 million over 10 years by moving some 1,400 government jobs to the private sector -- which AFSCME likes to call "domestic outsourcing." But while this could mean fewer dues-paying union members, the state contract with IBM specifically requires that all current employees be offered work on the new system. And what do you know? More than 99% chose the private sector. Adding call centers and online resources will also help reduce welfare fraud: In December, a federal-state investigation found more than 1,000 ineligible drug felons collecting welfare in Marion County alone. There are a hundred good arguments against government running things, but the best to me is the Hayekian preference for distributed control and knowledge. Allowing a few Senators to have veto privileges over innovation will guarantee inefficiency every time. The program is likely safe for now, but won't be under a Democratic administration. And why would the next IBM bother to get involved with such a program? Overture, cut the lights!Blog brother AlexC's PA Water Cooler got a nice writeup from Politco.com. Well done!
Posted by jk at 1:16 PM
| What do you think? [0]
Two Republicans in JailI'll suspend my pragmatism to clean out the stables. The Wall Street Journal news pages report: (paid link) Rep. Don Young of Alaska, the former chairman of the House Transportation Committee, now is the subject of a continuing criminal inquiry involving possible political favors for a company in Alaska, people close to the case said. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, the powerful former chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the longest-serving Senate Republican, is also now under criminal investigation, these people said. I would trade a Senate seat and a House seat to get rid of those two. You can throw Rep. Jerry Lewis of California in their cell as well. July 24, 2007Summer Jobs in New OrleansThe Times-Picayune reports:
Those who criticized FEMA and Bush in the same breath fail to realize that the inability to provide ample support is not confined to the administration, but rather to government itself. This story is free of the rhetoric and is a great example of human compassion and the free market. We're from the government, and here to help.
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 6:37 PM
| What do you think? [0]
Dear Mister Taranto:I'm a big fan of Best of the Web. But, this one time, I think you missed: How'd They Know Which Was Which? I think the correct meta-headline is: Cheers,
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
Obviously the creature that did not attempt to sue and insist that the pants were worth 64 million dollars was the aquatic one. Posted by: mdmhvonpa at July 24, 2007 7:37 PMThe Dems DebateDavid Weigel live-blogged the Democratic Party debate for reason. Here are some highlights:
There's more here. More of the same from the Dems. Hillary thinks she's already won (she even said, "when I am inaugurated..."), Edwards keeps telling the same story to sell his points on several different issues, and Gravel is still pounding the podium to get us out of Vietnam. Perhaps the greatest line was when Kucinich mentioned how no one was standing to the left of him and CNN's Anderson Cooper replied, "I don't think we could find anyone to the left of you."
But jk thinks:
As did VodkaPundit: 5:12pm I have to admit, Chris Dodd at least looks presidential. Unfortunately, he looks like the president of a midwestern Savings & Loan circa 1990. Posted by: jk at July 24, 2007 5:26 PM Bush's Health Care PlanI guess I don't make enough enemies around here with my GOPragmatism®, I had to go out looking for trouble on other blogs. Josh Hendrickson at The Everyday Economist is unimpressed with the President's Health Care plan, as expressed today in a WSJ editorial by The problem is straightforward: Under today's tax code, people who are fortunate enough to get health insurance through their jobs get a big tax break -- but those who have to buy coverage on their own get no tax break at all. That is not fair, and it is not wise. It makes it impossible for millions of Americans who work for small businesses or who are self-employed to afford health insurance. And it drives up the cost of coverage for us all. I like this plan as a bold step to break the country's dependence on employer-provided care. If that can be broken, a lot of other reforms are enabled. People will demand interstate insurance and other innovations. Hendrickson provides a generous excerpt, salutes the good parts, then questions both the ability of helping those too poor to buy insurance with a 15,000 deduction, and: We need to eliminate all tax deductions and credits (whether personal or corporate) and move toward an insurance policy that is much more similar to auto insurance than modern health insurance. Such a plan would bring price back into the equation and limit the administrative costs of HMOs and other managed care organizations. The plan proposed by Hubbard essentially tries — rather unsuccessfully — to give everyone the incentive to over-insure. I think the President is tilting at windmills here, but I would like to see the GOP take this up as a realistic alternative to HillaryCare. Providing tax-neutrality between employer funded and self funded insurance would be huge. That is the stumbling block that prevents the innovations from auto insurance from arriving in health insurance. As I commented there, I'd be all for the government getting entirely out of the equation. But this would be an improvement very much worth fighting for. No War but the Price WarA price war with the Hess station across the intersection at Union Boulevard and Airport Road had seen gas prices down more than a dollar a gallon. The margins on pump gas are so incredibly low (pennies per gallon to the retailer) that the majority of the station's profit is generated from burnt coffee and old hot dogs. But losing a buck a gallon doesn't seem like it could go on very long. Senator Biden on Your 2nd Amendment RightsI missed the Dem debate last night. If they did not have one every three days... Here is the Biden clip that everybody is talking about.
But AlexC thinks:
I'm not sure it will play to the base... he didn't get all that much applause... He had no chance anyway... I forgot he was running. ;) Posted by: AlexC at July 24, 2007 1:34 PM
But jk thinks:
Let me rephrase. I don't think many of those who were looking to the Delaware Senator as our next President will be turned off. A few others might enjoy his forthright answer. Then again, this man could not statistically hurt his Presidential chances if he came out against puppies.
But AlexC thinks:
Guns haven't been the Dems strong point in a long time... It's good to see how little some have learned. Posted by: AlexC at July 24, 2007 2:32 PMIraq '09How come when some CIA functionary gets "outed" by a person in the Bush administration it's a scandal of epic proportions, but when a classified plan gets "outed" it's front page news? While Washington is mired in political debate over the future of Iraq, the American command here has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years. Coincidentally enough, I watched Dr Strangelove last night. First time in a very long time. One exchange really made me laugh. Regarding "the Doomsday Machine" which the Soviets have built. President Merkin Muffley (Peter Sellers): But this is absolute madness, Ambassador! Why should you build such a thing? "The New York Times, blabbing since at least 1963."
Posted by AlexC at 11:47 AM
| What do you think? [2]
But jk thinks:
Before then. I am reading Amity Shlaes The Forgotten Man (review corner coming, but don't wait, buy this five star book!) It highlights the importance of Walter Durany's Pulitzer-winning lies about the Soviet Union. Not only did they promote the glorious Soviet experiment, they were very helpful to Roosevelt in instituting Communism right here. The Times should give that Pulitzer back.
But AlexC thinks:
I was going to mentioned Duranty (spit), but that wasn't blabbing in the sense of "giving away our secrets." But that more like "actively aiding a disinformation campaign for a ruthless soul crushing political entity." But point taken. Posted by: AlexC at July 24, 2007 4:41 PMAT&T Up; Apple DownYou have to appreciate those who can play the game. Wall Street is docking Apple stock because the iPhone missed expectations. AT&T, however, got a nice boost on the last two days of its quarter. AT&T's Profit Rises On Wireless Growth (Paid link) Of course, incredible expectations were priced into the Apple shares already. But it's funny to watch the media coverage and think that the iPhone introduction missed expectations. July 23, 2007Sheehan: Libertarian?Just in case the Democrats weren't entirely upset with Cindy Sheehan for failing to walk the party line, she decided to write this in the San Francisco Chronicle:
The emphasis is mine. As Don Luskin asks, "Is she some kind of libertarian? In this, she's sounding a lot like Ron Paul."
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
EEEK! Posted by: mdmhvonpa at July 24, 2007 9:54 AM
But jk thinks:
Maybe she is. We never got to hear her thoughts on fiscal or monetary policy at Camp Casey. I watched her deliver the same line to a reporter on Brit Hume's show last night. I did not catch that she said "the other Bush debacle," if that is what she said. Like my Department of Peace seeking sister-in-law, she will not admit that -- on occasion -- "War is the answer!" Claiming that President Bush pere was unjustified in liberating Kuwait with an international coalition and a UN mandate is like claiming Roosevelt was unjustified in fighting Hitler and Hirohito. Which, of course, she does. I don't think she's going to do a lot for the Libertarian Brand.
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
I'm not sure what the hell Sheehan is smoking. She had some good points, especially about the Fed and permanent income taxes. I have to wonder if she's trying to broaden her appeal with a Hillaryesque "say anything" strategy, or if she sincerely believes this. Maybe. Now, being half Filipino, don't get me started on that wench's claim of "innocent Japanese civilians." I remember my father saying in 1990 that Bush 41 was showing more backbone than any president since Kennedy. In hindsight, he clearly forgot Reagan, and actually, Bush did little more than beg the UN for permission to do this and that. Never mind that we didn't keep going to Baghdad to finish the job. We didn't even make Saddam disband his army. It's all we could expect from him, really, since he was a diplomat. Just about everybody forgets that Saddam had kidnapped American civilians. What would Sheehan have done to secure their release? Pure diplomacy that never *once* worked with Saddam? Use spitballs? The proper response, one that required more balls than Bush 41 ever had, would have been to ask Congress for a declaration of war. If the government of one country sends its military to kidnap some civilians of another, or otherwise authorizes/assists/facilitates such seizure, what else can that be but an act of war? And if the One World Government socialists object because we didn't say "General Secretary, may I," then we can give them a far overdue eviction notice from east Manhattan. Am I the only person in the world who still remembers Saddam's photo-op with the British boy among the hostages? "Have you been getting your milk, Stuart?" The poor kid couldn't have been more than 10. Meanwhile, Saddam was clutching, clutching HARD, that little boy's arm. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 24, 2007 1:09 PM
But jk thinks:
My Mother-in-law grew up in the Philippines under Japanese occupation. I think of her whenever somebody drones on about the "futility of war." I really do hate to pile on a mother of a fallen US soldier, but I suspect that she picks up catch phrases from the fever-left blogs and parrots them. She was interviewed by Larry Kudlow, this would have given a "real" libertarian a great opportunity to discuss the vicissitudes of the Fed. I cannot believe there is any there there.
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
That's the thing: that her son died while serving in the military is still no reason for her to have any more authority or credibility in her actions and words, or sanctuary from criticism. Her son died in Iraq? Big ******* deal, as far as I'm concerned. I don't even have sympathy for her anymore. It's sad her son died, but he chose to *re-enlist* after the invasion began, and by trying to twist his death, the woman squandered any pity or well-wishing I had for *her*. You can "consider the source" when questioning whether something is true, but in matters of opinion, ultimately it is the argument itself that matters, not the person. As much as I hate to admit it, Sheehan said a couple of nice things in her piece, and the Democrats sometimes have points about the wiretapping and Gonzales. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 24, 2007 8:19 PMPotter MainiaI will accept the silence to my "Any Potter Heads In ThreeSources Land?" as an answer. Today, Greg Mankiw confesses to being a Potter Head. Yet there is a sentimental attachment of having read them aloud to his son. That adds social points to the series that I have not questioned, but it subtracts literary points that I do. Mankiw links to Megan McArdle who is not onboard. She questions the economics: There are two ways, I think, that one can present magic: as something that can be done, but only at a price; or as a mysterious force that is poorly understood. So in Orson Scott Card's Hart's Hope, women who perform magic must pay the price in blood, their own or that of others. I find it hard to rail against the idea of work aimed at younger people. I consider Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its spinoff, Angel, to be without question the greatest fictional television programs of all time. I can name you a few internal inconsistencies from Buffy, as well. But that is the point. After having watched all twelve seasons many times, I can recite a handful of plot integrity issues because they stand out. To match economics speak and Buffy, there is always a scarcity of magic or strength. I liked the McArdle piece and am going to table my return.
Posted by jk at 4:19 PM
| What do you think? [1]
But Harrison Bergeron thinks:
After reading the article on the libertarian-leanings of the Harry Potter series, I feel more and more inclined to read the books. However, like jk, I am concerned with the opportunity costs. Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at July 23, 2007 10:41 PMFour in the MorningI have seen so many excellent TEDTalks. Today, Don Luskin links to Rives's take on oh-four-hundred. It's entertaining and effectively needles conspiracy theories. Cost you about nine minutes. Happy Birthday
Posted by jk at 11:31 AM
| What do you think? [0]
What Friedman WroughtThe one personality that can unite fractious ThreeSourcers is Milton Friedman. Ideas that can unite are that ideas matter and people matter. To celebrate all three, I offer this editorial from Wall Street Journal's Opinion Europe: "Ask Albania." (Paid link) For a lesson in pro-growth tax policy, may we suggest gazing east, to Albania. This small Balkan country is about to halve its personal income-tax rate, starting August 1, to a flat 10%. The corporate rate is slated to drop to 10% in early 2008. Bad JuJuFred Barnes expressed concern about two data: 1) Democrats Lead By $100 Million In Money Race (Paid link) WASHINGTON -- With more than a year to go before the 2008 elections, Democratic candidates have raised $100 million more in campaign contributions than Republicans, putting them on track to win the money race for the White House and Congress for the first time since the government began detailed accounting of campaign fund raising three decades ago. And, 2) Poll: 'None of the above' leads GOP field More Republicans have become apathetic about their options over the past month. Barnes put these two facts together and doesn't like the outcome. I saw Senator Even Bayh on FOX News Sunday and thought: there's the next Vice President of the United States. Wonder if there's an intrade contract for that.
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
You can always suggest new contracts, but it probably will be a while yet before there's enough interest to warrant Intrade putting up the contract. I should be resuming my writing for them soon. Things have been a little busy and we're also hammering out some possible improvements for my newsletters. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 24, 2007 1:14 PMMitt!Even if it is just rhetoric, you have to love the comments Mitt Romney recently made in New Hampshire:
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
Holey smokes! Of course, the Mormons are notorious for 'going it alone'. I learned a few lessons from them when I lived in Utah for 4 years. Look in my basement and ask how long I could go without critical services and then look in your own larder. Posted by: mdmhvonpa at July 23, 2007 9:21 AM
But jk thinks:
Should Mitt get the nomination, I will crawl over broken glass to get him elected, but I have to say that he really leaves me cold. I enjoyed his remarks and I appreciate his tactic of fighting the Democrats in the primary. But. RomneyCare and his "hard line on illegal immigration" are in opposition to his claim of economic understanding.
But Michael thinks:
I certainly wouldn't support him. I'm from Massachusetts, and his statements directly contradict what his administration did here with regard to health care. Read for yourself. Posted by: Michael at July 23, 2007 1:11 PM
But jk thinks:
Michael. I appreciate the comment and the link. I was complaining about RomneyCare because it is too much government intervention, not too little. You say "Darn right we need to 'share responsibility' and be 'in it together.' If that's socialized medicine, why not?" Because individualism has proven people like Ludwig von Mises and F A Hayek right by outperforming collectivism in innovation and efficiency. Governor Romney and Senator Clinton wish to inject more government direction into the system instead of less. Your blog is well done, Michael though I disagree with every single post. We do enjoy different voices around here, please comment frequently.
But Harrison Bergeron thinks:
Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at July 24, 2007 10:51 AM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
I mostly grew up in Utah. Though I never was Mormon, I'm as versed in the LDS Church's theology and history as any non-member, and probably more so than most of its members. And I can tell you that Romney is a disgrace to his church's tradition. Mormonism doesn't say to not care for others in need, but it's about doing it as individuals and not relying on government. Look at its Relief Society and assistance programs; the latter is particularly admirable since it emphasizes frugality first. The Mormon faith has a strong tradition of individualism, almost libertarianism but not quite. They had no choice: far from being able to get anything from government (subsidies and other special favors were hardly unknown as the 19th century passed the halfway mark), Mormons typically were victimized by government as much as by individuals. Directly as a result of laws, indirectly when government wronged them by false jailings or refusing to do anything about their persecutors. There's controversy about the founder, Joseph Smith, sending his people to shut down a newspaper that was critical of him, but the Mormons as a whole had no government to depend on, save for whatever limited government they willingly formed among themselves, so they developed a very American spirit of rugged individualism. So with Romney having proudly instituted the first step of socialized medicine in Massachusetts, I have to laugh bitterly *along with Mormon friends* at how he dishonors his faith's tradition. Sadly, he's not the only other Mormon who worships at the altar of big government. Utah politics has always been very conservative for the most part: not a lot of social programs, but a host of laws to enforce "morality," and government leaving everything else to individual people's discretion. However, the state has become more and more entrenched in big government conservatism, meaning it's delving into things that used to be decried as "liberal." But liberals are now so extreme that we don't bat an eye when conservatives propose their own huge (just not as huge) programs. Had Romney proposed his program in 1992, Newt Gingrich would have accused him of being a closeted Democrat. These days there are various local governments in Utah who are selling bonds so that they can build fiberoptic lines to every house. While it will benefit many people, it's ultimately just the redistribution of wealth, because some will receive more benefit than what they paid in. In the late 1990s, voters were brainwashed enough to approve a small increase in the sales tax "for the arts," like the Utah Symphony. Why, so everyone could pay for the musical enjoyment of the few? When Salt Lake City intially launched its Olympics bid, businesses fretted, "What if it's a bust?" So, then-government Norman "Reverend Norm" Bangerter promised that the state government would cover any losses. With government's backing, anyone like me who opposed the Olympics was decried as opposing *business*. In fact, I was actually pro-commerce, not pro-business. Businesses want special favors from government, whether guarantees, subsidies, or targeted tax breaks. True commerce requires no such thing, leaving risk to the parties involved. "When Salt Lake City initially launched..." See, we say such things as if a city or government is an entity unto itself. It doesn't take into account the individuals, or even just one individual, within the jurisdiction who wants no part, for whatever reason, of being taxed and seeing his money spent for the benefit of others. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 24, 2007 3:52 PMJuly 21, 2007Drilling Ordered to StopA federal appeals court has ordered Shell Oil to stop its exploratory drilling program off the north coast of Alaska at least until a hearing in August. Oil is at $75 per barrel in case you missed it.
But jk thinks:
< |