John Adams Blog

Shout Out to Dr. John Spry

2009-02-26T09:13:00.003-06:00

The good Dr. Spry, who frequently rises on the floor of the Antient and Honourable John Adams Society did an outstanding job yesterday explaining the recommendations of the Governor's 21st Century Tax Reform Commission to the Senate Tax Committee.

A Non-Socialist Proposal to Help Recapitalize the Financial System

2008-10-13T15:09:00.001-05:00

Give new equity investments in banks made over the next 30 days a guaranteed zero percent tax rate for the next 20 years.

Given our relatively high rates of capital taxation, the IRS already is a “silent” partner as it retains a significant fraction of the upside of equity investments. Instead of, or at least before launching Mankiw’s 100% match of new equity investments in banks with government money, while retaining high rate rates on the private equity investments in banks, first eliminates the taxes on new equity issued by banks.

The 30 days limit of the proposal it to encourage banks to raise equity through new stock offerings soon, while allowing the time to issue new stock. I agree with Mankiw that new private equity investments in banks would be just wait the “economics” doctor should prescribe. This plan lets market differential the sound banks from the “zombie banks” like the Mankiw plan, but without the government ownership of private bank stock

Central Banking Explained -- Aussie Style

2008-10-11T15:44:00.000-05:00

Bernanke Resigns; Asks Ron Paul to Finish out his Term

2008-07-16T22:34:00.003-05:00

Today's Banking Committee hearings:

Okay, so Scribbler is fantasizing again. Bernanke does admit that inflation is a tax. Good morning, Einstein.

Pondering Ventura

2008-07-15T02:37:00.003-05:00

Taking a temporary break from thoughts of what in the world a Neopopulist is and after listening to the Honorable Sometime Society Chairmen on the radio discuss Economics found myself watching Jesse Ventura on Larry King to make his non-announcement of a run for the U.S. Senate and somewhat shattering thy dim glimmer of hope that I could bring myself to vote for a candidate on the ballot this November. One might consider pondering whether Jesse will find religion before the 5:00 filing deadline as he stated would determine if he will run.

Tis the somewhat pondering question of will the knuckle glass be half full or half empty this November or will it simply come wrapped in a pink boa?

Juan McCain

2008-07-04T18:32:00.002-05:00

It occurred to me that I had been hearing little to nothing about immigration from Republicans lately when it was ALL anyone was talking about six months ago, the ONLY issue that mattered, so I went in search of some blog trending analysis. Instead I stumbled upon this radio ad, which essentially answered my question:

Wednesday, May 21, Resolved: Juan McCain

2008-05-20T12:56:00.003-05:00

The John Adams Society

Marianne Stebbins, Chairman
David Schilling, Secretary
G. Larry Colson, Chief Whip
Mark Sanquist, Chancellor

May 2008

“Our legislation does account for people who are here illegally, it does have an employment verification system, and it weeds out those who shouldn't be here, and it gives others a chance to remain in this country. Look, this is a national security issue first and foremost. What we have done is come together with the President and the leaders of both parties, and sit down and figure out an approach to this problem. It is a serious national security problem. We need to act, and if someone else has a better idea, I'd love to have them give it to us.” - Senator John McCain

FEW ISSUES on the political landscape raise as much controversy as illegal immigration, particularly the waves of people entering from Mexico and other Central American countries. On one side, the argument is simple: those who are here illegally need to be deported. At the exact opposite end are those who say illegal immigrants just want a better life here and shouldn’t be denied that right just because of some arbitrary bureaucratic regulations. Elected officials, and those seeking office, carefully attempt to address the problems illegal immigration creates without appearing to be ‘anti-Hispanic’ and offending an ever growing group of voters.

Presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Senator John McCain is no exception. Rather than address the source of the problem, he attempts to cure the symptoms with more government and more regulation on business. His recent legislation proposal, thankfully shot down after a popular uprising, would have given amnesty to illegal aliens, and required companies to verify the citizenship of their employees – with heavy fines for those evil businesses that employ non-citizens. Given the recent technology debacle with the Bureau of the Census, one can safely be skeptical of the accuracy of a illegal alien tracking system developed by that same government.

ON THE OTHER HAND, one could view Senator McCain’s approach to the immigration mess as a more realistic way of dealing with a problem that has gone unchecked for too long. From a sheer numbers perspective, there aren’t enough INS agents, buses, trains, planes or ships to transport the estimated 14 million undocumented aliens back to their country of origin. And let us not forget about the burden that would be placed on the courts, as there surely exists a legion of lawyers who, for a government subsidized fee, will represent each alleged illegal immigrant. With Senator McCain’s ideas, we at least begin the process of putting the ‘undocumented’ population on a road towards tax paying and voting citizenship.

The Chairman, who believes that good fences make good neighbors, has called for a debate to settle the question:

Resolved: JUAN McCAIN

The Debate will be held on Wednesday May 21st, 2008 at the University Club, 420 Summit Avenue, in Saint Paul. The Chancellor will preside over drinks beginning at seven o'clock p.m. The debate will begin at half past seven. While there is no dress code for attendance, gentlemen who wish to speak must wear a tie; ladies should adhere to a similar sartorial standard. For those gentlemen who arrive tieless yet wish to speak, fret not: the Purveyor of Ties will keep on hand at least one of his quite remarkable ties for just such an eventuality. Questions about debate caucus procedures or about the John Adams Society itself may be directed to the Chairman at (952) 470-8090 or the Secretary at (952) 210-2448.

www.johnadamssociety.org

Can we get a GOP IQ check over here, stat?

2008-05-18T09:27:00.001-05:00

The LA Times today discusses the shambles of the Republican party and one InSane "solution."

McCain's approach -- tough on taxes, but receptive to immigrants and committed to easing global warming -- could help paint the GOP in new colors, more attractive to independent voters, Latinos and women. Some GOP leaders now say that by embracing McCain and his policy platform, Republicans would instantly "rebrand" and reinvigorate their party.

Good grief! Are they this obtuse? We've only won when we've been firm about small government principles. When we became more like the democrats, government expansionists, we lost. If we go out preaching on the issues of the Democrat party, we're going to turn out voters for the Democrats.

For the record, McCain voted AGAINST Bush's tax cuts. If someone can find ONE issue where I can agree with this guy, I may consider voting for him. We're clearly not going to approach anything close to Reagan's 80% rule, but can someone find me 5% to at least work with?

The GOP has thrown in the towel on conservatism and now is telling the electorate, "Ya know, the Democrats are right; government is the solution to any problem from education to global warming -- I mean cooling -- I mean . . . Anyways, facing foreclosure? No health insurance? We've got your government answer right here!"

Back to McCain and the LA Times article,

Like President Bush, McCain has split from the party base in backing more liberal immigration laws and criticizing conservatives for ethnically insensitive rhetoric.

As a result, McCain aides believe now that the Arizona senator has the potential to do well among Latino voters, perhaps winning more than the 40% that Bush did in 2004.

Good for him. He can go run on the Illegal Immigrant ticket. I understand they can all vote.

The GOP has lost its mind. I feel for the genuine conservatives who are trying to run for Congress or state seats. McCain, Bush and party leadership have screwed them for 2008. Will we still have a party in 2009?

A Historical Day for Race Relations

2008-04-20T22:56:00.004-05:00

The split between open wheel racing in the United States officially ended today with the final separate Indy Racing League (IRL) race at Twin-Ring Motegi and the final Champ Car World Series Race on the streets of Long Beach. Next week an integrated series will compete at the 1.5 mile ova at Kansas City, Kansas.

Since 1996 American open wheel racing has been split between the IRL and rival CART and later Champ Car factions. This better rivalry has badly damaged open wheel racing in North America. Both sides to the war maintained that their series was superior. This war was motived by deep cultural and philosophical divisions.

The IRL initially promoted what it called an All-American type of oval racing that would allow promising American drivers to graduate from USAC midget, sprint, and silver crown cars to Indy cars. The IRL attempted to hold down cost by employing a thick rule book of specifications cars must follow. Turbochargers were banned. Aerodynamic innovations by teams were banned. One result from trying to manage competition by prohibiting innovation is that the most advanced technology developed in rival open wheel series, CART and Formula One. Oval racing produces the closest competition and increases passing opportunities. The IRL has received much deserved praise for its development of SAFER barriers which reduce the force of impact with oval walls during crashes.

CART, which was later renamed as Champ Car prided itself on its turbochargers, development of traction control, variable manifold pressure (Push 2 Pass), and continuous innovation in engine development. CART had more foreign drivers. In fact for today's final Champ Car race only three of the drivers were Americans (Graham Rahal, Jimmy Vasser, and Alex Figge). CART and Champ Car focused on road racing. Relatively few races were held on ovals. Some road races were held on permanant road courses like Road America, Mid-Ohio, and Watkins Glen. Others were held on tempory street courses like Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in Montreal, Long Beach, and Burke Lakefront Airport in Cleveland.

Historically there were many great Midwestern American drivers in open wheel racing. Open wheel racing was the most popular and technologically advance form of motorsport in North America. The earliest Indy 500 races launched numerous technological innovations, like the first automotive rear-view mirror. NASCAR was a regional, Southern sport. Indy was synonymous with innovation and ever increasing speed. Historically NASCAR actually raced stock cars. Stock cars are cheap but obviously not on the cutting edge of technology. NASCAR engine builders continue to build the most innovative carburated 1950's normally aspirated V-8 engines in the world. But the contributions of NASCAR to technological progress are a joke. Today at your local car dealer you will find only fuel-injected engines.

The open wheel split helped NASCAR, which continued to offer unified stock car racing, explode in popularity. The decision by the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to hold a NASCAR stock car race beginning in 1994 coupled with the split lead many fans to follow NASCAR more and open wheel racing less. The greatest Midwestern American open wheel midget and sprint car drives, NASCAR champions Jeff Gordon, Tony Stewart, 2008 Daytona 500 winner Ryan Newman, and 2006 Indy 500 champion Sam Hornish are all racing in NASCAR and will miss this year's Indy 500. Even foreign-born Indy 500 champions, Dario Franchitti, Juan Pablo Montoya, and Jacques Villeneuve are over in NASCAR.

American Danica Patrick won the last IRL race at Motegi and Australian Will Power won the last Champ Car race in Long Beach, California. While there were two open wheel series this would have been a typical result. An American wins the IRL race, while a foreigner wins the Champ Car race. Now that the two series are merging Danica Patrick from Illinois, Graham Rahal from Ohio, and Ed Carpenter from Indiana will be the only Midwestern Americans in American open wheel racing. Formula One has not had an American champion since Mario Andretti. No Americans run at the front of the pack in Formula One.

How should we view the current state of racing today?

1. Which is preferable: vigorous technical competition under broad rules specifications that allow room for innovation or a specification series that tries to reduce racing advantages gained through research and development?

2. Should anti-lock braking, traction control, electronic stability assist be prohibited by racing rules?

3. Should U.S, immigration policies ban work visas for foreign racers? Can restrictive immigration policies protect American workers (slower race car drivers) from the "unfair" competition of fast drivers like Will Power, Scott Dixon, and Dan Wheldon? Or should the IRL just ban the evil Chavez sponsored, dangerous and slow Milka Duno. She is a human moving chicane.

4. Is IndyCar promoting wasteful big government through its Ethanol sponsorship and technical specifications requiring all competitors to use 100% ethanol? Champ Car used methanol.

5. Should sanctioning bodies make it possible for drivers to compete in several different types of races? Should the Indy 500 and NASCAR Coca-Cola 600 coordinate the timing of there races so drivers can compete in both races? Would this be collusion or an attempt to build better race relations?

6. Are we more unified as a nation now that NASCAR is winning the battle for motorsports fans? NASCAR appears to have the best American drivers from all over the nation. Will unification increase the popularity of open wheel racing throughout the nation or just in its historical midwestern base?

7. Will a future President Obama or perhaps a future President Gore ban auto racing as a sacrifice to their Earth Goddess?

Sick, Sick, Sick Hoax

2008-04-17T15:10:00.007-05:00

Yale Art Student Claims She Used Blood Samples, Video of Self-Induced Abortions for Senior Project

Thursday, April 17, 2008

By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

"A Yale student who claims she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" and then took drugs to induce miscarriages for her senior art project says she will showcase the stomach-turning display next week — complete with her own blood samples and videos from the terminated possible pregnancies.

The story of art major Aliza Shvarts' upcoming exhibit, which the Yale Daily News broke Thursday, has sparked widespread disgust and outrage.

"It’s clearly depraved. I think the poor woman has got some major mental problems," said National Right to Life Committee President Wanda Franz. "She’s a serial killer. This is just a horrible thought."

Critics on campus have said the display sounds like a shock-and-awe look at the highly sensitive issue of abortion and called it a sick stunt to get attention.

But Shvarts said the goal of the project is to encourage debate and discussion about the connection between art and the human body.

"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts, whose age was withheld, told Yale's newspaper. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

Shvarts' campus phone has been disconnected, and she did not respond to e-mailed requests for an interview. Yale University and the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America also did not return calls seeking comment. Shvarts told the school paper that her sperm donors, whom she declined to identify, were not paid for their participation but added that she did require them to be screened for STDs.

Sources: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513

Debate Wednesday April 16:Resolved: The Fed Has Screwed Up Again

2008-04-15T22:53:00.002-05:00

“By allowing persistent declines in the money supply and in the price level, the Federal Reserve of the late 1920s and 1930s greatly destabilized the U.S. economy and, through the workings of the gold standard, the economies of many other nations as well.” -Ben Bernanke

With the exception of perhaps Congress’s authority to tax, few institutions of the United States government can negatively affect the economy of our country more so than the Federal Reserve. Empowered to provide a safety net for the banking industry, this quasi-governmental organization interjects artificial controls on the price and availability of money. Consequently, as with any attempt to bypass pure market forces, the “Fed”, more often than not, creates problems rather than averts them. Since its inception in 1913, major declines in the US economy can, in some part, be attributed to policy decisions made by the Fed.

The Federal Reserve’s capability of altering economic conditions is so great that mere mumblings from the Fed Chairman, hinting that they may take some significant action, can send the stock market into a freefall. Anyone remember “irrational exuberance?” In recent years, policy decisions by the Fed to provide ‘cheap money’ has resulted in the current ‘mortgage meltdown’, and a dollar whose value is one of the lowest in history. Rather than biting the bullet and letting the market unravel this mess, the Fed continues to pump funds into the system. If that isn’t enough, they are now in the business of bailing out private investment firms whose financial shenanigans have decimated the pension funds from the Kansas City Teachers Union to small Norwegian villages.

On the other hand, in the post WWII era, the Fed’s control on the money faucet has kept the United States economy on a steady uphill path, albeit with a few bumps. Through its policy decisions and actions, the Fed has smoothed out the wild economic swings that historically lead to long term economic crisis. On recent events, the sub-prime mortgage debacle is nothing more than a good news story on private high-risk investments gone bad, which has been overplayed by the warm-hearted media because it deals with peoples’ homes. The ‘bail out’, as it is termed, of Bear-Sterns may be a stretch on the role of the Fed, but again, this action has prevented what could have been a domino effect on the major financial firms – which would have been a real crisis. And the falling value of the dollar only really affects those (i.e. the Chinese) who have gobs of greenbacks lying around. As an added benefit, a declining dollar makes American goods more affordable, which in turn creates jobs and lowers the trade deficit.

The Chairman, whose opinion of the Fed is exemplified by her collection of Krugerrands stashed under the mattress, has called for a debate to settle the question:

Resolved: The Fed has Screwed Up Again

The Debate will be held on Wednesday April 16th, 2008 at the University Club, 420 Summit Avenue, in Saint Paul. The Chancellor will preside over drinks beginning at seven o'clock p.m. The debate will begin at half past seven. While there is no dress code for attendance, gentlemen who wish to speak must wear a tie; ladies should adhere to a similar sartorial standard. For those gentlemen who arrive tieless yet wish to speak, fret not: the Purveyor of Ties will keep on hand at least one of his quite remarkable ties for just such an eventuality. Questions about debate caucus procedures or about the John Adams Society itself may be directed to the Chairman at (952) 470-8090 or the Secretary at (952) 210-2448.

Long Live the Bubble Man

2008-04-02T14:59:00.000-05:00

(and his helicoptor friend)

Time to Listen to Ron Paul?

2008-03-26T14:05:00.008-05:00

Yes, says Elizabeth MacDonald, Fox Business blogger in today's entry.

Time to listen to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the lone voice of reason in Congress today who’s got to feel like he’s shouting into a field of cotton with his repeated warnings about the dangers of a collapsing dollar, while the administration goes AWOL on the problem.

The dollar just hit a record intraday low against the euro on reports that consumer confidence levels have dropped to levels not seen since the post-Watergate era. It is down 7% year to date against the Chinese renminbi, it’s weaker than the Japanese yen and the Canadian loonie.

Maybe the rest of you aren't reading the same economic news that I am. Because Festivus will say that the Federal Reserve is just a conspiracy theory and that we're really spending Confidence-backed Audacity Notes (hoping for change). And Harsh will say this is just a cyclical downturn, an extended correction, not a recession, and certainly not what we used to call an inflationary depression.

Back to quoting Elizabeth quoting Ron Paul:

Congressman Paul rightfully warns us when he says the US government has “systematically undermined” the US dollar by expanding “the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress–while benefiting the special interests that influence government.”

In a room full of economists, I'm not one. But even this blonde can fathom that while you might get away with limitless spending in a short term, the credit card bill is going to come, and one day we'll be over our limit.

We are currently $53 trillion in debt, $400,000 per household, and it will cost $2-3 trillion more every year we fail to take action.

David Walker, USA Comptroller General before he suddenly resigned this month, has been beating this drum for a few years now, the situation becoming more dire as big spenders on both sides of the aisle continue to ignore him. According to Walker, "I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility."

(If you really want to get depressed, watch David Walker's interview with Glenn Beck.)

As Elizabeth (quoting Ron Paul) says, “Empires fail because they run out of money, or more accurately, run out of the ability to spend or inflate,” Congressman Paul warns. “We need to control spending, immediately, before it is too late.”

The dollar hitting another record low against the Euro yesterday was surely unrelated to the Fed printing new money to cover Bear Sterns loans and more new money to pay 1.2 million government employees in Iraq, right?

Eh, forget it. There are some scrap gold auctions closing on eBay, and I must bid.

Before I run off, it's not too late. You can still vote for Ron Paul, at least indirectly. We have a serious economic situation here, and he's the only presidential candidate insisting that we slash the budget and willing to say Bernanke's not wearing clothes. Bad image. You know what I mean.

03.27.08 UPDATE: U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says, "Without change, rising costs [of Social Security and Medicare obligations] will drive government spending to unprecedented levels, consume nearly all projected federal revenues, and threaten America's future prosperity."

Glenn Beck (column yesterday) adds,

Translation: Every single tax dollar that is sent to Washington will be used to pay for just these two programs.
That means no money is left for anything else. Nothing. No Department of Defense or Homeland Security, no Department of Energy, no Department of Justice, no Environmental Protection Agency . . .

Hurray! We might be able to get rid of garbage bureaucracies even without Ron Paul!

Difficult Questions Posed At John Adams Society Debate

2008-03-24T20:30:00.002-05:00

Last week, at the John Adams debate caucus, several critical questions were asked of neopopulist speakers. These questions were asked in a time where the people hold Congress and the President at historically low levels. Here is a recitation of those questions and written responses.

Question 1: What evidence would it require for a neopopulist speaker to admit that the speaker does not speak for the people?
None. Neopopulist speakers are committed, in the first instance, to speaking for the interests of the people.
This wonderful question is targeted, like an arrow aimed for the bullseye, on a critical, irresolvable political paradox for neopopulists.
How do neopopulists impose their political will through government on the people while still loving the same people? Neopopulists begin with this paradox and admit it is irresolvable. However, admitting this irresolvable paradox is the start, not the end of the debate.
In addressing this paradox, neopopulists admit they do not speak as moral agents for the people. Put another way, neopopulists do not speak as substitutes for the people's voice.
Rather, neopopulists, out of love for the people, speak for the interests of the people. This is the the way in which neopopulists assert their legitimacy, their political will and their love of the people -- all at one time.
The right-wing and left-wing critics of neopopulism will assert that the neopopulist position then can be reduced to its own ideology -- no different in type than their own ideologies. The criticism would reduce neopopulism to individual neopopulists autonomously asserting political will by its own ideology or set of ideologies.
There are many neopopulist responses to this criticism.
First, the critics' assertion that neopopulists operate autonomously, politically and ideologically is not in itself an answer to the irresolvable paradox of imposing political will on your neighbor while still loving your neighbor. Conservative and liberal ideologues ignore this political paradox by operating on an ideological level -- combatants on a political zero-sum battleground. Neopopulists view that political zero-sum battleground as an unnecessary elitist exercise of power. Neopopulists assert their political will differently. Neopopulists view the real battle as ensuring our modern bureaucratic state -- including all the branches of government -- serves the people and respects the dignity of the people.
Second, neopopulists ask the question back to the critics, "Who do you speak for -- the people or God?" Neopopulists out of humility choose to speak for the people rather than God. After all, neopopulists do not assert autonomy outside of the context of neighbor and do not propose universal, systematic principles to explain how humanity and the social order should work. Conservative and liberal ideologues, on the other hand, act as God when they assert autonomy separate and apart from the context of neighbor and propose universal, systematic principles to explain how humanity and the social order should work.
Now, to be fair, neopopulists would agree that there should be an all-inclusive democratic deliberation among the people on the principles to explain how humanity and the social order should work. Neopopulists assert their political will to have this discussion -- separate and apart from the God-talk of the conservative and liberal ideologues. The conservative and liberal ideologues want to turn the people's discussion about the social order into a zero-sum political game because of their ideological and partisan reductionism. Neopopulists disagree.
Third, neopopulists do have a substantive political program addressing democratic deficits in the existing modern regulatory state. For example, neopopulists support: more directly-elected executive officials in the federal and state government; direct election of federal and state judges; more aggressive legislative and judicial oversight of administrative agencies; less delegation of law-making authority to administrative agencies; aggressive facilitation and representation of citizens vis-a-vis federal and state authorities in criminal and civil proceedings to actually effect the rule of law.
As to foreign governments, neopopulists are also skeptical of the European Union being a stepping stone to a federated Europe because of its democratic deficits including the legislative power primarily being left in the hands of the Commission -- 25,000 experts working in Brussels. Neopopulists see the American federal government trending towards the model of the EU expert-laden legislative process -- increasing democratic deficits not minimizing them.
In response to neopopulists identifying democratic deficits, conservative and liberal ideologues have little interesting to say. The ideologues and their political game have become so predictable and dull that not only the newspapers but even the politicians are beginning to become bored of it.
Fourth, neopopulists appreciate the paradoxes involved in the question of the elusive "I." Politically, the neopopulists choose to define the elusive "I" in the context of neighbor -- thus diminishing autonomy of the political actor. Conservative and liberal ideologues have chosen to maximize autonomy of the political actor -- God-talk -- at the expense of the love-neighbor limitiation.
Neopopulists believe that diminishing the autonomy of the political actor by the love-neighbor limitation will result in more people-oriented results. Conservatives may object because tradition - the democracy of the dead -- is a sufficient limitation of the politician's autonomy. Similarly, liberals may object because current constitutional and institutional limits themselves serve to limit the politician's autonomy.
Neopopulists don't necessarily disagree with these objections, they just go futher with the love-neighbor limitation which politically, philosophically and morally limits the politician's autonomy to... nothing?
No, not quite, neopopulists recognize the above-explained irresolvable paradox. If the politician's automony was reduced to self-abnegation, how could the politician enforce his will against another? That is why it is an irresolvable paradox.
Fifth, on the more humorous side, a colleague of mine who agreed with neopopulist principles as to love of neighbor claimed to be too humble to call himself a neopopulist. Neopopulists like this type of person but they make lousy politicians.

Question 2: Which is more manly -- ideological politics or neopopulist politics?
Neopopulists believe that the love-neighbor limitation is more manly than the ideologue's illusion of self-autonomy. Manliness requires authenticity. The ideologue's self-autonomy contradicts experience, coherence and transcendental truths.
First, experience show that people are dependent on each other. Self-autonomy contradicts this shared experience. The love-neighbor limitation is consistent with this experience.
Second, coherence requires intelligible consistency. If we are all self-autonomous ideologues, what need is there for community? Neopopulists, in the first instance, acknowledge community.
Third, the ideologue's automony violates the transcendental truth that man is not God and each man is not his own God. The ideologue's proposal of universal truths explaining the Universe is God-talk. Neopopulists acknowledge they are not gods.

Question 3: Do neopopulist narratives appeal to emotions?
No. Neopopulist narratives are circumscribed to citizen efforts to counteract government violations of the rule of law. Neopopulist narratives are hard-headed and document when the government acts in mediocre, mendacious and/or self-contradictory ways.

Wed, March 19, University Club:Resolved: Don't Vote; You'll Only Encourage Them

2008-03-18T18:47:00.001-05:00

The John Adams Society

Marianne Stebbins David Schilling G. Larry Colson Mark Sanquist
Chairman Secretary Chief Whip Chancellor

March 2008

“Our principles were high, and very definite. We were not a party; we had no candidates; we had no axes to grind. Our vote laid upon the man we cast it for no obligation of any kind. By our rule we could not ask for office; we could not accept office. When voting, it was our duty to vote for the best man, regardless of his party name. We had no other creed. Vote for the best man--that was creed enough.”

Mark Twain

VOTING, THAT SACRED RIGHT, is the method by which We The People give legitimacy to our government. In exchange for the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice, the citizenry agrees to allow itself to be governed by those elected. Typically, these elections result in a slight reshuffling of the political landscape – one party gaining in its ranks another losing. However, sometimes the results are quite lopsided. The mid-term federal elections of 2006 illustrate how elected officials respond to a perceived ‘mandate’ from the voters. The Democratic leadership, newly armed with a majority in both the House and Senate, set out to push through legislation to support their party platform and deliver on campaign promises… as they should. That is the way the system works; the winners call the shots. And for the voters who supported them, there is much celebrating.

However, for Conservatives, there has not been much to celebrate. Over the last 20 years, with ‘hold-your-nose-and-pull-the-lever’ support from this group, the Republican Party has churned out, elected, and reelected, candidates that stray ever and ever further from the party platform and the principles of its conservative base. Judging from such recent events as the McCain nomination, the floating of Pawlenty for VP, and the begging by the party for Ramstad to run again, it appears there’s no change in that course. Just as the ‘mandate’ empowered the Democrats to run rampant with their agenda, the Republicans, or for that matter, any other party that deviates from its slated purpose, needs to lose, and lose big. It’s time for conservatives to thumb their nose and not pull the lever.

ON THE OTHER HAND, as the saying goes, “Why cut off your nose to spite your face?” Surely, there many who may disagree on some points with their party’s candidates, but which is worse, your party’s candidate or the opposition’s? To abstain from voting is a vote for those you favor least. And besides, if you are not happy with your party’s selection of a nominee, you must be in the minority, for evidently there were more people who did approve of the selection. So be happy that you have a candidate with at least some chance of winning. Behind the curtain, you will do the right thing.

THE CHAIRMAN, who believes that voting, like a fine wine, is wasted on those who don’t know the difference, has called for a debate to settle the question:

RESOLVED: DON'T VOTE; YOU'LL ONLY ENCOURAGE THEM

The Debate will be held on Wednesday March 19, 2008 at the University Club, 420 Summit Avenue, in Saint Paul. The Chancellor will preside over drinks beginning at seven o'clock p.m. The debate will begin at half past seven. While there is no dress code for attendance, gentlemen who wish to speak must wear a tie; ladies should adhere to a similar sartorial standard. For those gentlemen who arrive tieless yet wish to speak, fret not: the Purveyor of Ties will keep on hand at least one of his quite remarkable ties for just such an eventuality. Questions about debate caucus procedures or about the John Adams Society itself may be directed to the Chairman at (952) 470-8090 or the Secretary at (952) 210-2448.

www.johnadamssociety.org

Understanding Universities

2008-03-14T00:18:00.002-05:00

"The pillars of American liberalism -- the Democratic Party, the universities and the mass media -- are obsessed with biological markers, most particularly race and gender. They have insisted, moreover, that pedagogy and culture and politics be just as seized with the primacy of these distinctions and with the resulting "privileging" that allegedly haunts every aspect of our social relations."
- Charles Krauthammer

National Review Online has a very interesting blog covering higher education: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/the_democrats_race_gender_camp.html

Which Way for Thee, My GOP?

2008-03-12T10:36:00.005-05:00

The Minnesota Republican Party is at an all-time low (all-time for the sixteen years I’ve been involved).

I got active in 1992, two years before the Republican Revolution of 1994, beginning at my caucus as is the way in our state party. Those were exciting times. A newbie with enthusiasm was propelled forward; there was no limit to the volunteerism that was gratefully accepted. New people were flocking to a party which now stood for something, something spelled out in that ambitious pledge, the Contract with America.

But eventually the Republican Party got comfortable with its power and began outspending drunken Democrats. The GOP President barely made it through twice, and power was lost in both legislative branches at both the Federal and State levels.

So you’d think we’d be encouraging new people into the party again. Seems smart to me.

Instead, MN GOP leadership from the top down to the BPOU levels are on the record for wanting to keep out any new Republicans.

A friend was told by his BPOU Secretary, who didn’t realize he was a Ron Paul supporter, that they were using tactics to keep the Ron Paul people from getting elected as delegates. Other BPOUs have resorted to “thuggery and bullying,” vocal slurs of Ron Paul supporters, and, most often, disallowing anyone to witness the vote counting as occurred at my convention last night. (Although the counting was complete, they would also not report until the delegate election results had been massaged, at least overnight. I’m not kidding. Any guess as to whether I’ll make their cut, regardless of how many votes I received?)

Ron Carey, especially, has performed in a spectacularly negative fashion. It is a well-known and strict tradition that all statewide candidates are to receive the official delegate lists from the party. The Ron Paul campaign was denied this list. McCain’s campaign obviously received it as I and others are now receiving unsolicited email from that camp.

What we have here is a sad group of people who are losing an entire political party, so they are locking the gates, hoping the horses will somehow get back in the barn, desperately clinging to a last shred of power, all the while kicking out newcomers who could expand their diminishing empire.

Which will it be, Mr. Carey? Will you change your tune and lower yourself to accepting enthusiastic newcomers into the party, or will the MN GOP’s demise come on your watch as you force this energy into a more conservative third party?

Understanding and Dismantling Racism: An Introductory Orientation and Facilitation Workshop to Anti-Racism Organizing

2008-02-29T11:14:00.002-06:00

This quote is from an ad for a teaching workshop at a local educational institution.
Sometimes you just can't make this stuff up.

"The overarching purpose of this workshop is twofold: (1) to explore a functional definition of racism and related systemic dynamics and (2) to examine practical implications of the definition for institutions, communities and individuals. Participants will gain or further enhance their capacity to understand racism as a systemic issue that is woven into the fabric of American life. The workshop will examine the dynamics of systemic power and race: the quantifiable social disparities separating communities of color and privileged society; the racial advantages promulgated by systems, institutions, and the socializing dynamics that racialize individuals.

The workshop will suggest that changing individual behavior is not enough. If we are to overcome the systemic processes that embed racial values in institutional life, then institutions must change. Fundamental to this workshop is the assumption that virtually all American institutions are on a journey of becoming multicultural and deconstructing systemic racism. "

Extremism in the Defense of Tyranny is a Vice

2008-02-28T22:16:00.003-06:00

Should it be legal to end the life of a baby after that baby has been born?

This question would not make for a very long debate on the floor of the Antient and Honourable John Adams Society. In fact this question did not lead to much debate in the Congress. H.R. 2175, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent and passed the House on a voice vote. President Bush signed this bill into law in August 2002.

But the junior Senator from Illinois opposed a Born Alive Infant Protection Act while he served as a committee chairman in the Illinois State Senate. As Rick Santorum writes today in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

"Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

How could someone possibly justify such a vote? In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." So according to Obama, "they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.

Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism. Apparently, the "audacity of hope" is limited only to those babies born at full term and beyond. Worse, given his support for late-term partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full term."

Neopopulism's First Critic

2008-02-21T23:39:00.000-06:00

Neopopulism already has its critics. See http://greatdivide.typepad.com for "Revenge of the Nerds."

My sense is that neopopulism will have two types of elitist critics: ideological and partisan. Ideologues will criticize neopopulism for not being ideological at all or will attribute an ideology that isn't there. Similarly, partisans will criticize neopopulism for not being partisan at all or will attribut a partisanship that isn't there.

Interestingly, neopopulism will only be useful for people who are not ideologues nor partisans. Neopopulist rhetoric won't work for them. They will be frustrated.

However, it is also important that neopopulists self-regulate -- ridding themselves of all forms of elitism, ideology and partisanship. It is the only way to assure ourselves of our own neopopulism.

egk

Good News About Obama's Missed Opportunity

2008-02-14T22:37:00.002-06:00

It appears that the junior Senator from Illinois has missed out on the opportunity to meet with a "world leader" face to face without any pre-conditions. There will be no meeting between Imad Mugniyah and a President Obama because thanks to a well-placed and timed bomb Imad Mugniyah is as the French say, "Mort."

The Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, called the death of this most wanted terrorist the "martyrdom of one of the most senior commanders in the Lebanese Islamic Resistance, martyr Imad Mugniyah." It is up to the American people whether we want a President Obama to follow the historical example of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the hopes of proclaiming "Peace in Our Time."

Neopopulism.org Birthday on February 11, 2008

2008-02-09T17:29:00.000-06:00

Birth of Neopopulism: We are Civil Disobedience

It is Neopopulism’s birth-day today – February 11, 2008. Recall the dictionary definition of birth: it is the process at the end of a human pregnancy that results in a baby being born. It represents an end of a 10 month long pregnancy and the beginning of life. Similarly, Tom Dahlberg and I have privately labored on Neopopulism for about 10 years and now we are proud today to announce the birth-day of Neopopulism.

To begin, we should tell you what Neopopulism is not. Neopopulism is not a political party. Our birth-day is not similar to the Independence Party founding in Minnesota in 1992 or the Republican Party’s founding in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854.

Neopopulism is not an ideological movement. Our birth-day is not similar to the launch of the modern conservative and liberal movements in the 1960’s. In fact, Neopopulism’s essence is a rejection of partisanship and ideology.

Like the students screaming in the movie “We are Marshall,” the Neopopulist rally cry is, “We are Civil Disobedience.” Neopopulism’s civil disobedience is in the tradition of Henry David Thoreau’s imprisonment in 1846 and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s imprisonment in 1963. Like Thoreau and King, Neopopulists -- in the face of the government’s absence of the rule of law – will rebel even at the risk of imprisonment.

Thoreau and King did not merely play the role of rabble rousers – they redeemed a lawless government. Thus, Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” and King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” serve as the modern Gospels for Neopopulists.

Neopopulists are pragmatic realists who will impose the rule of law on government. The enemies of Neopopulism are mediocre and mendacious bureaucrats – often called experts.

Neopopulists are upset when publicly-available evidence of bureaucratic mediocrity and mendacity is available and the bureaucrats keep their jobs. Think of bridges collapsing, space shuttles exploding, tigers jumping out of zoo cages.

The federal and state constitutions offer no protection for the people from mediocre and mendacious bureaucracies. For example, Minnesota’s Constitution was written to principally protect the minority from the majority. Minnesota’s Constitution was never intended as a response to today’s greater threat – protecting the people from the bureaucrats.

Neopopulists admit, along with British philosopher John Stuart Mill, that bureaucracies are necessary for a “skilled” democracy. Yet, the problem with bureaucracies is that by their very nature, they tend toward rules, routine and therefore mediocrity. As Mill stated in his Representative Government (1861), bureaucracies “perish by the immutability of their maxims; and still more, by the universal law that whatever becomes routine loses its vital principle, and having no longer a mind acting within it, goes on revolving mechanically though the work it is intended to do remains undone.” Mill’s passage describes with precision the current mediocrity and mendacity of our modern bureaucrats. Just review the publicly-available evidence.

Our opponents – the partisans and ideologues -- will say but which of their rules of law applies? But, for Neopopulists, it is the people’s rule of law that applies. Unlike partisanship which is owned by the DFL and GOP parties and unlike ideology which is owned by the liberal and conservative elites, Neopopulism is owned by the people.

Further, our opponents will say there is no Minnesota conspiracy to violate the rule of law. Neopopulists agree – but if there is a conspiracy, it is a conspiracy of mediocrity. A conspiracy of mediocrity based on the bureaucrats’ unwillingness to do more than do their job – to be excellent.

Even further, our opponents will say there is no absence of rule of law in Minnesota. That’s false. In recent memory, as documented at the Neopopulism.org website, in over twenty published court decisions, every branch of Minnesota’s government has recently violated the rule of law: Minnesota’s Supreme Court, Minnesota’s executive branch agencies, now Minnesota’s legislature and, of course, county and local governments.

As Karl Llewellyn, a great University of Chicago law teacher, once said, morals without technique is a mess while technique without morals is a menace. Don’t tell the people that the Minnesota government isn’t at the same time a mess and a menace -- it is.

What else could explain the hundreds, nay thousands, of pages of self-contradictory, vague and/or ambiguous statutes, rules and ordinances on the books? Even fishermen now contend with pages and pages of Department of Natural Resources fishing rules. Aren’t these statutes, rules and ordinances in themselves an abuse of power?

Bureaucrats, beware, it is the people who suffer due to your mediocrity, your mendacity, your meanness.

Neopopulists say that the people’s only response is rebellion. Civil disobedience – using all means of available political participation to impose the rule of law on the people’s government -- is the rally cry for the people.

Finally, as Neopopulists with the will to impose a political agenda, we admit to an internal disposition of hope. We are optimistic. Due to this hope, we have faith that we can make a difference – even though the situation, without us, would be rather hopeless.

Erick G. Kaardal
General Counsel for Neopopulism.org
495 Ridgeview Circle
Hamel MN 55340

Dahlberg and Kaardal Published in Strib

2008-02-09T17:21:00.000-06:00

Tom Dahlberg and Erick Kaardal: Elitist 'judicial reform' would rob people of their rights

Freedom of speech and judicial elections, when combined, will erode an overreaching bureaucracy.

By TOM DAHLBERG and ERICK KAARDAL

The Star Tribune, in its Feb. 4 editorial on judicial elections, supports the elitist ambitions of former Gov. Al Quie to take us backwards into the authoritarian appointment of judges by the elite bureaucratic class. This clearly demonstrates that the Strib editorial board, like Quie and his bevy of self-proclaimed experts, has no sense of history.

Look at how pretentious and passé the implicit and explicit arguments are for having the elites appoint our judges rather than letting the people choose.

We live in the "post-modern" era. The old-school appeal to the notion that legal judgments can be, even in principle, perspective and value neutral, should either cause us to pat Mr. Quie on the head and smile for his innocence or arrest him for truly criminal naiveté. In the latter case, an elected people's judge would send him home, recognizing that a law persecuting precious naiveté deserves to be nullified. An appointed judge would let him off because he's a crony. As neopopulists, we prefer the former.

The ugly truth about this campaign to let the elites appoint our judges is that it is an ideological will to power, invoking, inauthentically, the myths of objectivity, expertise and the greatest good, all of which the "best and the brightest" believe they have a corner on whenever it's of rhetorical use. That is, the elites are perfectly willing to exploit these absolutist myths about objective judgment when that suits their agenda, and post-modern relativism when that suits their agenda.

The people make no ideological bones about it. They, quite rightly, just want the power. When judges make decisions that transfer more and more power to the government, the people are going to throw them out. The simple truth about freedom of speech for judicial candidates, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Republican Party of Minnesota vs. White case (when our state Supreme Court refused to do so) and the right of the people to elect judges, is that it is deliciously dangerous to overbearing government, directly linking the judicial branch to the people, rather than the executive branch.

As an extension of the executive branch, by appointment, the judiciary is much more likely to serve the bureaucracy than the people. The elites who would appoint our judges know in their bones that freedom of speech and judicial elections, when combined, will produce a populist acid strong enough to erode an overreaching modern bureaucracy.

Pathetically, the only weapons they can bring to bear on this ineluctable, populist trend, are the old saws about their wisdom, their objectivity, their expertise. But this rhetoric will no longer hide their will to power. The elite hypocritically tell us that there is no moral authority to impose on our public schools and then base our system of selecting judges on their moral authority.
Quie and the Strib will no doubt cry that this populist rejection of their noble intentions was rough and nasty. But, of course, nothing is prima facie nastier than their elitism or rougher than stripping the people of their franchise. Anyone who takes himself more seriously than he takes the people has no moral authority with the people. Anyone who loves himself more than he loves the people has no moral authority with the people. When you try to transfer power from the people to yourself and your elite friends, the ugliness is so blatant we must graciously attribute it to stupidity instead of rottenness.

Take any old political hero in Minnesota, Republican or Democrat, and describe to him a wholesale neopopulist rejection of his self-imputed good will, and you will see total disorientation. He has been looking in the mirror at a nice guy for so long that he cannot muster the moral depth to recognize the corruption. After all, he has always, by his lights, been nice to the people, cared for them, looked upon them as his own children. Children should have the very best, very brightest judges, appointed by the very best and very brightest political heroes.

This narcissistic tradition, created by the elite class, prescribing its wisdom, good will, superior knowledge, objectivity and expertise, is passé bunk. Neopopulists don't believe in the best and the brightest or totally objective judges. Neopopulists demand their transcendental right to define justice by the lights of their own moral authority by electing their judges.

Tom Dahlberg, a Shorewood resident, is chairman of the board of Neopopulism.org. Erick Kaardal, a Hamel resident, is general counsel of Neopopulism.org.

You are all invited to Rule of Law day at the State Capitol rotunda at 1:30 p.m. on Monday, February 11, 2008. Please visit the website neopopulism.org for more information.

What Makes a Conservative?

2008-02-05T09:06:00.000-06:00

The whole debate over John McCain reminds me of JAS debate where people argue over who is the true conservative. I remember one member arguing that making people go to church was a more conservative position that letting people choose?

I think it is a great debate, because I think some conservatives have become misguided in what kind of conservatism they are fighting for. For example, supporting tax cuts isn't really a conservative position in itself. The conservative position is smaller government. Thus, one cuts taxes to encourage a reduction in government spending, which leads to smaller government. Therefore, cutting taxes is really only a meaningless gesture without the corresponding reduction in spending.

The Best Argument I've Seen against McCain

2008-02-01T22:11:00.000-06:00

Senator McCain's voting record in the 107th Senate (2001-2002) was the 6th most liberal voting record of any Republican Senator. This is well to the left of McCain's historical voting record in the House from 1983 to 1987 and in the Senate from 1987 to 2000.

Source: http://voteview.ucsd.edu/SEN107.htm

It is understandable that many conservative do not want the 2001-2002 version of McCain or the 2001-2002 version of Romney. The question is if elected, from 2009-2013 will we get the McCain with the respectable conservative voting record of 1983-2000 and 2003-2008 or will we get the 2001-2002 McCain?

The Best Argument I've Seen for McCain

2008-01-30T23:39:00.000-06:00

McCain's voting record in the 110th Senate is the 8th most conservative in the Senate. McCain's voting record in the current Congress is just more conservative than Texas Senator Cornyn and just to the left of retiring Senator Allard of Colorado. From 2003- until now McCain has consistently had one of the 10 most conservative voting records.

Follow this link to the Poole and Rosenthal website:
http://voteview.ucsd.edu/sen110.htm

FYI: BHO, the junior Senator from Illinois is in a tie for the 10th most liberal Senator.
HRC, the junior Senator from New York is in a tie for as the 20th most liberal Senator.

Poole and Rosenthal use an algorithm that they developed to produce a ranking of Senators and Representatives from each Congress. The ranking are based only on contested roll call votes, not the content of speeches or media images.

Romney II

2008-01-24T11:58:00.000-06:00

My personal criterion for picking a primary candidate is: among the set of Republicans, who have a chance to win the general election , who would make the best holder of the office in question.

For President, that set to me has only McCain in it. That's why I want him to be the nominee.

I would rather have Romney as President than McCain, but I don't see that as the relevant choice.

So to my fellow bloggers who support Romney, is it that you have a problem with my criterion (and if so why) or is it that you have a problem with my opinion that if
Romney is nominated, we face a terrible, and I mean terrible, thumping?

It Takes a Public Affairs Professor...

2008-01-21T20:14:00.000-06:00

This liberal Princeton Public Affairs professor adds another reason to support the junior Senator from Illinois for President:

"For Wilson School professor Stanley Katz, donating $250 to Obama's presidential primary campaign was a matter of 'putting my money where my hopes are. He's the only candidate who makes me feel like I did in the 1960s,' he added."

Apparently the efforts of the junior Senator from New York to get a $1,000,000 earmark of taxpayer funds for a Woodstock concert museum are not enough to merit the support of this Princeton professor. For this Public Affairs professor it is perhaps more important that Obama makes him feel juvenile, spaced out, self-indulgent, and desirous of other peoples' private property.

In contrast, the senior Senator from Arizona has very different memories of the 1960s than the Princeton Public Affairs professor. You can see Senator McCain's comments on the proposal for federal funding of the Woodstock concert museum and the 1960s here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIxLWbHf8NY&feature=user

Source: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2008/01/21/news/19886.shtml

Electability

2008-01-17T16:13:00.000-06:00

According to Intrade.com, the price of a contract which pays $100 if Mike Huckabee wins the Republican nomination is $13.20 and the price of a contract which pays $100 if he wins the Presidency is $4.50. That means the market sees Huckabee as having a 13.2%
chance of winning the nomination and a 4.5% chance of winning the Presidency.

The simple probability formula Prob(Event A given Event B) = Prob(Event A and Event B)/Prob(Event B) implies that the market sees the probability of Huckabee winning the election (Event A) given he wins the nomination (Event B) as .045/.132 = .34, or a 34% chance of winning given he's nominated.

For Mitt Romney, Prob of Nomination = .183, Prob of Election = .061, thus Prob of Election given nomination = .33.

Thus both Huckabee and Romney are about the same electability.

For Guiliani, Prob of Nomination = .198, Prob of Election = .081, thus Prob of Election given nomination = .41.

For McCain, Prob of Nomination = .386, Prob of Election = .161, thus Prob of Election given nomination = .42.

That is, the markets, people trading with real money, think that McCain and Guiliani are more electable, and by a half decent amount.

In this election, having a 42% chance of winning is about all we can hope for.

On the Value of Electricity to Finance Ministers

2007-12-11T22:48:00.000-06:00

"Uses of electricity are among the applications of physics that have most clearly served mankind throughout modern history. When, in the early 19^th century, the British physicist Faraday made his first hesitant experiments involving electricity during his public demonstrations, one of those watching was Gladstone, at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer. When he asked if the experiment could lead to any practical benefits Faraday's immediate answer was "One day you will be able to tax it". Few findings can have pleased as many ministers of finance through the ages as those related to the movements of electrons."

-From the Presentation Speech for the 2007 Nobel Price in Physics by Professor Professor Börje Johansson, Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Member of the Nobel Committee in Physics, 10 December 2006.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2007/presentation-speech.html

December 6, 1997

2007-12-06T21:26:00.000-06:00

Ten years ago today a Minnesotan had a visit with President Clinton in the White House:

"On the morning of Saturday, December 6, Ms. Lewinsky went to the White House to deliver the letter and gifts to the President. The gifts included a sterling silver antique cigar holder, a tie, a mug, a "Hugs and Kisses" box, and an antique book about Theodore Roosevelt.(721) Ms. Lewinsky planned to leave the parcel with Ms. Currie, who had told Ms. Lewinsky that the President would be busy with his lawyers and unable to see her.(722)

Ms. Lewinsky arrived at the White House at approximately 10:00 a.m. She told the Secret Service uniformed officers at the Northwest Gate that she had gifts to drop off for the President, but that Ms. Currie did not know she was coming.(723) Ms. Lewinsky and the officers made several calls in an attempt to locate Ms. Currie.(724) The officers eventually invited Ms. Lewinsky inside the guard booth.(725) When Ms. Currie learned that Ms. Lewinsky was at the Northwest Gate, she sent word that the President "already had a guest in the [O]val," so the officers should have Ms. Lewinsky wait there for about 40 minutes.(726)

While Ms. Lewinsky was waiting, one officer mentioned that Eleanor Mondale was in the White House.(727) Ms. Lewinsky correctly surmised that the President was meeting with Ms. Mondale, rather than his lawyers, and she was "livid."(728) She stormed away, called and berated Ms. Currie from a pay phone, and then returned to her Watergate apartment.(729)

Hands shaking and almost crying, Ms. Currie informed several Secret Service officers that the President was "irate" that someone had disclosed to Ms. Lewinsky whom he was meeting with.(730) Ms. Currie told Sergeant Keith Williams, a supervisory uniformed Secret Service Officer, that if he "didn't find out what was going on, someone could be fired."(731) She also told Captain Jeffrey Purdie, the Secret Service watch commander for the uniformed division at the time, that the President was "so upset he wants somebody fired over this."(732)"

Source: The Starr Report http://www.gooddocuments.com/icreport/dec5181997_m.htm
Hat tip to James Taranto
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010953

Teaching about Race: Common Mistakes of White Professors

2007-11-28T21:34:00.000-06:00

This quote is from an ad for a teaching workshop at a local educational institution.
Sometimes you just can't make this stuff up.

"Teaching about Race: Common Mistakes of White Professors
Race is a reality that Whites can no longer say applies only to the “Other,” and White Supremacy (the ideology and practice that holds that White is the norm and Whites are the “natural” authority in any organization or community) is something that some Whites have only recently come to acknowledge and challenge on a wide basis. A desire to teach about race, reduce racism, and honor diverse races, heritages and traditions is now extolled as a worthy project, indeed a necessity, for White teachers in many disciplines.

As many Whites who have tried this know, such teaching is fraught with contradictions and missteps, ending up with teachers themselves being accused of racism, and raw emotions being exposed in ways that cause some teachers to vow never to try this again. This workshop will examine 10 common mistakes White teachers make in teaching about race. Some of them are basic (excusing oneself from complicity in racism, saying you understand oppression, asking a student to give the “Black,” “Asian” or “First Nations” perspective). Some are more subtle, such as the danger of repressive tolerance (appearing to open up a curriculum whilst simultaneously closing it down)."

Who's the Sexist?

2007-11-13T14:03:00.000-06:00

I was down at St Olaf last week to speak for my candidate, and Ember Reichgott Jung was there speaking for hers. She kept using the term "woman of substance." Do you ever hear the phrase "man of substance?" I felt I should scuttle on out of there, back to the safety of my apron and feather-duster.

Senator Normy Klobuman?

2007-11-10T18:00:00.000-06:00

I used to dismiss as short-sighted the people who grumbled that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between our two major political parties. However, after reading the Nov. 9 Pioneer Press piece claiming credit for securing more federal funds to prioritize additional rail-based transit systems, I can see how someone could say that now about our state's United States Senators. When both of them voted to override the veto of the "stuffed pork chop" water projects bill that emerged from conference committee over 50% larger than either the House or Senate pre-conference versions, it was further evidence for those who fail to see any significant difference in the campaign platforms or votes by our two U.S. Senators.

The only ways anyone could tell which Senator wrote the Pioneer Press piece would be by the references to an amendment passed last year, and to successfully lobbying Bush Administration officials. Yes, it was Norm, but after the Bush connections can no longer be mined, he will be either indistinguishable from our junior Senator, or will be at a disadvantage if anyone other than Giuliani becomes President.

If I were into conspiracies, I would have to consider the possibility that shadowy political consultants secretly extracted DNA samples from our two Senators after the last election, mixed them in test tubes, allowed for the creation of one male and and one female offspring, installed microchips into each of them with detailed voting instructions, and found a way to accelerate their aging to the point where both of the offspring are now acting as U.S. Senators in place of their genetic parents.

A more plausible explanation is that our senior U.S. Senator from Minnesota is a political chameleon the likes of which we have never seen here before. If he is able to sell Giuliani as a trustworthy leader for fiscal and social conservatives, we will know that our senior Senator has an almost supernatural ability to to transfer those chameleon-like powers to others as well.

Reading level

2007-11-10T08:06:00.001-06:00

Ron Paul: Five Million Dollar Man

2007-10-03T13:42:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul's campaign reported an hour ago that it raised $5,080,000 last quarter, topping all but three GOP candidates, and more importantly, that it had $5.3 million cash on hand. (Scribbler happens to know that the campaign has as frugal an attitude toward expenditures as Dr Paul himself has toward government.)

Several news stories within the last hour come from Reason, The Hill, MSNBC, and ABC.

Gambling 911 reports that Ron Paul odds have been slashed to 6 to 1 to win, now favored over Romney.

Gingrich not running

2007-09-29T15:59:00.000-05:00

I made a somewhat lukewarm prediction last week that Gingrich would not run. Looks like that prediction came true http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298597,00.html.

Now, on to winning lottery numbers....

Early '08 Observations

2007-09-25T08:31:00.000-05:00

I thought I'd post a few comments on my perceptions of the Republican ground game here in Minnesota, as well as a speculation on a oft-named potential Republican candidate.

In terms of the ground game, as far as this activist can tell, only one campaign has one - Romney(1). In the past two weeks, I've gotten two calls from their campaign. The first was from someone purporting to be Scott Romney, Mitt's brother. The approach was interesting. He wanted to know if I had any questions about Romney's position on the issues, or had any other concerns that he could help me with. We probably spent about 10 minutes talking mostly about Romney's healthcare initiative. I told him that there were things about his guy that I liked, and other things that concerned me, but that I was impressed with the fact that he had people already calling activists, and even more so that it was family. This was clearly an informational call, with only a soft sell.

The second call was from someone asking more directly for me to get involved. They started out by saying that Brian Sullivan, Evie Axdahl, and Jack & Annette Meeks had signed on with the Romney campaign. I don't know Evie well, other than in her role as one of our two RNC representatives, but the conservative credentials of Sullivan and the Meeks are not in doubt. I declined this invitation, but it does show that they are working to get organized and lock up activists. One other note: The 'Mormon' thing got brought up by the caller in a very casual way, and I suspect this was done on purpose to gauge if that was an issue for me.

A final speculation. Assuming that the Meeks have signed on with Romney, one might be able to conclude that Gingrich, for all his talk about getting in, is not. Annette worked for Gingrich and is purported to have a good relationship with him. I've got to think that if Gingrich was serious, the Meeks would not have signed on with another candidate at this point. Another conclusion that might be drawn is that they didn't think he could win even if he did get in, a belief held by many, including this commentator. Then again, neither of these could be true, which is why it's merely conjecture.

------------------

(1) I'm sure that our local Paulite will register in with comments about the Ron Paul ground game, and I look forward to those comments. It's merely that 'this' activist has not been contacted by anyone from the campaign with the exception of the Stebbinator.

Rammer Retirement

2007-09-18T16:08:00.001-05:00

I'm sure I'll have more to say about this, but for starters...

If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve; if served, I will either drink, show up in court or both, depending on the circumstances.

Overlawyerd II

2007-09-18T09:38:00.000-05:00

I was listening for 2 minutes last night to Hugh Hewitt interview Andy McCarthy about the new Attorney General nominee, what's-his-name.

McCarthy was full of praise for what's-his-name because what's-his-name was the judge at the blind sheik trial and McCarthy was the prosecutor. McCarthy said that since it was a 9 month trial with 2 years of pre-trial motions and a month of sentencing hearings, he got to know what's-his-name very well and now knows he's a terrific nominee.

My response: Hold the phone? A 9 month trial with 2 years of pre-trial motions and a month of post trial hearings? Both McCarthy and what's-his-name are infected with legalitis, a horrible disease that causes you to lose all common sense. This is not a good disease for an Attorney General to have.
No one deserves a 9 month trial. Society does not have the right to commandeer any jurors for that long and no defendant is entitled to an unlimited amount of society's resources to adjudicate his guilt or innocence.

Any judge with common sense would say to the prosecution, "you have a week to make your case. Any case that can't be made in a week is bogus." Then to the defense, "you have a week to make your case." If some higher court says this violates anyone's rights, then that court is nuts too.

Overlawyered

2007-09-18T09:34:00.000-05:00

The following is attached to every email I receive from a lawyer I know

***********************************************************
The information contained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
(domestic name of law firm) or (international name of law firm). Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to postmaster@(name of law firm).com, and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments.
***********************************************************

T'was the fall before the election and all through the House..

2007-09-17T23:40:00.000-05:00

The elections were filled with fewer RINO's you see

because Ramstad announced his retirement from office to many a Conservative's glee!

Now the question begs on who will the next candidate be,
Festivus or the Sometime Scribbler de?

Note to Self

2007-08-27T23:06:00.000-05:00

Note to Self:

If I ever

1) Become a United State Senator,

2) Become a homosexual,

then,

don't, I repeat, DON'T attempt to engage in
anonymous sexual activity in the bathroom at the airport.

For that would be just stupid.

That is all.

The Sometime Chairman is Brilliant

2007-08-09T09:33:00.000-05:00

Hear the Sometime Chairman, Mr. Phelan, on this recent broadcast of the Taxpayers League Live show (accessible here). The gentleman expounds on the life, legaccy and import of Milton Friedman.

While some of the Sometime Chairman's other credits were detailed during the interview, with regret, neither his leadership of the Society (nor the greatest honor it can bestow) was discussed.

Re-route 35W over the Cedar Street Bridge

2007-08-02T19:49:00.000-05:00

Janet at http://scsuscholars.com/ suggests that we should upgrade the "Practice Freeway,"
Interstate Highway 35E through St. Paul, to handle some of the traffic that tragically can use 35W.

I suggest that we explore using the Cedar Avenue Bridge to handle perhaps two lanes of traffic each way from 35W. Close the bridge to local traffic and re-route a reduced volume of traffic onto the Cedar Avenue Bridge. I don't know the ability of this bridge to handle traffic. Prior to yesterday's tragedy, it had two lanes of traffic each way. Perhaps its use would require additional weight limits. I guess that it might take no longer than a month to construct roads on the north and south sides of the Mississippi River to divert some I-35W traffic onto this bridge.

On the Benefits of Free Trade (and Tenure)

2007-08-01T15:07:00.000-05:00

1,028 economists have signed onto the following petition which was printed as an ad in today's Wall Street Journal. The entire list of economists signing the petition is available here.
Looking at the Minnesota signatories, it appears they all have tenure, including two who just received tenure this year. So do tenured and non-tenured economists have different views of protectionism, or is academic freedom so weak that economic professors without tenure are afraid to sign on?

PETITION
Concerning Protectionist Policies Against China
We, the undersigned, have serious concerns about the recent protectionist sentiments coming from Congress, especially with regards to China.

By the end of this year, China will most likely be the United States' second largest trading partner. Over the past six years, total trade between the two countries has soared, growing from $116 billion in 2000 to almost $343 billion in 2006. That's an average growth rate of almost 20% a year.

This marvelous growth has led to more affordable goods, higher productivity, strong job growth, and a higher standard of living for both countries. These economic benefits were made possible in large part because both China and the United States embraced freer trade.

As economists, we understand the vital and beneficial role that free trade plays in the world economy. Conversely, we believe that barriers to free trade destroy wealth and benefit no one in the long run. Because of these fundamental economic principles, we sign this letter to advise Congress against imposing retaliatory trade measures against China.

There is no foundation in economics that supports punitive tariffs. China currently supplies American consumers with inexpensive goods and low-interest rate loans. Retaliatory tariffs on China are tantamount to taxing ourselves as a punishment. Worse, such a move will likely encourage China to impose its own tariffs, increasing the possibility of a futile and harmful trade war. American consumers and businesses would pay the price for this senseless war through higher prices, worse jobs, and reduced economic growth.

We urge Congress to discard any plans for increased protectionism, and instead urge lawmakers to work towards fostering stronger global economic ties through free trade.

Here are Kudlow and Mankiw commenting on the petition.

The Surge

2007-07-26T08:37:00.001-05:00

Evidence is starting to dribble in that the new tactics (also called the surge) in Iraq are working. These tactics have especailly been successful in drying up support for Al Qaeda among the sunni Tribes. In Sept, 2006, Thomas Ricks reported that Al Anbar Provice was "lost." Today, Al Anbar province is "quiet." This radical change in war, however, is not unusual. In ancient times, battles would rage as a stalemate for hours with few casualties. However, the moment a section of one line collapsed the massacre would ensue and victory or defeat would come quickly.

In retrospect, we should have considered that it may take a while for places like Al Anbar to turn on the terrorists. After all, these Sunnis had been under the propaganda yoke of Saddam and the arab media for 30 years. Constantly hearing that the Americans were bad. Thus, it required actual experience (seeing with their own eyes) for these locals to change their minds. Apparently, Al Qaeda killed enough of their fellow citizens and the Americans built them enough schools for this to occur.

The press is still all negative. Today's Star Tribune reported on the front page about a successful bomb attack after a soccer game. The media will never let go an opportunity to support the Terrorsits propaganda campaign. However, politically, Al Qaeda needs to succeed in these bomb attacks now. They have everything going for them at this moment. A world media on their side. A weak U.S. President. A waivering Congress. Motivated allies in both the Democratic and Republican party. This is the moment they must launch their final offensive.... or have they been crushed by the Surge?

A Tax Proposal

2007-07-20T10:05:00.000-05:00

I am curious if I can get this group to agree on the following proposal:

The part conservatives/libertarians will like:

1) Cut all energy subsidies to wind, solar, and especially ethanol.

2) Get rid of all ethanol requirements for gas.

3) Get rid of all fuel economy requirements on cars. This acts as a hidden tax on bigger vehicles.

The part conservatives/libertarians won't like (but combined with the next part, should)

4) Raise the federal tax on gasoline by about $1.50 per gallon.

5) Raise the federal tax on coal and natural gas so that each is taxed $1.50 per energy equivalent to a gallon of gas.

The part, along with 1-3 above, that should make conservatives be willing to swallow 4 and 5:

6) State by state, rebate all revenues from 4) and 5) to households as a general energy tax credit on a per person basis.

That is, if the Federal Government raises $X from Minnesota residents from the energy taxes, the next year all Federal tax filers would receive an $X/(number of residents of Minnesota) credit on their 1040 per household member.

So what's the point of raising a tax only to give the money back? The idea is to raise the domestic price of energy while cutting the world price. Suppose no one changes how much energy they use. Then if the Saurus family uses more energy than the average Minnesotan, they lose under this plan - the amount they get back won't cover the extra taxes. If they use less, they win. This creates an incentive for everyone to cut back on the energy they use.

So why should the government interfere? What's so special about energy? (We don't see the need for the government to try to create an incentive to cut back on our purchases on, say, wheat.)

The basic idea is that the US is a big net consumer of energy. If we enact policies to cut back our demand (which the above tax system will do) we will help drive down the world price of energy. The price of gas to us won't go up by $1.50. It will go up by $1.50 less the amount the world price drops due to this policy. This helps us a nation because

1) The loss in profits due to a lower world price is disproportionately born by foreigners.

2) Many (if not most) of these foreigners are our enemies. It's a good thing to defund your enemies.

In all seriousness, we should do this. This should be our national energy policy and cut out all the complicated subsidize this crap to alternative energy sources. Nothing acts as a better subsidy to alternatives than a high price.

UPDATE: One of my graduate school professors, Nobel prize winner Gary Becker agrees and is, perhaps more persuasive, here.

The Wisdom of Principal Skinner

2007-07-16T21:03:00.000-05:00

"Order! Order! Do you kids want to be like the real U.N. or do you just want to squable and waste time?" - Principal Skinner addressing the students of the Springfield Mock United Nations.

Of course the U.N. doesn't just squable and waste time, it also wastes money. Like the corrupt oil-for-food program.

Our Keith Ellison

2007-07-16T09:42:00.000-05:00

He has now made international news with his Bush = Hitler speech.

The irony is that the classic method of a totalitarian is to appeal to the emotion of a historical event but then lie about the historical event itself so it can be compared to something in the present. It's an old Orwellian trick.

In only 6 months, Ellison has not disappointed us in making mockery of our state. He is our Cynthia McKinney.

I salute all the morons who voted for him.

Operation Blowback: Des Moines

2007-07-02T19:36:00.001-05:00

I posted this on my private blo g an hour ago, and given the flurry of hits, wish to share with fellow JAS bloggers Scribbler's premier video production, Operation Blowback: Des Moines. (Scribbler acknowledges that she first cracked open Windows Movie Maker today and that this is a bit rough.)

Those pesky south Asians

2007-07-02T08:55:00.000-05:00

When I lived in the UK, I was friends with several locals whose parents had immigrated from India. They were quick to point out to me that they were Indian and not a Muslim from Pakistan. They were also far from disenfranchised. They were doing very well in the UK - again they wanted to distinguish themselves from the Pakistanis.

They would be surprised to hear that the biased American media now dumps them in with the Muslim Pakistanis. In 200&en=00ca4bf18628872a&ei=5087%0A">this article, the NY Times cannot get itself to refer to the terrorists as Muslims, so they refer to the terrorists as "South Asian," which is a PC way to avoid calling the terrorists what they are, which is Muslim. In fact the article does not mention the word muslim at all except for a reference to Salman Rushdie, even though it talks about one of the attackers screaming Allah as he ran from the burning car.

Where's the fence?

2007-06-29T09:35:00.000-05:00

Imagine you're a medic in a war zone. You're in a foxhole next to a tree. A paratrooper is falling from a plane almost right on top of you when he gets struck in the leg with an enemy bullet, and if that weren't bad enough, his parachute gets stuck in the tree. He's hanging just over the foxhole, with his injured leg where you can safely reach it and provide medical attention, but most of him is above ground where the enemy can take potshots at him, and they are doing just that.

Now, what decision do you make? If you're a medic who also happens to be a member of Congress*, it appears that the decision you'd make is to start by addressing the bullet that's in his leg where you can safely work on it. And you'd likely try to make that bullet as comfortable as possible inside his leg - who are you to go about removing a bullet from a leg that you didn't put there in the first place? A bullet has rights too! However, at the same time you're trying to determine the manufacturer of the bullet, it's metallic composition and helping to legitimize the existence of that bullet in the paratrooper's leg, he's continuing to get shot.

If, however, you're an average Joe medic with more brains than the average member of Congress (a rather low bar, it appears), you'd first get him out of the tree and into comparative safety. This would stop the flood of bullets into his body that are causing more of the damage caused by the initial bullet, THEN you'd work on addressing the problem of the bullets already in his body. What's so hard about this to understand?

A contrived scenario, to be sure, but illustrative of the problem we have with our current discussion of illegal immigration. While it appears that we've, at least for now, gotten a reprieve from the insanity of amnesty for illegal immigrants, many Americans are baffled at how it even got that far and why our government is neither enforcing current immigration laws nor building the fence that was authorized last year.

'Enforcement First' is a great rallying cry, but it needs to be put into action. I ran across this video this morning that I believe effectively uses humor to call attention to this important issue. http://www.wheresthefence.com/ I hope they make a number of followups.

I also hope that Americans don't let up on the calls and letters to Congress that played such an important role in killing the amnesty bill yesterday, and that we continue to push for enforcement of current laws and the building of the fence.

* saying it this way reminds me of Mark Twain's famous quote "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

In Your Heart, You Knew Scribbler Was Right

2007-06-27T12:44:00.000-05:00

Boo! Ha -- you weren't expecting me, were you? I've been busy. Online campaigning for a presidential candidate doesn't mean you get to sit on the couch all day. Well, actually it does. But it's not like I'm not working.

I just had to pop in to say, "Howdy," and share a bit of a story that oddly mimics previous posts of mine on this blog. There have been numerous stories lately along this line, such as from Atlantic Monthly's Andrew Sullivan, but this little dash is from a bigger piece yesterday on AssociatedContent.com:

Why then does Paul barely register in the national scientific polls? For starters, his primary support group-libertarians-is difficult to account for through polling methodology. Many do not own a landline phone, the only way that polling firms can contact people. (A study released by the Pew Research Center showed that 12.8% of US households are cell-only, swelling to as much as 25% for those under 30, exactly the tech-savvy libertarian base that has flocked to Ron Paul.) Much of the same group would also be missed in samples of "likely Republican voters," because of youth, registration as an independent, or lack of voting in prior elections (mainly because none of the candidates were satisfactory choices). So while Paul generally hovers around 2% in national polls, it would not be surprising if the true support was closer to 5%, with potential to climb sharply in the upcoming months.

I'll leave you guys to question the sanity of Mark Feltz, Andrew Sullivan, the Pew Research Center, and the Scribbler. Gotta run. We are actually showing up in person and in hordes in Iowa this weekend and there is still much organizing to be done. Thank heavens that at least the organizing portion can be done from the couch! (That's just an expression. In truth, I use a massaging office chair in front of my computer.)

Write your Senators

2007-06-26T08:48:00.001-05:00

I have written both my Senators urging them to vote against Cloture on the immigration Bill.

Have you?

I can't think of recent issue where constituent mail matters more than this issue. Neither Klobuchar or Coleman are compassionate about this issue, meaning that they can be swayed. Constituent mail really does work in this area.

Greatest Person Ever

2007-06-15T09:26:00.000-05:00

There have been many lists compiled about the most influential person in history, the greatest military leader, religious figure, etc... How about just the greatest (mortal) person ever?

There are obviously many who would make the list, but my vote would have to go to Julius Caesar. He was by far the greatest person to have ever lived,and other than religious figures he rightly remains the most famous person in history.

Red vs. Blue science?

2007-06-15T09:20:00.000-05:00

This article is a classic example of the liberal media implying that conservatives are idiots:

By now you may be forgiven for suspecting that science is tinted — if not entirely tainted — by politics. The arguments over evolution and global warming alone are enough to make anyone believe that we have red and blue science as well as red and blue states.

I wasn't aware that scientific evidence of evolution was opposed by thousands of scientists around the globe, whereas the humans causing global warming theory is widely discredited.

The article is really about stem cells. The liberal author argues that conservativesare dumb to oppose stem cell research because wouldn't it be great to be able to grow body parts.

Killing another human to grow body parts is bad enough... but she conveniently left off the bit about having to clone the embryo to get your own body parts.... They always leave off the bit about cloning.

Rudy and Fred

2007-06-12T15:20:00.000-05:00

According to recent Polls, Rudy and Fred are tied for the potential Republican nomination. I like both of them. I think Fred has better conservative credentials - so do a lot of people, which is why he is tied with Rudy. However, Fred is pretty light on experience - he is little better than Hillary in that department, which in the end makes him a weaker candidate against the Democrats than Rudy or Romney.

I think the honeymoon will be over for Fred sooner rather than later.

Debate Topic

2007-06-07T23:19:00.000-05:00

RESOLVED: The United States of America needs a national ID card.

Draft Governor Manchin for President on the Democratic Ticket

2007-06-07T09:55:00.000-05:00

It has been a very long time since both major parties have each offered the nation a reasonably sane, basically conservative Presidential nominee. I reckon that the 1928 election between Republican Herbert Hoover and Democrat Al Smith was the last time conservatives could have been reasonable happy with the candidates of both parties.

Our nation needs a Presidential election in 2008 between a reasonably conservative Democrat and a conservative Republican. Should conservatives consider drafting West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin to be the Democratic Party’s nominee?

Is he the perfect conservative Presidential candidate? No.

Is he one of the only terrorist hating, tax cutting, pro-life, NRA-endorsed (A+) pro-gun, and anti-Kyoto major office holders in his party? Yes!

Here is a report of a visit by Governor’s Manchin to Iraq:

He even signed two missiles at Balad Air Force Base. He dedicated one of them to "West Virginia's brave and fallen." The other one had an even more emotional message.

"On the other one, I wrote, 'Sending you to hell, from Almost Heaven, West Virginia'. I just thought, 'Hey, these are people doing tremendous harm to our people.'" .

He is at least somewhat receptive to some of the ideas in this new free market prescription, “Unleashing Capitalism,” for encouraging economic growth in his state. This report’s quote of Manchin on the danger of over reliance on government is encouraging:

NEWS9 asked Manchin about Sobel’s book and not only was the governor familiar with “Unleashing Capitalism,” he agreed that the state’s economy and people are too reliant on state government."If you had a child and you raised that child and that child is 40 years of age and still living at home and says 'hey mom and dad, you didn't give me my allowance this week,' you really haven't provided an atmosphere for a productive human being,” said Manchin.

Finally, be sure to observe the effects of state policy on economic activity in Unleashing Capitalism's satellite photo.

Mohammad, top name in Britain

2007-06-06T11:34:00.001-05:00

Apparently, Mohammad will be the number one name for newborns in Britain by the end of the year. Read it here.

This is so sad.

that National Health Care thing...

2007-06-05T23:16:00.000-05:00

I work for a large fortune 100 company. I have a unique position in the company which allows me both to observe the operations of the company and the federal government . My company and the government have many similarities. They have grown into such huge and bureaucratic organizations that they are not run under a single management model. Instead they are run by hundreds of various separate policies all instituted individually to address various separate problems. Working together, all of these policies produce a lot of gridlock and institutional incompetence. A great example is in the area of computer security. Our security policy is as bad as the governments. The security policy is a hodge podge of rules all designed to address this or that. The result is that it takes months to get new equipment or to accomplish anything. Put simply, my company and the government are like huge computer operating systems with thousands of individual patches. They run, but not very well. Like a computer operating system, it is impossible to avoid this outcome with a giant company or the government. Eventually you are going to need patches…. millions of patches.

Also in my position I have had the luxury of being able to converse with many different member s of senior management about how they do their job. One of the common themes among successful managers and executives is their ability to bypass the company bureaucracy. Put another way, these managers disregard the rules in order to implement their ideas and to get things done. These managers are responsible for most of the growth in the company. If it wasn’t for this small group of managers disregarding company policy, the company would putz along at almost no growth and would eventually shrivel up and die… Ironically, these types of managers are richly rewarded for breaking rules. They get raises, promotions, stock options, etc… No one cares that they break the rules because the company is results oriented (i.e. profits). You get results, you get promoted.

In contrast, at the government, breaking the rules will not only get you fired, but it can get you investigated by Congress, slimed by the press, and even prosecuted. The government entity I work with can’t “break” any rules, even when the results would be in everyone’s favor. The government views the “process” as important as results. No one in the government gets promoted based on results if they have disregarded the rules. You cannot disregard the process at the government.

Just like my company, there are also a few very smart and motivated people at the government. But, these people won’t get rewarded in the way people at my company do. Many of them won’t get to be in charge. Consequently, the government won’t benefit from their talents in the same way that private companies do.

Keeping this in mind, one can understand why the government has difficulty doing anything efficiently or well. The government manages to putz along with change occurring every once and a while. Keeping this in mind why would anyone want the government running a national health care system. I keep hearing proposals from various politicians about how we need the government to run our health care system because it is “broken.” Broken? If the government ran the system it would be much worse than broken. Could you imagine trying to get the government to do something for you if your issue fell outside the written procedure? You might as well take arsenic.

The general rule should be that government does things badly – they create poor assets. Thus, we should limit the amount of things that government does to only things the government must do. Things like defense, the courts, maybe even the FAA, etc…

Fred Thompson Leads Prediction Market

2007-06-05T22:34:00.000-05:00

Intrade.com has a market for futures on presidential party nominations. The basic idea is that you buy and sell contracts which pay $1 only if a certain event happens. The contract "Fred Thompson wins the Republican Nomination for President" last sold for 26.1 cents, just beating the equivalent contract for Giuliani (24.8 cents) and Romney (22.2 cents). McCain is in fourth and his price has been falling to 16.2 cents. No one else sells for more than 3 cents. (Which makes sense since the top four add up to 89.3 cents. So the market will give you 9-1 odds that anyone outside the top four will win the nomination.)

People are paying real money for these contracts: putting their money where their mouths are. And a non-declared candidate is winning? Hmmm.

(For what it's worth, I would be happy with any of the top three.)]

What Bush Should Do.

2007-06-05T11:51:00.000-05:00

PARDON LIBBY

At least give him the same punishment as Clinton (i.e. loss of law license and years of free golf).

I suppose Bush is too busy pardoning illegal aliens.

A Ceiling for Tax Increases?

2007-06-04T15:58:00.000-05:00

The most common thing you hear from Democrats is to "reverse the Bush Tax Cuts." Which will probably happen since the tax cuts expire in 2010. And the Dems won't be able to just reverse all of them, they will have to do something about the child tax credits. They wouldn't want people making $60k a year paying a lot more in taxes (would they?) So now you hear about them reversing the Bush tax cuts for the rich. It turns out that reversing the tax cuts for the rich amounts to only $50 billion a years, which is a pittance when it comes to government spending. In fact, John Edwards wants to spend $1 trillion per year more on a government health care system....

Could it be that the Dems have backed themselves into a corner with this one. It will be easy for them to reverse the Bush tax cuts, they can argue that is why they were elected and no voting is required to let them expire. But to institute any meaningful government spending they will have to raise taxes beyond that. Will they be able to get the Jim Webbs of the world to vote for additional taxes?

Backers of Immigration bill more Optimistic?

2007-06-04T08:19:00.000-05:00

So says this Washington Post article. Apparently many of the Republican supporters (John Kyl) of the bill have seen oppostion decline over the last week. In defense of Kyl, it does say in the article that he will oppose the bill if any amendments are passed which could result in increased immigration.

It seems unbelievable. Almost all the conservatives I know are completely against this bill. Everyone on talk radio is against it. Every blog I read is against this bill. Bush is at 25% because of this bill. This issue is doing more damage to the Republican coalition than any issue in recent memory. Anyone who would be motivated to work in the next election is against this bill? How could it be that opposition is declining.

I think Newt got it right on FoxNews Sunday when he commented that even if there are good enforcement ideas in the bill or even if the bill is a practical compromise, no one believes that the government is competent enough under Bush to carry through the enforcement part of the bill. Therefore, it's better to have no bill.

In fact, would the government ever be competent enough to implement the bill? Probably not. Who among the nominees will get a boost from passage of this Bill. McCain is certainly out. No one would believe that he would enforce the law under the new bill. How about Giuliani. Would people believe that Rudy would enforce the law?

Maybe Bush should appoint Jack Welch or Leona Helmsly to implement the bill.

Fed Up

2007-06-01T10:57:00.000-05:00

Peggy Noonan's given up on Bush here.

It reminds me of the first episode of season 4 of The Simpsons (so we're talking, what, 14 years ago?).

Bart:

I've been scorched by Krusty before.  I got a rapid heartbeat
from his Krusty brand vitamins, my Krusty Kalculator didn't
have a seven or an eight, and Krusty's autobiography was
self-serving with many glaring omissions. But this time, he's
gone too far!

I was willing to put up with No Child Left Behind, ridiculous levels of government spending with no vetoes and a host of other things because Bush got the basic thing on the security issues right (like going after our enemies rather than waiting for them to come to us) and was better than any Democratic alternative. But even I am seeing last straws.

Literally changing the makeup of the country so that we most likely never be able to have conservative government ever again.
Not going after Iran and Syria when they are killing our soldiers but actually negotiating with them.
Generally dissing the conservatives who put him there.

I've had it.

Is it possible to recall a draft campaign?

2007-05-29T14:05:00.000-05:00

In February of this year, in response to a discussion about the "no-confidence" war policy vote, a few of us on the John Adams Blog floated a "draft Festivus for Congress" movement. This admittedly under-the-radar movement was begun in the hopes that a tough-talking colleague would release his full arsenal of rhetorical weapons from the constraints self-imposed by party hackdom and devote his considerable talent to making political life miserable for his incumbent RINO Congressman.

It is with deep regret, in the wake of his ill-advised, "Ron Paul--Nutcase? . . ." posting that I must now renounce all ties to the "draft Festivus for Congress" movement, and acknowledge that Festivus is too impaired by the disease of hackdom to function effectively as a voice of righteous conservative indignation. Perhaps Festivus' RINO Congressman can mine his connections in the mental-health recovery community and secure a spot for him at a rehab clinic.

Ron Paul may not have the "take-charge" attitude and commanding physical presence deemed necessary for national campaigns in the soundbite era, and one can disagree with some of his tactical decisions when it comes to advancing conservative and libertarian objectives. Heck, I would go so far as to acknowledge that one could disagree with some of his objectives and still claim to be a conservative. However, to call this accomplished physician, veteran, family man, and elected public official a "nutcase" is to dismiss and marginalize him in a way that could only please the left-leaning establishment media and unscrupulous political operatives.

Ron Paul is guilty of letting more fringe characters support him, and of allowing a base of support that is so decentralized he can't possibly maintain total control of his message. Nevertheless, as long he does not lend support to the fringe characters' least-defensible claims, I find a departure from the dumb-it-down, race-toward-the-middle strategy refreshing. The cavalier disregard for civil liberties displayed by Guiliani, the capitulation by McCain to the open-borders and global-warming zealots, and the streak of opportunism that attracts power-hungry operatives like Vin Weber to Romney should be far more disconcerting to principled conservatives than anything Ron Paul has ever done.

Go to the writings and speeches of Ron Paul compiled throughout his years in Congress and you will find recurring evidence of an articulate, idiosyncratic conservatism quite detached from momentary passions, yet equipped to respond to the worst of them. I thought that's what the JAS asks of its adherents.

Ron Paul - Nutcase? We report, you decide...

2007-05-22T16:13:00.000-05:00

... or, more accurately, Capt. Ed Morrissey reports, you decide. Now I don't doubt that we'll find some way to explain away these statements as mere misinterpretation and mischaracterization by a liberal press, and perhaps that's true. But it is additional input into the equation for those vast numbers of people, be they measured by Gallup or not, who are considering becoming Paulites.

Gallup Poll and Ron Paul

2007-05-22T00:23:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul scored 0.0 in the latest Gallup poll. I guess that means the paullites do not answer their phones.

Experienced

2007-05-21T13:39:00.001-05:00

As everyone knows, Barack Obama at this point has a serious chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Besides being one of the most liberal Senators in the United States Senate, Barack Obama could also be the most inexperienced Presidential nominee in modern times. Barack has zero management or administrative experience and currently has three years as a U.S. Senator and four as a state Senator. Looking back over the last 100 years, I cannot think of a more inexperienced nominee and certainly not a President.

Here is a sample list of Presidents and their executive and legislative experience:

Obama - US Senator 3 years, State Senator 4 years.
Bush - 6 years Gov of Texas. managing Partner Texas Rangers 5 years
Clinton - 10 years Gov of Arkansas
Bush Sr. - Vice Pres 8 years. Former business manager, congressman
Reagan - 8 years Gov California
Carter - 4 years Gov of Georgia, State Senator 6 years, successful farmer
Ford - VP 2 yrs, 24 years US House, minority leader 8 yrs
Nixon - VP 8 years, Senator and House 6 years
Johnson - VP 3 yrs US Senate 23 years 6 as majority leader
Kennedy - Senate 7 years, US House 6 years, War hero.

I could go on and on.....

I suppose TR had little political experience other than NY gov for two years and VP for a year, but he held all kind of exeuctive titles, such as asst secretary of the Navy, President of the NYC Board of Police, US Civil Service Commission (OPM), and was a war hero to boot. Sorry Barack, you are no TR.

In fact the last person of such inexperience to hold the office was Abe Lincoln. The problem with that comparison is that Abe Lincoln is Abe Lincoln. No sane person would attempt to compare themselves to Abe Lincoln - a self educated man who worked his way up in life through strenuous manual labor. Sorry Barack, you are no Abe Lincoln either.

Does it matter.....

Stuck on Stupid

2007-05-19T22:57:00.000-05:00

Many say that the Republican party is becoming irrelevant. Much of this started in the 2006 election cycle with all of the so called "principled conservatives." You know the ones - those who said that we needed a good thumping to teach ourselves a lesson. You know the ones - those who refused to vote for Republicans and instead wasted their vote on the Constitution Party or stayed at home mired in pessimism. Now, after a good thumping, we are about to get amnesty passed for illegal aliens by the new Democratic Congress, and we got tax increase after tax increase passed by the state house and state Senate. Yeah... we are sure learning our lesson. Now these idiots are saying stuff like... "I'll never vote for a Republican again if this immigration bill passes." Whoa.... didn't they say we needed a good thumping? This immigration bill would be headed for defeat if it wasn't for our principled idiot conservatives who said we needed a good thumping. Now they complain that it might pass. What were they thinking? Instead of waking up, these principled idiots remain STUCK ON STUPID.

We just had Pawlenty, the "sell-out" none of these principled conservatives said was worth voting for, just veto a slew of tax increases. Yeah, tax increases. Remember in Minnesota, unlike the Feds, you need to raise taxes to spend money to create bigger government. But the stuck on stupids, they think..... maybe if government gets too big, then there will be a revolution and we will get the small government we want... STUPID STUPID...STUCK ON STUPID.

Thank god some Democrats voted for Pawlenty.

That New Immigration Bill

2007-05-17T22:05:00.000-05:00

I don't know what to make of the new immigration bill. Unlike many conservatives I don't find myself invested in opposition to "amnesty." The current bill as proposed sounds like amnesty. Any crime which is forgiven with a less penalty than is just for the crime is considered amnesty. In this case, the penalty for being illegal should at the very least be deportation. Thus, any penalty that requires something less is amnesty.

Nevertheless, amnesty is a tradition in this country. We gave amnesty to the supporters of the crown during the Revolution. We gave amnesty to half a million rebel soldiers in 1865. The penalty for them was death. Robert E. Lee spit on his oath to this country. He should have been hung along with his entire army. Yet, we granted him amnesty. In fact the radicals in Congress despised Lincoln for his amnesty plan. Today we hail Lincoln for his compassion and credit him for keeping the union together.

I am not opposed to some sort of amnesty, however, the key to any immigration bill needs to be enforcement. Plan 1 is to stop any more illegal immigration. We can do this by building a wall, forcing local police to bust illegals, and putting employers in prison for hiring illegals. Regarding the illegals that are here I say we give them amnesty. I say we give them 3 months to register. After that they have 5 years to learn fluent English, not commit any crimes, and pass the citizenship test. If they accomplish this, they get a green card. If not, they and any of their dependents, including children born here, are immediately deported.

Is Ron Paul Right?

2007-05-17T21:57:00.000-05:00

In the debate this week ron Paul argued that it was our presence in the middle east that caused 9-11. The Scribbler (a supporter of Paul) cited this article below in the The Nation arguing that Paul is no kook, Paul is right.

Is Paul right?

Of course he is. America has spread its tenticles all over the world pissing off everyone. We are in the middle east because we buy millions of barrels of oil from the middle east. We are in Europe and everywhere else because we sell billions of goods abroad. Sure, we could withdraw from the world. We could stop trading, but then our standard of living could drop 50%. As President, Ron Paul would have to explain why 20% unemployment was worth a withdraw....

Hmm....

Look On Hannity's Face . . . Priceless

2007-05-16T07:26:00.000-05:00

This is just a 25 second clip, so have no fear. Worth every second.

Open thread for Ron Paul Debate discussion

2007-05-16T00:06:00.000-05:00

That sound you would have heard as Ron Paul gave his "we asked for it" response to the 9/11 question would have been the air being let out of the Ron Paul campaign, if there was any air in it to begin with.

His response showed an utter lack of political skill. The nation simply will not accept a candidate that holds those feelings and is so willing to state them.

Buh-bye. Please fly with us again.

Why Fred Thompson will be the next President (if he runs)

2007-05-15T17:01:00.000-05:00

This is classic. It was put together in response to a challenge from Michael Moore to a debate on health care in and around Moore's trip to Cuba.

The cigar, the leather chair, the attitude and the not-so-subtle slam. This guy is good.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=611

Londanistan

2007-05-15T10:18:00.000-05:00

Hitchens writes on Londanistan.

It's interesting that it should be authors from Muslim backgrounds—Salman Rushdie, Hanif Kureishi, Monica Ali, the broadcaster and co-author of the Policy Exchange report Munira Mirza—who are issuing the warnings. For the British mainstream, multiculturalism has been the official civic religion for so long that any criticism of any minority group has become the equivalent of profanity. And Islamic extremists have long understood that they need only suggest a racial bias—or a hint of the newly invented and meaningless term "Islamophobia"—in order to make the British cough and shuffle with embarrassment.

Outstanding.

Spam

2007-05-14T23:48:00.000-05:00

I just received the below post on one of my rarely used email accounts. It's amazing that Kumarudeen was able to find me. Incredible! I already have some other accounts in motion, so I thought I would post this one here in case anyone is interested - but keep it close to the vest. It's time to give up your day job folks! Good Luck.

Hello friend,

I am contacting you from Africa. My name is Kumarudeen Yusuf. I work with the African Development bank group, Nigeria main branch, as foreign operations manager. Please do not get upset as to how I got your contact. I got your email contact from the Internet. Isincerely advise that you calm down to read belowproposal thoroughly and thereafter decide if we can dothe business together. It is no setup or one of thesehoaxes from Africa. This is a real deal and I meanevery word I speak here.

A UK citizen, Mr. Norman Anderson (from Aberdeen) hasbeen a customer of my bank since 1988. He opened adomiciliary account with us in June 1988. The saidbank account, which is at the moment in dormant, is inUK pounds sterling and has credit balance of 19.3Mpounds. Last transaction carried on the account datesback to September 15, 1999. I have been the accountowner¢s confidant and account officer until above datewhen he was last seen in the bank. And since this timeMr. Anderson has not been to the bank nor sent incheque for clearing. This became a source of worry tome and prompted my personal investigation as towhereabouts and business activity of this customer.Result of my investigation revealed that he was intooil bunkering and operated within West and CentralAfrica sub-regions. Further investigation proved thathe was one of the victims of November 1999 raid ofillegal oil bunkering merchants in Malabo Island ofEquatorial Guinea. However, I continued myinvestigation and further discovered that a UKtelephone number mentioned in our bank informationform, which he filled when the said bank account wasestablished, belong to a hotel in London. This is aclear indication that he probably has fed my bank withfalse information to protect his illegal oil deals. Ihave not disclosed these findings to anyone elseexcept this message to you.

After a careful study of the account file andavailable data to me, I have packaged a good deal asfollows; and will wish to carry it out with you.My Dear Friend, the deal here is that the money inthis account will be approved and remitted to anyforeigner who shows up as relation to Mr Andersonprovided such person has correct information to theaccount. I have such needed information and will handit over to you as soon as we commence the transaction.I will source all necessary documents and forward themto you for direct submission to the bank. With myposition as the foreign operations manager we willquietly remove this money from the bank withouthitches. I don¢t have any problem in regularizing allnecessary documents and transferring the creditbalance of the said account to your nominated bankaccount in overseas, but the problem is trust. I havespent months in trying to get an overseas reliablecontact. It is worthy to note that people areunreliable these days and even derive joy in tellinglies. On this ground I request your unreserved butsincere cooperation devoid of greed in carrying outthis transaction so that no one amongst both of usshall defraud each other at the end. I am prepared tosplit at 60%---40% for you, provided that mine (60%)will be intact at the end.reply me on my private email, (kumaru_17@yahoo.co.in) Awaits for your expected co-operation.

Best regards,Kumarudeen

I can't make this stuff up.

2007-05-11T10:32:00.000-05:00

From Greenie Watch:

On the morning of April 8, Charlotte, North Carolina, experienced a low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit. It was the coldest temperature ever recorded in Charlotte for the month of April. But if you think record cold weather is going to falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. On April 11, a Purdue professor told the Christian Science Monitor that "this is what you might expect of global warming," because global warming "isn't necessarily always a warmer climate, but a more variable climate." In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming is like a religious war. Conversion is only possible through defeat.

Our government.

2007-05-11T09:02:00.000-05:00

This comment was made by Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law professor, this week tesifying before the Senate Finance Committee.

[t]he costs are staggering. In 2002, a full-day program in a pre-kindergarten offered by the Chicago public school district costs $6,500 a year -- more than the cost of a year's tuition at the University of Illinois.

Warren's comments were made to argue that the government needs to fund these programs because they are too expensive for average families to pay. Warren's whole speech was an argument that today's middle class family is hurting and the government needs to spend money to help them.

Still, $6500 for a pre-school program. What do they do there, go on field trips to Europe?

Milestone Reached: "Petabyte" Read

2007-05-10T18:52:00.002-05:00

My eyes just now, for the first time, encountered the word "petabytes." It was only, what, nine or ten years ago that I first heard the word "terabyte," that directly from Vance Opperman who was discussing the newly available TerraServer (long before Google Earth was around), and just 12 years since I purchased my own gigabyte hard drive personal computer.

I don't know why I haven't encountered the word before -- I knew it existed, but not by what name. Now that it has been presented me ("How Much Does the Internet Weigh?" Discover Magazine, June 2007), I have looked up "exabyte," "zettabyte," even "yobibyte," leaving me little to look forward to in the next few years.

So how much does the internet weigh? Averaging forty petabytes in traffic per day, and considering that only about half of the capacitors are charged (the 1's) each with about 40,000 electrons, a total day's traffic weighs around 0.2 millonths of an ounce.

Addendum:

Same issue, different article, Discover asks "Does Time Exist?" It goes on to ponder that even if time exists (once we are able to prove Wheeler-Dewitt to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity, we likely will find time does not exist), there is no law forcing it to only move forward. Theoretically, time should be able to move backwards, into the past. Yet it doesn't. Or does it? I reference my June 2007 issue of Discover, and it is early May. Hmmm.

Debate Discussion

2007-05-10T12:18:00.000-05:00

I thought I'd open up a thread for those who care to comment on the debate last night. The resolution "We were a religious nation" passed by I believe 10-7. I voted on the losing side.

My favorite moment? Late in the evening right before the vote was called, after many fine speeches parsing the nature and meaning of "were", "religious" and "nation", someone piped up from the back of the room "But we haven't debated the meaning of the word 'we'". A classic, and perfectly timed.

A new tradition was also begun by the Chairman. He asked those voting in favor of the resolution to move to his right, and those voting against to move to their right. A brilliant move in my opinion, as in a conservative debating society, none of us should be asked to move to the left.

Many thanks to Chuck Shreffler for his very fine lecture prior to the debate.

JAS DEBATE MAY 9

2007-05-08T15:52:00.000-05:00

The John Adams Society

Roger L. Belfay, Chairman
John J. Pope, Secretary
Larry Colson, Chief Whip
Marianne Stebbins, Chancellor

May 2007

"… bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country, without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an atheist or an infidel." – Benjamin Franklin, September 1782

RELIGION WAS THE BEDROCK OF OUR FREEDOM. As a nation affording freedom of worship, the door was open to freedoms in general. Free commerce was thereby an offshoot and with it the Puritan regimen of colonial America led to a general prosperity and the ability to enjoy more freedom. Not that the founders had much choice about religion in the new country. A great number of remote little despotisms had long evolved in the colonies with rigid religious orthodoxies of their own by 1776. Several colonies were explicitly Christian. These would never join together as a nation under any authority other than that of themselves. Thus, just the common thread of deism would be expressed by the founders in the US Constitution.

Now that individual reasoning has fallen aback the liberal agenda as implemented by many of our public institutions and much of the media, our First Amendment freedoms are stretched and distorted. Only in a non-religious/un-free nation would the high court of one of its states rule that a private charity must cover birth control in its health care plan despite the charity’s moral opposition. But, does anyone notice or think about it? While the vast majority of Americans consider themselves Christian, what seems to crowd most minds nowadays is not godliness, but mesmerization by one electronic medium or another.

ON THE OTHER HAND, we were never a religious nation to begin with. Article VI of The US Constitution states: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States." And The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” People came to America for religious freedom, often fleeing religious persecution elsewhere. Naturally, Christianity flourished because the Christian’s notions of salvation by free will are congruent with America’s freedom. It is a paradox that, unlike in most of Europe where religion was imposed and secularization prevailed, America’s religious liberty led to a resistance to secularization. Only with a secular government are a variety of religions free to coexist and only through freedom do individuals experience the glory of God to become in their hearts religious.

The Chairman, much appreciating the old time religion via HDTV, calls for a debate:

RESOLVED: WE WERE A RELIGIOUS NATION

The Debate will be held on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at the University Club, 420 Summit Avenue, in Saint Paul. The debate will begin at half past seven p.m., following a lecture at six o'clock by Chuck Shreffler. While there is no dress code for attendance, gentlemen who wish to speak must wear a tie; ladies should adhere to a similar sartorial standard. For those gentlemen who arrive tieless yet wish to speak, fret not: the Purveyor of Ties will keep on hand at least one of his quite remarkable ties for just such an eventuality. Questions about debate caucus procedures or about the John Adams Society itself may be directed to the Chairman at 651-222-2782 or the Secretary at 952-486-8059.

www.johnadamssociety.org

Lileks and The Strib

2007-05-07T22:58:00.000-05:00

Last year I paid $264 to subscribe to the Minneapolis StarTribune. There are two reasons for this

1) My wife insists. She believes a literate household must subscribe to a newspaper. It is a good example for the kids.

2) I like the comics. I pay $264 per year to read Get Fuzzy and Pearls Before Swine. Get Fuzzy alone is worth twice that. (I should really post an ode on the pure genius that is Get Fuzzy.) (Yes, I know I can get them on the internet.) And I do read almost every other comic as well. Aren't you worried about the girls in France in Judge Parker?

I can't be the only one on the verge of canceling. The Strib lost almost 5% of its readership in the last year alone. And classified ads are simply disappearing thanks to Craigslist. So they are in deep doodoo.

Their strategy? 1) Fire 250 people, 50 of them in the newsroom which is now under 400 people, so that's over 12.5% of the newsroom staff.

2) Tell all the columnists they are now potentially demoted to beat reporters. They have already done this to Lileks. I suspect that they can't fire them due to union restrictions, so they are trying to simply get them to quit.

Hugh Hewitt is up in arms about Lileks. I love Lileks and read his Bleat everyday, but I'm not sure how I feel about this. The fact is, I hardly ever read Lilek's Strib column since it wasn't the best format for him. His Screeds are the best (and the only thing he doesn't have archived on his site yet).

So this is my question: (Yes, long rambling post with supposedly no point, but there is one and here it is)

Everything I like about Lileks seems to make him no money (his Bleats and Screeds) whereas everything I don't enjoy is how he actually earns (or earned) his money (his Strib column and his books). Likewise, I don't think any local paper has figured out a way to actually make money from their online edition.

So here it is: Is there any way to actually make money from this Internet doohickey (other than porn)?

ABCnews: The Ron Paul Effect

2007-05-07T15:17:00.000-05:00

ABCnews today, besieged by Ron Paul supporters, grudgingly acknowledges the "Ron Paul Effect" in this story.

With strong support among libertarians who are unhappy with the top-tier Republican contenders, Paul has a robust online presence.
His MySpace profile boasts nearly 12,000 "friends." Today, his name ranks in the Top 10 among blog search terms at Technorati.com, behind Paris Hilton but ahead of Mario Lopez.

(Correction: Ron Paul is now running ahead of Paris Hilton at #5. They also left out that Ron Paul's website is running three times the traffic of Rudy or Romney (see chart), or that he is #1 on YouTube today.)

Digg.com was buzzing over the weekend as ABCnews first left Paul off their online debate poll, and then out of a debate coverage story. Email addresses and VP cell phone numbers were passed around, with reports of ABC receptionists getting a little peeved at the response. (A recent sampling of Digg stories by Scribbler's "Digg friends" can be accessed here.)

ABC is clearly not happy about having to admit that Ron Paul has support, but we're just happy to know that the MSM cannot completely ignore us.

Any wonder why Ron Paul responded Thursday night to "Do you trust the mainstream media?" with, "Some of them. But I trust the Internet a lot more."

Romney!

2007-05-04T08:17:00.000-05:00

Romney did a great job last night. Why should we not support Romney?

Enough with Serious Discussion - What about Hankies

2007-05-03T22:19:00.000-05:00

I was randomly reminded the other day about handkerchiefs and the fact that many people used to use them often and the fact that I have not seen one used for years. The whole concept seems kind of gross - blowing your nose into a hanky and then shoving it back into your pocket. I recall my dad used to use a hanky. He had a stack of them in one of his drawers and would grab a new one each day. Wife said her father also carried around a hanky. At some point my dad stopped using a hanky, but I do not recall when or why....

These days you never see hankies, except for show. I did an internet search for the demise of the handkerchief, but there wasn't much out there - just a few others making the same observation. So what happened to it... was it the advent of cheap and comfortable tissues? Maybe... however I wonder if my dad shoves a personal tissue pack each day in his pocket. Somehow I don't think so. Maybe people just don't sneeze as much as they used to. Maybe the demise of the hanky is due to better over the counter cold medicines?

Today I heard about a University in England measuring how fast people walk in various cities around the world. They found that people in Singapore walked the fastest - New York was No. 8 on the list. If a University can find funding for such a worthless study, they should be able to find out what happen to the hanky.

I Can't Believe It's Really Here!

2007-05-03T08:48:00.000-05:00

Today's the day! We've been waiting for months, and it's here! Today!

Like me, you all have been getting ready, talking excitedly with neighbors, blogging and Digging, running spreadsheets to score public statements for degrees of neoconism vs libertarianism, setting up databases to compare voting records vs campaign positions, the usual stuff. And tonight at 7 p.m. CDT, the GOP presidential candidates will each mount the Reagan Library stage, some with high hopes, some with dread, some with good hair, to face their adversaries. Some of the ten contenders have been heavily coached. Some will wonder who they are and why they are there. One that I know probably hasn't rehearsed at all. And all will be on display for the most avid political junkies, like puppies in a store window saying, "pick me, pick me."

Ah, 'tis the culmination of a long-awaited event, more exciting than Christmas to a seven-year-old, and I don't have cable.

Hypnoanesthesia? No thanks

2007-05-01T16:07:00.000-05:00

The publication for a Minnesota chapter of a group to which I belong arrived today, and while I was flipping through I spotted this eighth-of-a-page notice:

Volunteers Needed. The (BBC) is seeking volunteers who would be willing to undergo their scheduled surgery with hypnosis as their primary anesthesia. If interested, contact member Bill Xxxxx, hypnoanesthesiologist, at (952) 555-xxxx. Bill's services are at no charge for this study.

The last time I went to a gathering of this group, Bill Xxxxx, hypnoanesthesiologist, cornered me at the bar and whipped out the bloody pictures of his last surgery for which he administered his own hypnoanesthesia. (Most people show off their kids.) Having my wits about me, I launched an incendiary political routine and he stormed off.

Also in this publication are the new members, one being -- I will try to obfuscate google out of concern for the person's privacy -- "$ u b r a m a n i a n _M. _$ u r y a n a r a y a n a n" from the northwestern metro. I'd hate to ask what the "M" stands for.

Mexico to Inspect OUR Detention Center

2007-04-30T08:29:00.000-05:00

Dan Stein reports,

"A U-N spokesman says the Mexican national will visit the T. Don Hutto facility in Taylor, Texas, which typically houses about 400 non-criminal immigrants awaiting deportation or other outcomes to their immigration cases," KXAN reported. "He'll also examine two border areas where U-S officials have announced a crackdown on Mexicans illegally crossing the border. He'll discuss migrant issues with U-S government officials, campaign groups and immigrants during the mission, which includes a stop in Austin. Bustamante's findings will be presented to the 47-nation rights council at its next session in June."

What authority does Mexico, or the UN for that matter, have to inspect anything of ours? Were that my facility, I'd tell them to get lost. Sure, I'd go to UN jail, but it would be worth it.

What the f@#! is with Bush and immigration? He truly wants to get rid of the damn border entirely (the whole North American Union pact). Compassionate conservatism can go to hell.

What They're Fighting For

2007-04-29T06:21:00.000-05:00

Bush Cutting Taxes

2007-04-27T01:06:00.000-05:00

I saw on another Blog someone made the comment that Bush was a fool to "cut taxes" in the time of war. I am not sure how you can say that Bush has cut taxes. In fact the federal revenues for 2006 was about $500 billion more than in 2001. Drudge reports that the Government set a record this month for one day in revenue.

Bush did not cut taxes, he cut the rates. Its fair to argue that the government would have collected more taxes or the economy would have grown less but for the rate cuts. So Bush's policies were better than nothing.

Global Warming and Economics

2007-04-26T14:11:00.000-05:00

I saw this in the commentaries at Althouse in a thread reagrding Gore and his Carbon Credit offset market. I thought it was worth repeating here:

It's hard to use an economic argument to create a crusade. Perhaps for that reason, Gore & Co. have tried to sell their cure-alls for global warming as a moral imperative. Thus, it's hardly surprising that they are now getting jabbed by their own rhetoric. As others note, there's nothing unusual about using market forces to solve an economic problem -- if you think of global warming as a problem in economics, then it's just a matter of structuring the market so that all relevant costs and benefits are taken into account, after which the market can arrive at an efficient allocation. But that frame of reference carries with it the downside of cost/benefit analysis; breezy "doom is coming" stuff won't do. Among other things, the manifest uncertainties in all of the projections of possible results many decades into the future make it difficult to frame a case for the kind of vast and hugely expensive present-day remedies Gore has proposed. By the same token, anything less than vast and radical remedies to slash the emission of heat-trapping gases have no impact, and thus no benefit to make them worth the (reduced) cost.Recasting the discussion as a moral issue is an effort to avoid all of that. It has the enormous political benefit of allowing one side to dismiss the other as evil ("deniers") who are probably in the pay of the devil. That's so much easier as a marketing technique. Unfortunately, a moral frame doesn't work even on its own terms -- no matter how you frame the discussion, there's no avoiding, or hiding, the huge costs and radical changes in lifestyles that the remedies Gore proposes would entail. The moral frame has the added consequence that it makes the proponents of those remedies (none of whom intends to give up the high-flying lifestyle) look and sound like hypocrites. In all, this sounds like just deserts.

No doubt!

This goes out to some of my favorite JAS Members

2007-04-26T13:35:00.000-05:00

You have to see the rest of these Demotivational Posters. I just about choked on my green tea with some of them.

Those French

2007-04-25T21:16:00.000-05:00

I was paging through the the book Year 1000, by Robert Lacey, and I came across the following quote. I wonder if the author was laughing his ass off as he wrote it:

Computer analysis if the English language as spoken today shows that the hundred most frequently used words are all of Anglo-Saxon origin: the, is, you -- the basic building blocks. When Winston Churchill wanted to rally the nation in 1940, it was to Anglo-Saxon that he turned: "We shall fight on the beaches; we shall fight on the landing grounds; we shall fight in the fields and the streets; we shall never surrender." All these stirring words came from Old English as spoken in the year 1000; with the exception of the last one, surrender, a French import from the Normans.

He was definitely laughing.

Outstanding

2007-04-24T16:39:00.000-05:00

Here is an outstanding article... the great white lie.

My favorite:

the reason conservative politicians so often lose their nerve, why they back down in debate even when they’re clearly right. No one wants to be condemned as a brute—especially not conservatives, who still retain some vague memory of how worthy it is to be a lady or gentleman.

This article will make a liberal's blood boil... mostly because it is right.

Giving Moral Force to the Enemy

2007-04-24T00:35:00.000-05:00

In my reading of Dodge's series on the Napoleonic wars I came across this little nugget. Dodge reprints a letter from Napoleon to his minister of war Henri Clarke regarding the behavior of his older brother Joseph, then acting King of Spain:

To Clarke, October 10, 1809: I desire you to write to the king of Spain to make him understand that nothing is more contrary to military rules than to make known the forces of his army, be it in the orders of the day and proclamations, be it in the gazette; that when one is induced to speak of his forces, one is to exaggerate them, and to present them as redoubtable by doubling and trebling the number; and that when one speaks of the enemy, one is to diminish his force by one half or one third; that in war everything is morale; that the King departed from this principle...that it is carrying discouragement to the French troops to present the number of the enemy as immense, and it is to give to the enemy a feeble opinion of the French in presenting them as few, that this is to proclaim in all Spain its feebleness; in a word, to give moral force to his enemy, and to take it from himself. That it is in the spirit of men to believe that in the end the lesser number must be beaten by the greater....The most experienced military men have difficulty on a day of battle to value the numbers of men which compose the enemy's army, and generally natural instinct leads one to judge the enemy that one sees more enormous than he actually is...

This maxim from Napoleon can still be applied today, especially in regard to public opinion in the U.S. In Iraq the enemy exaggerates its strength through the use of suicide bombings on civilians. At the same time we diminish our power through the rhetoric of defeat by the constant coverage of the losses in Iraq rather than the successes. We are giving moral force to the enemy and taking it from our self.

I know I depart from my many of my conservative brethren regarding this war. The war in Iraq is a liberal idea - a liberal idea, which has its roots in self defense. But, on a more fundamental level, it pains me to accept that many here believe that the United States, the greatest society that has ever existed in human history, should not aid those besieged by the forces of evil. If the enemy is so deranged that they will blow themselves up in the mist of public market places in order to gain power and subject peoples to tyranny, there is no force on earth but the United States that can stand up to such perverted barbarism. Of course, we should not police the world, but the terror campaign in Iraq is not about policing, it is a battle of good vs evil. America must always be in that battle no matter where it is waged.

Now we have some on the right allied with those on the left demanding that we give up the fight. I hope they do not succeed. For if they do, we will no longer be who we once were or who we ought to be. Not all of us are soldiers, but we will all reflect on the past and what we did. Let it not be that we stood down.

Ron Paul on Lou Dobbs Tonight

2007-04-23T15:48:00.000-05:00

Tonight on Lou Dobbs (CNN) 5 p.m.: Ron Paul discusses issues that affect the middle class.

Would someone tape this for me? For more reasons than I care to list, I don't take cable. YouTube video, DVD, 8 mm, any format will work.

(Cross-post from On Scribbler's Mind)

GOP Candidates on Civil Liberties

2007-04-23T08:46:00.000-05:00

About.com has a section devoted to Civil Liberties. The ringmaster there, Tom Head, puts forth his ratings, in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union, of the Republican presidential candidates.

To preface his findings, my view is that the ACLU is approximately 50% correct in its assessment of civil liberties. They give a positive rating for Second Amendment support, despite being remarkably silent on the issue themselves. The rest of the Amendments they also view as mostly good, though seeming to make exceptions to the Tenth Amendment, falling down, for example, on issues of abortion (thinking a federal guarantee to however/whenever necessary instead of leaving it to the states) and gay marriage (opposing the Defense of Marriage Act which reiterates the state's role in marriage recognition).

The ACLU includes a couple other quirky categories in their ratings which skew the results: Homeless Rights, additional gay rights (supporting hate crime and "antidiscrimination" legislation), affirmative action. They also have a soft spot for immigration. But discussing the vice and virtue of their position on that issue is a whole 'nother blog post.

The ACLU's insistence on protection of the First Amendment, apparently the Second Amendment, and the more important, universal civil liberties makes their ratings worthwhile, if to be taken with a grain of salt on the sillier inclusions.

Tom Head's Civil Liberties ratings on the GOP presidential candidates may be found at The 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates on Civil Liberties.