Backlog Bob's strong right straight

Be a capitalist

2008-05-22T19:47:00.003-04:00

Read my new blog. It's free (but if it is successful, that may change). It is an investing blog for young people who want to take a different path toward retirement from those who are content with their money being used to pay the fees of overpriced, mediocre money managers. There is a companion blog on CAPS, but that is geared mainly for CAPS members, whereas The Fleabagger Portfolio is for everybody.

Another blog of mine

2008-03-08T23:35:00.003-05:00

For those of you who want to read what I'm writing even if it has no relevance to what I used to write about in this space, click here.

SRS

P.S. Let me know if that doesn't work, but I will probably be quite a while in reading my messages here.

So this has all been leading

2007-09-24T00:31:00.000-04:00

...here? Someone called this ball in this pocket long ago:

Proverbs 5:3-5
Proverbs 7:22-23
2 Peter 2:22

SRS

The real problem hidden by America's obesity

2007-09-04T02:31:00.000-04:00

Have you noticed that among all the jibba-jabba about obesity and America being too fat, there are still people who are trying to sound the alarm about how the horrible standard of beauty in our society is causing women to be anorexic? This is an excellent example of how stupid collectivism is.

First, we are to believe that it's "society's" fault that some women starve themselves in an effort to be thin. For one thing, these poor women would probably be doing this even if morbidly obese women were held up as the ideal of beauty. One friend of mine who struggled with anorexia confided that it was about control. She was depressed, and the one thing she could control was what she ate, so control it she did - with dangerous consequences.

Second, now that there are clearly more women (and men too) who are in danger of dying of obesity than of anorexia, that is "society's" fault too. And somehow, something in the culture made people become fat - this same culture that made some women dangerously thin! Now it takes a village (and universal health insurance, and bans on trans fats) to save America from this new threat. Mandated exercise and U.S. Attorney General-filed lawsuits against Mickey D's would not be amiss, would they?

Meanwhile, Dove® is a modern-day hero for the "Campaign for real beauty" ads (at the moment they seemed to be focused on hair), which celebrate overweight women as beautiful. It's true that more Americans than ever consider overweight people attractive, and we shouldn't be judgmental (except about Manuel Uribe: it's okay to be judgmental about him), but some of the preachy people are telling us we need to get with the weight loss program. So who's right? The "society needs to get healthier and lose weight" scientists, or the "society needs to appreciate fat people (particularly women) for who they are and say that they're beautiful" feminists?

Surprise answer: they're both wrong! ...for butting into other people's business and framing a lot of individual problems as a societal problem. Yes, obese people would be better off if they lost weight. But that is their problem. If they ask me for my help, I'll help, but I'll also fight for their right to sit on their backsides and stuff their faces all day. Scientists arguing for government intervention in the obesity "epidemic" make the point that the obese will cause huge medical costs if things continue as they are. Good point, but my problem is not with their obesity, then, but with the Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security Disability they get... and their food stamps.

I should start a campaign: a Campaign for Real Freedom. We need to free people from these unrealistic ideals of "freedom" that are pushed by the media. "Freedom from want?" A "right to health care?" These misguided concepts of freedom are endangering true freedoms of the next generation of girls (and, incidentally, boys). They may grow up not knowing that they have a right bear arms that shall not be infringed. Not even infringed. They may grow up ignorant that their government is authorized only to make appropriations for those purposes enumerated in the constitution, not all things supposed to promote the general welfare.

The one thing that threatens more girls in America than anything else our politicians should be worried about: collectivist politics.

SRS

Liberty or security?

2007-08-16T09:52:00.000-04:00

I heard part of a radio show discussing whether we are leaning too far to security, too far to liberty, or striking a good balance. That's obscenely ignorant. That we are told we have to choose between liberty and national security means we have already lost far too much of the former (and the education to know about it), and could lose the latter at any moment.

Our national security cannot depend upon the wisdom and benevolence of the government. It is a matter of free, armed people defending themselves. Unfortunately, "liberals" want to take away our right to arm ourselves, and "conservatives" want to keep us from getting in the way of law enforcement (by doing something rash like, say, protecting ourselves).

Perhaps the most shocking instance of our government making us less secure by making us less free is federal control of our airports. This is inherently a violation of our property rights - that if we invest our money to build an airport and want to host some airlines and serve the people of our county or city in that way, the government takes that airport from us and installs TSA airport security to protect the passengers. But at least we are safer in the government's hands than in the hands of profiteering capitalists, right? Hardly.

I would literally bet my life that a capitalist would provide better airport security than the TSA, unless that capitalist were forced to follow outrageous government regulations. Which he probably would be - the government can't seem to let go of anything anymore.

If we had airports where our fellow citizens, trying to make a dollar, were buying terrorism insurance, you can bet your life the insurers would find all kinds of brilliant ways of keeping us (and their money) safe. If we were allowed to carry guns on college campuses, maybe shootings at college campuses would be as rare as they are at gun shows. If we armed public school teachers (and trained them to use their guns) as Israel does, maybe school shootings wouldn't happen here either.

If we were a well-armed people, free to defend ourselves (and each other) from enemies foreign and domestic, we would have national security. As Benjamin Franklin said, "those who yield essential liberty for a little temporary safety will have neither." We have neither liberty nor safety to the extent that we should, and and we could increase both with the same actions.

SRS

Note: the Franklin quotation was originally misattributed and not word for word. (I was in a hurry at the original writing, and I apologize.) It has been corrected.

The important housing sector

2007-08-08T22:09:00.000-04:00

The idea that there is some inherent "importance of the housing industry to the overall economy" is so commonplace, it is glossed over in an article on a conservative periodical's website. This idea seems self-evident, and perfectly in keeping with conservative ideals of private property, family, and individual prosperity.

Upon closer examination, however, the idea of "importance" in one segment of the economy implies that the economy can be segmented and those segments, in turn, can be assigned different levels of importance. These ideas, particularly the latter, are mistaken and dangerously close to the flawed reasoning that puts government in the role of protector of the stock market, banks, farm policy, energy policy, air travel, airwaves, and (sadly) more. For if something has primacy in the economy, it cannot be allowed to suffer a downturn or collapse, as some industries do from time to time. Housing is key to the economy, the thinking goes, so if people are defaulting on their loans, losing their homes, and/or unable to take out a mortgage to get a new home, something must be done! Particularly, government must act!

It was government action to try to help out stock investors in 1929 that caused a recession, and government tariffs, wealth redistribution, minimum wage laws, forced employment and such that turned that recession into the Great Depression. One bad policy followed another as new ideas turned a fast-growing, opportunity-rich economy into a shambles in which people were starving as the government bought crops and destroyed them, and the poor couldn't get jobs in a private sector that was terrified of the caprice of the Roosevelt administration (which was even worse than the lamentable Hoover administration).

Some of you are perhaps arguing that the causes of the Great Depression are more complicated than that. The causes of the Great Depression are indeed numerous, as numerous as the interventions Hoover and Roosevelt tried. It is a sad coincidence that the stock market correction of 1929 took place under an interventionist presidential administration. Had Coolidge been president during such a correction, it is doubtful any government action would have been taken, except perhaps to lower taxes. In that case, the correction would have been corrected, recession (let alone the Great Depression) would have been averted, lives would have been saved.

Why did Coolidge take such a passive stance with the economy? Because he viewed it as a whole, capable of adapting and changing to fit its environment. Imagine that Woodrow Wilson said that blacksmiths were an important sector of our economy, and that they had to be saved from wage suppression caused by a move away from horses (and horseshoes) to the auto car. What if he had limited car production to achieve this, or had the government buy horseshoes to destroy them? He would have been considered crazy, wouldn't he? (That seems to testify to the immense propaganda power held by Keynesians and other FDR types, doesn't it?) Government "solutions" have likewise always bound adaptivity and stifled innovation in the economy, and the Great Depression was no different. Doesn't any FDR fan wonder why it was so long?

More to the point, here we are in the 21st century, looking at the housing sector and worrying about the damage that might be done to the economy if this "important sector" is allowed to suffer. Well what damage might be done to the economy if we get the government to fix these problems? Getting government help with a sector of the economy seems to me to be like getting Jason Voorhees to cut your hair, because "it's a disaster." To paraphrase Groucho Marx, if you think the economy's bad off now, just wait till they get through with it.

SRS

[Working title]

2007-07-23T23:20:00.000-04:00

Does anyone see what's wrong with this paragraphlet:

Others say the effect on the economy will be negligible. A PNC Economic Outlook survey done in April reported that three out of four small- and middle-market business owners said raising the minimum wage would have little or no impact on their businesses. "In a tighter labor market, they already raised wages to be competitive," said Stuart Hoffman, the chief economist for PNC Financial Services Group.

If you said that an author shouldn't gloss over a drop in employment at one out of four small- and middle-market businesses, you might have what it takes to be a capitalist. If you follow the link that I preserved in the quotation, you'll see that the report goes on to paint the numbers a different way than the pro-minimum wage author who quoted it.

35 percent of retail and wholesale business owners say the federal minimum wage hike would "greatly or somewhat adversely impact" their business within its first six months. Among the concerned owners in these two industry sectors, the impact would be felt by customers and employees alike: 34 percent of these owners would raise selling prices and 29 percent would reduce hiring.

As always, businesses cut employment costs or pass them on to their customers as necessary and as much as possible. Is that wrong? I don't think it would be even if they were fabulously wealthy, but some of them are middle-class folk struggling to provide for their families. There's nothing immoral about them starting a business instead of working for someone else's existing business. But back to my original point: politicians (and the irresponsible writers who laud their worst acts) never look at all of the consequences of minimum wage laws (or any other law), they just look at the people it will help or the people they imagine it will help, and pat themselves and each other on the back. Meanwhile, 29% of retail and wholesale business owners reduce hiring. (Hiring whom? The poor.)

I don't mean to imply that the government should look only at the consequences when it chooses its course of action. I'm just saying that what it should do (protect private property rights and allow the citzenry their freedom) happens to have better consequences.

SRS

P.S. Even the author of the sleight of hand piece admits that the only reason three out of four employers will be unaffected by the minimum wage hike is because they already pay their employees more. That is, to the extent that a minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment, it was unnecessary and redundant anyway.

P.P.S. All wages in America would be a lot higher if it weren't for the high cost of OSHA compliance, EEOC liability protection, and accounting-intensive, labyrinthine tax law. That is, except OSHA and EEOC bureaucrat wages, and tax accountant/lawyer wages. Those would be lower because of lower demand.

Close Gitmo!

2007-07-07T02:16:00.000-04:00

I think there are only two reasons my fellow conservatives defend Guantanamo Bay's detention facility.

1) They instinctively defend anything American that is attacked by dozens of Democratic congressmen and senators.

2) They are afraid to say what they really believe: that Gitmo should be shut down and its detainees moved somewhere that Amnesty International and other left-wing wackos can't find them--and where they aren't coddled so much.

At the very least we should put price caps on the food and health care we provide them. (Is gruel halal?) And interrogators should be given leeway to the extent of anything not reasonably expected to cause permanent injury, serious illness, or death. After all, these enemy combatants were not in uniform, are not under Geneva protections, and are associated with an enemy that will not stop torturing and beheading our guys, regardless of what we do or do not.

If detainees get hurt during interrogation, taxpayer-funded doctors can rush to their rescue, assuming the procedure is covered by the detainees' HMO.

SRS

Normal people...

2007-06-26T23:07:00.000-04:00

...putting up with "progressivism."

SRS

Pirates bad, British colonial rulers good

2007-06-09T02:00:00.000-04:00

The new Pirates movie is a bad movie, as I noted in my movie/humor/football/medical tourism blog. But it also teaches us falsehoods. Here in my political blog, I would like to point them out.

My mother taught me that if I don't have anything nice to say, I shouldn't say anything at all. Well I do have something nice to say about the Pirates movie. It has a very accurate portrayal of pirate teeth, at least in the minority characters' parts. As pirates had a very difficult time getting dental coverage into their health plans until the late 1800's, most pirates had very bad teeth. Also, pirates had swords and sailed around in ships, as portrayed in the movie.

Okay, that about does it for the historically accurate parts of the movie.

I would like to point out that most pirates were not feminists who took orders from women. Most pirates, in fact, raped and murdered women, as well as children. Pirates robbed from the rich to keep for themselves, and recruited or killed the poor. Pirates may have spoken about freedom, but not as eloquently or ingenuously as in the movie, because in real life pirate ships were despotisms of the sea, where the captain had absolute power and his men were beaten or put to death at his whim. That segues nicely into my next point, which is that pirates were not democratic (or republican), did not have an unbreakable code or law, and did not have a U.N.-like body politic where Keith Richards presided and played guitar. (Actually, I think the real pirates come out a little ahead in that one sense.) Real pirates were largely racist.

British imperialism, the East India Trading Co., and the British in general did not come off so hot in Pirates 3. In real life, British imperialism has been the greatest single cause of political and economic freedom in this world, with the possible exception of New Testament Christianity. But the latter cause is kind of hard to nail down when it comes to its economic and otherwise tangible effects. On the other hand, the explosive prosperity of Hong Kong, Singapore, and even the U.S. is directly traceable to those countries' experience as British colonies, and their close adherence (except recently in the U.S.) to the principles of law and entrepeneurialism laid out under British colonial rule. India is just now recovering from the economic devastation that they wrought upon themselves when they did away with those principles as they rid themselves of the imperial power that imparted them. South Africa's relatively happy economy is alone on its continent, despite apartheid, because they have done less to eradicate the vestiges of British colonialism than have other African countries (or because many African countries were colonized by the French, whose colonial legacy cotrasts with Britain's the way a serial rapist contrasts with a king who has concubines whom he keeps in luxury).

Anyway, British people, and the East India Trading Co. in particular, did not wreak mischief and violence and woe wherever they went. They engendered prosperity and good hygiene, and a great many Indians, Singaporeans, and uh, Hong Kongians are much better off for their countries' experience with British imperialism. Just so you know.

SRS

A grammar lesson

2007-05-30T01:31:00.000-04:00

Maybe I should just stop reading leftish webzines late at night, but I came across this little gem:

Richardson also misplayed the candor card. Seven times in the broadcast, he used phrases like "I made a mistake" or "I shouldn't have said that." After six years of an error-ridden Bush administration in which it has taken eons for the president to offer even limited mumbles about any errors, we should applaud candidates who admit mistakes. We should also encourage them to tell us what they've learned from their wrong turns. But there is surely a limit to the number of mistakes you can admit to before it starts to hurt your authority, and Richardson seemed to zip by it.

And I feel I have to parse it, using parsing skills I learned at the EIB Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies. First, in the context given, "we should applaud candidates who admit mistakes" means "we should demand that candidates constantly apologize and grovel for forgiveness." Notice the subtle turn of phrase. "We should also encourage them to tell us what they've learned from their wrong turns" means "they must dance like marionettes on our strings for our amusement as we treat them like first-graders." And finally, "there is surely a limit to the number of mistakes you can admit to before it starts to hurt your authority, and Richardson seemed to zip by it" means "that stuff we said about apologizing, grovelling, and being treated like first-graders - that was meant for Republicans only. Look to Bill Clinton, Richardson, and he will show you the way. Don't ever admit that you were wrong!"

SRS

The stupidity incentive

2007-05-30T00:47:00.000-04:00

Economists and conservatives in general often write about incentives, that is, people do what they have an incentive (internal or external) to do, and they do not do what have a disincentive to do. There are usually some of each being weighed, but actually every choice we make and every action we take is based on some perceived good coming of it, or some perceived harm being avoided. "Who cares?" I imagine you're asking. Good question! (Not really, but flattery keeps people reading.)

I was reading an article in a leftish webzine which I believe has much wider readership than this blog, and they wrote that they had started (or made known) a backlash against the new agey power-of-positive-thinking crowd with a good, old-fashioned Be Realistic and Prepare For The Worst article and a mention of a book of the same idea. The article posited that "only people in an affluent, technologically advanced society, packed with fail-safes and conveniences, could be so susceptible to [the positive thinking crowd]'s brand of hubris." The article even mentioned Hurricane Katrina, and how some people assumed that the government had fixed the levees.

My friends, our leftish friends are dangerously close to stumbling upon: the truth that conservatives have been telling them all along! When you have a big, mommy government taking care of everything for everyone, the incentive to be careful and look into things for yourself is reduced precipitously. Why live in a place where hurricanes don't ravage the shoreline? The government will come and save us! Why learn which cars are safer than others? Ralph Nader will protect us from unsafe cars! Why pay attention to what we eat? If it were unhealthy, the government wouldn't let them sell it to us anyway! Why educate our children? The government does that for us with the free public schools!

Nanny government isn't just bad for the economy, it makes millions of Americans fatter, dumber, and lazier.

SRS

A suggestion for the EPA

2007-04-03T02:00:00.000-04:00

Now that the Persons in Black have poured more carbon-cutting power into the laps of our good friends, the bureaucrats at the EPA, I have a friendly suggestion for the EPA, offered in a spirit of goodwill. In order to cut CO2 emissions in the U.S., there is no better strategy that I can think of than that laid out in Rachel Carson's CO2 reduction masterpiece, Silent Spring. If you can eliminate the smallest CO2-emitting creatures from the food chain, you can cause a dietary chain-reaction, exterminating dozens, hundreds, or perhaps even thousands of CO2-emitting species from the face of the beloved (but overheating) planet.

Let's all help the EPA fulfill its mandate by chipping in and shutting down the biggest carbon-polluter of them all: the animal kingdom. Kill a deer, save the world.

SRS

Private roads

2007-03-12T02:21:00.000-04:00

I was just reading a George Will article about traffic (not the band), and I was reminded of an idea I had a while back. Why don't we privatize all roads except interstates? And not the wimpy, half-privatization that they did with airports and the USPS. What if private businesses and individual citizens had to find a way to pave and maintain the roads leading to their offices and homes? Of course, that would only work in a world where taxes were lower and government was wasting our money on mammoth bureaucracies. But in such a world I think it would work.

SRS

Don't embarrass your local leftist police state

2007-02-01T11:03:00.000-05:00

...because they will jail you for inadvertently exposing them as frightened bugs. Some ad company for the Cartoon Network paid a man to place harmless little light-up mooninite magnets all over Boston (in exactly the same way that men had been paid to put harmless little light-up mooninite magnets all over certain cities in New York, Texas, California, Washington, etcetera). Well, Boston police panicked. The bomb squad was called in, the mayor and the governor told everyone to be alert. Basically everyone in the Mecca of "Progressivism" was humiliated. Well, leftists hate being humiliated, just like anyone else does. Unlike others, however, they abuse their power to try to destroy those responsible, even though those responsible in this case were probably some of their biggest fans. This is hilarious, but it serves as a cautionary tale: when visiting leftist cities, especially old-headed ones like Boston, don't do anything that might be perceived as a threat. Or anything that might be perceived as funny, or light-hearted. Basically, just avoid cities like Boston for the rest of your life.

SRS

P.S. Some of you probably know I'm from the Seattle area, and I love it out there, though Seattle is pretty much the leftmost point in America. But you have to admit: no one's going to be arrested for anything like placing mooninites around Seattle. For one thing, Seattle officials have probably seen Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

What happens in this country is no better

2006-12-17T01:58:00.000-05:00

For those of you who don't read enough appalling and utterly dreadful news, there's this (warning: only for those with iron stomachs and not prone to nightmares), which I found via my brother's blog. I'm too tired to make a political point. Draw your own conclusion.

Backlog Bob

Truth and honesty, if it's convenient

2006-10-09T23:56:00.000-04:00

"Students believe in honesty, they believe in truth, we see that overwhelmingly," said [the] executive director of the Center for Academic Integrity at [a prestigious university]. "But at the moment of panic, those values seem to take a back seat."

This was in a plagiarism-focused, online news article I was reading this evening. Notice the job of the man who said this. Notice his attitude. (They're good kids, they just lie and cheat because we're demanding too much of them.) Academic standards may or may not be too rigorous, but when executive directors of Centers for Academic Integrity at prestigious universities are going to bat to defend plagiarists and liars, moral standards are none too rigorous - if they even exist anymore.

SRS

Investing

2006-10-07T15:41:00.000-04:00

I have other things I ought to be doing, but I miss blogging, and I finally have something I want to blog about. Here's a summary of things everyone should know about investing.

1. Everyone would be better off if they started learning about, and practicing, investing.
There's a lot of money languishing in savings and checking accounts that would serve its owners (and the economy at large) a lot better if it were invested. Investing is like telling your money to get off its lazy backside and get a job. That way, you have two incomes - yours and your money's.

2. Investing is not risky for everyone.
People read and hear all the time about how risky it is to invest in stocks, or in commodities, or what have you. As with anything else, there is some risk, because no one can know the future, but there is no more risk in stocks than there is in a checking account, unless you are ignorant of what you are investing in, or trying to get rich in a couple of weeks or less. Now okay, you might have heard about that guy that lost $5,000,000,000 of other people's money in less than a week because of investing mistakes. But what he was doing wasn't actually investing: it was gambling with things usually used for investing. Behavior such as his makes investing look risky to people who don't know the difference between investing and trading (which is point #5 or #6).

3. It's easy to educate yourself about investing.
There's a lot of free information available on the internet, tv, and radio, for people who are willing to find it, and read, watch, or listen for an hour or two per week. You merely have to want more from your money than immediate gratification (or 2% interest), and take a little time to do something about it. Some of my favorites: MSN.com>Money>Investing, Yahoo.com>Finance>Commentary (particularly Morningstar and Motley Fool, two usually subscription-required services that give free samples to Yahoo), and PBS' Nightly Business Report (but that's mainly because Paul Kangas reminds me of my late grandfather). It's quite possible you could find even better if you scour the web for free investing info.

4. Not everything you read (or hear) is going to be good advice.
Just because it's good to read something doesn't mean you should follow all the advice therein. Take a few weeks (or months) to get used to what you're reading. Some of the advice may even be great advice for someone else and be terrible for your particular situation. The important thing is that you're learning. It may also be important to keep in mind point #5:

5. Investing and trading are not the same thing.
The former is a way for your money to be productive for you and others; the latter is gambling. Investing, at its best, involves everyone prospering more than they would otherwise (you and the company you invested in). Trading needs a loser in order to have a winner. Investing in a stock means part ownership of the company that stock represents. It means entitlement to a share of that company's profits. Similarly, investing in a commodity signifies ownership of certain amount of corn, crude oil, gold, or what have you. Trading is an attempt to get rich from exploiting changes in stock prices caused by changes in the supply and demand of shares of companies. Much like investors, traders buy stocks or commodities; but unlike investors, traders are not interested in owning shares of profitable companies. They want only to sell that stock or commodity later for a tidy profit.

Now, if you buy a stock on the open market (NYSE or NASDAQ, etc.) someone else is selling it, so for you to succeed with that stock, the other person or institution is missing out. For one thing, that's on them (but that's what a successful trader would say about his victims) - more importantly, there is a very valid reason for someone to sell a stock that's going to provide a good return: he needs the money for something else (or an even better investment opportunity). So even if everyone practiced wise investing, there would still be opportunities to make good investments.

With all of that, I am not trying to say that trading is wrong. But it is a lot more like gambling than investing is, it is risky for people who don't know how to do it well (including most of the people who try it), and people have misconceptions about investing because they confuse it with trading.

6. There's more that everyone should know about investing.
But I'm too tired and bored to keep typing right now, so I'll come back to this later (maybe months later, if recent past experience is any guide).

SRS

Green hybrids?

2006-10-03T00:47:00.000-04:00

I was recently exposed to a tv ad for a car that was so fuel-efficient that it made leaves go flying back onto trees, making the trees green again. That was nice, but I started thinking: "How does fuel-efficiency help the trees? By reducing emissions, right? Emissions like carbon dioxide? Didn't I learn back in elementary school that the ol' exhale stuff is good for trees? Did science reverse itself (yet again) and decide that CO2 actually hurts trees? How did I not hear about that? That ranks right up there with Pluto not being a planet, as newsworthy scientific discoveries go. It must be an oil company conspiracy that silenced those brave scientists who made that discovery.

SRS

Is a 50-year conservative icon now losing it?

2006-07-09T02:14:00.000-04:00

By way of explanation why I'm going to pick on an article about 7 weeks old, I only just discovered it as I was catching up on my Malkin. Anyway, I came upon a reference to this priceless WFB Jr gem: "Uprooting [illegal immigrants to deport them ] would prove as wrenching as the uprooting of the blacks from Africa 300 years ago." This is what happens when conservatives grow fond (or covetous) of the respect of left-wing academic elites. As wrenching as the uprooting of blacks from Africa? I doubt it would be even 10% as wrenching. 15% tops. I'm a fanatical labour pool supply-sider and I think that kind of rhetoric is ridiculous.

Even more wrong, more insidious - and ignored by Malkin and perhaps all other post-publication fact-checkers (until me) - was the following, from the same article: "There are two directions to go in class-mobile America. The first is stasis -- what greeted post-Civil War blacks for a hundred years." Apparently Buckley forgets that black Americans were trending strongly upward in all economic measures from the end of the Civil War until the "reforms" of the 1960's (except during the Great Depression) - not because of the legislation of the 60's. In fact, the 60's saw the slowest growth of standard of living in black American households since the GD, and the War on Poverty (which Buckley used to oppose) seemed to halt an impressive advance in the economic status of blacks. I think Buckley should read more of the writings of Drs. Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams for more information on how the free market does more to help the objects of racial discrimination than any government program. I also think that Buckley is drifting left in his old age.

SRS

P.S. I recently enjoyed a classic Dick Cavett Show episode (c. 1972) in which Dick reads a letter to the effect of: "I was disappointed that you would let William F. Buckley, Jr on your show: he is a known snake!" I got a belly-laugh from that.

Sigh

2006-06-29T00:39:00.000-04:00

Apparently The New York Times will print true stories only if it's treasonous to do so.

SRS

Mucking out the blog

2006-06-13T18:39:00.000-04:00

I deleted the link to Edoras, because it's essentially not there anymore. At least, the art gallery isn't - it's just a page explaining that all the good stuff is gone. Bummer. If you have a favourite by Lee, Howe, Nasmith, Garland, or the Hildebrandt bros that you didn't download in time - and if the artist doesn't mind - just leave me a comment asking for the pic, and I'll try to get it to you.

I was trying to show someone the story about the Alaskan public school principal, and the link went to a 404-like page. I don't know how to find that story again, and I would like to re-establish the link. I don't feel like messing with it right now, especially since I can't replace it, so just know that link doesn't work anymore.

If you notice anything else that needs updating, please leave me a comment about it.

SRS

Apparently Lt. Pantano was acquitted

2006-05-29T18:35:00.000-04:00

I don't know about you, but this is the first I've heard of Lt. Pantano's acquittal. Good news. Also, this article is a must read if you want an understated critique of Rep(rehensible) Murtha's recent attacks on the Marine Corps.

SRS

Fox guards henhouse against hens

2006-05-08T18:34:00.000-04:00

Suggesting that oil companies need to be willing to profit less from gasoline so that Americans can have cheaper gas seems to me to be a lot like suggesting that a man with both his legs tied together would be able to crawl faster if he just cut his legs off. Why not cut the ropes off of his legs?

Yeah, it's pretty jealousy-provoking to see a company make record-breaking goo-gobs of profit while you're paying 40-50% more than you're used to for something you need. But the oil companies are making about a fourth or a fifth as much as the government each time you fill up. Then the government turns around and spends that money enforcing regulations that make it much more expensive to produce gasoline (and make the environment squeaky-clean, instead of just super-clean). So maybe we should think about cutting gasoline taxes, or eliminating some of the unnecessary environmental regulations. (Think all environmental regs are necessary? Remember Clinton at 11:59 PM the night before Bush's Inauguration Day ordering that instead of 10 parts in a gazillion of arsenic in our drinking water, we were going to spend billions of dollars to bring it down to one part in a gazillion, even though it takes about 10,000 parts/gazillion of arsenic/water to make anyone sick? Well, he did, and when Bush made the most obviously good decision in the history of decision-making by overturning it, everyone in the Marxist-Sympathizing Media pulled out their hair and screamed that he was poisoning our water - our children's water! It's the same thing with the gasoline additives. It's doubtful that a sparrow would ever get a bit phlegm from the "air pollution" that the cheaper-additive gasoline produces, let alone that it would turn every American city's sky to Shanghai beige, but the Robert Redford crowd nonetheless won't let us use the cheap stuff. Same crowd won't let us drill in the Alaskan tundra for oil and natural gas.)

Sorry about the long parenthesis. The point is, we could just start cutting the government interference in the economy, especially unnecessary environmental regulations. That would be like cutting off the ropes that bind the legs of the economy. Or we could just blindly lash out in vengeance against the oil companies, which would be like cutting off the legs of our economy.

SRS

P.S. Before you start putting up hate comments because of my "defense of the oil companies," let me just say that the oilers aren't the legs in my analogy. The legs represent market freedoms.

The little Google boycott that could

2006-04-16T01:20:00.000-04:00

I removed Google's ads from my page. (At least, I think I did - I'm still not very good at this "computer" stuff yet.) There are two reasons for this. First, they were making money from these ads, and I wasn't. Second, and more importantly, I don't want to support a company that brazenly supports the deception of an oppressed people. They hide behind claims of supporting the local laws and customs - but they won't support the local laws and customs banning child porn in the U.S. Free speech for child molestors in the U.S., but not for Chinese freedom fighters persecuted by their own "government."

Please, if you do a Google search, don't click on any "sponsored links" - if you want to visit the site which sponsored the link, open a new browser window, and type in the url given with the sponsored search result - thus diminishing Google's revenue. If you encourage all of your friends to stand by Chinese dissidents by boycotting Google's ads, we might be able put a dent in their bottom line.

SRS

I thought this was interesting

2006-04-07T00:05:00.000-04:00

Apparently Larry Kudlow has the same idea I had last year in October: no limits, full disclosure on immigration. It's nice when a nationally renowned and syndicated columnist who writes for a prestigious print and online publication happens to think the same way I do, only six months later. Someone should pay me to come up with these ideas. Please.

SRS

Breaking news: a brilliant lawyer is squandering her law degree serving as a high school principal in Alaska

2006-03-11T01:28:00.000-05:00

Please read this story carefully. Notice anything? If not, I'll tell you: the 9th Circuit (who else?) stated that a school principal in Alaska "was aware of relevant case law and should have known her actions violated [the student's] rights." This in the process of overturning a decision to the contrary by a lower (though wiser) federal court. Apparently an entire federal court was unaware of relevant case law, but the high school principal was well-versed in it. How she is able to pay off her law school loans on a principal's salary is beyond me.

SRS

What's so bad about the 13th century?

2006-03-07T23:35:00.000-05:00

I'm sick of hearing (and reading) that the clash of freedom vs. fundamentalist Islam is a clash of 21st century civilization vs. 13th century barbarism. That's totally unfair to the 13th century. There were plenty of intelligent, rational, and above all, peaceful people in the 13th century. None of the Islamic fundamentalists is peaceful, and the overwhelming majority aren't intelligent or rational. This is just a clash of peaceful, happy, industrious people vs. violent, bloodthirsty savages who are unwilling to work.

I know that if some stranger stumbles across this, I'm probably going to be accused of slandering all Muslims. If the shoe fits, then fine: I am writing about you. Lots of hard-working, peaceable people call themselves Muslims, and that's fine. I don't care what you call yourself - if you want to live in peace with me, I'll live in peace with you; 99.9% of free, western people feel the same way. But if you want to riot and fly planes into buildings and send your children with bombs strapped to their chests to blow up themselves and some Jews too, that's where there's a problem. If you want to shoot a two-year-old girl in the face because she's a Jew or a Christian, then there's a problem. Or if you want to support people who do such things because they're Muslims and you're a Muslim, then there's a problem.

I may write more later about many of the good, intelligent, wise, benevolent people of the 13th century. But I don't have time right now. Remember: don't knock the 13th century, and choose peace.

SRS

Pig update

2006-03-07T23:06:00.000-05:00

I've just recently heard some more comments from Rep. John Murtha. That "Rep." stands for reprehensible. His words are lies, and furthermore the sort of lies that undermine national security and America's morale during a time of war. The fact that he is a former marine does not lend credence to his words, but illustrates that he knows he is lying, and he knows the treacherous effect of his words. He shows himself to be treasonous in spirit, and his family should disown him. His dog should bite his leg.

Now as to whether or not he deserves respect: his being elected to the House of Representatives doesn't mean squat. Dennis Kucinich was elected to the House of Representatives, and no one respects him. Seriously, when someone is a traitor to his country, he loses all respect, no matter what office he holds or whatever his station. The country is more important than the House of Representatives or the office of the President. It is by now accepted fact that whatever the impact of the legislation he signed, Bill Clinton was (and is) a pig. I don't feel the least uncomfortable saying that Murtha is a pig. What he is doing is worse than anything we know of Clinton doing, except perhaps allowing the communist Chinese access to missile guidance technology. That was really bad. But so are slandering your country's military during a time of war, lying about the morale and efficacy of the troops, and boosting the morale of your country's enemies and aiding their recruiting by lying about the effectiveness of their efforts.

So Murtha is a pig, and completely undeserving of respect. So is Jimmy Carter. I'm not backing away from that.

SRS

Should we de-port the UAE?

2006-02-24T22:17:00.000-05:00

I haven't felt like I've had time to weigh in on the whole "UAE in America's ports" thing, but Jonah Goldberg had exactly the same thoughts I did, and more time to research and organize those thoughts. So here's a link to his article on the matter. I hope to start getting into the routine of blogging every Saturday or every other Saturday, but don't hold your breath.

SRS

Fewer posts to come

2006-02-13T18:23:00.000-05:00

I may be blogging far less often soon. Schedule change, and all that. We'll see. Just thought you, my faithful reader(s), should know in advance.

SRS

In defense of "ragheads"

2006-02-13T16:31:00.000-05:00

It seems that in a speech at a conservative political gathering (CPAC) Ann Coulter has referred to the enemies of the U.S. as "ragheads." I heard about that a day or two ago, but I didn't think it was worth commenting on. But then I realized, I have referred to Ann Coulter as my heroine. So, to explain why I'm not going to change that, I am writing this post.

First, Ann Coulter says and writes outrageous things. That's what she does to make the money she lives (and thrives) on. There must be a market for it. I have a theory on why that is. First, right-wingers hear all the time about how they're nazi-racist-sexist-bigot-homophobes (as Rush Limbaugh would say - at least, he used to say that, but I don't listen to him much anymore). After hearing over-the-top vitriol spewed at us and those we admire, and seeing no consequences for those who spew, we have a tendency to want revenge. Ann Coulter toes the line between rational conservative thought and vindictive bile. All conservatives hate being lashed out at by "leftist weenies," but Coulter is one of very few who lash back. It makes for an interesting weekly read, and her columns, in my experience, are much more intelligent and thoughtful than her publicized comments from CPAC.

Did I mention that it's humour? Ann joked about killing liberal Supreme Court justices, and Bill Clinton, and I think those jokes are not funny. If I had kids, I wouldn't let them joke like that. And I don't think Ms. Coulter should have uttered them. (If you're a Democrat, ask yourself whether or not this is any worse than Al Franken's jokes.) Perhaps you're wondering why I didn't mention the "raghead" comment. Well, I don't think it's as bad as joking about murdering people.

Here's what Ann Coulter said that has everyone calling her a "racist:"
"I think our motto should be, post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences."

What race is offended by that? Muslims? Does that mean that Ted Kennedy is racist against conservatives? Is the NY Times racist against Christians? Islam is not a race. People choose to be Muslims, or not to be Muslims - or at least, in America that's still a choice. It's not racist to disparage a religion. It may be insensitive to that religion, but it's not like hating people because they're born, say, Jewish. If you were to make a political cartoon that depicted Hebrew Jews as, say, bloodsucking warmongers, that would be racist. But one can choose not to be a Muslim. Even in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran, people have been risking their lives to choose not to be Muslims - proving that "Muslim" is not a race.

Now, should Ms. Coulter have called Muslims who speak out against the U.S. "ragheads"? No. I wouldn't. Again, if I had kids, I wouldn't let them use the term "raghead." But then again, most people are unoffended when they watch a WWII movie and someone says "kraut." That's an ethnic slur, at least as bad as "raghead," considering that there were many hard-working, law-abiding, on-our-side German-Americans in the U.S. in WWII, just as there are hard-working, law-abiding, on-our-side Muslim Americans in the U.S. now. Yet American "krauts" got over it. They got on with their lives, and they proved that they were on our side. They condemned Naziism. Too many Muslims in America are just looking around for something to complain about, be it Ann Coulter's injudicious comments, or some non-terrorist Muslim who was deported because he had violated his visa, or some turn of phrase that some low-level bureaucrat used, or what have you. They should look to German-Americans and Japanese-Americans of WWII as examples of how to be American.

Again, I don't think Coulter should have used the word "raghead." Even worse, I think, is calling for the assassination of people who should, at worst, be put in prison. Obviously, she was having a bad day. Maybe she just wanted the controversy so she would have something to write about in her next column. Whatever.

If you are a Muslim who believes in freedom, just remember that calling on the government (or anyone other than Ms. Coulter) to make her watch her language, is very anti-freedom. Remember that many in America see institutions like CAIR pretending to be moderate Muslims, then turning around and aiding and abetting the U.S.'s enemies. You need to find a way to be more visible and more vocal if you don't want "Muslims vs. America" or "Muslims vs. freedom" to be good ways of describing the most important conflict the 21st century. Remember that Muslim governments like those in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, and many others, are very tyrannical, and make it very dangerous to be a Jew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Democrat, Republican, or even the wrong kind of Muslim in those countries. Remember that Muslims in France rioted for weeks and destroyed many cars in sad display of mindless violence. These are the things that people see when they look at the Muslim community from the outside. Maybe you are a peaceful, freedom-loving Muslim. If you are, speak up, speak out, not against Ann Coulter, but against those who are really a threat to the freedom of Muslims: the religious and political tyrants of Muslim countries. Support America, the one country that represents freedom more than any other country in the world.

SRS

So many funny videos, so little time

2006-02-11T19:22:00.000-05:00

Another great video, this time from RightWinged.com. I almost gave myself a hernia laughing at it. If it seems kind of boring at first, just wait - it gets better.

SRS

Newsflash: actual comedy on Comedy Central

2006-02-11T05:33:00.000-05:00

I'm not usually a fan of Comedy Channel or Comedy Central or whatever they're called nowadays (as you may have gathered from this post's title). Ever since they ditched what was then the best show on television, sending it to the Sci-Fi Channel, of all places, they just haven't been the same. Haven't had anything consistently good, in fact. (What was then the best show on television has been ditched by Sci-Fi too, but is being released, rather haphazardly, on DVD.) But Malkin has a CC video that's hilarious and inciteful - my favourite kind.

SRS

Biblical and Constitutional exegesis

2006-02-10T01:04:00.000-05:00

I came across this article at The Claremont Institute's website. I found it a little difficult to read - but very rewarding. (This puts it in the same league with many of their articles.) This one is a review of a book about Biblical and Constitutional exegesis (that is, analysis and application of the text), and a paragraph near the end of the article traces similar changes in the American view of the meaning and application of both documents through the 19th century. Please click on the link and read the article for yourself.

SRS

Bill Clinton as Jimmy Stewart?

2006-02-08T17:46:00.000-05:00

I have another blog that's mostly about movies, football, and flat attempts at humour. I didn't know whether to post this at that blog or this one. But I realized that people who read that one and don't read this one probably won't know who Coretta Scott King was, and it's much easier to adequately sum up The Philadelphia Story than to do justice both to the late Mrs. King's life and to brevity as well. If that dichotomy doesn't pique your interest, then I don't know what will.

The Philadelphia Story is a 1939 movie in which Cary Grant stars as an old-money divorced man, and Katie Hepburn as his snobby divorcer. Someone who is not as widely remembered as Grant or Hepburn plays her new-money fiancé, and Jimmy Stewart plays an underrated novelist who writes for gossip rag to make ends meet - and later falls in love with Hep, whom he's been assigned to humiliate in print.

It's more complicated than that, but I just wanted to say that Bill Clinton's elegy for Mrs. King, especially the part where he says she's a real woman, sounded, both in the qualities of his voice and in the words he used, hauntingly similar to Stewart's protestation of love for Hep. I don't think there's anything to be read into that. That's just what it reminded me of.

SRS

A trip to Seattle

2006-02-08T01:28:00.000-05:00

I've found a guy I shared a plane ride and a conversation with on a trip to Seattle recently (and by that I mean almost two months ago). Or at least, I've found his blog. It was easy. I just clicked on Technorati up there in the top right of this page (something I once put on here and promptly forgot what it was, and why I put it on), and then I clicked around on the people who have linked to my page, and voila! It's the lefty from the flight to Seattle. (And I mean "lefty" in the best possible way.) He has written a post about our discussion, and, while brief and from his point of view, is nonetheless much better than I could do, because he has a much more detailed memory than I do, and he's fair (almost as fair and balanced as I am).

I cannot vouch for the material on his whole blog, that is, its appropriateness for children (or adults for that matter), but I have read the post I've linked to, and it's unobjectionable and informative. Check out the post.

SRS

It happened twenty years ago

2006-02-07T01:50:00.000-05:00

Phyllis Schlafly recalls an interesting story about a man who was raped by our court system - proving, once again, that conservatives would be idiots to trust blindly in the police and in DA's. We need to look out for each other, and prevent anything like that from happening in this country ever again.

SRS

South of the border, down Mexico way. . .

2006-02-05T00:33:00.000-05:00

I was catching up on my Malkin, and I came across this story at CNN.com. Do we really need any more evidence that "they just want to work" is just a sloppy generalization? It's going to be hard work to keep out all the crooks and terrorists. Even though I'm the friendliest guy in the entire world to those who want to immigrate and work and abide by our laws henceforth, I'm also realistic about the threat posed by our lack of border security. Unfortunately, many politicians aren't.

American readers: please support candidates for public office who take the issue of border security seriously.

SRS

Economic interests vs. nostalgia (exploring a hypothetical)

2006-02-04T00:47:00.000-05:00

Del Monte will stop growing pineapple in Hawaii. (That's not the hypothetical part, that's real.) Some obsrvers expect the other two major pineapple growers of Hawaii (Dole Food and Maui Pineapple Co.) to pull out also. (Because, as a Del Monte statement put it, it's cheaper to buy pineapples on the open market than to grow them in Hawaii.) I think the others will stay, at least a little while, until "those costs" get even worse.

Why is it so expensive to grow pineapple in a place where the soil and climate are perfect for pineapple? I'll let you economic planners figure that one out. I want to talk about a "what if." What will Hawaii do if no one chooses to grow pineapple in Hawaii anymore? You can bet some people would be upset at the break with tradition, just as they were when sugar growers pulled out of Hawaii. Maybe someone will demand government aid for the pineapple growers, so they can compete, and save those Hawaiian jobs. Perhaps a philanthropist will come along and grow Hawaiian pineapple to sell it at a loss, just to preserve the tradition of growing pineapple on the island state. If there comes a day when no more pineapple is grown on the Hawaiian archipelago, you can bet the farm that people will be nostalgic for the good ol' days.

"It's a travesty!" Some will say. "How can people disregard such a long and beautiful tradition just for economic reasons?" People easily forget that all of our old traditions and all the good ol' ways came about for almost purely economic reasons. Why do you think people planted vast pineapple farms on Hawaii in the first place? It wasn't because they had a massive jones for pineapple. They didn't have a vision of improving everyone's health by getting them to eat more fruit. They saw that the soil and climate of the islands were perfect for growing something that could be sold to mainlanders at a tidy profit. So they grew pineapple, and they profited. Now that they can't make a profit, is anyone surprised that they want to stop?

Maybe something can be done to make Del Monte's Hawaiian pineapple profitable again, or to ensure that Dole and Maui stay profitable. (Ask me, and I'll tell you.) But even if not, let's not bribe or threaten companies to do what is otherwise not in their best interests. (For the record, I haven't yet heard or read of anyone trying to bribe or threaten Del Monte, but I will be very surprised if Dole and Maui move out without attempts made to bribe or threaten them.) Let's just accept that economic motivations are just as valid as sentiment for planning what to do. In fact, more valid, because sometimes someone's survival depends on his pursuing his economic best interest. (That's why it's sometimes called "vital economic interest.")

Now then, enjoy your pineapple, and if you feel very strongly about where it's grown, check with your local grocery store manager. Personally, I'll chance the Filipino and Costa Rican pineapple, if it saves me a few bucks and I can't taste the difference.

SRS

To spray or not to spray (it's up to the osprey)

2006-02-03T19:32:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting story about bed bugs, which you never would have expected me to link to from this blog. "What does this have to do with politics," you are probably asking. Well, I'll tell you.

Bad policy results in people being inconvenienced, losing money, and even being hurt or killed. When it's government policy gone bad, the consequences can be national or even international. Look at paragraphs 6 and 7 of the story for the real reason there's a surge in bed bug populations: that's right, environmental protection policy. U.S., Australian, British, and European governments have "led the way" in protecting our environment from the very things that protect us from the environment (i.e. bed bugs). It's one thing for an American or Australian to get bitten by a bed bug, contract a blood disease, go to the hospital and get treated, and maybe lose a lot of money, and sue the hotel where he stayed. It's quite another when self-righteous environmental crusaders get the U.N. to ban DDT, the only affordable substance that can stop the spread of malaria in poor, third-world countries.

It's not hard to see why banning DDT was so easy in America: nobody dies of malaria in America. DDT probably causes a thinning of the eggshells of raptors (not the dinosaurs, the birds of prey), so they have a harder time surviving. These birds are among the most photogenic and popular in nature (the bald eagle, the peregrine falcon, the golden eagle, the postal stamp-commemorated American kestrel). Thus the need to ban DDT. But malaria kills 1.5-3 million people outside the U.S. and Europe every year, and DDT is undoubtedly the cheapest, most effective way to stop it. "What to do," moan the American left. If we repeal the ban on DDT, the birds might die, maybe even become extinct. But if we don't, we really are everything we accuse conservatives of being: racist white elitists who don't care about the poor. Well, the American (and European) left has decided to do what it always does with a serious problem: ignore it and hope it goes away. But malaria is not going away, not unless we can bring back DDT in Africa.

As for the bed bugs, I'm willing to patronize an establishment that sprays, heck with the environment. You can feel free to boycott them, though. I won't mind.

SRS

Why Sheehan should be allowed to wear whatever she wants in the Capitol during the State of the Union address

2006-02-02T13:51:00.000-05:00

I can see I'm the only person on the right side of the blogging world who thinks people in the Capitol to watch the SOTUA should be allowed to wear t-shirts with politically-charged messages. The fact that someone was taken out for wearing "Support Our Troops" shows how sticky it is to decide what is and what is not a politically-charged message. One could pretty easily make the case that "Support Our Troops" is a very nonpartisan message. Democrats in public office want you to think it is. Joel Stein and the Kos are the only two people in America who openly oppose our troops. And yet someone thought "Support Our Troops" was a political message. Maybe "I [heart] Freedom" would be a political message. Perhaps "Obey the Constitution" would get unde a lot of congressional skin. Who is deciding what is a political message and what isn't?

Maybe someone will make the case that among the House of Reps' many rules is a "no t-shirt" dress code. That's not what I read. I read Sheehan and Mrs. Young were escorted out for "protesting," which is especially ludicrous in Young's case. And if it's a matter of banning clothes with words on them, I would support abolishing that rule. As long as someone is silent, and not physically interfering with anyone, she is not disrupting the address or anything else. If TV cameras want to focus on an audience member's t-shirt, that just shows where they are. I don't think wearing a t-shirt, even the most wildly partisan one, should be prohibited in the nation's Capitol.

Going back for a moment to the woman who was asked to get off a plane because she had a t-shirt that was wildly partisan and also obscene, I think that was completely within the airline's rights. The Constitution does not hold airlines or any other business to the free speech standard. That's only for the government (which includes the House of Representatives). Businesses set their own rules (or at least they should be allowed to), and the Constitution is not binding on them, nor should it be. As I noted in an earlier article about companies "invading their employees' privacy" by making sure they weren't smokers, it's a violation of a business' rights and freedoms to have government come force it to allow its customers and employees all the same freedoms they would (or should) be afforded in a government facility. If potential airline passengers don't want to patronize airlines that have a decency standard for what you wear on their airplanes, they don't have to. If you don't want to work for a company that goes to great lengths to keep its employees from smoking, you don't have to (or at least, you wouldn't as long as it's not federal law that requires businesses to discriminate against smokers).

Freedom: learn it, live it, love it.

SRS

Condolences to Mr. Ott

2006-02-01T17:26:00.000-05:00

The strong right straight would like to extend condolences to Mr. Ott of Scrappleface, until that Day when he sees his grandmother again.

SRS

An aimless, incoherent rant

2006-02-01T16:50:00.000-05:00

Cindy Sheehan is a member or supporter or liker or something of a bunch of folks called "CODEPINK, a group pushing for an end to the Iraq war," according to the AP. What a coincidence. I too am pushing for an end to the Iraq war. I have something in common with Cindy Sheehan.

Another thing I have in common with Cindy Sheehan is that I think it is totally ridiculous to take someone out of the Capitol because of something that can be read on her t-shirt. But then, I've never been a fan of dress codes. Cindy Sheehan was forced out of the State of the Union address for wearing a "[two-thousand some-odd] dead, how many more?" t-shirt. The wife of a Republican rep was escorted out because of a "Support the Troops" t-shirt she was wearing. Each somehow, incomprehensibly, thought her own case was that of partisan singling-out. Obviously this is yet another matter of bipartisan idiocy. They're t-shirts for crying out loud. As a matter of fact, there was no crying out loud. That's my point. How can you be disrupting a speech when you're not making any noise?

Another thing: Sheehan wanted to be arrested. I'll bet she's giddy that they escorted her out without provocation. I'm not saying Capitol (Keystone) cops are leftists. I still stand by the bipartisan/nonpartisan idiot comment.

Why not allow t-shirts into the Capitol during the SOTUA? I think that congress is more and more interested in limiting the speech of all the commoners, and getting away with it more and more. You'll notice that when they get caught misbehaving, instead of repenting, they use it as an excuse to take more of our freedoms away (see "Campaign Finance Reform"). They'll do it again if this Abramoff thing results in any new legislation.

We need to start taking our congress back, especially at the primary level. The Republicans haven't done what they promised. They just borrow and spend as a not-so-welcome break from Democrats' tax-and-spend strategy. Every politician that behaves differently in office than he promised during his campaign should not be selected in primary, let alone elected.

Also, let's demand a constitutional amendment banning pork (federal spending on goodies for individual states or counties or towns). I could write one this week that would improve the U.S. economy substantially and free up congress' time. . . wait, maybe that's not such a good idea after all.

SRS

The Political Teen moved

2006-01-31T22:47:00.000-05:00

The Political Teen turned twenty last week, and so changed his website's name to "Expose the Left." My link has been changed accordingly.

SRS

P.S. I'm just kidding about the age thing. I have no idea how old or young the guy is. But I'm pretty sure it is a guy, because his name is Ian.

P.P.S. Occasionally Ian has some misleading transcripts/descriptions for his videos. For example, he wrote that Chris Matthews said in a clip that "the president is horny for those pictures" (of Jack Abramoff), when he actually said "the press is horny for those pictures." I don't know if the mislabelling is intentional or not. I do not necessarily endorse any of Ian's views, I just think it's a good resource among many.

Let the states compete!

2006-01-26T23:45:00.000-05:00

Almost a week ago, I wrote that I supported Oregon's right to have a right-to-die law. "Libertarians" would say that the law is right, but I'm not going even that far. I just think that Oregon, as a sovereign state, has the right, under the Constitution, to have such a law. And I also think that it is good for states to have various laws, not only laws that I agree with, but also laws with which I disagree.

"Why would you want states to have laws you disagree with?" I can hear you ask. (And by the way, your sentence looks silly with a preposition tacked on!) I'll tell you why. Because states should compete for your business.

"Whoa!" you exclaim. "States are not a business!" Why not? If we had a small federal government, like we should, then all the states could have their own laws, their own levels of tax burden and collectivism, their own business environment: they would be almost as diverse as the different states of the world. They'll compete for your tax dollars on the basis of whose laws, ability to attract employers, and tax code all seem like the best fit for you. And don't think they wouldn't do all they can to attract the most (and best) taxpayers.

"Is that really what you think a state government should be about, you greedy, capitalist pig?" Hmm, maybe I should think about this more: what if the state was so concerned with getting money that it allowed crime to run rampant? But then again, that would scare the taxpayers, so they wouldn't do that. What if the state allowed horrible pollution to fill the skies and the water and the ground? You don't suppose that would bother the voters, do you?

Maybe the federal government could have laws restricting the environmental impact one state could have on another - and when it gets to bad in one state to continue living there, people move their tax-paying wallets to a more environmentally-friendly state, and the state government would have to do something.

The way it is now, the people of Massachusetts and the people of Alabama, through the various branches of the federal government, are fighting over what takes place in Iowa. Or Kansans and Californians are going head-to-head over something happening or not happening in Wyoming. It doesn't make sense. It's like millions of people are being nosy neighbors on a whole new level. Can't we let freedom prevail? Let each state do its own thing, according to the will of its people, and if it gets to be too much for some, they can move to the state that suits them.

SRS

[Note: I fixed the link to the Constitution. Apparently congress thought it too ironic to have a direct link to the Constitution on their website, but I discovered the problem and fixed it. However, it cease to work at any time, due to circumstances entirely out of my control. If that happens, please let me know so I can fix it again.]

Google takes a principal stand

2006-01-25T23:20:00.000-05:00

Can someone explain to me why Google, Inc. is a 1st Amendment hero? Because they're not providing a judge with some anonymous search data? Is it because they stand in defiance of government to protect their users from infringements on their rights?

Why aren't they defying China's government, when it asks them to help censor the internet for Chinese users? Why are they selling out for that almighty yuan? Maybe if Google, Inc. were to take a principled stand, some of the leading search engine/web browser/email service/software companies would follow, and maybe China would have to choose between offering its people a free internet (in the important sense, not the pricing sense), and offering them no internet at all. Instead, Google (and Yahoo!, et al.) decided it would be more expedient, and profitable, to just let the tyrants of Beijing have it their way.

But feel free to search for porn.

SRS

Definitions: part hana

2006-01-20T06:19:00.000-05:00

People play around with definitions and stretch them, tease them, rend them from their bones, even. So I'm going to start posting definitions to various things. I've already thought of three, but in the time it took me to type this, I've forgotten one. I hope it comes back to me.

The definition of the difference between the political right and left: the former believes in equality before the law, and the latter in equality after the law.

SRS

Why would a conservative support a "right to die" law?

2006-01-20T04:26:00.000-05:00

Here's why: because each state has the right to make its own laws. As James Madison put it: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." That includes, for example any law which does not violate the Constitution directly. So, if Oregon wants to legalize theft, rape, and murder, it may. The alleged harm that would come of this is no greater than the harm that would come of allowing a company to become a monopoly apart from government protection. Quite simply: no one would live in Oregon, just as no one would patronize a company offering inferior products at inflated prices.

"Yes, but, well, people will still live in Oregon if they have a right-do-die law!" Quite true, my able-minded reader. Some people do, in fact, want to die. They will no doubt flock to Oregon and avail themselves of this service being offered. While it is sad and tragic that people commit suicide, much as it is sad that people fornicate. Adults are allowed to do that in many, many states. In fact I defy you to show me one state or locality inside the U.S. that actively prosecutes fornication cases. So we have indeed reached the point where in the U.S. not every government enforces God's laws, right on down the line.

Is it a bad thing to have bad state laws? Surprisingly, there are good reasons to doubt that it is a bad thing for there to be states with very bad laws (or conversely, that lack very good laws). "How can this be?" You well might ask. The answer is shocking, but true. If Oregon were allowed to pass all the laws that its people want to pass, and if Kansas passed all the laws that its people want to pass, and so forth for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Washington, Nevada, Mississippi, and all the other states, you'd find that there would be at least one state that suits you quite a bit better than the one you live in now. Even to the extent that you would move there. People who hold views nearly diametrically opposite yours would have their own state too. Like Oregon. And they can move there and commit gay-porn-drug-high tax-suicide, and live it up. Or die it up. Or whatever.

Okay, yeah, I know that my federalist utopia is crazy, considering that the court, though 7-2 Republican, is 6-3 nutjob anti-federalist imperialist. And the suicide rights, gay rights, drug rights, porn rights rulings have nothing to do with states' rights, and everything to do with suicide, homosexuality, drugs, and porn being "in vogue" with the elites who rule us from the supreme court. Still, I think it would work.

SRS

NBA to Antonio Davis:

2006-01-19T01:36:00.000-05:00

"You are a basketball player, not a human being. You violated league rules by entering the space reserved for the humans. Basketball players interacting with humans will not be tolerated."

SRS

America's "education" system

2006-01-18T01:41:00.000-05:00

Read this article from John Stossel, and follow it up with this one, both of which I found on Townhall.com. They're sad, but you must heed their message. For the children.

SRS

Employment tip

2006-01-18T00:35:00.000-05:00

If you're thinking about taking a job somewhere, and the company promises you something (for instance, a pension) but isn't under a legal obligation to pay it, don't count on it being there when you need it. I guess I should say: don't need it. If you would work for company A, but company B has a nice pension plan... go with company A. It's that simple.

As for the CEO's making millions, billions, or gazillions of dollars, what is that to you? If company A offers you $50,000/year, and B offers you $40,000/year, and benefits are the same, working environment the same - are you going to work for company B because the CEO there makes only half as much?

I get so sick of hearing people talk about how CEO's are overpaid and congress should do something to stop it and help the little guy whose pension is being raided or whatever. Yeah, the government really helped us out a lot in 1930's. The government's help turned a market correction into the Great Depression. And the government sure solved the gas crisis of the 1970's. The solution was gas lines and another major recession. So what will the government's help be in making CEO's more fair to their workers? Smart money's on unemployment, but nationalization of industry offers nice-looking odds.

How about this: solve your own problems! Find another company to work for. Or if there isn't one that suits you, make your own! I know it's hard, what with all the regulations and red tape that (who was it again - oh yeah!) the government imposes. But you can do it. And you can make yourself the CEO. And if you can make your company compete successfully with the big boys, you can pay yourself whatever you want. And live happily ever after.

SRS

I liked this editorial cartoon...

2006-01-13T19:32:00.000-05:00

so much that I hunted it down on the 'net and to provide you with this link. I may provide a permanent link to this cartoonist in the future. His other stuff looks really good too.

SRS

A sickening story from MSN

2006-01-13T17:25:00.000-05:00

This is one of the most discouraging and disgusting things I have ever read. I wouldn't be too surprised if two or three people do this (because there will always be two or three extremely deranged persons here and there), but the story makes this sound common. Is this common for the youth of our nation? Please, someone tell me this is an isolated incident.

SRS

Pigs, levels, and stooping

2006-01-09T20:32:00.000-05:00

Someone questioned the appropriateness of my use of the word "pigs" to describe Rep. Murtha and Sen. McCain. I would like to point out that the word "pig" is accepted to mean "greedy or disgusting person" as well as to mean "mammal of the family Suidae." I firmly believe that McCain's and Murtha's actions are driven by greed for partisan acclaim, political gain, or both, and I find them disgusting. The venerable printing (1981) of the OED at my disposal informs that "pig" is applied "contemptuously or opprobriously, to a person," and I fully intended to convey contempt and opprobrium, both of which are richly deserved by McCain's and Murtha's words and actions.

The same person asked me if I wanted to stoop to Murtha's level. I don't, and I haven't. To do that, I would need to do something to undemine national security and troop morale while holding a position of trust in the U.S. government, or something similarly vile. No, I'm still honest, humble, and supportive of my country and its soldiers. I suppose if I mugged someone, beat and robbed him or her, that would be about Murtha's level (though down a totally unrelated path of opprobrium), but I haven't done that either, nor any of the myriad similar hypotheticals one might think of. So I still have not stooped to Murtha's level. And no, I don't want to.

SRS

Invasion of privacy

2006-01-07T03:34:00.000-05:00

Drudge links to a fascinating story about cell phone records being put up for sale, no questions asked. It's an immoral practice, and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) is rightly proposing legislation to ban it.

But soft! Isn't this the selfsame man whose agents, just this past July, absconded with the private credit history of one Michael Steele, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate? Why, I do believe it is! Apparently Chucky Schumer sees a big need for privacy when the one potentially invading it is a private citizen or business. But Chucky Schumer apparently believes "no controlling legal authority" (in Al Gore's infamous words) should tell him, big-shot Democrat senator, what to do or not do with others' private information.

Keep an eye on your cell phone records and your credit histories, ladies and gentlemen.

SRS

The Patriot Act, NSA bugging of international phone calls, and torture

2005-12-22T01:39:00.000-05:00

... are good examples of what the senate should be working to keep, not end. We are at war, and that's not supposed to be pretty. But if you actually look at the Patriot Act, the NSA's actions, and what now passes for torture in the U.S., they're all pretty tame. But they could still prove very useful in our war against Islamic extremism.

1. As I recall, the Patriot Act is controversial in that it allows the feds to get library records without a warrant, and search people's homes without a warrant obtained from a grand jury (but with a warrant from a federal judge instead), and some other, similar things. We are at war for crying out loud. Ask yourself: do you want to risk being blown up by a terrorist, or do you want to let the feds search people's library records? I think there are some levels of privacy we, as a nation, are willing to forego for the sake of national security. Then again, if you don't like the Patriot Act, and you're a Hollywood producer or scriptwriter, you could always make up stuff about it and repeat it ad nauseum on tv and in movies in a setting where you don't have to worry about being criticized for inaccuracy, because hey, it's just a show, right? Except that all the ignorant people who see the show will know nothing about the Patriot Act except that they saw an innocent guy on tv get hauled off by the feds and thrown in jail for the rest of his life, all because of the Patriot Act. But hey, it's just a show, right? Oh, and it seems that half of the senate is among those ignorant people.

2. The NSA apparently listened in on international phone calls between U.S. citizens in the U.S. and suspected al Qaeda members overseas. This is good news, if it is news at all. I would be very worried if the NSA weren't listening to international phone calls between al Qaeda and anyone in the U.S. who is talking to al Qaeda. Is this a separation of powers issue? Is the NY Times suggesting that the CIA listen to international phone calls between al Qaeda and folks stateside? The FBI maybe? No, I guess the NYT and the ACLU, and all the rest of the usual suspects would rather we respect the natural, God-given rights of terrorists to plot our destruction in private, away from the prying ears of Unca' Sam.

3. Torture apparently consists of wrapping a prisoner's head in a wet towel, which somehow makes the prisoner think he's drowning. Sounds to me like the prisoner is just plain dumb, but maybe it really is very scary. Like the "torture" technique of hooking up wires to the fingers and perhaps other body parts of prisoners: scary as it may be, if he's not actually hurt, how is it torture? Rush Limbaugh infamously described what happened at Abu Ghraib as similar to a fraternity hazing. He was right. Now being forced to listen to loud rap is being called "torture." I guess college freshman all across America are being tortured every fall, until they can get a new roommate or move off campus. As much as I can sympathize with this definition of torture, and as much as I hate Eminem's recordings, I can't help but think that just about any loud noise would be preferable to being fed feet first into a wood-chipper, or having my wife raped and my children murdered in front of me, or having my head slowly sawed off with a dull knife. If you want to know the difference between the Amnesty International definition of torture and the traditional definition of torture, watch the Saddam trial. Amnesty International's definition is used by Saddam and his half-brother Ibrahim (or whatever his name is) when they accuse their American captors of torturing them: hard beds, bad cigarettes. Real torture is what Saddam and his cronies did to Iraqis they thought were opposing them: feeding the feet first into wood-chippers, or raping their wives and murdering their children in front of them, etc. Remember that next time Amnesty International complains that the terrorists in Gitmo aren't getting the right study helps with their free Korans, or that their rice pilaf was cold, or that their delousing tickled, and caused them to question their sexuality, or whatever asinine accusation they come up with next. As for John McCain's grandstanding, it's reprehensible, because he knows better. Same with Murtha: they're both pigs, interested only in political gain, with no concern for the overall well-being of their country.

Again, we are at war. That's neither easy nor a small thing. Anyone who tries to make war nice and civilized is not to be trusted. War is civilized when it is effective - the quicker one country wins the war, the sooner there is peace, and the fewer the lives that are lost. Those who would decrease our combat effectiveness or our ability to gather the intelligence necessary to defend ourselves would have us lose... or have the war drag on and on. To win and win quickly is by far the best option.

NOTE: For further (and better researched) reading on the subject of the NSA's tapping of the phones of terror suspects, look here.

SRS

Cold Case to foster children: "Drop dead"

2005-12-05T01:43:00.000-05:00

Or rather, "you should have been aborted." That's the message that comes through loud and clear when the CBS show Cold Case demonizes the person who talked the parents of a subsequent foster child out of having her aborted. The pro-lifer is cast in less sympathetic light than the murderer. Why? Because she talked an unmarried teen couple out of having an abortion. The show never openly confronts the daughter with the ideas inferred by the revulsion expressed at the pro-lifer, which are: your biological mother would have been better off if you had died in her womb; and your life is less valuable than your biological mother's dreams for her own life.

It's astonishing how callous Hollywood is towards those who are pro-life, and those whose lives they save. Then again, it's probably inevitable that if you twist your conscience to condone the murder of the unborn, the rest of your values are going to be twisted with it. If you think that a pregnant teenager should snuff out the innocent life within her if it's inconvenient for her to bear a child, there's no telling what else you might think is right.

SRS

Government vs. freedom in dealing with crises

2005-12-03T04:23:00.000-05:00

Even "conservative Republican" acquaintances of mine are indignant that oil companies made billions of dollars in profits while Americans paid "record prices" for gasoline and other petroleum products. My question is: "How are you going to stop them from making record profits? Or how are you going to punish them for what they did to motorists?" A "windfall profits tax" seems like a natural way of going about it. We could then issue tax breaks for motorists according to how far they drove, and thus by how much they suffered from oil companies' price gouging. That way we put a dent in those obscene profits, and help those who have suffered at the pump.

Aside from the economic woes that would inevitably result from such "solutions," they are offensive to the principles of freedom and self-governance. Government limits our freedom. This is a good thing when we are talking about the "freedom" to take somebody else's stuff without permission. But for government to step in between a consensual arrangement between two parties (the oil companies and their customers) so that one of the parties can get a better deal is obviously immoral. It's like hiring muscle to make sure that merchants sell to your "family" in exchange for kneecap insurance. Except in this case the toughs are the government. Regardless of who the enforcers are, their intervention is an affront to freedom.

As noted earlier, government is supposed to keep people from stealing stuff. But when they tax one group and give to another, they are facilitating theft. Do we really want government doing that?

Perhaps my conservative friends would say: "I don't want government to get involved, but I wish the oil companies would voluntarily lower their prices to help out their fellow Americans, instead of raising prices and getting record-breaking profits." To that even the most junior economist would reply: "What do you think will happen when the high prices cause people to cut back on consumption, and oil companies produce more to take advantage of the higher prices?" As a matter of fact, gas prices fell for about ten straight weeks, and most of that before the government even thought about getting involved. Free markets meet demands. That's what price fluctuations in a free market do: they regulate supply and demand to equal each other. If you limit the price of gasoline, everyone's going to try to buy it at once, and nobody's going to want to produce it - we already went through that in the 70's. It's like in the Soviet Union, when manufacturing honchos didn't have to limit costs, they hoarded all the supplies they could, without evaluating how much they really needed - just to be on the safe side. It resulted in dreadful waste because there wasn't a simple thing like price to keep demand down.

Same thing with gasoline in America. If we start producing less, oil companies are going to charge more for what they've already produced. Voila, record profits. But if they charged the same price, as the ignorant are suggesting they should have, people would have bought more gasoline than they truly needed (just like Soviet factory managers and their tools and materials), and people truly in need would have gone without.

Price-gouging laws limiting how much one can raise prices after a natural disaster have the effect of causing shortages. Wouldn't there be shortages after a natural disaster anyway? I'm glad you asked. The answer is not really. Take for instance the middle class Smith family and the poorer Green family, fleeing the path of a hurricane. The Smiths hear about the hurricane sooner, because their breadwinner works in a place where one hears about such things, and they start to evacuate at 2pm. The Greens start to evacuate at 4pm. They both need to refuel before they can get far enough to be truly safe. With the amoral, price-gouging gas station owner charging $4.50/gal, Mr. Smith sits for a moment and figures out exactly how much gasoline he needs to make it to the safe zone, and he buys an extra dollar's worth, just to be sure. The Green family shows up two hours later, and they hurriedly buy as much as they can without blowing the motel money, and they hurry on their way. The Smith family reaches the motel in the safe zone first. They want to rent two rooms, one for the parents, and one for the kids, but the amoral, price-gouging motel owner is charging two-star hotel prices for his junky motel (and the two-star hotels... you don't even want to know). At the new prices, the Smiths pile into one room. The Greens show up a few hours later, discover the new prices, and pile into an even smaller room, where they wait out the hurricane in the cramped conditions forced upon them by the evils of price-gouging. How horrible for them, huh? Well the Smiths and the Greens vote into office a politician who promises to end price-gouging, and he does, passing very effective legislation to that effect. The next year, there's a hurricane. Let's examine how wonderful the evacuation is without that awful price-gouging.

Again, the Smiths leave two hours before the Greens, and arrive at the gas station two hours earlier. The price is still below$2.50/gal, thanks to Sen. Cardigan. The Smiths fill up, and buy a gas can and fill that up too (because, after all, you never know when you might be able to fill up again). When the Greens arrive, the gas station is dry as a bone, because everyone who had gotten there in the previous two hours had bought as much as they could fit into their gas tanks and newly purchased gas cans; most of them even topped off. So the Greens hitchhike the rest of the way to the safe zone, and are fortunate enough to get to ride with some cultists who are picking up all the hitchhikers they can, so that they can preach to them all about the true meaning of the hurricane, and the great Zooboo, whose name is Phil. This for all six hours it takes to reach the safe zone. There the Smiths have found that the motel prices are actually quite reasonable, a la Cardigan. So they rent one room for themselves, and since they have more money and bigger kids than last time, and the prices are so reasonable, they get two for their kids - for a total of three rooms. (Evacuation is so much more comfortable without the gouging!) Many others who arrive around the same time do similar things. When the Greens finally show up with the Zoobooites, all the motels are full, as is the two-star hotel. There is nowhere else to stay in town. There is nowhere else to stay anywhere that the Zoobooites can reach on their tank of gas. But that does not seem to phase them. They're perfectly content to bed right down in the van, despite its accumulation of Zoobooite odors, and the Greens are perfectly welcome to stay with them, if they don't mind listening to the story of Phil, the great Zooboo, one more time.

So you see, you may have a wonderful time with government interference in the economy. If you're like Warren Buffet or George Soros, the lion's share of your income might come from gov't interference in the economy. But it's the poor who suffer. Not just in my light-hearted illustration, but in real life. Those who don't have the education or experience to produce more than $5.00/hour of help to an employer can't get a job when there's a $5.15/hour minimum wage. Inflation may have increased the dollar figure of their work's value to $5.50/hour. Should we increase the minimum wage so their new job will pay them more? Or will they not have a job?

It comes down to whether you want more government to protect you from things that you find inconvenient, or more freedom. Beyond that, it comes down to which is more noble.

SRS

Got oil?

2005-11-24T08:52:00.000-05:00

Have you seen the ads for the upcoming movie "Syriana"? They make it clear that the filmmakers are unaware of a few ageless, unchangeable laws of economics. First, that rising oil prices cause an increase in oil exploration, discovery, and extraction technology development, because the greater expense will be paid for by the higher price, as per the law of supply and demand. (We are not, as stated in the ads for the movie, "running out of oil.") When there's a larger supply of oil, caused by the increased exploration, discovery, and extraction, the price will then start to drop to levels relatively close to where they were before they started to rise in the first place due to the "world oil shortage" scare... as per the law of supply and demand. (We are not going to pay "$21 per gallon [for gasoline] at the pump" as stated in the ads for the movie. Not without massive inflation, which is caused by government, not by oil companies or Arabs.)

I guess I was wrong. I guess the filmmakers of Syriana aren't unaware of a few laws of economics, they're unaware of one simple, easy-to-understand, basic law of economics. Supply and demand: keeping the world's known oil reserves pretty much steady (or rising), regardless of how much we use, since the nineteenth century.

SRS

No draft = better military

2005-11-14T13:58:00.000-05:00

Some say that the current situation in Iraq proves that we need a military draft, so as to balloon the numbers of our armed forces. This prompts the question: "What's so bad about Iraq that we need to reurn to the good old days of Vietnam, Korea, etc.?" To put the argument against the draft as simply as possible: do you really want our military filled with people who don't think they should be there? Do you really want to bring back slavery? (That's what a draft is.)

There you have it: the military draft is an immoral concept, and besides, our most prominent military leaders say our military is better off without it.

SRS

Good man/bad president?

2005-11-07T16:45:00.000-05:00

I've heard friends, including conservatives, say that Jimmy Carter was a bad president, but a good man. He did bad things for the economy and was inept at foreign policy, they agree, but they maintain that he is still a good person. Some even agree with leftist media assessments that he is a great ex-president, whatever he may have done in office. They are wrong. Obviously, it takes a bad ex-president to undermine his own country's war effort by publicly opposing the war while it is still going on. But is he a good man, though misguided?

Well, Jimmy Carter accuses - without evidence - Americans of routinely torturing prisoners around the world. He lies about Guantanamo Bay, portraying it as a hellhole, when in reality the worst accusations made about the interrogation techniques there are things like "turning the air conditioning way up" and "playing really loud music" at the prisoners.* He pretends to be very morally superior to those who disagree with him, when really he lies when it suits him, and defames his own country.

Don't get me wrong. I encourage everyone to oppose policy decisions of the president if they think there's just cause for doing so. That doesn't make you a bad person, even if you're wrong. But to accuse American soldiers of war crimes they didn't commit, while they are still at war? That gives aid and comfort (and a recruiting tool) to our terrorist enemies, and that is evil. I will say it again, so you don't misunderstand. Former United States president Jimmy Carter is depraved, and his words and actions are evil.

SRS

Fox Propaganda

2005-11-06T01:20:00.000-05:00

Sorry I didn't post for a while there; I was at my parents' place, and their web access isn't working. So I was helping my dad watch some college football. During one of the commercial breaks, he flipped to Fox, where there was an episode of Stargate: Atlantis. The scientists had just invented some serum or whatever, and they were right about to test it on a captured alien or sea creature or whatever. But then a State Department official pointed out that performing science experiments on prisoners is a violation of the Geneva Convention. "That's odd," I thought. "I guess the alien/sea creature/whatever went back in time to become a signatory party at the Geneva Convention."

SRS

Got logic?

2005-11-03T15:24:00.000-05:00

I was catching up on my Ted Rall, and I came across this in a piece of... commentary from October 26. I know he's an easy target, but this was just too funny.

[A New York Daily News article] says that George W. Bush knew about Karl Rove's scheme to blow CIA agent Valerie Plame's cover for years, that he was Rove's partner in treason from the start, that his claims of ignorance were lies. The News article is anonymously sourced but we know it's 100 percent true because the White House won't deny that Bush is a traitor.

I guess by that "logic" we know allegations that Hillary Clinton shot Vince Foster in the back of the head were also "100 percent true" because the White House at the time never denied that Mrs. Clinton was a murderer.

By that same line of reasoning, we know that Ronald Reagan sneaked out of the White House at night to go steal a can of beans from a homeless person, and cooked it and ate it so he could laugh at the suffering he had caused. But then again, Mr. Rall probably believes that. Oh well.

This just goes to show that logic should be taught in our schools (and it probably would be if there were no government schools). People wouldn't vote for candidates like Kerry and Bush in the primaries, so the rest of us wouldn't be stuck with choices like that in November. We would probably be much closer to adhering to the constitution in our government. In fact, if he had learned how to reason, Ted Rall wouldn't make himself look like a moron by posting articles like this on the internet - on second thought, maybe it's not such a bad thing that people don't know how to reason.

SRS

Never judge too quickly

2005-11-01T09:33:00.000-05:00

I don't know all that much about Judge Alito (except that he's a "conservative" and his name is a little reminiscent of the O.J. judge). He seems like a great nominee from what little I know of him, but something may turn up that demonstrates otherwise. If you think you've found that something, and it's his opinion in a strip search lawsuit, read more about it here. Don't judge until you've heard both sides.

SRS

Alito

2005-10-31T12:45:00.000-05:00

Sorry I'm late with this news. I forgot to tell you: a man named Samuel Alito was nominated to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. He's apparently a lot like Scalia, right down to the Italian heritage. Considering I once supported human cloning for the very purpose of filling SCotUS with Scalia and Thomas clones, he really can't be enough like Scalia for me. But I hold out hope he comes close.

Considering this all started with needing to nominate a woman to mollify Laura, I don't see why he didn't nominate Janice Rogers Brown. Let's hope Justice Ginsburg decides to retire, so Bush will have another chance to nominate JRB.

SRS

Immigration

2005-10-29T01:17:00.000-04:00

When the whole campaign finance reform (CFR) debate was going on, I supported a plan that eliminated restricitions on how much could be contributed and spent, or what could be said and when, and merely tracked who was giving money to whom - a plan called no limits, full disclosure. This plan would not violate the First Amendment as does the plan that passed congress and was signed into law. And it would allow voters more information about special interests than they've ever had before, thereby effectively accomplishing all the good things that McCain and Feingold promised us, without their plan's nasty side effects (like the end of free political speech).

No, I did not mislabel this article. I'd like to make the case that the same plan that would have worked so well in CFR could be implemented at our border: no limits, full disclosure (NLFD). Essentially, allow in anyone who wants to come to our country, as long as they aren't wanted by interpol or associated with known terrorist organizations. No limits, full disclosure. Obviously, there are some countries where the government is less friendly, and we might have to look a little closer at people from those countries (Syria, Iran, PRC, France, etcetera). With NLFD, we wouldn't have to open up factories overseas, because all the low-wage labor would be here. And the price of baseball players would plummet, allowing other teams to have a shot at winning the AL East.

Everyone not on some wanted list could get an immigrant worker ID to give to employers in place of the SSN we Americans give to our employers. Anyone trying to get a job without an ID can be reported to a much smaller, leaner INS for investigation and possibly deportation. Since all you have to do to get in the country legitimately and get an ID is show that you're not a known criminal or terrorist, every good guy in the country will have an ID. Really simple. It won't be a major privacy issue, because it won't have any personal information except when you came to the country, what country you're from, and what your name is.

Now as to the economic impact of having an unlimited supply of unskilled labor depressing everyone's wages: that will only affect the jobs unskilled laborers can do. Yes, there are unskilled laborers in the U.S., but they chose their lot by choosing to drop out of high school and not get jobs. Unskilled laborers in countries that don't provide government-funded education (and have 15% or higher unemployment) didn't choose their lot. Ultimately, it's not a question of whether or not it's moral to allow unlimited immigration of law-abiding people from around the world. It's adiaphora. The pertinent question is "Is it beneficial?" The answer is yes. The economy is improved when there is more being produced. That is, the more people you have being productive, the more stuff there will be (and the better). That simple, common-sense truism is the secret behind supply-side economics.

Immigration control is one form of trade protectionism. It protects an inflated price for something from foreign competition: labor. Some might argue that while sugar is clearly not worth trade protections, the labor market as a whole is, because, well, those are our jobs. For one thing, just because we're talking about jobs instead of sugar or textiles doesn't mean the laws of economics don't apply anymore. It's still imperative to think beyond stage one. In ancient times, where did economic progress and technological development take place? Was it in the wilderness among the nomads or out in the woods where the hunter-gatherers were? Or was it in the densely populated cities and the farms that supported them? Population density is remarkably beneficial to economic and technological develoment even today. Even more that we now have easily accessible education that seeks out its own talent instead of waiting for the occasional convergence of wealth and genius to come to them.

Someone might ask: "If population density is so great for the economy, why are there so many poor in the cities?" There are a number of reasons that poverty exists in inner cities, not least of which is inept government policy. But perhaps the question should be "Why are there jobs and industries still forming in cities where there is more crime, inept government, and taxes than elsewhere?" There may seem to be many answers to that question, but almost all come back, ultimately, to population density. The more people you have interacting, sharing ideas, and trading with one another, the more they all will prosper, as we have seen throughout world history, and continue to see today.

The most worrisome question for the NLFD plan for immigration is: "What if we are overrun by uneducated, antisemitic Muslim thugs, as Europe was?" That is actually a very good question. But it won't happen in the U.S. for many reasons. First, the only segment of Islamic society that is both dangerous and numerous is the ignorant antisemitic people who are living in Europe and totalitarian countries. As noted above, immigrants from these countries could be more closely monitored, or limited in number. Other Muslims, from countries such as Kuwait, or now Iraq and Afghanistan are far more peaceful than the sort slumming in Europe.

Second, antisemitism itself would be far less welcome here than in Europe, where many natives have that much in common with the Islamic fundamentalists who immigrate there. Here, despite what the left would have you believe, antisemitism has been marginalized. You see, free markets make antisemitism, racism - and every other kind of prejudice - very expensive, and after a generation or two, no one's willing to put their livelihood on the line for an unpopular, wrongheaded idea.

Third, there's much less of a welfare state, and much more genuine economic opportunity here than in Europe. That means that productive people (not thugs) are more likely to want to come here, and unproductive people (i.e. thugs) are less likely to want to come here.

So we might have a few issues that need to be worked out first, but NLFD immigration policy can unltimately work, at least for immigrants from most countries. One of the most remarkable things about trade is that everyone involved can become more prosperous. The same can be true of immigration.

SRS

Top Story: Steve Gilliard is black

2005-10-28T07:01:00.000-04:00

Apparently the blogger who put blackface on Michael Steele's photograph is himself black. I guess that means it's okay.

I retract everything I have said in criticism of his actions, and want to apologize for having disagreed with a black person. Because it's okay for black people to slander black people. It's wrong only if a white person does it.

If I can be serious for a moment? Steve Gilliard's actions are symptomatic of a very despicable way of thinking: that if you have the right skin colour and the right (or I should say left) politics, you should be allowed to do things that white people (and conservatives "of colour") could never get away with. I guess if a taxi passes you by, everyone suddenly has to defer to you in all political discussions, unless you're a conservative.

Here's what's really sad: any time a black person comes up with a good idea or has a proposal that would truly help black people in America, he's attacked and shunned by 90% of the other black people in America. It has nothing to do with the idea's merits or demerits, but whether or not it's a Republican idea - if it's got an "R" next to it, it's evil, or so black people are raised to believe. After all Republicans have always been the party of racism, right? Oh wait, no, they were the party founded expressly to end the racist institution of slavery in America. The Democrats were the ones for slavery. But they changed soon afterwards: in 18- uh, 19-... the 1960's! 'Cause that's when they tried to stop the Civil Rights Act from being passed... oh wait, that was the Democrats again. They went after the first black president in the 90's! Except he was actually white. Come to think of it, Republicans have:

1. Ended slavery in America (1860's)
2. Fought racist democrats in the south to their knees, both militarily and politically (1860's-present)
3. Opposed minimum wage laws which dramatically increase black unemployment (1930's-present)
4. Passed civil rights legislation (1960's)
5. Fought for school vouchers, which would increase economic opportunity for American blacks more than anything except repeal of the minimum wage (19??-present)
6. Forced the first black president to enact welfare reform laws, increasing economic opportunity for blacks (1990's)

So why would any black in his right mind support a party that has fought to keep slavery, keep racial segregation in schools, impose racial segregation on the military, impose minimum wage laws (read: young black male unemployment laws), oppose civil rights legislation, oppose school vouchers, and now takes the black vote for granted?

It takes lies about history, and thorough indoctrination; it takes despicable role models like Revs. Jackson and Sharpton; it takes vicious lies about those who do stand up for what's right (labeling them "Uncle Tom" or "Sambo"); it takes a generation of youngsters who know more about 50 Cent than about Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Larry Elder, Michael Steele, and all of conservative thought; it takes the rotten education that these kids will continue to get in the rotten schools that they're stuck in without vouchers; but it can be done, as we are seeing. Can anything be done to the contrary? I'm glad you asked. Yes, we can overcome all the advantages the left holds in the battle for the hearts and minds of blacks. We just have to be unafraid of the attacks that are a natural reaction to the truth. We must continue to speak the truth, even when accused of racism. Most black leftists are woefully undereducated and misled by the schools and their "leaders," but they are not stupid or dishonest. If we are persistent and honest, most of them will see the truth.

SRS

New pick for SCOTUS

2005-10-28T05:56:00.000-04:00

Now, can anyone tell me why Janice Rogers Brown is not a perfect fit for the Supreme Court of the United States?

SRS

Credibility

2005-10-28T05:11:00.000-04:00

My dear colleague(s) at crooksandliars.com opined that the right has lost all credibility on the issue of "Is the judicial confirmation process too nasty?" Just because we express legitimate opinions, rooted in fact, with concern to a nominee's qualifications and experience, does not mean we're borking. In fact, looking up "bork" in the wikipedia, one finds it lays out the distinction nicely. For those of you too lazy to click that link, I'll explain.

When the Democrats (and their nastiest accomplices) attacked Robert Bork, nominee for associate justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1987, they lied, slandered, libeled, and all that sort of thing, dragging through the mud the good name of a good man (who was extremely qualified to sit on the Supreme Court). All the accusations leveled at him were baseless, but they had to be done to prevent an excellent, conservative legal mind from joining the Supreme Court at the time. It worked, and Bork's nomination was defeated in the Senate. After a former pot-head was briefly considered, Anthony Kennedy wound up getting the job, a major victory for the American left. Since then "to bork" has been used as a verb meaning "to attempt to destroy a person's reputation through falsehood or unfounded rumour, especially to prevent that person from being confirmed as a justice in the American judicial system." It is well known that Clarence Thomas was borked when he was nominated to the Supreme Court, but the borking failed, and he was confirmed by a narrow margin. If one wishes to apply the term to cabinet appointments, one could easily demonstrate that Alberto Gonzales was borked when nominated to be Attorney General of the U.S. in 2004, as was John Bolton when he was nominated to the ambassadorship to the U.N., though both of these examples pale in comparison to the hatred evident when the Supreme Court is at stake.

Either way, questioning whether or not Harriet Miers has adequate experience to sit on the Supreme Court is nothing at all like accusing Clarence Thomas of sexual assault or accusing Robert Bork of trying to return the country to forced segregation. For one thing, what was said about Miers was true. For another, nobody (but nobody) on the right side of the fence said or implied that Miers was anything less than a wonderful person. The point was that she was a wonderful person who did not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court.

It is ironic that a left wing blogger would write about credibility.

SRS

Miers withdraws her nomination...

2005-10-27T10:31:00.000-04:00

for justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Story here.

SRS

Burning bodies...

2005-10-27T07:03:00.000-04:00

terrorist style. You see, American soldiers make one important distinction when they burn human bodies: they make sure the bodies are dead first. Nadir-of-the-depths-of-evil Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, make the distinction the other way around. They hate human life, and they desire suffering. They are rapists, racists, and hypocrites. They raise their children to thirst for blood, and they have no humanity or reason, only violent urges over which they have forfeited control. They can't distinguish between friend and foe, because rational thought is foreign to them. They long to become animals, soulless and utterly depraved.

And of course, they will be lauded as heroes by the American left, who are so divorced from reality by their hatred of individual political figures that they celebrate the deaths of the valiant, all the while deluding themselves into thinking that their hatred is still directed at the "elite." They are the elite in their own world view, because they think they know the whole inside scoop, all the secrets and lies of "the ruling class" - it is this arrogance that prevents them from seeing their own depravity.

So there you have it, depravity overseas, matched by depravity in America.

I still like Ann Coulter's idea for our response to the September 11 attacks: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." That sounds better than ever. Check out the full article.

SRS

Our colleagues on the left side of the blogosphere...

2005-10-27T06:34:00.000-04:00

are racists, as seen here. This comes hard upon the news that the folks at USA Today risk looking like racists in an idiotic, partisan photoshopping of the Secretary of State, as seen here (and pretty much everywhere else on the right side of the blogosphere). This is old news. Leftists use black people for political advantage, despise them in their personal lives, and then accuse the right of doing the same things, while denying the truth about themselves. But the truth gets out.

SRS

Check out...

2005-10-27T06:04:00.000-04:00

this article at the Claremont Institute. If you want to know my views on Miers, federalism, or Oregon's euthanasia law, this guy expresses them better than I could.

SRS

My blog is completely worthless

2005-10-26T17:53:00.000-04:00

Observe:

My blog is worth $0.00.
How much is your blog worth?

New title

2005-10-26T16:18:00.000-04:00

New title, same old look. I also expanded on the description, because I'm not sure either of my readers got it: "A pinionated, inciteful commentary" - though I'm not sure explaining it makes it any funnier. Oh well.

SRS

I think this is why I like Bush...

2005-10-25T08:40:00.000-04:00

despite our many differences on his domestic agenda: click here.

SRS

I thought you might want to see...

2005-10-25T06:52:00.000-04:00

this post from one of my other blogs. It's a little suggestive of political satire, but I still felt it fit in better with my silly blog. Click on one of the colorful words above to read it.

SRS

One of my favourite things about Walter Williams....

2005-10-24T07:40:00.000-04:00

is that he is just the sort of economist who would offer an economic explanation for the song lyrics "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life/Never make a pretty woman your wife...."

The communism of the free market

2005-10-24T04:46:00.000-04:00

What is communism? Taken at its root meaning, what is it really? Is it not the unity of society, oriented towards a common goal? If not, isn't that at least the purpose of advocating a communist society: to unite us and drive us towards a singular goal? It is an admirable purpose, is it not?

However, in every attempt at communism in recorded history, there have remained divisions, stratification, suspicion, and bitterness: the very things communism was supposed to end. What went wrong? Smarter men than I have written extensively on the subject. But I think it might be educational to think in terms of "what could we do that would go right?"

One thing we could do is examine the economic processes of capitalism (or, more accurately, free markets), which communism tried to abolish. In a free (or relatively free) market, a person generally produces goods or services which are not particularly useful to himself, at least not in the amounts he produces. Why does he do this silly, wasteful thing? Well, so he can exchange the goods or services he produces for the goods or services produced by others. Since the development of currency, it has become obvious that a person can acquire more goods for himself by producing one thing in abundance and then trading it, via currency, for the other things he wants or needs, than by trying to produce on his own everything he wants or needs.

But all of this is selfish and, if our goal is unity and cooperation, counterproductive. Or is it? If everyone is working for himself, specializing in one thing each, and trying in this way to gain all he can for himself, he is participating in the process of producing goods for strangers, and for society at large. Think of an assembly line: attaching widget A to widget B might seem useless, until all the other widgets have been affixed, and you have a brand-new, functioning thingamajig. An excellent example of cooperation brought to you by the free market.

I can hear you objecting: "But what about a spirit of unity, feelings of commonality, a zeitgeist of good will?" (You're awfully redundant.) I would like for you to suppose for a moment that there is a man aware of himself, his situation, and such. This man - let's call him Kweisi - is truly interested in himself, his own well-being, and the satisfaction of his own needs and desires. He is a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, and he cares nothing for the well-being of strangers, and every action of his is carefully planned to advance his own material holdings. He would be quite willing to steal and defraud, except that is against the law, and he fears punishment under the law. But he is willing to employ children, pay employees as little as he can get away with, place people in unsafe working conditions, and form monopolies, all of which is allowed under the free market system. His only criterion for an action is: will it increase my personal wealth? You might call Kweisi any number of things inappropriate for a family-friendly blog, and you would be quite right to do so. Now suppose that his workers start dying because of unsafe conditions in his dungeonlike factory. He's losing valuable worker production, the other guy's factory implements safety features and hires Kweisi's best men, and some leave for safer, lower-paying work. Now Kweisi's production is down, and morale is low. Kweisi is hemorrhaging cash by keeping an unproductive factory around (and cash represents the purchasing power of precious possessions) and he is forced to implement safety measures in his own factory, and perhaps increase pay, to attract workers back to his factory, so he can start earning revenues to replace the cash he's losing and start turning a profit again.

Now imagine Kweisi has a retail outlet in a poor neighborhood, and there's a crime wave. But fortunately, his stuff is safe, because he has the latest security features, and some muscle-headed goons, just in case. However, all the people that would have shopped at his retail outlet have been robbed (or murdered), and can't spend any money at his store. So Kweisi goes on a mission to root out the corruption at the local police force and get the boys in blue to crack down on crime, so his store can start turning a profit again. Also, he starts exploiting the local teens in his store, paying them a microscopic wage to work from the time school lets out until their parents get home, so he can keep them out of trouble and take advantage of their desire for dating money, and providing them with money to spend in his store - burning his candle at both ends and in the middle.

Now suppose that the flu is sweeping the country, killing hundreds, thousands, and more with each passing day. Well, of course Kweisi is going to do his level best to discover and mass produce the cure, hoping to sell it to the masses. The rich probably wouldn't pay through the nose for it, because they could just go to their mountain retreat to get away from the blasted virus - but the millions who are stuck in the path of the oncoming epidemic, they will pay whatever they can, and Kweisi is just the man to exploit that opportunity. He mass produces the cure for the flu, selling it at the middle-class price for the first day or two, and then selling it at a clearance to the poor, after most of the middle class has already been soaked.

What's the point? The point is, even though Kweisi is a total creep, he renovated his factory with needed safety features; he fought crime; he employed teens who need job experience more than they needed their free time; he funded the discovery of the cure for the flu, and provided it to millions, saving countless lives. Even though he's a creep. Why did he do all this? Because there was the potential for reward for his actions: the market made him do it, you might say. The truth is, a free market convinces even the worst people to do good things, and it doesn't discourage good people from doing good. The free market unleashes a spirit of unity and cooperation that communism, forced socialism, and the welfare state all stifle. Under communism (as it was practised in the USSR and elsewhere), the wealthy joined the government and protected their wealth, maintaining an appalling disparity of quality of life between the government officials and the rest of the country. Under forced socialism, the more productive will always resent the less productive, instead of feeling generous towards them, as many do in a free market. And the welfare state alienates giver from recipient, lowering the morale of both.

One might object that I'm forgetting about the virtues of justice and equality. Well, you are right that the outcome of a free market is inequitable. But to treat two people unequally before the law, so that they can be equal in possessions and lifestyle, that is unjust. This is dramatically illustrated in the case of a wealthy young man who inherited all of his wealth, and who gambles and gets drunk, and buys and destroys things until all of his money is gone, and a woman who was born poor but worked hard to provide a good life for herself and her family - in a welfare state, she has to pay his bills. In a free market, he has to marry her or talk her out of her money to get at it; either way, he at least has to make some kind of effort. But the point is, if you believe in equality of result or outcome, she has to give him half of her money. If you believe in equality before the law, and the traditional definition of justice, she gets to do what she wants with the money and possessions that are hers, just as he did what he wanted with his money. Equality before the law is not just more considerate of different inputs than equality of outcome, it's also much easier to maintain and carry out. If you think about it, it's very equitable.

So there you have it: the free market is everything communism wished that it could be. There's so much unity and cooperation and good will and equality, the free market is, in a literal sense, very communist.

SRS

Note: for more on equality before the law versus equality of results, I highly recommend Thomas Sowell's excellent book The Quest for Cosmic Justice. Also available at BarnesandNoble.com and Overstock.com (and presumably other places you could find without my help).

Axiom 2

2005-10-24T04:41:00.000-04:00

The closer a man comes to fully understanding two conflicting ideas, the closer he is to choosing the better over the worse, the better being the one to afford him greater advantage either materially or morally.

USAF has clear aluminum

2005-10-20T00:03:00.000-04:00

Check out the story here.

Credit Neh for noticing this.

SRS

Exactly what happened on Bill Bennet's radio show

2005-10-17T12:24:00.000-04:00

Here's exactly what happened on Bill Bennett's radio show:

Bill Bennett was discussing good vs. bad reasons to oppose abortion, and he was making the case that social and economic reasons were bad reasons to oppose abortion. A caller had said that abortion was bad because if we didn't have abortion, we wouldn't have a problem funding social security. Bennett said that was a terrible reason to oppose abortion, saying that one could make the case for aborting all black babies in the U.S. if one wanted to reduce the crime rate (an argument quite similar to one a left-wing economist had already made); Bennett maintained that such an action would be morally reprehensible and ridiculous, but pointed out that such is the thinking of those who try to relate abortion to economic ills or social benefits.

Then, left wing politicians immediately accused Mr. Bennett of being a racist, a monster, and generally a horrible person, by taking out of context his statement that you could reduce the crime rate by aborting all black babies. To give you an example of how dishonest that was, it would be like me quoting Dr. Walter E. Williams as saying "if a young lady agrees to marry me, and a third party initiates force to prevent the transaction, my rights have been violated" in this column, then concluding that he wants to commit polygamy (since Dr. Williams is already married). The main difference is that calling Dr. Williams a lobbyist for polygamy rights is not on the same level of vile slander as calling Mr. Bennett a racist who lobbies for genocide. Another difference is that I agree with what Dr. Williams was saying in the misquoted article, but leftist politicians disagree with Bennett's opposition to abortion. This makes it rather funny that they accidentally helped his case by calling the hypothetical unborn victims "people." But I digress.

The point is, be careful who you trust to quote people. Go look at the original context whenever possible, and be skeptical when you can't. A lot of people are liars.

SRS

Exactly what happened in Toledo

2005-10-17T09:37:00.000-04:00

Here's exactly what happened in Toledo:

A bunch of racist slimeballs wanted to prove that black people are the cause of all evil. A bunch of (mostly) black thugs wanted to break things and steal stuff. So the slimeballs had a brilliant idea to make everyone happy: hold an obviously racist public rally. So the (mostly) black thugs come out of their holes and break things and steal stuff and, as a bonus, assault police officers - all justified by the racist public rally, of course. And the slimeballs have proved their point: look how bad black people are! They break things and steal stuff and assault police officers, and white people just want to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights!

So everybody's happy. Except the 90% of Toledoans who are neither slimeballs nor thugs.

So what do we do? Ideally, racist slimeballs would be hired by nuclear power plants with poor safety records, and thus be sterilized by radiation. Thugs would be put in jail, and society would stop making excuses for them. Both of these seem awfully unrealistic, but maybe we can work together and do something productive towards these goals.

SRS

Davis-Bacon and the minimum wage

2005-10-13T17:34:00.000-04:00

I haven't yet heard anyone say what I'm about to say in this post. But it needs to be said that suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act is necessary to rebuild those areas hit by Katrina that aren't urgent at the same time as the rebuilding of the areas that are urgent.

For those of you who don't know, the Davis-Bacon Act requires contractors rebuilding after a natural disaster to pay the "prevailing wage in the region" or higher to all those involved in rebuilding. Well, Bush suspended the law in Katrina-affected areas, and leftists threw a tantrum. "You're going to allow greedy corporations to chisel their employees!" they cried. Well, it turns out that the free market is attracting construction workers to needed tasks with a higher wage than was necessary under the silly law.

So what was the point in suspending it if it wasn't going to make a difference anyway? Well, it still could have made a difference - by keeping contractors from doing jobs that aren't worth $9 an hour. They can hire the less skilled, less productive people to do the less urgent, less important tasks for $8, $7, or (gasp!) even $6 an hour, if anyone unable to attract a higher wage is wont to accept it. Under Davis-Bacon, they wouldn't have a job at all, making them and the rebuilding effort both worse off. As the estimable Walter E. Williams demonstrates in the article of his I directed my readers to in an earlier post, it is the poor, young, unskilled workers who suffer from minimum wage laws (and Davis-Bacon is a minimum wage law). That's because they can't do the jobs that employers are willing to pay minimum wage or higher for, and employers are thus going to hire better-educated, more productive people who are worthy of the wage anyway. Instead of hiring someone they would have hired below the minimum wage, they may pay some highly productive over-educated bachelor gobs of money to work overtime. Or the work, as already noted, might not get done at all.

Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, both brilliant economists, have proved that minimum wage laws effectively punish the poorest members of society, and help to maintain any existing racism in hiring. Also, if I may depart from the Katrina/Davis-Bacon issue a moment, high school students, dropouts, and even middle school students who are priced out of work by minimum wage could work after school (or in the case of dropouts, all day) doing light work worth $3 or $4, if they wanted to, if there were no minimum wage laws. This would help them build job experience, increase their personal wealth, keep them away from crime, and increase the overall standard of living in society by increasing the number of productive (wealth-creating) people. Sure, their prospects might not seem pleasant, and many of them may not choose to avail themselves of these new options. But at least they'd have the freedom to work.

SRS

An oldie but goodie...

2005-10-13T01:42:00.000-04:00

from Walter E. Williams. Everyone who hasn't already should read this article. Now, having read that, please leave me a comment explaining why anyone should support minimum wage laws.

SRS

The First Amendment...

2005-10-12T14:57:00.000-04:00

to the Constitution of the United States is something about which people display a dismaying level of ignorance. And what might be seen as ignorance on the part of the educated, I can only take to be deceit. For instance, the issue often arises: "Will we display these controversial artistic endeavours in an art gallery?" If the answer should ever come back "No," then we will certainly hear the artist and the ACLU and the New York Times and everyone else of that ilk cry out "You're violating my/his/her freedom of speech!" The implication is that after the artist has created his art, the private or taxpayer-funded art gallery has an obligation to house the art using the space they pay money to obtain and maintain, pay money to promote the display, defend the art and artist from all opposition, potentially at the cost of the gallery's reputation. And all this is the least we can do to protect the artist's free speech rights, we are told.

I threw a bag of trash in the dumpster at my apartment the other day. That represents to me the way we are being treated by the government. This is performance art, I am an artist, and it is my free speech right to be given money for this. Hand over the cash, suckah.

Okay, that was just a brief fantasy tangent. In reality, free speech rights protect an artist from being told he can't create a particular piece of art. It doesn't guarantee that someone will pay for it or use their resources to house or display it. If no one else in the world (or even everyone else in the world except those who fund art galleries) wants it in an art gallery, it shouldn't be put in an art gallery.

One way to make this simlper would be to eliminate all government funding for everything related to the arts. Imagine how much simpler it would be to interpret the First Amendment! Speech could someday mean speech again!

On the other hand, Campaign Finance Reform laws restrict what people can say, when and how they can say it, and only right wing extremists sit up and take notice. This is a direct assault on the First Amendment and everything it was established to protect. To the ACLU's credit, they did speak out against the worst CFR proposals. But they seem more interested in protecting murderers and making sure that the inmates at Guantanamo Bay aren't served cold rice pilaf than they are in protecting political speech. And the rest of the crucifix-in-urine crowd supports CFR.

So the First Amendment mandates funding for a crucifix in urine, yet doesn't guarantee the right to use one's own money to buy an ad on a consenting TV network to tell the truth about the actions of a politician? Come on.

SRS

Watching the local news

2005-10-11T02:50:00.000-04:00

I am staying up too late, watching the local news, and I just saw a very offensive "special report" about some new marine recruits. The photogenic white reporterette seemed genuinely curious how anyone could voluntarily join the military during a time of war. And not with the respect or gratitude that you or I would have for these brave souls, just a sort of detached bemusement one might display over an animal behaving unexpectedly.

"Do you ever feel that the rest of America does not support the war in Iraq?" She asked condescendingly.

"All the time," the marine recruit said. He went on to suggest that a lack of support for the war in Iraq might be the result of forgetfulness regarding 9/11. Without having the courage to say it to his face, the reporterette suggested in a voice-over that "politicians might argue over whether the two are related." If she'd had the decency to stand up for her beliefs the way the recruit did, he might have had the opportunity to point out to her that Saddam harbored and trained Al Qaeda operatives, provided fuselages in which to practice the hijacking of airplanes, defied WMD inspectors, and openly opposed the U.S. in a region where we need all the allies we can get. Even though it would probably be impossible to convict Saddam of direct involvement in the 9/11 attacks in a court of law, we do have proof he was one of the world's top sponsors of Al Qaeda (remember: the people who did the 9/11 attacks), and the case for his removal was airtight - and the U.S. is safer now than in 2002.

It's sad that our men in uniform feel like Americans don't support the war they're (voluntarily!) risking everything to fight. It's even sadder that there are people in (somewhat) influential positions in the media who will go out of their way to make them feel that way, smugly quoting their regurgitated distortions all the while.

Hats off to all the men and women sacrificing for our freedom and that of Iraq. The strong right straight humbly and gratefully salutes you.

SRS

Different responses - a quick ideological diagnostic

2005-10-10T18:40:00.000-04:00

I was just catching up on my Malkin, and I came upon a fascinating story, sent to her by a reader, regarding to the new self-defense law in Florida. Here's the meat of it:

An unfortunate example of this case law in action... a paramedic responding to a heart
attack call broke a window next to the front door of the home in order to gain entry to
help the victim. Unfortunately, the window belonged to the duplex next door, and not
to the home of the victim. The elderly occupant next door shot the intruder, not
realizing he was a paramedic. It was ruled justifiable under the Castle Doctrine.

If you want to know what your ideology is and what it would be called, take this quick test.

Question 1: What was your initial response to the above story?
A.) A sad story, but no laws were broken.
B.) The gunman should be held responsible in some way. An innocent man was shot!
C.) A man was shot! If the elderly man hadn't had the gun, it wouldn't have happened. The manufacturers of the gun should be sued for their neglect of important gun safety features that could have prevented this tragedy.
D.) We should ban private gun ownership, and this would never happen again.
E.) We should ban foods high in saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt, and mandate physical exercise; that way people wouldn't have heart attacks, and this would never happen again.
F.) The paramedic was probably a Gore supporter in 2000, and the elderly man was probably an undercover agent of the Rove administration.

If you answered:
A - You're a libertarian/conservative/right-wing: the principle of personal liberty ruled by evenly-applied laws is important to you
B - You're right-wing, but your love of law and order is smothering your love of liberty (or you're not a very careful reader)
C - You're a moderate or a left-winger: you're willing to compromise constitutional principles in order to make life better/safer for the ignorant masses.
D - You're far-left: the constitution and any other law in your way can go to hell, because you're on a quest for cosmic justice.
E - (See "D")
F - You're a kook-fringe conspiracy-theorist, and I want to invite you to be a guest blogger on my humour blog. Just leave a comment on BB's Blog explaining you got an "F" on my SRS ideology test. Since BB and I are the same person, I should know what you're talking about.

Thanks for taking my little test. I hope you're happy with your score. (Note I didn't issue points, because in some places you get big points for answering D, E, or F. On the other hand, some people will respect you a lot if you believe in A. It all depends on whose admiration you're striving for.)

SRS

Government interference

2005-10-10T14:01:00.000-04:00

This article deals with old issues, so it may not seem timely, but this misunderstanding needs to be addressed, and I was reminded of it by something I read just last minute.

Leftists sometimes ask why right-wingers claim to oppose government interference in people's lives, then demand it when it suits them. An example of this was said to be Terri Schiavo's case, wherein some conservatives (myself included) wanted government to stop her feeding tube from being removed. "Aha!" a leftist might say. "There you are supporting government interference into people's lives you hypocrite!" (And it is true that I don't support government forcing dying people to continue living.) But what would have happened without government interference? Her parents would have paid the cost of her hospital room and feeding tube. Why not allow them to do this? Because her husband, Michael Schiavo, had power of attorney over her, and she had the right to die - which her husband exercised for her. So he not only had the legal right to stop provinding for her, he had the legal right to block her parents from doing so also.

Maybe Terri Schiavo had told her husband and members of his family years ago that she would want to die in such a situation, maybe she didn't. Maybe she said she wanted to die if she was severely brain-damaged, but her idea of what "brain-damaged" meant differed from Michael's idea of what that meant. We don't know. The point is, in every other case of someone needing life support where we don't know the patient's wishes, we err on the side of life. The only reason to do differently in this case is because her husband, who was living and procreating with another woman, said to. Who says that he gets to decide what happens to Terri Schiavo when he clearly is behaving like he's married to someone else? The government. Who says Terri's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler, aren't allowed to pony up their own money and keep her on the feeding tube and hope for a miracle? The government.

So who supported government interference? Only those who wanted her to die. Everyone else would have be happy for the government to back off and let her parents take care of her the way they see fit. Maybe Michael Schiavo fought to remove her feeding tube because he really thought that's what she wanted. Maybe the reason was nefarious. It doesn't matter: the fact is, he relied upon government interference to get it done. So who's the libertarian now?

While I'm on it: Republicans relied on a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to end the presidential ballot recounts in Florida in 2000. So how hypocritical was it for them to rely on an over-stepping judicial branch for their victory? Surprise answer: not very. See, the Florida state Supreme Court had already ruled against the rules, effectively legislating from the bench that recounts would go on as long as necessary to find a way for Gore to win. This abomination of a ruling was appealed to federal courts which quickly overturned it, with Gore's people appealing it from their until the US supremes put it to rest once and for all. Rehnquist and his bunch didn't "select" Bush. They did their duty in getting the damnably corrupt Florida supremes out of the election process so it could continue as it was, by law, supposed to. And according to the laws of this country and of Florida, Bush won the 2000 presidential election. According to a popular vote, Gore won. According to people in Florida who claimed they voted for Buchanan by mistake (and why else would any Jew or minority vote for Buchanan), Gore won. According to the Florida Supreme Court and the New York Times, Gore won. But according to the Constitution, the laws of this country and of the state of Florida, due process, and the five or six most reliable counts of the ballots of Florida, Bush won. Move on, as they say.

So who supports government interference? I suppose if you think that government interference has already screwed things up, you might support government stepping in to stop mistakes in another part of government. Pretty convoluted, huh? Here's hoping that someday this country will be free again, and we won't have to deal with the omnipresence of government anymore.

SRS

John Stossel owes me $100

2005-10-10T11:01:00.000-04:00

Defend the nation from foreign military threats. Now John Stossel owes me $100. Since Stossel is a conservative, I will accept a personal check; I can also take a cashier's check, or money order. If I'm more computer literate by then, I may be able to start accepting PayPal by this weekend. I seem to have left my credit card scanner in my other pants, so no credit cards.

SRS

More salve for the Miers-afflicted conservative soul

2005-10-08T22:22:00.000-04:00

My other favourite columnist, Thomas Sowell has an excellent article available here. The upshot is: Miers may not talk like Scalia (or Thomas), but she just might vote like him, and that would be good enough; and considering how panty-waisted some Senate Republicans are, Miers is the best he can do right now. I agree, but am deeply concerned that she (and/or Roberts) will vote very much unlike Scalia (or Thomas). Just have to wait and see, I guess.

What is it about the Supreme court (of the last thirty years, anyway) that seems to be several degrees to the left of the average president who appointed them? For instance, if you have six Republican-appointed justices, youn usually have 5-4 or 6-3 leftist rulings. If you have seven Republican-appointed judges, as was the case before the recent departures and will be the case after Miers (or whoever is confirmed by the Senate) is sworn in, you have a shot at Constitutionally sound rulings (5-4), but as we see all too often, there is no guarantee even with seven Republican appointees, and sometimes there is still a 6-3 ruling against the clearly worded text of the Constitution. So with Miers, if we're lucky, we're looking at a good shot at some good 5-4 rulings, and probably some bad ones too, depending on whether AK gets up on the right or left side of the bed on the morning of that particular ruling.

So how can good presidents (Reagan comes to mind) appoint such bad SCOTUS justices? Why, if the country votes for the right-side presidential candidate, do we get left-side rulings from the High Court made up of their appointees? I think it is probably similar to the reason that the most educated people (the faculty at Ivy league schools) have and support some of the stupidest ideas in the world. I'm not an expert at such things, and I have no idea how the two could be related, but I'll mull it over, and I'll get let you, my readers, know if I have any brilliant insights into this mystery.

SRS

The most comforting thing I've read about Miers

2005-10-08T12:04:00.000-04:00

I'm a pretty devout fan of Ann Coulter's writings, so I was pretty discouraged by the Miers nomination (to the Supreme Court of the U.S., for those of you who read this blog while hiding under your rocks). This from Jonah Goldberg on NRO was very encouraging, though.

I did a quick review of the bios of the current Justices. If you leave out the departing O’Connor, the only Justice with any significant private practice experience left on the Court is Kennedy, at about 14 years. Souter and Scalia had a handful of years right out of law school; believe me when I tell you that doesn’t count. Thomas had a couple of years in-house at Monsanto between government positions. Roberts had 10 years at Hogan & Hartson, but as I understand it, it was exclusively appellate work, which only barely counts.
J. Harvie Wilkinson (my Con Law professor years ago) has no private practice experience. Michael Luttig had about 4 years.

Miers, by contrast, has over 25 years as a commercial litigator. Though I’ve seen some of the derisive comments about the intellectual rigor of that branch of the profession as compared to the supposedly more rarified field of Constitutional Law, that is nonsense. A good commercial litigator’s practice is, in fact, one of the most intellectually challenging careers in the profession. Every case, every business you represent, and every deal is different. You have to explain unfamiliar and complex commercial issues (which are found in both “large” and “small” cases) to judges and juries.

If you confine appointments to Constitutional scholars, you’re going to have nothing but academics and government lawyers, which is what you’ve basically got there now.

My point is that if Miers is a good lawyer, the fact that she hasn’t had an opportunity to deal with search and seizure issues in her career is not disqualifying. In fact, her familiarity with many of the regulatory, tax and other commercial issues faced by the Court will be much greater than her colleagues. And maybe we’ll have fewer of those ridiculous 7-part tests to deal with.

If you want to see the kiped text in its original context, click here. You'll have to do some scrolling. (That's why I kiped it.) The bold-faced headline is MIERS' EXPERIENCE. I know I'm starting to sound like a broken 33 here, but if anyone knows how to link to a particular place on a web page, please tell me. (I'm a greedy bugger, ain't I?)

SRS

The future of CFR

2005-10-08T08:39:00.000-04:00

I was just at the website of an advocacy group based in the U.K. There I saw the future of CFR (Campaign Finance Reform) and it looked like this.

I am not supporting nor opposing this website or any of its claims or opinions. I just thought it was kind of sad that one of their ads was being banned, apparently because it was taken to support a specific party. Same old story: CFR vs. Ideals of Free Speech.

SRS

Conservative president

2005-10-05T03:08:00.000-04:00

Is there anyone out there who wants help campaigning for a conservative presidential candidate? Considering what a mess we're in now, I figure we need to start working before year's end and keep working until November, '08 if we want a truly conservative president - the first in 20 years. Yeah, it's been good having a hawk for commander-in-chief, but his domestic policy (if he can really be said to have one) almost seems left of Clinton's. For example:

No Child Left Behind - more spending, no vouchers. Key word: "left."

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - hundreds of billions of dollars for a wasteful program that nobody really wanted anyway. Conservatives take heed: hate any government proposal that has the word "benefit" in it.

Steel tariffs and trade protection for wasteful domestic sugar producers - c'mon, even Clinton was a free trader!

Continuing and starting politically-motivated prosecutions (or was that persecutions?) of Microsoft and Martha Stewart - even though Gates and Stewart are liberals (and probably will be for life now), these despicable show trials were frontal assaults on the freedom of the market and private property rights, just like

Eminent domain abuses - okay, so they aren't exactly a Bush policy, but he hasn't really taken the lead in stopping them, either. And in fact, his newly confirmed appointment to the Supreme Court also has a history of supporting government infringements of private property rights.

Pork - yeah, congress did it, but he could have vetoed it, and he didn't.

And last but not least, supporting illegal immigration - this is probably the most infuriating of all. There is overwhelming support in this country for enforcing immigration laws. Though hard, it's the right thing to do to make our country safe. It would sharply decrease the percentage of immigrants who would join violent gangs or even terrorist cells. It would decrease the amount of government handouts (because illegals in leftist states often join welfare rolls and get government-paid healthcare). And it's made easier by patriotic volunteers like the Minutemen of the Minuteman Project - whom Bush slanderously labeled "vigilantes."

All of these acts are the acts of a leftist - someone with contempt for the ideals of small government (read: "freedom"), private property rights, and national security.

So, does anyone know a conservative presidential candidate who's going to need backing?

SRS

Posting means new blog entry

2005-10-02T22:25:00.000-04:00

While I'm plagiarizing NRO, I thought this was funny:

RE: WHY DID I BUY THE NYTIMES TODAY? [Andy McCarthy]
K-Lo, obviously, you really bought the Times today because you were stunned by the blaring lead headline over Adam Liptak's shocking story on Page One: "To More Inmates, Life Term Means Dying Behind Bars." I believe it's the first in a series of similarly helpful features. Next Sunday's is "To More Death Row Inmates, Capital Sentence Means Dying Behind Bars." Then comes, "To More Restaurant Patrons, Ordering Means Waiter Brings Meal." You know, all the news that's fit to print ...

Frist, a look at politics

2005-10-02T21:51:00.000-04:00

I was browsing some stuff at NRO and I saw this:

The weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) indicates that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist appears to have a very good defense to suspicions about whether he traded on inside information in selling his HCA stock. Specifically, there is a paper trail showing he set his stock sales in motion long before there was a public warning about earnings expectations. Further, Frist had an incentive to shed his stock that had nothing to do with its value.

To which I reply: So what! Martha Stewart had almost the exact same excuses, and we the people nailed her anyway. You see, when rich and/or powerful people sell stock, they should be put in jail, regardless of the circumstances. Just ask Eliot Spitzer. Also, if two Republicans have a conversation in private, it's a conspiracy. Ronnie Earle will bear me out in that. And you have to believe he wouldn't lie, because he's on a mission from GOD. Just like the Blues Brothers.

SRS

Is a fetus a "living human being"?

2005-10-01T04:27:00.000-04:00

I was reading another blog recently, and it raised the question: is a human fetus really a "living human being"? The blogger stated that people asked to describe characteristics of a living human being outside of a context of the abortion would likely come up with descriptions that would not at all resemble a human fetus (though I think the blogger was probably thinking of a human embryo instead). Let's assume for a moment that the way people describe a "living human being" is such that no fetus would fit the description: does that preclude the fetus from being considered human? If you asked me to describe a "living human being" I would probably include things like "two hands with prehensile digits" and "two eyes" - does that mean someone loses his humanity if he loses one or both of his hands... or one or both of his eyes? I don't think very many people would maintain that's the case. So if a fetus (or embryo) has only two or three out of a hundred characteristics one associates with "living human beings," does that mean it should be automatically considered nonhuman? Or nonliving? Which is it, by the way? Isn't an embryo (let alone a fetus) living? Isn't it human?

I have heard the argument that before a fetus is born, it is "living, but not a life" - this doesn't make sense to me. What defines "a life"? According to common usage, "a life" is the life of a person. A person is a unique human individual: someone who is distinct from all other persons (and whose rights, under the law, are not contingent on any other person's consent or allowance). A human embryo is perfectly unique: it ceases to be a mere part of its mother as soon as it is formed by the uniting of her haploid gamete with a paternal haploid gamete. In layman's terms, there's a unique person as soon as a man and a woman's sex makes the woman pregnant. From that time on, there is a unique person that did not exist before. Not a Bible-thumping religious belief, not an ideological supposition, not a guess: biological fact. Science can teach us that a human embryo is, from fertilization, a living human individual. It's not a matter of faith. The only question now is "When will it be a matter of law?" Those appalled by the millions of deaths caused by the legality of abortion in this country can only hope it is soon.

SRS

P.S. Some who oppose the legality of abortion object to the use of the term "fetus." To an extent, I can sympathize. To most people such a word dehumanizes those it is used to describe. However, fetus is latin for "baby." Specifically, the young of the species that produced it. In this case, that would be human.

Comment spam dealt with... I think

2005-09-30T23:16:00.000-04:00

Okay, I turned on word verification (which I thought would be a setting for all my blogs when I turned it on in Backlog Bob's Blog - my other blog). Also, I set the already-spammed posts to hide existing comments, so if you left a comment on one of those posts, please feel free to leave it again on another post, or better yet, teach me how to delete some comments while leaving others; I am not as blog-savvy yet as I'd like to be. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

SRS

Further DeLay

2005-09-30T22:57:00.000-04:00

According to Byron York of National Review, the movie being made about DeLay prosecutor Ronnie Earle shows him saying "This is in the Bible. This isn't rocket science. The root of all evil truly is money, especially in politics." Actually, the Bible says (KJV): "For the love of money is the root of all evil." (Emphasis added to show the difference between Earle's statement and the God-breathed Scripture he tried to quote.) Nowhere in Scripture is there even a hint that money is evil, or the root of evil. The difference is not small. Suppose I said: "Lust for women causes almost all of the sin in men's lives." Without debating the value of my statement, suppose you quoted me as saying "women cause almost all of the sin in men's lives" - would that be an accurate quotation? Or, for my secular readers, if any, let's say a leading psychiatrist says: "Obsessing over one's work is unhealthy." To quote that psychiatrist the way Ronnie Earle quoted the Bible, you'd have to say: "Work is unhealthy."

So what? Well, the difference in the two understandings of the quoted verse makes a huge difference in what a person thinks and does. For one thing, people who understand the verse the way Earle does view people like Bill Gates and Sam Walton and Andrew Carnegie as among the most evil men of history. People who understand the verse the way I do are unwilling to consider evil someone whom we've never met. Also, if money is the root of all evil, giving it to the poor seems like something the Devil, not Christians, should be doing, since it would just be bringing evil into their lives. I don't know if Mr. Earle has taken his interpretation of this verse that far yet. Again, if money is the root of all evil, real Christians would throw it into the fireplace every chance they get - buying groceries with it would be out of the question, because that would make grocery stores and their employees more evil; Christians would be divided into two groups: the monastic Christians who grow their own food so they can circumvent the need for money, and evangelical Christians who try to earn as much money as they can to throw it into the fireplace - so as to spare everyone else its evil. This would be futile of course, as the government would just print more (and perhaps arrest those money-burning Christians), and the evil would be spread around nonetheless. Christians who understand this verse, on the other hand, know that money does have uses that are holy and righteous, and that there is nothing wrong with money in itself. The love of money (as Scripture says) is a root of all evils. If you love money (that is, if you are greedy), then you will have all kinds of problems. That is, if you always want more money, or are more afraid of losing your money than you are of letting go to waste by not helping anyone, then you love your money, and that will result in evil in your life. However, no matter how much money you have, as long as you see it as a tool to do good, and not as something to be desired on its own, you will always do what is right with your money, and it will result in no evil in your life. As Ronnie Earle said: "This is in the Bible. This isn't rocket science."

Basically, Ronnie Earle needs to learn Scripture better so he can apply it correctly, instead of misquoting it so that it seems to justify his actions. I hope he sincerely wants to do right, and he will be in my prayers for a while.

SRS