The Adverse Possessor

What should the role of government be?

2011-11-18T18:42:00.001-06:00

The Occupy Wall Street protests taking place across the country reflect a growing populist anger among Americans. The protesters have every right to be angry, but their anger is misdirected. In many ways, so are their solutions.

These protests seem to reflect a widespread perception that many of the problems were created by unbridled free markets. Many people believe a pure free market would lead to enslavement by mega corporations and this can only be prevented by regulations and government oversight. Those are false, though pervasive myths. Free-market capitalism didn’t create these problems. We really don't even have free markets. But if we did, corporations would have less power, not more.

Think about it. Businesses can't force anyone to do anything against their will. In a free market, every interaction between consumers and businesses would be voluntary - on both sides. While that would mean some businesses might not strictly comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, it would also mean others would spring up to cater to the disabled. Also, bankers couldn't extract multi-million dollar bonuses and multi-trillion dollar bailouts from the public. Electric companies couldn't steal people's property to install power lines over it.

Corporations can't take your money. They can't take your land. They can't force you to buy or advertise what they sell. They don't have any power over individuals.

But the government does. And it's for sale.

Corporations lobby for government policies that force taxpayers to subsidize their profits. Corporations bribe public officials to craft a regulatory environment that works to their benefit. Oppressive regulations disproportionately burden smaller competitors while harming consumers. Corporate interests convince government officials to buy their products with money taken from taxpayers.

But these problems extend far beyond big business. Any number of special interests groups, whether based on race, age, gender, political ideology, or occupation, do the same thing. Trying to take money out of politics only treats a symptom of the underlying disease. The real solution is taking power away from the government.

Our system of government is basically an unending battle between groups of people fighting over the power to control each other.

It's pretty barbaric, when you think about it. But this dark side of democracy isn't a secret. The founders knew about it, which is why they chose not to give us one. Instead, they gave us a constitutional republic based on principles of natural rights and limited government. It's time we return to it.

Gingrich is a fraud

2011-11-18T17:51:00.001-06:00

During last week's debate, Newt Gingrich was asked what he had done to earn the $300,000 Freddie Mac had given him. Gingrich claimed Freddie Mac paid him as a "historian" who warned the company about the coming housing disaster. He claimed to have warned "this is a bubble ... this is impossible."

His explanation was so transparently preposterous I actually broke out laughing. It's not just a lie. It's almost the opposite of the truth.

In reality, it was Ron Paul who spent years fighting Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the other GSEs. Paul correctly pointed out that they create moral hazards that inevitably lead to malinvenstment. Paul specifically called out Fannie and Freddie's role in creating the housing bubble at least as far back as 2003, years before most people suspected anything was wrong. He warned Fannie and Freddie would fail when the bubble inevitably burst, and would dump huge losses on the taxpayers. Ron Paul's only compensation for saying these things was the satisfaction of telling Americans the truth, even though they didn't want to hear it.

Freddie and Fannie have always been popular with Democrats, but faced some opposition from Republicans (like Paul) who realized their inherent problems. To fix this, Freddie Mac hired several high-profile Republicans to lobby other Republicans on their behalf. Gingrich was actually paid at least $1.5 million to do so.

Now Gingrich is taking credit for what Ron Paul said, even though he was paid millions of dollars to convince other Republicans that guys like Ron Paul didn't know what they were talking about.

That's Gingrich.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Perspective

2011-10-18T09:06:00.002-05:00

"Why the US was downgraded...

U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

Annual family income: $21,700.
Money the family spent: $38,200.
New debt on the credit card: $16,500.
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Total budget cuts: $385."

Scott Barber, at the Daily Paul

High Crimes

2011-10-06T23:22:00.000-05:00

An American law enforcement officer is dead. So are at least a couple hundred Mexicans. It looks like the American government is to blame.

Why? It looks more and more certain that high-ranking American officials allowed Mexican drug cartels to buy thousands of military-grade weapons. And not by mistake or incompetence. The media frequently refers to the Fast & Furious gun-running operation as a "botched" program, but that's inaccurate. The only thing "botched" was the coverup.

The plan actually worked as designed. The federal government ordered American gun dealers to sell thousands of guns to the most violent and dangerous criminals in the Western Hemisphere in violation of American law. Then the government intentionally allowed these guns go over the border into Mexico in violation of Mexican and international law. Then the government waited for the guns to show up at crime scenes. Well, they did - after being used to murder at least a couple hundred people.

It's really starting to look like the Attorney General perjured himself when testifying to Congress about this. That's a big deal. But perjury is small potatoes compared to what appears to have happened. With Congressmen throwing around phrases like "accessory to murder" in an election year, things are going to get ugly.

If true, this is worse than Whitewater, Iran/Contra, Monica Lewinsky, or Watergate. Way worse. If average citizens did this, they would be sent to prison for life. If the Attorney General, Secretary of State, or even the President did this, they shouldn't be treated differently. These guys aren't above the law. We're taking about knowingly facilitating murder. With taxpayer dollars, no less.

If a foreign country did this to us, we'd declare it a state sponsor of terror. We'd institute trade embargoes and economic sanctions in a heartbeat. Hell, we'd probably invade.

2011-09-21T08:23:00.001-05:00

Only 5 more weekdays to go.

The U.S. Postal Service lost $8.5 billion last year. It's on pace to do even worse this year, losing $3 billion last quarter alone. The Obama administration has proposed ending Saturday delivery as a way to close the financial gap. Notably, his plan does not consider any layoffs. Why? If we reduce the delivery schedule nearly 20%, won't labor needs decrease as well? If Wal-Mart was closed every Sunday, it wouldn't need as many employees, right? Then again, Wal-Mart is not a unionized bureaucracy with a federally guaranteed monopoly on the service it provides.

This plan won't fix the Postal Service any more than when Regan "fixed" Social Security in the early 1980s, although they're based on the same principle - charging more while delivering less. In fairness to Obama's propsal, we don't have a mandate that at least 15% of everyone's email must be sent through the Postal Service. Yet.

I understand that delivering mail on Saturdays is inefficient. Delivering the mail any day is inefficient. And don't forget, the delivery schedule has already been chopped in half - the mail used to come twice daily. Even if the Postal Service somehow overcame those inefficiencies, it is still doomed to failure. Federal law requires the Postal Service to deliver mail to everyone regardless of origin or destination. Sending mail from Middle of Nowhere Alaska to Florida obviously costs more than sending it across town. But the Postal Service is prohibited by law from charging a different price to do so. That doesn't make sense and guarantees inefficiency. It has the same flaw as requiring medical insurance providers to provide coverage to everyone for the same rate regardless of age or medical condition.

And what about the fuel? The Postal Service has the largest passenger vehicle fleet on the world. Liberals should be fuming over the carbon footprint. Conservatives should be furious about the gas.

The U.S. Postal Service should be abolished. The vast majority of mail I personally receive is unsolicited advertising. I'm not alone. Almost everything else could and would be delivered differently if the Postal Service disappeared. FedEx and UPS could still ship packages and vital documents more efficiently. They already do. Much of the non-vital paper mail would shift to online delivery. The junk would either shift online or cease completely.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:No mail delivery on Saturdays? Well, it's a start.

2011-09-11T07:42:00.002-05:00

Conservatives can usually see the unintended, negative consequences that come from government meddling in the economy. Some of them also see the negative, unintended consequences that come from bombing and laying siege to foreign nations most people think can't fight back.

The Educational-Industrial Complex

2011-09-09T08:17:00.002-05:00

This AP article should make people rethink college and how it's funded. For example:

- A human development and family services major in his junior year at Colorado State realizes he will owe about $125,000 when he graduates. In order to pay of the debt, he's joining the military so he has a guaranteed job to pay off his loans.

Who would pay over $125,000 for a human development and family services degree from Colorado State? Well, this guy did, and he's not alone. And that's just the portion for which taxpayers are responsible if he defaults. It doesn't include the federal subsidies, his out of pocket costs, his work study, etc. He doesn't need that degree to get a job in the military, and probably won't be using a human development degree while he's there. Why not quit college now and enlist, instead of racking up two more years of out of state tuition?

- Two years ago, 30% of California's higher education cost was paid for by federal stimulus funds, and now they are facing huge shortfalls.

Despite the fact that these funds were temporary, California (and many other states) refused to make the necessary adjustments to deal with reality. Were they counting on federal bailouts forever?

- Dan Hurley, an executive for the American Association of State Colleges and Universities claims it will be the hardest year on record for cash-strapped colleges.

Mind-boggling. Colleges are selling a product - education.

Think about this:

1) This product has never been in higher demand

2) The price of this product has increased dramatically and consistently for decades

3) This product receives enormous government subsidies at the local, state, and federal levels

4) Many colleges pay few, if any, taxes on their operations

5) Colleges are supported by charitable donations

6) The federal government co-signs a blank check for any potential customers for their products

There is not a single private industry with such favorable conditions. The medical industry, military industry, and housing industry are the closest. But even they pay taxes and aren't supported by charity.

Yet colleges claim they've never had it harder. We need to ask why.

The problem with deficits...

2011-07-29T20:45:00.002-05:00

Margaret Thatcher famously stated that "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Ever since, conservatives have parroted her observation with smug approval. Conservatives also sneer at socialist ideology that assumes people can legitimately vote themselves the right to someone else's money. Despite their indignation, most of these so-called conservatives should be recognized for the hypocrites they are.

Redistributivist government programs, by design, forcibly seize property from some people in order to give it to others. Conservatives recognize that this is inherently unfair and counterproductive. But most people fail to recognize that every last dollar of deficit spending does the exact same thing.

Deficit spending is not an alternative to higher taxation. Deficit spending is higher taxation. It's also inherently socialist.

Our national debt represents things Americans previously wanted but were unwilling to pay for. Unfortunately, deficits are more politically palatable than higher taxes. As a result, Americans have chosen to use deficit spending to force future generations to pay for their current desires - without their consent. Americans spent staggering amounts of "other people's money" on unnecessary and counteproductive warfare and welfare - foreign, domestic ... even corporate. Now we have hundreds of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and debt to show for it. This debt represents the biggest examples of both taxation without representation and involuntary wealth redistribution in the history of the world.

Americans have always known that somehow, someday, someone will have to pay off our debt. The "somehow" will be higher taxes, inflation, and a lower standard of living. "Someday" is coming soon. But more Americans are starting to realize that "someone" is no longer the vague abstraction it was to past generations.

It is us.

My thoughts on the debt limit

2011-07-28T22:00:00.001-05:00

At the moment, there is a lot of panic regarding whether or not to raise the statutory $14.2 trillion federal debt limit. This debt limit is a toothless, artificial, self-imposed cap that Congress can (and almost invariably does) increase any time it wants. This limit can be described as “borrowing limit” that Congress imposes on the federal government.

This limit is analogous to a person promising himself that he will never weigh more than 200 pounds, but who nonetheless gains weight after eating too much and exercising too little. When he approaches 200 pounds, rather than changing his bad habits, he simply changes his goal to never weighing more than 210 pounds, then 220, 240, and so on. Unless something changes, he will eventually weigh 500 pounds.

While I’m concerned about the “borrowing limit,” my concern is based on the much more serious threat posed by another debt limit looming over our country. Every credit transaction requires both a creditor and a debtor, and a debtor cannot borrow money without a creditor willing to loan it to him. When creditors become concerned about a party’s ability to repay their debt, creditors demand higher interest rates to compensate for higher degree of risk they assume by lending money. If a party’s financial condition becomes bad enough that they cannot pay off their debts, they have reached the “lending limit” at which creditors will no longer loan them money.

Unlike the $14.2 trillion borrowing limit, America’s “lending limit” will not be self-imposed. Rather, it will be imposed on us by our creditors when they are no longer willing to lend us any more money. At that point, the only way Congress will be able to raise that limit is by restoring confidence that the debt will be paid off. Doing so would require massive reductions in our deficit. Greece, Spain, Ireland, Britain, Italy, etc. are dealing with this to varying degrees right now. Our turn will come.

I support spending cuts to reduce our debt, because I believe higher taxes would make this problem worse, not better. Others disagree, and want higher taxes. Even if people disagree as to the amount, everyone should understand that some amount is too much, whether it is $14.3 trillion, $30 trillion, $100 trillion, or $1.5 (whatever comes after trillion). The national debt has been increasing every single year for decades. Unless something changes, we will hit the second limit.

Cutting back will be hard. I understand that, and don't like it. But the longer we wait to address our debt, the worse it will be when we finally do.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

The Debt Ceiling Controversy

2011-07-11T23:56:00.004-05:00

A lot of people are threatening the end of the world if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling. But there's an important question that should be asked.

By how much?

If it's so damn important, why haven't we heard anything specific about how much they want to raise it? Also, if $14 trillion isn't enough, what will be? $30 trillion? $100 trillion? For how long?

The Paul Ryan plan is by far the most aggressive budget plan that's getting any serious attention, and it's going nowhere. But even the "drastic" Ryan plan will take 30 years to balance the budget, even using ridiculous assumptions that "exclude interest." How long will it take to actually pay down the principal? What if interest rates go back up toward historical averages? What if they went up to the level they were at when I was born?

Do people really think we can keep borrowing indefinitely? Do they think we can get away with never paying it off?

Why more regulation is not the answer

2011-07-11T22:40:00.003-05:00

Many people associate pure free-market capitalism with a complete lack of regulation. This is not the case. Regulation is the primary reason free-market capitalism works so well. But in a capitalist system, the regulations are market-based instead of based on politically motivated bureaucrats telling people what they can and can't do.

Under capitalism, people act in their own self-interest and pursue profits. That's a good thing. Profits are a signal that an entrepreneur is doing something productive by creating something worth more than the sum of its parts. If someone can produce a good or service for a cost below what people are willing to pay for it, he makes a profit, and in doing so, creates wealth, prosperity, and a higher standard of living for everyone. Some people try to create goods or services, but in doing so lose money. Those people create a whole that is worth less than the sum of its parts. The market will force them to either increase efficiency or quality. If not, they will be forced out of business or purchased by a competitor who's doing a better job of meeting the public's desires.

Bailouts, government guarantees, subsidies, and all other methods of socializing private risk undermine the regulation imposed by free-market forces. These things artificially encourage people to take risks they would have otherwise avoided. For example, if someone else is paying your bar tab, you're probably going to drink more than you otherwise would. This is an example of a phenomenon called "moral hazard." When the risk side of the risk/reward calculation is removed, you're no longer in the realm of free-market capitalism and moving closer to totalitarianism and fascism.

The bank bailouts are a good example of this. So were the bailouts of the GM and Chrysler unions. The FDIC is even a huge example of moral hazard.For example, people pay practically no attention to the financial condition or solvency of their banks. After all, why would they? They're FDIC insured! In other words, no one cares if their deposits are in a bank that is over-leveraged because if it fails, the FDIC will bail out the depositors. Without the FDIC, people might pay a little more attention to the financial condition of their banks. Banks would probably compete based on financial security, as opposed to free toasters, interest rates, and how quickly they can rubber stamp a home equity loan to finance a boat. Because Fed policy has been setting interest rates at damn near zero for way too long, the only way banks can make money involves lots of leverage. That dynamic is a huge part of our current mess.

And while getting rid of the FDIC sounds terribly drastic, it is essentially insurance paid for by the banks. There's no good reason why this couldn't be done through private insurance.

There are a lot of people who think that we just need smarter regulations implemented by smarter and incorruptible regulators. But we're just as likely to end up with Tim Geithner as Sheila Beir. We're a hell of a lot more likely to get Geithner than God. I've never understood why government regulators are expected to be any smarter or less corrupt than private ones. Who's going to regulate them?

Along the lines of my last post

2011-06-06T07:17:00.001-05:00

Brother, can you spare $20.12?

2011-06-05T08:59:00.002-05:00

There is a candidate running in the Republican Presidential Primary who…

…has never voted for a tax increase

…has never voted for an unbalanced budget

…is the only candidate to have been endorsed by Ronald Reagan

…has been married to the same woman for over 50 years

…is pro-life, and not just based on political expediency

…is pro-life, even when it comes to foreign men, women, and children

…is the only guy running with any military experience

…had enough principle to strongly oppose the Iraq War from the beginning, despite its overwhelming popularity at the time

...had enough principle to strongly oppose the Iraq War from the VERY beginning (Desert Storm), despite its overwhelming popularity at the time

…had the understanding to realize that our involvement in Iraq would turn into the mess that most people realize it to be today

…correctly predicted the financial crisis, when our president, Wall Street, Treasury Secretary, and Federal Reserve Chairman had no clue it was coming

…correctly predicted the housing crisis, when the above people claimed it could not happen

…opposed the TARP, banking, auto, etc. bailouts the above people came up with in repose to the disaster it created

…correctly predicted the above schemes would not help reduce unemployment, but would lead to higher prices and make the problems worse

...correctly predicted a whole lot of stuff

…has never supported socialized medicine, and understands that the economics behind Medicare and Social Security will dramatically and unfairly hurt younger generations

...understands that the economics behind our foreign policy and militarism are making us less secure, and will also dramatically and unfairly hurt younger generations

He's trying to raise a little money today. Send him a few bucks, if you can.

Speaking of Ron Paul hit pieces...

2011-05-18T22:59:00.002-05:00

Michael Medved vomited up this intellectually dishonest and shallow smear.

A sample:

"The only possible argument for [believing the federal government lacks constitutional authority to ban drugs] would involve a sweeping expansion of the fictitious 'right to privacy'—a whole-cloth invention of the Warren Court that conservatives (and originalists) generally hate."

Really? That's the "only possible" argument? What about the fact that banning drugs is not one of the enumerated powers given to Congress in Art. I, Sec. 8? What constitutional authority does Medved think justifies the drug war? The current ridiculous interpretation of the Commerce Clause? The same one that's been incorrectly used to justify Obamacare and the vast expansion of federal power over the last 100 years?

Fortunately, judging from the comments such as those below, people aren't buying this BS. Look at the thumbs up vs. down. That's a good sign.

779Please sign in to rate this comment up.Please sign in to rate this comment down.54
TG 17 hours ago Report Abuse
Prohibition taught us that criminalizing vices is an enormous waste of time and resources, and only turns the whole business over to the underworld. The trillions of dollars we routinely throw out the window would be better spent on education and rehab. Ron Paul is not the crackpot here, Mr. Medved.
Replies (16)
79Please sign in to rate this comment up.Please sign in to rate this comment down.2
Richard 14 hours ago Report Abuse
how would you describe a presidential candidate who insists that the federal government has no right to interfere with states rights to deal with prostitution & drug laws? i would describe him or her as someone who has read the constitution.
Replies (1)
63Please sign in to rate this comment up.Please sign in to rate this comment down.1
Paul 13 hours ago Report Abuse
Another example of the corrupt media.
Thank you, Ron Paul, for sticking to your priciples.
It's already obvious that this piece is backfiring on Medved.
This country is in sad shape when it no longer recognizes liberty and free speech, or worse, tries to suppress it.
You have my vote, Dr. Paul.
Replies (3)
370Please sign in to rate this comment up.Please sign in to rate this comment down.26
Cincinnatus 16 hours ago Report Abuse
I believe that it is actually Medveds pot that is cracked....
Reply
232Please sign in to rate this comment up.Please sign in to rate this comment down.16
Sean F 15 hours ago Report Abuse
State's Rights! Federal Government is too big. That is what the man is saying.
Replies (6)

Against the Drug War

2011-05-18T21:49:00.003-05:00

Here's an extremely superficial hit piece on Ron Paul regarding his support for ending the War on Drugs.

Regarding whether drug use harms other people:

"[O]ne can be a casual consumer of alcohol. One cannot be a casual user of cocaine or meth."

First, what about marijuana? Second, while I certainly don't recommend it, we've had numerous examples of causal users of cocaine - Oprah ... Freud ... our last two presidents. Third, the drug war actually created our meth problem. Finally, the war on drugs hurts a LOT of people. In the last few years, tens of thousands of people have been killed due to our war on drugs in Mexico alone. People were no longer mowed down from violence in the whiskey trade as soon as the federal government legalized it in the 1930's.

The author also claims that rehab doesn't work, so we have to keep pushing the drug war.

"The other problem is the spotty record of rehab in curing people from addiction to drugs. One can only point to the bad examples of Charlie Sheen and Lindsey Lohan to conclude that rehab more often than not does not take and, at the very least, needs to be repeated a number of time until a person is off the pipe or is dead."

He's saying that rehab is ineffective, so our only option is to continue pursuing the drug war. Well, how effective has the War on Drugs been since we started it half a century ago? Consider what we've received in exchange for the $1 trillion or so it's cost us so far.

-No real decrease in the number of drug users

-More dangerous drugs (i.e. meth) have been created as cheaper alternatives because of higher street prices for traditional drugs such as cocaine

-Hundreds of thousands of dead people

-The militarization of local police forces and the institutionalization of unnecessarily dangerous SWAT team home invasions

-The highest incarceration rate in the entire world

The drug war has been a complete failure. There is no part of it that can be viewed with any degree of success. We've spent a trillion dollars, and have not achieved any progress on any of its goals. Many things are actually far worse. Even so, few are willing to reconsider whether it is worth pursuing.

Ron Paul is one of the few elected officials principled enough to hold his ground on this issue, despite knowing full well that it will result in unfair caricatures of his actual beliefs. Why isn't the burden on the Drug War advocates to explain why we should keep pursuing an expensive, tragic policy that has not worked at all for the last 50 years? Do they need more time? More money? More laws?

We've tried all of those things. It's time we try something else.

Healthcare is not a right, but Lawrence O'Donnell is ridiculous

2011-05-15T09:07:00.001-05:00

This self-righteous diatribe by Lawrence O'Donnell is a great example of what is wrong with the "progressive" mindset. The same type of unprincipled, shallow thinking is very common within conservative circles as well.

Here's the premise:

During a speech, Rand Paul states that if people have the right to healthcare, it implies that people have a right to the labor of hospital staff - doctors, nurses, even janitors. This means that some people can force other people to work for them against their will, which is slavery. He gives an example that if healthcare is considered a right, the police could beat his door down and force him to provide it.

Lawrence O'Donnell's shocked response can be summarized as follows:

Rand Paul is stupid. Ron Paul was a bad parent. Rand Paul has the "ugly, hysterically self-centered and vile audacity" to compare the right to healthcare with slavery. "Nothing more unhinged from reality and decency has been said in the United States Senate in our time. It is utterly unpardonable." Paul is a "demented libertarian" and his police analogy is "pure, unadulterated dementia." Also, "Paul could not pass a medical competency test for medical competency." Probably administered by the Federal Redundancy Department of Redundancy.

Eventually, O'Donnell actually tries to substantively refute Paul's points. Here's his argument:

1) Since 1968, 1/3 of the population has had a "right" to healthcare due to Medicaid and Medicare.

2) Since Medicare and Medicaid were introduced, doctor's salaries have gone up significantly, along with those of nurses, and even the janitors - who are unionized.

3) Skyrocketing wages for medical employees are what's leading to health costs rapidly exceeding inflation.

4) Paul is a doctor, and probably wealthy. How can he complain?

O'Donnell explicitly points out the skyrocketing medical costs occurring immediately after the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid - i.e. socialized medicine. He then points to those very costs as the reason healthcare costs have soared far faster than the rate of inflation. He even points to janitors having higher wages due to unions.

This is an important point worth emphasizing.

O'Donnell is blaming higher medical costs on higher physician and medical provider wages. He then blames the higher wages on Medicare and Medicaid.

He actually points to the two biggest socialized medicine programs in the United States to explain why healthcare costs have "skyrocketed" much faster than the rate of inflation. How can he not see the connection?

Second, Paul's point about slavery is, of course, correct. People cannot have a "right" to physical goods or actual services unless someone else has an obligation to provide them. If you are a doctor, and people have a right to medical services, you - or someone else- must provide them. But while O'Donnell thinks this statement is "unhinged from reality" and could not conceivably occur, people are forced to work against their will to provide health care for others all the time.

Granted, it is not usually doctors who are forced to work against their will. Those who do are usually not as wealthy. For example, high-school dropouts working at McDonalds (as well as liberal arts majors working at McDonalds) have money taken from their wages and given to doctors to pay for socialized medicine for older people. These older people are often much wealthier than the younger workers supporting them.

And for those who don't think police will knock down doors to pay for socialized medicine, try refusing to pay your taxes sometime.

Forcing someone to work against their will is slavery. The amount, or even existence, of compensation doesn't change this fact. That is why college basketball coaches cannot be forced to finish the terms of their contract. It violates the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude.

Healthcare is not a "right." On what could such a "right" be based? Is it a constitutional right? Of course not. It's nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Is it a fundamental human right, such as life, the freedom of speech, or religion? Of course not. People cannot have "rights" that necessarily require the violation of the rights of other people.

Government as a provider of services

2011-05-12T08:17:00.000-05:00

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's main idea for getting quality health care at less cost was in jeopardy Wednesday after key medical providers called his administration's initial blueprint so complex it's unworkable." - AP article, via Yahoo!

The [American Medical Group Association] wrote the administration Wednesday saying that more than 90 percent of its members would not participate, because the rules as written are so onerous it would be nearly impossible for them to succeed.

According to the AMGA, "[t]he regulations are 'overly prescriptive, operationally burdensome, and the incentives are too difficult to achieve to make this voluntary program attractive.'"

Global Warming/Climate Change Legislation

2011-05-11T22:47:00.002-05:00

Here's my take. I haven't had much time for blog updates lately, so I'm lifting passages from earlier Facebook posts. Enjoy the leftovers.

People spend way too much time arguing over whether global warming is happening. That simplifies things way, way too much in light of the policies that people are advocating. It's not just a question of temperature. We have to ask the following:

1. Is the Earth getting warmer?

2. If yes, can we be certain that it is getting warmer due to human activity?

3. If yes, do the negative effects of increased global temperatures outweigh the positive effects of increased temperatures?

4. If yes, can we do anything to meaningfully change this trend?

5. If yes, what will this cost, in terms of money, quality of life, and human lives?

6. Does the potential negative impact of global warming exceed the costs of No. 5 to an extent and degree of certainty that, on balance, justifies these costs?

7. If yes, can we be certain that everyone worldwide will get on board, and we won't run into a free rider problem?

That still omits a lot of variables, such as the rate of change of temperature, etc. But even if you can answer yes to Nos. 1 - 4 and 6 - 7 with a 90% degree of confidence, that still close to a coin-flip that you're doing the right thing.

And even if you assume there is a 99% probability on items 1-4 and 7, there is absolutely no way that No. 5 can be answered with any degree of certainty, which makes No. 6 essentially impossible to answer.

While the impact of rising temperatures on humanity is difficult to predict, the impact of rising prices for essentially everything people own or use is not. The entire purpose of the proposed cap and trade, or carbon rationing plans is to artificially drive up the cost of energy, with the hope that costs will rise so much that wind/solar/etc. power will be affordable in comparison.

Because essentially all industries rely on carbon producing forms of energy, including manufacturing, shipping, retail, restaurants, and anyone with an office, the profits, payroll, and viability of each of these industries will sink. Also, if you heat your home, run your air conditioning, drive a car, wear clothing, or eat, it will impact you, too.

Union Dues for Political Activities

2011-05-11T21:57:00.000-05:00

A while back, a friend asked about my thoughts on this article from the Lawrence Journal-World. The topic was whether a proposed bill in the Kansas House to prohibit the use of union dues on political activities violated the First Amendment rights of union members. I typed the following, corrected for typos.

"The freedom to speak is only half of the freedom of speech. Compelling speech, under most circumstances, violates the First Amendment just as much as prohibiting speech does. For example, I can't force you to put a Ron Paul 2012 bumper sticker on your car, no matter how awesome that would be.

Due to federal labor laws, unions can obtain a monopoly power to negotiate on behalf of employees who don't necessarily want that particular union, or even any union, to do so. Because of these laws, it's actually illegal for employers to negotiate with these workers outside of their union. If these workers want any input toward negotiating their working conditions/wages/benefits/hours/etc., they have to do it through the designated union. This requires, at a minimum, paying union dues.

Even though unions are ostensibly voluntary organizations, and cannot compel employees to pay dues, this doesn't bear out in practice. First, as explained above, the federal labor laws actually make it illegal to negotiate with their employers outside of the union, so many feel obligated to join. Also, union backers have repeatedly subjected employees to all kinds of pressure to join, ranging from subtle persuasion to flat-out violence. Union membership is something less than voluntary for a lot of people. Things like card check legislation would exacerbate this problem.

Getting back to the free speech issue, money is fungible, and when union dues are inevitably used to support political messages and/or candidates with which some of the union members disagree, those members have effectively been forced to support a political message against their will. That is wrong.

For example, if the Kansas Bar Association required attorneys to pay membership dues in order to practice law within the state, and then spent those dues advocating for political causes abhorrent to some of its members, that's also wrong.

No one would argue that a school district could require teachers to display a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on their cars. It would be an obvious First Amendment violation. But, if the union for those same teachers spent a bunch of their dues on television ads for Democratic candidates, it's really not much different.

Even unions recognize this, which is why many already maintain separate accounts to separate their political and non-political activities.

If that's what the bill is getting at, I'm fine with it. I hate fixing the unintended consequences of legislation with more legislation, but state legislatures only have so much they can do in the face of federal law and the manner in which the Supreme Court interprets the supremacy clause. It would be better to repeal the vast majority of labor laws that created this mess in the first place."

The very next day I had an almost identical question on the MBE.

Who's to blame for high gas prices?

2011-05-04T21:33:00.002-05:00

Well, I'll start with the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve. But numerous other government bureaucracies share the blame. The EPA, the DOT...hell, even the Department of Agriculture.

This blog post answers a question I've been wondering for some time.

Obama is blaming oil companies and "speculators" for high oil prices. Meanwhile, the government, on average, confiscates 48 cents in taxes per gallon of gasoline. Exxon, for example, makes 2 cents per gallon of gasoline. In other words, the government makes 24 times, or 2,400% more per gallon of gas than Exxon.

But according to Obama, the way to punish these greedy oil companies is to eliminate subsidies. Look, I'd like to end ALL government subsidies, but if they're talking about eliminating tax deductions used for oil exploration, that's not a subsidy. That's simply allowing a company to keep more of the profits it actually earned. And to take Exxon's money and give it away in subsidies to "green energy" startups is simply wrong.

But more important to a lot of people is that increasing the cost of business for oil companies will not lower the cost of gasoline. Eliminating reckless money printing by the Fed, bureaucratic regulation, and high taxes will.

Hypocrites on the left and right

2011-04-19T00:03:00.003-05:00

Rachel Maddow seems pretty pleased about the low attendance at recent Tea Party rallies. Well, if she thinks the turnout there is small, she should try to find an anti-war rally.

The Progressive movement is proving to be worse than useless to people who are genuinely concerned about war and the destruction of our civil liberties. If they were in the streets in response to Bush's unconstitutional warmongering, massive military spending, domestic spying, and obliteration of the 4th Amendment, where are they hiding now that Obama is upping the ante on all of the above?

It's because many of them have no ideological basis for their beliefs. Like Republicans who pushed socialized medicine under Medicare Part D, gave massive bailouts to failed businesses, and ran up insane debt, they're letting their president get away with anything he wants, based on nothing other than partisanship.

Rent-A-Center Government

2011-04-13T00:08:00.003-05:00

If you had the option to finance a car with an adjustable rate loan, with zero down and no payments for five years, I hope you wouldn't do it. You would be upside down immediately. By the time the first payment came due, you'd already be looking for a new car, and actually owe way more than when you bought it. Borrowing to finance current consumption is a recipe for financial ruin. Most financially responsible people recognize this and live accordingly.

So why do we let previous generations do this, but pass the bill for their expenses to us? We're still paying for the waste and wars pursued by long dead political leaders. That is tragic.

Incredibly, we still refuse to admit we can't keep borrowing forever, which means we're trying to push the burden on to our children. That is shameful.

EAT THE RICH!

2011-04-06T00:32:00.000-05:00

No problem here. Nope. No problem.

Obama's War That Isn't a War

2011-03-29T22:54:00.002-05:00

When you lie down with dogs...

2011-03-21T23:08:00.002-05:00

Some people believe "the enemy of your enemy is your friend." FDR, for example. How else would the United States form an alliance with Joseph Stalin?

But this is terrible. Why can't we stop making the same mistakes over and over?

From the AP:

SANAA, Yemen – A massive demonstration against Yemen's government turned into a killing field Friday as snipers methodically fired down on protesters from rooftops and police made a wall of fire with tires and gasoline, blocking a key escape route.

At least 46 people died, including some children, in an attack that marked a new level of brutality in President Ali Abdullah Saleh's crackdown on dissent. Medical officials and witnesses said hundreds were wounded.

***

The protest in the capital, Sanaa, drew tens of thousands, the largest crowd yet in Yemen's uprising. It began peacefully. A military helicopter flew low over the square just as protesters were arriving after the main Muslim prayer services of the week.

A short while later, gunfire rang out from rooftops and houses, sending the crowd into a panic. Dozens were hit and crumpled to the ground. One man ran for help cradling a young boy shot in the head.

Many of the victims were shot in the head and neck, their bodies left sprawled on the ground or carried off by other protesters desperately pressing scarves to wounds to try to stop the bleeding.

***

The United States, which supports Yemen's government with $250 million in military aid this year alone to battle one of al-Qaida's most active franchises, condemned the attack on protesters.

"Those responsible for today's violence must be held accountable," President Barack Obama said. He called on Saleh to adhere to his public pledge to allow peaceful demonstrations.

Instead, Saleh declared a 30-day nationwide state of emergency that formally gave his security forces a freer hand to confront demonstrators. The declaration bars citizens from carrying and using weapons.

It's all relative

2011-03-09T00:35:00.004-06:00

In the early 1960s, gasoline cost $0.25 per gallon and the minimum wage was $1.00 per hour.

Stated differently, you could exchange an hour's worth of minimum wage labor for 4 newly minted quarters, or 4 gallons of gasoline.

Currently, the minimum wage is $7.25, and gasoline is around $3.50 per gallon. An hour's worth of minimum wage labor can now only be exchanged for roughly two gallons of gasoline. Measured in gasoline, minimum wage labor has lost half of its value. Or, measured against the minimum wage, gas is twice as expensive.

That's not all. Until 1965, quarters were 90% silver and 10% copper. If you can find one of them, at current spot prices you can buy almost two gallons of gasoline, and nearly a full hour of minimum wage labor. Measured in gas, silver has nearly doubled in value. Measured in labor, silver has nearly quadrupled in value. Gas has lost half its value compared to silver. Labor has lost nearly 4 times its value compared to silver.

A quarter from 1963 was worth $0.25 at the time. That same quarter is now worth around $6.50, or approximately 26 newly minted quarters.

In other words, our currency has lost about 96% of its value since the early 1960s. That's scary. What's more, it's lost half its value against silver in just the last few months.

This is why higher stock prices are not all they're cracked up to be.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and there is no "Trust Fund"

2011-02-06T16:21:00.002-06:00

What's amazing is that one of the Social Security Trustees admits it in this interview. Or should I call him a "Trustee" instead? He also explains what a terrible deal it is for young people.

Don't ever let anyone fool you into thinking that Social Security is solvent, either short-term or long-term. It's insolvent by its very nature.

He says that young people will end up spending 1 out of every 3 dollars they earn on paying for Social Security and Medicare for the old.

I can't believe this guy can still support it, when he realizes all of this.

Let's end these fiascos now. The problems will only get worse over time.

Rand Paul wants to eliminate foreign aid to Israel - and everyone else

2011-02-05T09:51:00.003-06:00

See "Rand Paul's Lonely Battle Against Aid to Israel."

Read the comments on the article. I don't think he's that lonely.

Think about this. We borrow money we don't have from communist China and autocratic, misogynistic Saudi Arabia, and then give it to one of the wealthier countries in the world. And we don't just give it to Israel. We give a roughly equivalent amount to Arab dictatorships at the same time.

Every year - for decades - we've given billions of dollars to totalitarian military dictatorships in Egypt and elsewhere.

Our grandchildren will be sending checks to China and Saudi Arabia to pay off the guns the Egyptian government is currently using on its citizens, who are protesting for basic democratic freedoms and human rights.

This is crazy, but not new.

In the 1950s, Britain was concerned that the secular, democratically-elected prime minister of Iran was going to cut off the unfair oil siphoning Britain had imposed on Iran when occupying it after WWII. Britain convinced Eisenhower to allow the CIA to instigate a coup. The CIA actually overthrew a popularly elected democratic leader of another country. They replaced him with the Shah. The Shah was a brutal, autocratic dictator, but he was on "our side." We gave him money and weapons, and he tortured his subjects. The Iranians hated him so much they eventually rebelled and overthrew him. Unfortunately, they replaced him with the guys running the show now. Everyone ended up worse out of that deal.

To try to offset Iran's displeasure with us, we supported Saddam Hussein's aggressive war with Iran during the 1980s. Even though he was using chemical weapons on Iranian civilians.

The main differences between what Saddam did to Kuwait and what he did to Iran were 1) We didn't like Iran, 2) We supported his war against Iran, and 3) he didn't use chemical weapons on Kuwait. Saddam used a border dispute as a pretext for both wars. With Iran, we gave him money and weapons. When he invaded Kuwait, we pounced on him during the First Gulf War.

After the end of hostilities, we then instituted economic sanctions against Iraq. Keep in mind that sanctions are really an act of war. They work the same way sieges did during the Middle Ages - by creating starvation and disease. These sanctions killed half a million Iraqi children. Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, admitted this on 60 Minutes, and claimed all these children's deaths were "worth it". Check it out for yourself.

Also, as a result of the First Gulf War, and in order to create a buffer against Saddam, we built up a huge military presence in Saudi Arabia. Another autocratic dictatorship which is way worse to women than Iraq or Iran.

Those two things inspired bin Laden to create Al-Qaeda, and ultimately carry out the September 11 attacks. Since then, we've spent trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of foreign lives, tens of thousands of American limbs, thousands of American lives, and a decade fighting two hopeless wars.

We have to stop this.

Revolt in the Middle East

2011-01-30T09:24:00.001-06:00

I get the sense the billions of dollars we've borrowed from China to give to the dictator shooting these people who are burning his picture was a poor investment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThvBJMzmSZI&sns=fb

I think my two year-old will agree, when she and her children are still working off our debt to China long after I'm gone.

There's more where that came from. Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen...even Saudi Arabia. Maybe Pakistan, before all is said and done.

People don't like the repressive autocrats we've propped up because they were supposedly "important partners" in our war on terror. Imagine that. Same thing with Iran, in our efforts to stop communism. Look where that got us.

I don't think these people appreciate our meddling. Nor do they buy our hypocritical calls for democracy.

Our "help" is neither wanted nor necessary. It isn't even help.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Can't argue with this

2011-01-21T08:26:00.001-06:00

What goes around...

2011-01-14T23:36:00.004-06:00

I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin. Trust me.

But it's terribly frustrating to watch the media unfairly drag her through the mud over the Arizona shootings. There is not, and has never been, any proof of a link between Loughner and Palin, or between Loughner and conservative ideology in general. But the media couldn't resist the opportunity, and soon began escalating the irresponsible, slanderous speculation that the shooter was inspired by the Tea Party in general, and Sarah Palin in particular. This absolute dishonesty was based purely on stereotypes and fueled by political pundits with axes to grind and agendas to push.

In the frenzy, the media and a depressingly large segment of the public started demanding something be done about the clear and present danger presented by ... the First Amendment. Politicians were happy to oblige. Not content with wrecking the First Amendment, our representatives promoted equally unworkable and unconstitutional legislation targeting the Second Amendment as well.

I haven't been this frustrated with a news story since the ridiculous "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy.

Wait a minute...

At that time, I joined some of my liberal/progressive friends in arguments with some of my conservative friends. Many conservatives were demanding the government violate the constitutional rights of Muslim property developers based on a scandalously unfair smear campaign pushed by a coalition of scumbags to advance their own purposes.

I've found myself using the same arguments in relation to the Giffords shooting - but my allies have switched sides.

To my conservative friends and family, the mere thought of a Muslim community center on Manhattan Island was enough to trigger a knee-jerk, emotional reaction to accept hateful, politically-driven lies as justification for violating the constitutional rights of American citizens. Apparently the mere thought of Sarah Palin was enough for my liberal/progressive friends to do the same.

With a little reflection, maybe we can try to be less partisan, less hypocritical and more reasonable. Now that she's on the receiving end of an unfair smear campaign, maybe even Palin will see the light and stop her own demagoguery. After all, two wrongs don't make a right.

I told you I don't like her.

Ridiculous

2011-01-11T07:48:00.003-06:00

Immediately after the Giffords shooting, the media began a game of speculative one-upmanship. Pretty soon, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and even traditional Republicans were being condemned for contributing to the attacks.

There was, and remains, no evidence that the shooter was in any way influenced, or even aware of the now infamous "crosshairs map" or any Tea Party issues at all.

But rather than retreating, the media is ratcheting up the false association between conservative talking points and a pot-smoking, atheist, Karl Marx fan - and likely a schizophrenic one at that. This is wrong, people.

There's no connection at this point. Even if there was, when an insane person does insane things, you can't blame people for that. If so, you'd have to blame violent imagery in music and television for people committing violence. You'd have to blame the Beatles for the Sharon Tate murders. You'd have to blame the Son of Sam killings on his neighbor's labrador retriever.

You can't do it. At least in those cases, the perpetrators had heard those things, or at least thought they did.

Again, there was, and remains, no evidence that the shooter was in any way influenced, or even aware of the now infamous "crosshairs map" or any Tea Party issues at all.

2011-01-09T16:17:00.002-06:00

This AP article points out how the media, particularly NPR, screwed up by prematurely and inaccurately reporting that Giffords died, while bragging about the fact that they didn't fall for it.

Two thoughts:

Isn't this the exact scenario the mainstream media has used for years to argue that the Drudge Report, bloggers, etc. aren't real journalists, and therefore shouldn't be extended the same legal protections?

Also, the article has only the slightest hint of the real story - the widespread blame immediately levied on Sarah Palin and the entire Tea Party. That error was the worst part. It was based on absolutely nothing - and appears likely to be completely wrong.

War is not a Conservative ideal

2011-01-02T09:58:00.007-06:00

He's right, of course. Traditional Republican ideals do not involve foreign wars or nation building. World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam all occurred under Democratic presidents. Americans were so desperate to get out of Vietnam that they elected Richard Nixon.

Conservatives were furious when Clinton went into Somalia, Haiti and the Baltic states.

People forget that George W. Bush actually ran against Al Gore on this very issue.

I really like what Bush was saying there. It wasn't out of line with Republican ideals from only a few years ago. Unfortunately, he totally fell apart on this issue after the September 11th attacks. The real tragedy was that he took the majority of the American public with him, not just the Republican party. It's taken a long time for people to come back to their senses on this issue.

While we're talking about Bush, please don't mistakenly believe he was a conservative, free market, limited government president. There's nothing conservative about unprecedented levels of federal deficit spending. Creating the biggest entitlement expansion since Johnson isn't a free market activity. Neither is bailing out failed private companies with funds taken from taxpayers. Creating the Department of Homeland Security has nothing to do with limited government. Reagan campaigned on ending the Department of Education. It was part of the official Republican platform in 1996, when Bob Dole campaigned on the issue. Bush, on the other hand doubled the Department of Education's budget during his tenure - and gave us No Child Left Behind.

Bush was not a free market, limited president. He was a big government, deficit-spending president who led us into disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have yet to find our way out.

A huge number of Afghans have no idea why the U.S. is in Afghanistan

2010-11-21T01:05:00.003-06:00

Well, we have something in common, I guess.

Except these guys aren't using "no idea" as a figure of speech. They really have no idea. Ninety-two percent of males in the Kandahar and Helmand provinces have never even heard of the 9/11 attacks.

I've always wondered about that. It's not like they get CNN. A lot of them probably don't have electricity.

Don't expect miracles, people.

2010-11-03T06:35:00.000-05:00

Or even any real spending cuts. Don't let the last two years make you forget the way things were going before.

Let's get specific with the cuts, starting with military spending overseas. Cutting about 30,000 pages of regulations out of the Federal Register would reduce the burden of government without cutting any services. Then we can move on to cutting services.

This isn't the time for vague calls to cut discretionary non-defense spending. Let's institute specific, large cuts across the board.

The single biggest thing Congress can do is refuse to raise the debt ceiling. It will hurt, but it has to be done. Rand Paul might do it by himself, if necessary.

FDR on the side of liberty?

2010-10-20T08:33:00.004-05:00

Politicians should be rewarded for getting the government off our backs. According to this article, they actually are. I never considered FDR's administration to be favorable for personal liberty - on balance it certainly wasn't - but this is a very interesting point.

An increasing number of people are no longer willing to complacently rely on impossible promises from politicians regarding our big problems. More people are willing to look behind the curtain. As a result, more and more people are thinking critically about the size, scope and costs (seen and unseen) of government.

More and more people are now challenging conventional wisdom on things like entitlement spending, regulations, drug prohibition, and war. People are more likely to understand the unintended consequences of these government actions.

I think New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's popularity proves the public actually likes it when someone levels with them. People who support kicking the can down the road are already being kicked out of office. This is a big change.

For what?

2010-08-07T20:53:00.003-05:00

As of July, 2010, 1,822 coalition troops have been killed in Afghanistan - and it's getting worse. June was the deadliest month ever for Americans in Afghanistan - but that record didn't last long. July was even worse.

Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already killed over twice as many coalition troops as people killed by al-Qaeda in the September 11th attacks. And that's not including the wounded, disabled and disfigured soldiers. It's not including the wrecked marriages and ruined lives of soldiers and their families. The Army averaged one suicide per day last month. At this rate, we'll lose more soldiers to suicide than roadside bombs very soon. And a lot of soldiers are killing themselves unintentionally, too.

Nor does it include the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi and Afghan civilians.

You know what we need more of?

2010-08-07T20:37:00.002-05:00

Entrepreneurs. This guy makes the case.

Will the anti-war crowd finally say something now?

2010-08-01T07:52:00.003-05:00

"WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Robert Gates is predicting that only a small number of U.S. forces will come home from Afghanistan when a presidentially mandated withdrawal begins a year from now." -AP article, via Yahoo!

According to the Congressional Research Service, there are over twice as many US troops in Afghanistan as when Obama took office. According to the AP article linked above, there will be well over three times as many by the end of this summer.

This is like a shady oriental rug store doubling its prices right before having a 50% off sale. Actually, that's not fair to the rug dealer. This is more like the rug dealer tripling his prices before advertising a minor, but undetermined discount.

I'm thirty years old, and we've been at war in Afghanistan for one-third of my life. My college-age sister was in fourth-grade when we invaded Afghanistan. In 2010, the year in which Afghanistan became the longest-lasting war in American history, we have three times the number of troops as when Obama was swept to office by an American public already tired of war.

The Education Bubble

2010-05-17T23:45:00.000-05:00

Sounds about right.

2010-05-11T20:25:00.001-05:00

It literally took fewer guys to destroy the secret Nazi nuclear weapon program than the number of TSA employees manning the security checkpoint I just went through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage

At least fifteen, and there was no line.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Just went through security in Kansas City

Condemned Utah killer will face firing squad

2010-04-27T23:39:00.006-05:00

"Weak."

"Ronnie Lee Gardner, 49, was given the choice of being killed by lethal injection or shot by a five-man team of executioners firing from a set of matched rifles — a rarely used method of execution that harkens back to Utah's territorial history." - AP article, via Yahoo!

When reached for comment, Scottish national hero William Wallace was unimpressed. "Pfft. Kids these days have it too easy. Back in my day, we had to be executed by getting pulled on by horses...both ways! I'd have jumped at the chance for a firing squad! It was bad enough when these whippersnappers started getting all worked up about electricity...and pants. Now all these punk kids can do is complain about their evaporating home equity, global warming, and being shot to death."

Progress

2010-04-24T08:41:00.002-05:00

Gotta love it.

Now maybe they can get started on re-designing the shape of ice cream molecules to be more filling.

Is Facebook worth it?

2010-04-22T20:46:00.001-05:00

Facebook is making some changes. See here: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_to_delete_facebook_applications_and_why_you_should.php

This isn't new, but the recent news revived my interest in the issue. I'm struggling with the decision over whether to delete my Facebook account. I realize Facebook can only exist if it can turn a profit, and this is the only viable mechanism yet discovered.

If I could avoid the problem by opting out, I'd definitely keep it. But it's truly terrifying that if ANY of my friends have a single app like Farmville or Mafia Wars, all my data is shared anyway. As long as that's the case, my privacy won't improve even if I avoid all apps. It's a perfect example of the prisoner's dilemma.

Although I hate the privacy implications and nefarious way this scheme works, it sadly might actually be worth it to me.

That being said, I'd greatly prefer the option to pay an annual fee to opt-out of all data collection. If your privacy isn't worth $30 per year, that's your decision. But it's very troubling that a high school classmate I havent seen in a decade can essentially trade all my personal information for a new barn in Farmville.

-- Post From My iPhone

The regulators failed spectacularly...

2010-04-14T22:04:00.002-05:00

...yet again. Government regulation lulls people into a false sense of security, thinking that they don't have to look out for themselves. This actually makes problems worse, and fools people into thinking Bernie Madoff was a good investment opportunity, the economy was sound, adjustable rate mortgages are smart decisions, when common sense should have told them otherwise.

This isn't helping

2010-04-14T22:03:00.000-05:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100412/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

And they want us to give them Predator drones

2010-04-14T21:45:00.000-05:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan

Can anyone justify this?

2010-04-14T21:40:00.000-05:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100412/ap_on_go_ot/us_tea_party_crashers

Two wrongs don't make a right...

2010-03-13T23:28:00.003-06:00

...but don't tell that to Congress.

I've complained again and again* about how government involvement in student loans has been an absolute disaster to those it supposedly helps. Can you guess how I feel about the attempts to combine two of the worst ideas around into a special, hybrid blend of mega-disaster?

It's as if Dr. Evil decided sharks with lasers on their heads weren't destructive enough, so he lobbied Congress to merge a healthcare bill with a student loan bill.

And again. And again. And again.

Who writes these things?

2010-03-11T10:12:00.003-06:00

"PATERSON, N.J. – A New Jersey man with apocalyptic visions is accused of years of terrorizing his family, raping his five daughters and impregnating three, beating his children with wooden boards and even moving at one point to avoid child welfare investigators." -AP via Yahoo!

Notice anything wrong with that sentence? How about this?

"My life in the dungeon was terrible. They branded me with red hot irons, drove spikes under my toenails, broke all of my fingers, and even refused to certify that my daily cup of gruel was organic."

Topeka Changes Name To Google For All Of March

2010-03-11T10:02:00.002-06:00

Ah, Topeka. What a great idea. Unless, of course, Google gives them a trademark infringement suit instead of a free fiber optic network.

Watch your back, Bloomberg

2010-03-10T21:28:00.003-06:00

First they came for the illicit drugs; and I did not speak out—because I did not use them;

Then they came for the alcohol, I did not speak out—because I did not drink;

Then they came for the cigarettes, and I did not speak out—because I did not smoke;

Then they came for my Chipotle—their bodies were never found.

If you like Paul Krugman...

2010-03-07T22:30:00.005-06:00

...explain this to me:

Claim 1:

"What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. That’s because the economy’s problem right now is lack of sufficient demand, and cash-strapped unemployed workers are likely to spend their benefits. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that aid to the unemployed is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus, as measured by jobs created per dollar of outlay."

-Paul Krugman, attacking the claim that extending unemployment benefits incentivizes unemployment in his blog.

Claim 2:

"Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of 'Eurosclerosis,' the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries." -Paul Krugman, in his own economics textbook.

I know he replied, but it didn't really address the issues. Frankly, it didn't make sense:

"What’s limiting employment now is lack of demand for the things workers produce. Their incentives to seek work are, for now, irrelevant. That’s why comments by the likes of Sen. Kyl are so boneheaded — anyone who thinks that high unemployment in the first quarter of 2010 has anything to do with workers getting excessively generous benefits must not get out much." Krugman's reply

I know for a fact that there are people who could work, but won't due to the fact that they make more money sitting at home than with one of the available jobs. I have this knowledge for two reasons: 1) I have common sense; and 2) I personally know several people doing this right now.*

In a free market, there's essentially unlimited demand for just about anything, at some price. If you want more demand, make your product better or cheaper. If you can't make a profit at a price people are willing to pay, either become more efficient or give up. If there's no demand at any price, whatever you're selling is literally worthless by definition.

Keynesians (like Krugman) try to artificially increase demand with public spending and artificially low interest rates. In our case, both would be financed by greatly increasing the deficit. Paying back the money we already owe is essentially impossible, but they pretend it doesn't matter. As much as I hate Bernanke for his unprecedented money printing, Krugman seems just as unhappy with him for not inflating enough.

The artificially low interest rates punish those with the good sense to save their money. Your loans might be cheap, but savings accounts pay practically nothing. Artificially low interest rates force everyone to speculate on real estate or equities, just to keep up with inflation. This leads to things like the tech bubble, the housing bubble and the crashes which inevitably follow. This punishes practically everyone.

Don't tell me about Krugman's Nobel Prize in Economics - Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat won Nobel Peace Prizes. Although, to be fair, I have to admit that Krugman is just about as good at economics as they were at peace.

*Actually, this is a rational choice for people to make. I'd probably do myself, if in a similar situation. I'm not upset at people who do this. I'm upset at the people who allow it to happen.

Iraq is still under UN sanctions from the Kuwait invasion? Seriously?

2010-03-05T21:03:00.000-06:00

Kuwait was invaded two decades ago by a dictator the current Iraqi government executed five years ago.

The UN is just getting around to considering lifting sanctions it imposed before:

-Bill Clinton announced his candidacy for president

-The Soviet Union collapsed

-Jeffrey Dahmer was arrested

-The unification of Germany

-Anyone had heard of Rodney King

-Tim Berners-Lee finalized his proposal for the World Wide Web

-Windows 2.0 was replaced

If nothing else, this is further evidence that sanctions do not work, and punish common people for the actions of the very governments by which they are oppressed.

Afghanistan bans coverage of Taliban attacks

2010-03-05T10:52:00.002-06:00

"KABUL (Reuters) – Afghanistan on Monday announced a ban on news coverage showing Taliban attacks, saying such images embolden the Islamist militants, who have launched strikes around the country as NATO forces seize their southern strongholds." - Reuters, via Yahoo!

In other news, scientific studies reveal that the boogeyman can't get you if you stay under the covers.

But this time, it'll be different.

2010-03-04T00:49:00.002-06:00

"JERUSALEM (Reuters) – The United States should impose sanctions unilaterally against Iran in the same way it acted alone by clamping an embargo on Cuba 50 years ago, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Tuesday." - Reuters article, via Yahoo!

What a brilliant idea. If we do it, and it works as well as our Cuban embargo, Ahmadinejad will still be in power in 2060.

100,000 jobs lost as a result of snow?

2010-03-03T17:56:00.001-06:00

At least someone's arguing it. Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

Creatures of Habit

2010-02-24T12:16:00.001-06:00

I've used this restroom many times when leaving Chicago via Midway. It's immediately to the right of the security checkpoint, or directly on the other side of the "expert traveler" security guantlet.

As I was standing in front of the urinal a few minutes ago, I realized something. That very urinal - the one furthest from the short urinal - was the only one I'd ever patronized within that restroom.

I can't explain it. I don't have that kind of loyalty to my doctor. Then again, that urinal doesn't have rude, spiteful staff.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Location:Illinois 50,Chicago,United States

One Year

2010-02-17T09:48:00.002-06:00

One year ago today, around this time, a little girl started a very important journey. She only had to travel about a foot, but it was very hard work. When she finally arrived, and I saw my baby girl for the first time, I cried and cried. I'd never before felt those emotions so strongly.

Once she started moving, my daughter's trip that day only took a couple of hours. My own journey had already taken over 29 years. Although I had a significant head start, from that point forward, we've been moving down the road together.

Happy birthday, Gretchen.

Calling Matt Damon

2010-02-16T01:01:00.002-06:00

An international team of European assassins? Seriously?

Apparently so.

This has potential

2010-02-07T12:45:00.003-06:00

With slight modifications, your odds of surviving a zombie apocalypse increase greatly.

Meet the Mercenary from Zero Op Systems on Vimeo.

North Korean-flagged Libyan ship hijacked off Yemen by Somali pirates

2010-02-04T22:56:00.002-06:00

AFP article, via Yahoo! News.

This is like the Demolition Derby Championship of rogue states. You've got pirates, terrorists and the country that spends a good portion of its meager resources doing THIS. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the ship was transporting genetically-modified radioactive Nazi vampires.

Well, I'll give him that.

2010-01-30T08:39:00.001-06:00

Well, that didn't take long.

2010-01-29T23:08:00.001-06:00

"The sale 'constitutes a gross intervention into China's internal affairs, seriously endangers China's national security and harms China's peaceful reunification efforts,' spokesman Wang Baodong quoted the demarche as saying." - AP Article, via Yahoo! News

He's asking for it

2010-01-29T22:42:00.002-06:00

Obama's pushing China's most sensitive buttons. I don't like where this is headed.

He started with ill-advised, counterproductive and protectionist trade measures, went on to threaten China if it didn't help threaten Iran, and then finished off by selling $6 billion dollars worth of weapons to Taiwan.*

This is like driving through a mobster's yard, running over his dog, and then pooping on his porch for good measure...when you owe him more money than you've earned in the last 10 years.

"[President Barack Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones] told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank the U.S. is 'bent toward a new relationship with China as a rising power in the world.'"

I don't think we're "bent toward" a new relationship with China so much as we're bent over by the one we have.

* "China vehemently opposes U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. It has threatened to invade Taiwan should the island ever formalize its de facto independence." -AP Article, via Yahoo! News

They're asking the wrong people

2010-01-27T09:44:00.002-06:00

"WASHINGTON – New home sales unexpectedly fell 7.6 percent last month, capping the industry's weakest year on record." - AP article, via Yahoo!

Every month, when the new housing and unemployment statistics are released, these types of articles always say that the numbers "unexpectedly" suck.

This is like a news article every day saying the sun "unexpectedly" rose this morning, despite widespread consensus among economists that it would not.

"Obama quietly continues to defend Bush's terror policies" -McClatchey

2010-01-24T10:42:00.002-06:00

"WASHINGTON — Although the FBI has acknowledged it improperly obtained thousands of Americans' phone records for years, the Obama administration continues to assert that the bureau can obtain them without any formal legal process or court oversight." McClatchey Newspapers, via Yahoo! News

I knew McCain had terrible ideas for US Foreign Policy, but when he and Obama both lined up behind the TARP, I gave up any hope that I could support him. At least, I thought, Obama might not be as aggressive militarily, and might support individual rights. At least that would be something.

Oh well.

How does anyone takes Krugman seriously?

2010-01-18T22:30:00.004-06:00

See here.

It's like satire, except not. I could go line by line about how ridiculous these statements are, but I think the previous sentence does a pretty good job of summarizing it.

The reader comments are the crazy part. I'm not going to read all 800+ of them, but I read ten before I found one that agreed with Krugman. That's far from a scientific survey, but if 90% of Krugman's own readers on the NY Times website disagree with him, you know he has a problem.

Geithner's days are numbered

2010-01-18T22:10:00.004-06:00

Not that he doesn't deserve it, but I've been suspicious for some time that Geithner will take the fall to shield some of the more high profile people involved in our current mess. While focusing on an entirely different story, there's a quote in this article from Politico which seems to indicate things are headed that way.

Here's the key quote:

"And press secretary Robert Gibbs said a key theme of 2010 will be asking voters 'whether the people they have in Washington are on the side of protecting the big banks, whether they’re on the side of protecting the big oil companies, whether they’re on the side of protecting insurance companies or whether they’re on the people’s side.'"

Those kinds of statements don't bode well for a guy with Tim Geithner's history.

EDIT: I just noticed that Obama's State of the Union address was just scheduled for January 27th. This is the same day that Geithner was asked to testify in front of Congress regarding his role in the AIG/Goldman Sachs debacle. It's also the day of a press-event by Apple, which is expected to announce a brand new tablet device, the new iPhone OS and who knows what else. Lots of news that day.

Microsoft's Bach says 'there are other places where Zune logically could go'

2010-01-11T22:55:00.001-06:00

The trash, for example. Or the dust bin of history, perhaps.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/11/microsofts-bach-says-there-are-other-places-where-zune-logical/

Wherever it ends up, I bet it gets there via the path to irrelevance.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

"Pakistan seen becoming more Islamist, anti-U.S"

2010-01-11T22:07:00.003-06:00

According to Reuters, via Yahoo! News.

Any guesses as to why? I suspect escalation of our bombing campaign has something to do with it.

Contrary to popular neo-conservative belief, I doubt it's because of our freedom -- American freedoms have been declining concurrently with America's reputation in Pakistan.

Oh, it gets better...

2010-01-10T09:58:00.003-06:00

"[Democratic National Chairman Tim] Kaine pointed out that while Reid should not have chosen that term, he was using it to say 'positive things about [Obama's] candidacy and why his candidacy was strong.'" - POLITICO article, via Yahoo! News

Let me get this straight: The DNC Chairman says that everything's OK because Harry Reid's statements about Obama being a "light-skinned" African-American without a "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one" were emphasizing the positive aspects of his campaign.

AND:

"Kaine also said that after securing a 60th vote for the president's health care bill, Reid has more than enough political capital with the White House.

'I don’t think this will affect Senator Reid’s leadership at all,' Kaine said. 'He’s done some very heavy lifting for us.'" - POLITICO article, via Yahoo! News

This is closer to the truth. They don't care what he does, as long as he rams through the legislation they want.

If bombing civilians doesn't disqualify you from the Nobel Peace Prize...

2010-01-08T21:46:00.002-06:00

...surely having Rudy Giuliani endorse your military strategy should.

WASHINGTON – Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Friday he believes President Barack Obama "turned the corner" on understanding the nature of terrorism when he publicly declared the U.S. at war. - AP, via Yahoo!

Too bad neither of them understand the War Powers Clause. President's can't declare war. At least not under the Constitution.

If you need a computer...

2010-01-04T09:39:00.003-06:00

...I'd suggest a Mac.

If you have to use a Windows PC, DO NOT BUT IT FROM BEST BUY!

Don't buy a warranty, either.

Real shady stuff.

My spidey-sense is tingling...

2009-12-20T00:24:00.003-06:00

NIKON D40 SLR DIGITAL CAMERA - $325 (OVERLAND PARK)

I HAVE A VERY NICE IN BRAND NEW CONDITION NIKION D4O SLR DIGITAL CAMERA! I HAVE THE BOX AND A VERY NICE CARRYING CASE! WITH 12 MEXIPIXLES IT TAKES AMAZING PICTURES! NEVER HAVE HAD ANY PROBLEMS! ALSO HAVE THE CHARGER! WILL MAKE A GREAT XMAS PRSENT!
IF INTERESTED GIVE ME CALL AT 913-433-6297

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYONE!

-via Craigslist

Red Flags:
1. ALL CAPS
2. TOO MANY EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!
3. It's "Nikon" not "NIKION."
4. The D40 has 6 megapixels, not 12 "MEXIPIXLES."

Sneaky, sneaky

2009-12-05T09:05:00.001-06:00

Keeping us on our toes.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Don't believe today's "good news"

2009-12-05T02:15:00.004-06:00

Officially, the unemployment level dropped .2% with this morning's monthly jobs report.

This conclusion seemingly indicates the US finally picked up some jobs. This is not the case. The official government statistics actually state that the US lost jobs (and presumably added people). Yet, the government is telling us that the unemployment rate is actually lower. Read it yourself, if you'd like.

Here's an excerpt from an explanation of the cooked numbers:

"Unemployment dropped by .2% even though 11,000 jobs were lost and it should take at least 100,000 jobs just to keep up with demographics. Instead note the drop in the civilian labor force by 98,000.

Moreover, those "not in the labor force rose by 291,000 constituting nearly all of the decline in unemployment." -Mish Shedlock

People "not in the labor force" include unemployed people who want to work, but who haven't looked for work in the last 4 weeks. This is often because they can't find a job, and eventually give up. It also happens when new graduates emerge from campus like Punxsutawney Phil, look around, see the shadow of the financial crisis and decide to go back underground to graduate school.

These people don't count toward the unemployment rate. This is like the government "reducing crime rates" by legalizing robbery.

I think he's onto something

2009-12-05T01:48:00.002-06:00

Watch this 25 second clip. Then re-watch it, while looking at the stock tickers.

Gold is over 236% higher than when this aired 4 years ago. The S&P and Dow are currently lower than they were when this aired 4 years ago.

Senator R. Lee Ermey

2009-12-03T23:07:00.004-06:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In case you don't get it.

Pirates!

2009-12-03T00:24:00.002-06:00

Apparently, there are 11 ships and 264 sailors currently held captive by Somali pirates who overtake the ships with speedboats, AK-47s, and RPGs. Fortunately, Wile E. Coyote has a plan:

"A ship-borne launching device that fires a rope-based barrier into the path of pirate vessels is being marketed at commercial ships at risk from such attacks. The Buccaneer, from BCB International, uses compressed air to fire a plastic cylinder containing either a coiled rope or net up to a range of 400m. The coiled line of net or rope, which has a parachute attached to the end, will unravel and lay out across the surface of the water. As a pirate boat travels through the water its propeller shaft will pick up the line and become entangled." The Engineer

I have a better idea.

Chipotle, I love you. But we have to talk...

2009-11-23T16:25:00.000-06:00

If you're truly trying to advocate responsible food production/consumption, you should re-think directing your customers to Best Buy. Those guys have institutionalized deception, consumerism, and possibly even evil. This doesn't help your credibility.

If Google's motto is "Do no evil" Best Buy's motto is "I've got a fever, and the prescription...is more evil!"

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Told you so

2009-11-18T23:30:00.001-06:00

Cash for Clunkers results in higher used car prices:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/011056.asp

Who could have predicted that artificially limiting supply would lead to higher prices? Well, anyone who's ever scalped tickets or Tickle-Me-Elmos, for starters.

Keep in mind the price increases were masked by a major recession and greatly reduced consumer lending. The increases would be even higher if people could get either jobs or credit.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Gasoline on a fire

2009-11-06T22:14:00.001-06:00

Peter Schiff explains:

"During the boom, we spent money we did not have to buy things we did not produce and could not afford. As a result, we are now deeply in debt and must sharply reduce our spending to replenish our savings. By focusing solely on consumer spending, the Administration is neglecting the capital investments necessary to improve our infrastructure and productive capacity."

"To generate legitimate economic growth and meaningful jobs, we must reverse the trends that brought us down. Consumers may have led us into this recession, but they can't lead us out. The road to recovery is a one-way street, and it's paved with savings, capital investment, and production. It's not an easy road, but we must follow it to ensure our future prosperity."

"As a first step, our politicians must stop pushing us backward. Rather than imposing more market-distorting regulations, we should repeal those most responsible for inefficient resource allocation. Rather than creating new moral hazards, we should withdraw guarantees for large financial institutions and irresponsible consumers. Rather than continuing the Greenspan policy of keeping interest rates too low, we should let them rise. Rather than trying to prop up asset prices, we should let them fall to market levels. Rather than increasing the burden of bureaucracy on the economy, we should look for ways to lighten the load. Rather than encouraging people to borrow and spend, we should reward those who save and produce."

Sounds good to me.

-- Posted from my iPhone

Imagine two entities...

2009-11-05T00:21:00.003-06:00

Person A and Person B. Both are in positions of authority, and given responsibility for important tasks. Both fail. Miserably. Person A is held accountable, and loses his job. Person B is granted more power, and given twice as much money with the hope that he'll do a better job next time.

What's the difference?

Person A is part of a capitalist enterprise. Person B is a government entity.

Madness

2009-11-04T23:42:00.003-06:00

"WASHINGTON – The government's latest count of stimulus jobs significantly overstates the effects of the $787 billion program under a popular federal preschool program, raising fresh questions about the process the Obama administration is using to tout the success of its economic recovery plan." -AP article, via Yahoo!
***
"Most of the inflated figures were like those cited in the 935 saved jobs reported by the Southwest Georgia Community Action in Moultrie, Ga. The agency, like hundreds of others collecting Head Start money, claimed all its existing employees' jobs were saved because they received a pay raise with the stimulus cash."
***
"'It's a glitch in the system,' said Ben Allen, the research director at the National Head Start Association. 'There was some misunderstanding among some in the Head Start community about completing the reporting requirements.'

Allen said a cost-of-living adjustment 'may not be viewed traditionally as a job saved, but one could interpret it that, by providing COLA, you're retaining staff.'

This is completely detached from reality. Giving a raise is not the same as creating a job, or even "saving" one.

First, these employees weren't going to quit their jobs without a raise. If they did, it would only be because they had a better opportunity elsewhere. How is that a bad thing? If they did quit their job to take a better one, it would actually open up a position for one of the millions of people looking for work. As with most government intervention, the meddling actually made the problem worse.

During high school, the concept of "imaginary numbers" made my head hurt. I think the mathematical concepts in the next quote are even worse.

"At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 — the percentage pay raise they received — and came up with 935 jobs saved."

So a 1% salary increase equals a job created or saved?

According to this kind of math, if the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council gave its employees a 2% raise via stimulus funds, it would have "saved" over 1,000 jobs. If they would have given them a 20% raise, they would have saved over 10,000 jobs. If they would have multiplied their pay by 60, we'd have met the 3,000,000 jobs "created or saved" that Obama promised.

Back here in the real world, not a single job was created by this.

The AP is biting back

2009-11-04T23:24:00.003-06:00

About a week ago, the Associated Press released a report challenging some of the stimulus statistics touted by the Obama administration. The White House blasted the AP report, saying that everything would be fixed when the final numbers came out last Friday.

Apparently the AP didn't appreciate being handled this way. They again debunked the "fixed" stimulus data, and today, they're tackling Cash for Clunkers.

I suppose it's one thing for the White House to aggressively go after Fox News. Most Fox viewers probably don't support Obama anyway. It's harder to make the argument that the Associated Press is biased. And attacking Edmunds.com borders on ridiculous.

If you are looking for a good DSLR for CHEAP

2009-11-02T23:39:00.002-06:00

See this deal.

Make SURE you read the directions carefully. If you do it right, and sell the printer and extra lens, you can get an excellent $750 DSLR for a net cost of $250.

An example of why I'm against the death penalty

2009-11-02T22:35:00.002-06:00

Multiple wrongful convictions, all by the same prosecutor. Arguing that this type of situation is rare is not only incorrect, but also irrelevant. How many innocent people must be executed to outweigh the alleged benefits of capital punishment?

I'll give you a hint. It's less than two.

Many lawyers lie in bed awake at night for this very reason...

2009-11-02T22:20:00.002-06:00

Telling your boss that you've screwed up is never fun. When your mistake potentially costs $1.26 billion, you really have problems.

Why are these people in charge?

2009-11-02T21:45:00.003-06:00

These people are supposed to be the experts. Yet they didn't see the crisis coming, denied that it was possible, and claimed that the economy was in great shape as the economy crumbled around them. They have no credibility. Why does anyone think they can fix the problem? They are the problem.

Alan Grayson asked Ben Bernake a question around the 3:45 mark of this video. Bernake's three-word response should have gotten him fired, indicted, or both.

Basically, Grayson wanted to know which foreign banks received $500 billion from the Federal Reserve. Bernake's response: "I don't know."

There are two possibilities. Either Bernake is lying, or he's admitted to inconceivable levels of incompetence perhaps unequaled in history. Neither are good. Either should cost him his job, at the very least.

I think he's lying. To Congress. Blatantly.

Does anyone really think that the Federal Reserve would dish out half a trillion dollars without the Fed Chairman's approval? Does anyone think that the Fed Chairman would approve distributing $500 billion without checking ID? As ridiculous as it was that mortgage lenders would approve mortgages without verifying income, Bernake claims he allowed the Fed to distribute half a trillion dollars without even knowing who was getting the money.

Responsible lending requires lenders to determine whether the party borrowing the funds will be able to pay them back. Also, lenders should determine if lending the money will be beneficial. It is impossible to do either of these things without knowing the borrower's identity. If Bernake approved this without knowing where the money was going, it would be recklessness beyond comprehension.

There's a much simpler explanation. He's lying.

He shouldn't be able to get away with it.

More student loan analysis

2009-11-02T21:36:00.000-06:00

Here's another take.

Makes a lot of sense.

Do you have student loans? If so, you should pay attention to this...

2009-11-02T21:20:00.004-06:00

I've been saying this for a long time. People think students couldn't afford college without federal student loans. In reality, federal tuition assistance programs make college far, far more expensive.

Before federal tuition involvement, a decent summer job could pay for a year's tuition. Yet the government wanted to make college more "affordable", so it started various federal tuition programs. As a result, college students don't have to have a summer job, and can live the high life while in college, paid for by student loans. But then they have to spend the next 10-20 years paying off tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, before you count the interest. If they didn't have that debt, instead of paying interest they could invest that money and earn interest. Or put a down payment on a house.

Why has college gotten more expensive? I certainly don't think it's because the quality of education is any better. I'm quite convinced the opposite is true. The government's good intentions of providing students with more for less backfired on both fronts. Just like it did with Fannie/Freddie/CRA and housing. Just like it did with Social Security and retirement.

And just like it's going to do with health care.

Canon is a Great Company

2009-11-02T21:04:00.002-06:00

I use Nikon DSLRs, but Canon has always gone above and beyond in the customer service department in my experience. I had some issues a while back with a refurbed multifunction that I bought from Newegg, but they ultimately made it right, and replaced it with an even nicer printer. To be fair, I think the problem was Newegg's fault, rather than Canon's.

As a result, I'm a loyal Canon customer, at least as far as inkjet printers and point and shoot digital cameras are concerned.

Here's another example of Canon taking care of its customers.

Gotta love Dvorak

2009-10-30T00:04:00.002-05:00

The guy's a complete moron. I don't know why anyone listens to him anymore. That quote makes me wonder why anyone listened to him ever.

Government-sanctioned fraud

2009-10-25T23:48:00.001-05:00

"JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, are all engaged in accounting fraud. They are not realizing losses on trillions of dollars worth of bad debts on their books, giving themselves big bonuses this year, deferring losses to next year ....". Max Keiser

Some might ask why we don't have regulation to stop this. But we already do. Fraud is illegal.

However, the SEC itself actually encouraged these banks to ignore their losses, treating them as if they didn't exist.

http://j.mp/1RlHMQ

You can't blame these bonuses on the free market. If the government would have stayed out of it, these companies would be bankrupt, and we'd be on our way to recovery. Actually, if the government would have stayed out of it from the beginning, we wouldn't be in this mess to start with.

-- Posted from my iPhone

Let's cut out the filler...

2009-10-21T23:59:00.002-05:00

Excerpts taken from a Bloomberg article on Yahoo!:

"Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) -- At least 47 school-age children in Chicago have been killed in homicides, mostly by guns, since the month President Barack Obama took office."

***

"'Where there have been opportunities for the president to speak out about the issue of firearm violence, he has missed any number of opportunities,' said Thom Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence."

***

"Gun issues in Chicago will remain in the national spotlight following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sept. 30 announcement that it will hear a challenge of the city’s handgun ban, implemented in 1982 to combat urban crime." (emphasis added)

The ownership of handguns in Chicago is already illegal, and has been for over a quarter of a century. Needless to say, banning handguns hasn't eliminated, or even lowered the incidence of violent crime. What more does Mr. Mannard want to do?

It's about frigging time

2009-10-21T23:28:00.002-05:00

I'm a huge Apple fan. Huge. Everything they make seems to have been designed in order to get out of your way and let you do what you want to do, without any hassles.

Which is why I've never understood how the mouse that comes with their desktop Macs is one of the worst mice I've ever used in my life. I've never seen one that worked properly for more than a couple months. The scrolling trackball invariably stops working, way too soon.

It still blows me away how such a terrible design could make it out of Cupertino, much less stick around for years. But that's all in the past.

The right result, but reached the wrong way

2009-10-19T00:02:00.004-05:00

"WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday." AP Article, via Yahoo!

Federal laws banning marijuana use are counterproductive. Regardless, if a medical doctor decides a patient can be helped by marijuana, it's simply not the federal government's place to prohibit it. Physicians can prescribe all manner of painkillers and narcotics that are illegal without a prescription. Why is marijuana different?

I'm glad people won't be prosecuted for medical marijuana use. But I'm disappointed in the way it happened. If these are bad laws, why not get rid of them? Why encourage people to violate the law, with a tacit understanding that they will receive no punishment? Rather than instruct the Justice Department to ignore federal drug laws, he should have pushed Congress to repeal them.

Instead, we ended up with a power grab for the executive branch. This method substitutes the judgment of the president for the judgment of the legislature. Many observers, including Obama, didn't like it when Bush did it, and rightfully so. Although Obama thinks that he should be allowed to selectively enforce legislation, the article indicates he thinks it should be for provisions that are unconstitutional. I personally think that prohibiting medical marijuana use is unconstitutional, but Obama is not making that argument here.

Also, this puts marijuana users in a tough position. They may rely on this development, and assume they're safe to consume marijuana. But by doing so, they're still violating the law. Future administrations can always start enforcing the laws again. The next president could change course, and prosecute all the people who relied on Obama's policy.

Do you see the problem here?

2009-10-14T22:06:00.002-05:00

Apparently the federal government's plan to modify mortgages for people who can't afford them isn't working out too well. Check out the below quote from this Reuters article on Yahoo! which describes a guy that didn't qualify.

"Latta, a 53 year-old retiree, pays $1,600 in monthly home payments that eat up 93 percent of his pension and he struggles to make child support payments."

According to my math, his pension is roughly $1,720 per month. His mortgage is $1,600. Yet he apparently decided to retire at age 53.

And he's frustrated the federal government can't save his house.