Friday, March 25, 2005
RELIGIOUS RIGHT = ISLAMISTS?
I’d sworn off reading Andrew Sullivan after his cringe-inducing attempt to persuade everyone that he was supporting John Kerry because he thought Kerry better suited to conduct the War on Terror. But I came across this post while viewing Instapundit:
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "I'm quite astonished to hear people who call themselves conservatives arguing, in effect, that Congress and the federal courts have a free-ranging charter to correct any injustice, anywhere, regardless of the Constitution. And yet my email runneth over with just those kinds of comments. And arguing that "it's okay because liberals do it too" doesn't undercut my point that conservatives are acting like liberals here. It makes it." - Glenn Reynolds, coming to terms with what the religious right is doing to conservative principles. The important point is that religious zealotry cannot be incorporated into conservatism. It is the nemesis of conservatism. And it has to be purged in order for conservatism to be revived. [Italics added]. After 9/11 one would think that pundits should be a bit more circumspect with the term “religious zealotry.” But apparently a term that depicts thugs who vaporize 3,000 people by flying planes into building can also be used to describe folks who want to re-insert a feeding tube into a living human being.
Also note that these folks must be “purged.” What sort of images does that word evoke for you?
I wonder, what word best described Andrew Sullivan’s feeling toward those on the religious right? “Rage”? “Hatred”? Something to contemplate.
. . .
RIGHT WING BABES!
Babe #1: Marsha Richards
Okay, since the below post is very hard on the eyes, it is time to start this new feature, Right Wing Babes! The first honoree is Marsha Richards, Education Policy Analyst for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation:
Okay, altogether now gents: YOOOOOOOWWWWWSER!!!!
She will be hosting a radio show tomorrow on Republican Radio, from 11:20am to Noon PST. Her guest will be attorney Wesley J. Smith. Go here to listen.
And for your viewing pleasure, here are a few more photos. Eat your heart out:
. . .
METAPHOR FOR LIBERALISM
. . .
GO, TEDDY, GO!
Thanks to LC Geno for pointing out that the gent who wrote the Ted Kennedy satire I linked to yesterday has a blog called Jerhad!com. And he has another Kennedy satire:
WASHINGTON, DC --- Ted Kennedy, who was recently declared brain-dead by his physician, is fighting for his life. The Senator's family is trying to have his feeding tube removed to allow him to die a sober death. The tube, attached to a bottle of vodka and a bottle of gin, has been utilized by the senator for his entire adult life. Medical experts believe removal will almost certainly result in death.
"This is a very complex situation," said one medical expert. "Senator Kennedy appears to be functioning normally to many people, but it is quite obvious that the man is brain-dead by his public comments. Most of us in the medical community think he should be allowed to have a dignified death by sobering him up and removing his feeding tube."
Liberals were stuck in a quandary today as they want Terri Schiavo dead, but they don't want Ted Kennedy to die. "This is a moral dilemma to many people," said Commie Greenstein, a liberal living in New York. "Fortunately, most of us don't really make decisions based on any morals, so it's okay if we want one person to die while allowing a brain-dead person to live."
Alcohol manufacturers around the world are scrambling to raise money for the "Keep Kennedy Alive" fund. Removing his feeding tube is predicted to cause a 12% annual decrease in global alcohol consumption. Some manufacturers risk going out of business as soon as the feeding tube is removed.
OUCH!
. . .
10 + 24 = 25
What you learn in forth grade.
. . .
Thursday, March 24, 2005
HOW TO SOLVE THE HOMELESS PROBLEM AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOL PROBLEM…
…at the same time! Hire the homeless as teachers!
. . .
GO, TEDDY, GO!
Heh:
The mayor of Las Vegas is in hot water. Mayor Oscar Goodman told a group of fourth graders that drinking was one of his hobbies and that if he could have one thing on a deserted island it would be gin. Goodman made no apologies for the comments and said he was just being honest. He also hosts regular "Martinis with the Mayor" events.
When Senator Ted Kennedy heard of the incidents, he was outraged and accused the Democrat mayor of identity theft. "This is incredible," said a visibly angered Kennedy. "This man is obviously stealing my identity. I tell children all the time that drinking is my hobby and getting drunk is my profession. Everyone knows I would want gin if stranded on an island. Frankly, I want gin when I'm stranded in the bathroom. And I started 'Martinis with the Senator' gatherings years ago on a daily basis. This man is an imposter. I feel so violated having my identity stolen. And by a Democrat!"
. . .
YET…
Apparently the part about Mayor Goodman of Las Vegas is true. Of course, that’s not too hard to believe:
. . .
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE TRUSTEES REPORT
My latest at the Spectator.
. . .
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
SOCIAL SECURITY OSTRICH: CHRISTIAN E. WELLER
A senior economist for the Center for American Progress, Christian E. Weller yesterday assured us that “Social Security’s Benefits Are Secure For Decades.” Of course, if you live in the world where Social Security exists in a vacuum, that is true. But if you live in the real world where we have to find the money to make those benefits secure, you understand that Social Security is creating a problem.
Weller, of course, dodges that issue with the left’s Pavlovian response:
It is unreasonable to assume that politicians will allow the Treasury to default on promised payments to America’s seniors, but honor promised payments to foreign investors.
Ring that bell! Question the wisdom of putting bonds in the trust fund, and the left raises the specter of default.
Of course it is unreasonable to assume that the Treasury will default on the bonds. That’s exactly the problem: By accumulating ever more bonds, the trust fund accumulates an ever-heavier burden for future taxpayers.
For dodging that central issue, Weller is the new winner of the Social Security Ostrich Award!
. . .
NOT THAT RANDOM
I’ve been following the developments of the story surrounding the murderer Jeff Weise. Some are pointing out that Mr. Weise appeared to have connections to eco-extremists, the media is focusing only on the neo-Nazi connections.
Something else interests me, however, that is encapsulated in this passage from an MSNBC story:
[FBI Investigator] Tabman said investigators did not know if a grudge or vendetta led to the killings and that Weise’s targets appeared to be random.
The Mainstream Media always repeats without skepticism that a killer’s actions were random or senseless. Well, Weise’s killing spree was random only in the sense that he didn’t have a specific list of victims he was targeting. But he (as do most killers) are often systematic about the types of victims they target—namely, those who are defenseless.
To take a page from Thomas Sowell, note that Weise did not target a police station or the local National Guard unit, i.e. those places filled with folks who can shoot back. Instead, he targeted a school, where almost no one has a gun.
In case you think that this did not factor into Weise’s thinking, consider that he had enough presence of mind to don a bulletproof vest. Then again, perhaps he just randomly decided to give himself extra protection as he was randomly deciding to target those people who only wore t-shirts.
One of the things that makes me angriest about this story is that the school had security guards—indeed, a security guard was Weise’s first victim at the school—who were unarmed. I don’t know who initiated the policy of unarmed security guards, but I’ll bet dollars to donuts it was some leftist school-board weenie who thinks guns cause crime.
So am I advocating that school security guards should be armed? Not only that, I think it should be mandatory that principals and vice-principals take firearms training and be armed at all times when on school grounds. And give teachers the option of doing that.
The fact is thugs are only deterred by those with sufficient firepower. That’s why Congress has made it legal for pilots to be armed. If it’s a good policy for the protection of airline passengers, why not for the protection of children?
. . .
EXTENDED QUOTE
Don’t usually put a quote of such length here, but this piece by Walter E. Williams on the minimum wage is brilliant:
The idea that minimum wage legislation is an anti-poverty tool is simply sheer nonsense. Were it an anti-poverty weapon, we might save loads of foreign aid expenditures simply by advising legislators in the world's poorest countries, such as Haiti, Bangladesh and Ethiopia, to legislate higher minimum wages. Even applied to the United States, there's little evidence suggesting that increases in the minimum wage help the poor. Plus, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 2.2 percent of working adults earn the minimum wage.
The crucial question for any policy is not what are its intentions but what are its effects? One of its effects is readily seen by putting yourself in the place of an employer and asking: If I must pay $6.25 or $7.25 an hour to whomever I hire, does it make sense for me to hire a worker whose skills enable him to produce only $4.00 worth of value per hour? Most employers would view doing so as a losing economic proposition. Thus, one effect of minimum wages is that of discriminating against the employment of low-skilled workers.
For the most part, teenagers dominate the low-skilled worker category. They lack the maturity, skills and experience of adults. Black teenagers not only share those characteristics, but they are additionally burdened by grossly fraudulent education, making them even lower skilled.
Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment data confirms the economic prediction about minimum wage effects. Currently, the teen unemployment rate is 16 percent for whites and 32 percent for blacks. In 1948, the unemployment rate for black teens (16-17) was lower (9.4 percent) than white teens (10.2 percent). Plus, black teens were more active in the labor force.
How might we explain that? How about arguing that there was less racial discrimination in 1948, or back then black teens were more highly educated than white teens? Of course, such arguments would be nonsense. The fact of the matter is that while there was a minimum wage of 40 cents an hour prior to 1948, it had been essentially repealed by the post-World War II inflation; however, with successive increases in the minimum wage, black teen unemployment rose relative to white teens to where it has become permanently double that of white teens.
If the minimum wage law has these effects, then how does it pass political muster? The current Social Security debate over private accounts gives us a hint. In the political arena, you dump on people who can't dump back on you. Few politicians owe their office to the youth vote. Despite the "concern for the children" malarkey they spout, it's voting age adults to whom politicians are beholden. It turns out that adults benefit from the discriminatory effects of minimum wages, and older adults benefit from Social Security intergenerational transfers.
. . .
A RESPONSE TO CHAIT
My latest in the Spectator.
. . .
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
HERE WE GO AGAIN (SIGH……)
Looks like the campaign finance reformers (sic) are at it again. From In These Times:
In 2002, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) wrote and helped pass the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) which banned unlimited contributions to political parties and candidates. On February 2, the two senators introduced the 527 Reform Act of 2005, supported by Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who has previously opposed any reform to the campaign finance system. The proposed legislation requires 527s to register as political committees with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and subjects their fundraising to current campaign finance laws….
The proposed legislation will require that if a 527’s sole purpose is to influence a federal election it must be funded with “hard money”—donations subject to the limits and reporting requirements of the BCRA. The bill also caps individual donations to $5,000. If a 527 is working on a combination of local and federal campaigns, at least 50 percent of these expenditures must be financed with hard money, and individual, non-federal “soft money” donations would be capped at $25,000.
The ruffling sound you here is the lawyers turning the pages of the legal code to look for the next loophole…
. . .
ANOTHER LIBERAL MYTH…
…about to go down the crapper? It looks like tort reform does result in lower insurance premiums.
. . .
WICKED THOUGHT
A friend emails me:
I had a wicked thought after reading this in Neumayr's Schiavo piece: "Even vegetation in Florida's wetlands inspires more concern from Democrats than a human being dismissed as 'being in a vegetative state.'"
Hmmm ... If it is okay to destroy a living thing because it has no brain activity, what exactly does that mean for environmental policy? Is it okay to clear-cut forests now? I mean has the Sierra Club weighed in on this?
. . .
YEAH, BUT WAS IT ABLE TO DO COOL STUFF LIKE BREATHE FIRE?
Something non-political: HOGZILLA!
. . .
YEP
From George Neumayer's column today:
Were Terri Schiavo a dog or a terrorist, she would have received a more vigorous defense from Democrats on Sunday night.
. . .
Monday, March 21, 2005
MOM! DAD! COME SEE WHAT THAT $30,000 A YEAR YOU ARE SHELLING OUT IS GETTING YOU!
Some students have gone on a hunger strike to demand a “living wage” for janitors who work at Georgetown University. I’m betting their comrades are sneaking them McDonald’s Happy Meals when no one is looking. Anyway, why is it that no workers are participating in the hunger streak? Looks like someone is getting the students to do their caloric dirty work for them. Can you spell T-O-O-L-S-O-F-O-R-G-A-N-I-Z-E-D-L-A-B-O-R?
I wonder if anyone has told these students that a little study of economics might be a good idea? They might learn that Georgetown will have to get the resources from somewhere to pay the workers above the going rate. Will it come from professors’ salaries, administrators’ salaries, increases in tuition? And if it comes from tuition, how much more will the parents and the taxpayers who subsidize the tuition have to pay?
Oh well, concepts like “no free lunch” and second and third order effects are stodgy, outdated nonsense promoted by the economics department to oppress the masses. Besides, why bother taking economics when you can take hip courses like the Women Filmmakers, or do a concentration in the ever-popular Social Justice Analysis?
. . .
|
. . .
|
