Tannerball: The Blog

Jimmy Carter, the sage of Plains

2009-09-16T10:22:00.003-04:00

This one is great. Now, I'm no defender of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), for two reasons: first, what he did during Obama's speech was rude, boorish, and silly; second, he's from South Carolina, which contains the most annoying stretch of interstate highway in all the land -- and it's annoying not because of the road, but because the SC drivers make it so intolerably miserable.

Anyhow, here's Jimmy Carter, adding his own folksy wisdom to the debate over health care:

ATLANTA (AP) - Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst to President Barack Obama during a speech to Congress last week was an act "based on racism" and rooted in fears of a black president.

"I think it's based on racism," Carter said in response to an audience question at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

I'm unclear how Jimmy has determined that the "inherent feeling" that "many in this country" believe Obama shouldn't be president exists....is this based upon evidence? Is this based upon the statements of people in power? How many people are the "many" to which he refers? Is it the 60 million or so who didn't vote for Obama? Is it six dudes in south Georgia sitting on a porch drinking Dixie Beer? Or is it based in Jimmy's wisdom of the ages (i.e. he's just making shit up)?

The point, dear reader, is this: saying that people, including elected representatives, who oppose the policies of the Obama administration are doing so because they are racist is, essentially, and invocation of Godwin's Law on racial terms. If you can assign racist motives to the speaker, you don't have to engage the substance of his argument. Joe Wilson's point, poorly made as it was, was that the administration's proposed health care plan likely would cover illegal/undocumented aliens. There is considerable debate over this issue -- the plan says it won't cover anyone other than Americans, but apparently does not require proof of citizenship, nor is there any discernable enforcement mechanism. I'm sure that will change as the bill winds its way through the House and the Senate -- it may have already.

Now, whether it's kosher to shout "You Lie!!" during the President's address is one question (Wilson has received an official rebuke for it). Whether the health care bill in its current form would end up with taxpayer funded coverage for illegal aliens is another question, and one that clearly deserves a fair debate -- and there is a debate going on, so let's have it.

But for a former president to come out and say your opposition to Obama's health care plan is due to your being a racist, based upon nothing other than an "inherent feeling" and your opposition to the policies being debated is nothing short of astonishing. Set aside the supposed dignity of the office of ex-president--Carter just called those of us who disagree with Obama's policies racists!! And the best part -- because these "racist" outbursts are an "aftershock" of America's racist past, you may not even know you're being racist when you speak! And who gets to decide if you're racist? Jimmy Carter, that's who!

Are there racists out there? Sure there are. However, there are waaaaay more of us non-racists out here, struggling with notions of freedom vs. the concentration of power in the federal government, struggling with how best to remedy the problems of our health care system, struggling to determine how best to vindicate the rights we have under our constitution, and much more. So before you call people "racist" for opposing Obama's policies, you better be prepared to debate on the substance of the issue.

The Great Health Care Debate goes to kindergarten

2009-09-04T11:15:00.004-04:00

So I'm on Facebook, and I've noticed a number of my friends have updated their status to say the following:

[Name] believes that no one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.

Another friend of mine posted this most excellent question:

[Name] understands why libs are dumbing down their message of healthcare reform, but I don't agree with it. It's not that simple.

I'll be the first to admit our health care system, as it is currently operating, is fraught with problems. I will also state that all those who opposed the administration's efforts to create a "public option" by screaming "it's socialism!" need to wake up and see that the system is already largely socialized. Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip, etc., are government-run health care programs, and they cover a significant percentage of the population.

The problem with making the debate about emotionalism/sentimentalism, which is what the "no one should die" statement is all about, completely misses the point of why there is a debate in the first place. This form of argument is juvenile -- nobody involved in the debate would disagree with the sentiment of the statement. However, it certainly does not follow automatically that to agree with that sentiment means you are evil and bad if you don't support the health care reform efforts of the administration or congress.

For example, we can all agree that "no one should die because of domestic violence." That is an obvious truth. However, because that sentiment is an obvious truth, do we completely dismantle the criminal justice system to handle this subset of cases? Do we start giving wife-beaters life in prison? Do we change the burden of proof?

It seems to me that, if you support a public option, single payer system, complete free market approach, whatever, you should be able to back up why with something other than sentimental arguments a 5 year old could make. Take a listen to John Hunt, a doctor at UVA, who has some interesting thoughts on the matter (scroll down to the podcasts, look for John Hunt). You may disagree with him, but he at least makes sense.

So to get back to the facebook status updates, the point is that argument, when taken down to the level of sentimentality, becomes completely meaningless. "What do you mean, you don't support health care reform? That means you want people to die because they don't have health insurance! Meanie!" Think about it this way...how many people have you heard about who have died in the last 20 years from not having insurance? Apparently, folks are arguing that something like 60 people per day are dying from not having health insurance. They apparently get this information from this article. Of course, actually reading the article would help, so I did so.

"Health insurance really matters in how people make their health care decisions," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. "We know that people without insurance often forgo checkups, screenings and other preventive care."

But one can't conclude that being uninsured alone killed people, said Kim Bailey, Families USA senior health policy analyst. Instead, not having health insurance is associated with mortality-increasing behavior. "We can't actually attribute any individual deaths," Bailey said.
....snip....
After hearing several minutes of background on the patient, Dr. Nielsen eventually asked when the woman's last Pap smear was. The answer: 10 years ago. The woman had developed uterine cancer, a curable disease if caught early. She died a few months after the initial diagnosis.

"You can dance around it all you want, but people who do not have health insurance delay the kinds of preventive care that everybody acknowledges are critical," Dr. Nielsen said. "That woman had a preventable, curable disease, and as a society we failed her because we have not made affordable health care available to all Americans."

So what can we divine from studies and articles like these? That folks who are uninsured (a) engage in riskier behavior, or (b) are more likely to delay preventative care that could prolong their lives. Is there a direct link between the lack of health insurance and these behaviors? Maybe so, because the common factor in folks like this is, of course, poverty. I represent folks in this cohort in court all the time. They engage in risky behavior not because they don't have health insurance, but because that's just how they roll. I'm pretty sure most of my 19-25 year old criminal clients, which demographic makes up a sizable chunk of people, are eligible for Medicare already. They don't have insurance because they never signed up. They don't get preventative care not because they don't have insurance, but because they just don't give a shit about it. Why is that? There are hundreds of reasons, no doubt, but I'm pretty sure "because I don't have insurance" is not high on the list.

Discuss...

UPDATE: and astute commenter reminds me that I meant to say "Medicaid" instead of Medicare for my young clients. Sorry about the error.

I know it's been a long time.....

2009-07-29T15:00:00.005-04:00

I've been on a blogging hiatus for some time, and for all 3 of my regular readers, permit me to apologize. I just haven't been all that inspired.

However, that is changing with the new and changey political climate. I have really wanted to give President Obama a chance to do some of the things he promised during the campaign, and I have refrained from forming any sort of concrete judgment of him and his policies until he's had a chance to get settled into office. Now that he's settled, I've come to a conclusion--he just ain't all that smart. He doesn't appear to have a handle on basic economic concepts, and yet one pillar of his presidency is his proposal to have a huge chunk of the economy federalized.

Sure, the man can give a great speech -- but what else has he actually accomplished thus far? Back in the 90's, I thought Clinton gave an awful lot of speeches and press conference...but Obama is taking that to a whole new level. Frankly, that is not much to worry with, since the President is a figurehead, and to expect any President to grasp the intricacies of each and every decision that gets made in government is entirely unreasonable. However, it is reasonable to expect the President to be familiar with the big-ticket items on which he campaigned -- and for Obama, that was, as I recall, closing Guantanamo (and other issues relating to Iraq), "health-care" reform, and economic recovery.

So how is Obama doing so far? Well, as for Guantanamo, he appears to be continuing the same policies as the previous administration. As for the wider war, with Iraq, he appears to be continuing the same policy as the previous administration, although I gather there is now a deadline (the end of 2011, I believe) for the complete withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. That is well and good, but longer than the 18 months or so he campaigned on -- however, we can forgive him for that, because no candidate (other than a sitting President running for re-election) can really know or understand such a complicated military situation until he's actually in office.

As for the economic recovery, neither the stimulus package Bush got through nor the efforts of this administration have done much good. As for the "most transparent adminsitration evah," well, even on the stimulus money Obama has fallen way short. And why are taxpayers buying sprial-sliced ham at an inflated price? Has the recession caused a huge decrease in demand for ham? Aren't we supposed to get a volume discount, as opposed to an almost 100% markup over the grocery store price for ham? I like ham as much as the next guy, maybe even more so, but c'mon, Prez...if these are the same negotiating skills you'll bring to bear on "big pharma", I'll expect the cost of medication to skyrocket.

My point on the economy is this -- the notion that government has to "do something, anything" has, once again, been shown to be misguided at best, and destructive of a quicker recovery at worst. Increasing government debt increases uncertainty in markets, and that's not a good for the investor class (which comprises something like 50% of the population now). This is the same investor class that (a) pays virtually all the taxes the government collects, (b) provides most of the jobs in the private sector, and (c) produces nearly every single innovation in nearly every single thing innovated. And now, to pay for all this "stimulus", that same investor class is going to have more of its hard-earned dollars taken from it in the form of taxation to fund the government, and the newest experiment in government interference in private affairs, "health care reform."

Even the words "health care" bother me. "Health care" has become a catch-all, and it's treated as a right that everyone has. Why is it a right? Because somebody said so -- there's no Constitutional right to "health care." That means that "health care" is a positive right, as opposed to negative rights like free speech and the like. Positive rights are essentially legal rights -- we have these rights because the government (local, state, or federal) says we have them. As a result, some good things have happened in the field of medical care -- hospitals can't turn away patients who lack the ability to pay, for example.

As an aside, I've often wondered who the "46 million" uninsured are. There are those that cannot qualify for Medicaid for whatever reason that comprise one slice of the pie. There are those that can afford health insurance but, due to reasons all their own, do not purchase insurance and pay out of pocket, which might very well be the most economically efficient thing for them to do (I myself went to the doctor a total of about 6 times between the age of 22 and 37, and it would have made more sense for me not to have insurance for me...but I also had two kids, and my ex had a number of complicated medical issues that required surgery, so I was quite glad that BC/BS was there to cover the vast majority of those costs). This is another significant (and, from what I understand, larger group than the chronically uninsured) slice of the overall pie. Another large chunk is a group that may or may not be covered by any "public option" -- illegal immigrants. Again, it may very well be that this group is larger than the chronically uninsured. The last sizable group are folks that qualify for Medicaid but never sign up, for whatever reason -- and it's more than you think. In any event, the numbers have been bandied about are difficult to discern, and those that strongly favor a "public option" often use the 46 million figure without knowing or caring what the reality behind that number is. This includes the President, unfortunately, and it appears that, like Avon Barksdale in The Wire, sometimes you have to fight on a lie.

My general problem with the government getting in the health insurance business is that it already is in the health insurance business, and does it poorly. Medicaid is going bankrupt as we speak. As for the government "negotiating" prices with doctors and institutions for procedures and tests and the like? Well, the government says "you have to treat folks on Medicaid, and this is what you will charge them" -- which is neither negotiation nor a rational market solution to the problem of access to medical care.

Why do I dislike the term "health care" in this debate? Because, in my opinion, it moves the goalposts from what I consider the government's proper role in medical care -- ensuring access to medical treatment for those who cannot afford it on their own. Again, this system is already in place in the form of Medicaid. Perhaps I'm not privy to sufficient information, but I'm unclear where ability of access medical care has been anything other than increased for poor folks over the years. The question isn't obtaining medical treatment -- it's who pays for that treatment.

Furthermore, what treatment is reasonable under the circumstances? Persons making private contracts with private insurers can pick and choose which plan suits them, which coverages they need, and then they pay the premium for that in a voluntary transaction. With a public option, it's difficult to see that same principle applying.

Also, the public option appears to create some perverse incentives. Apparently, part of the proposal is to penalize private businesses of a certain size to the tune of 8% of their payroll if they don't provide insurance to employees. What that means is that employers whose present insurance costs exceed 8% of payroll will stop insuring their employees and pay the penalty -- perfectly rational economic behavior. What that also means is that those employees would then be shuttled into the government's insurance pool -- and the government, depending on its whim, can change the penalty to whatever it wants, and further manipulate the supply of and demand for the government's insurance plan.

These are just a few of the problems I have with it. Now, reasonable people can disagree about the policy itself and the implementation of the policy into practical solutions to our health care "crisis". I for one will not welcome our new bureaucratic health care overlords. Others that I know think that it is absolutely imperative that there be a public option, and others still who think that a Canadian-style single-payer system is the only way to go. The questions I ask are "how much do you want the government deciding your medical issues for you?" and "how much will this increase the deficit, and how will that affect the economic opportunities of my kids?"

Increasingly, I am aware of the pervasiveness of government in all our lives, and the effect that pervasiveness has on us. I've grown over the years to despise the federal government, due mainly to the politicians that control it. The democrats appears to want to increase government's presence in my life in matters as intimate as medical decisions I make for me and my family. The republicans apparently want to do somewhat the same on a slightly smaller scale, with a lot of Jesus stuff thrown in. I can't stand either party, and to cede yet more control over our lives to those in power, whose interests do not align with our own ("I want to see my doctor" vs. "I want to get reelected") is not a solution to problems the politicians made in the first instance.

These are merely my opinions on this, based on what I understand the situation to be. Feel free to correct me where I'm wrong on the facts, or debate the points made.

First, they came for the smokers

2009-03-05T10:33:00.002-05:00

Here we go again. It's for our own good, after all:

“The dangers of second-hand smoke are undeniable — that’s why I made a restaurant smoking ban one of my legislative priorities. This legislation will make Virginia’s restaurants safer for both patrons and employees,” the governor said in a statement. “I’m proud to have been able to work with leaders in both parties of the General Assembly to find common ground on this reasonable and necessary public health measure.”

Of course, Virginia's bars and restaurants were already safe for patrons and employees -- you don't like secondhand smoke? You're free not to go to places that permit smoking. It's that easy. I've ranted about this before, and will likely rant about it in the future. But here's my rant today.

Legislation like this makes non-smokers, who represent a majority of folks in the Commonwealth, happy. It does so because they can now enjoy any restaurant without someone smoking near them. And, as our esteemed Governor points out, "[t]he dangers of secondhand smoke are undeniable."

Of course, the dangers of crossing the street are undeniable, also. As are the dangers of eating potato chips, staying up too late, drinking too much, playing music at loud volumes. The list of things about which the dangers are undeniable is endless. As the government increasingly invades our lives, and criminalizes or otherwise bans what were until very recently simply personal choices that one was free to make, we are all less free to do what we like.

Increasingly, we are becoming a society of positive rights -- we have only those rights that the government chooses to let us exercise. This is happening on a federal level, state level, and local level, without regard to party or political affiliation. This is a creeping shift from the notion behind the negative rights philosophy of the founding of our country -- that the government has only those powers that we, the people, grant to it. That which is not forbidden is permitted, and the government cannot interfere in our private affairs without good reason and the consent of the governed. The law exists to protect the least of us, after all -- it's the baseline for our common morality.

Now, perhaps you're of the opinion that, because the dangers of secondhand smoke are "undeniable", that this is appropriate legislation with a good and necessary goal relating to public health. That's fine, but I want those of you who think that to consider what this type of mission creep by government does, and what its logical end point is. Taking away unpopular freedoms in the name of public health can only lead to more intrusion by government into our personal choices. Is that really desirable?

Savings? Taking money from me is savings??

2009-03-04T14:11:00.002-05:00

Apparently so:

In his speech to Congress last week, President Obama promised to "go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs." Although the process was not completed yet, he said, "we have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."

But it turns out that tax increases account for half of those "savings." From Obama's perspective, it seems, letting people keep their own money qualifies as a "wasteful and ineffective program." That makes sense if you believe all resources are the government's to distribute as it sees fit, which is the premise underlying the multitrillion-dollar spending binge that Obama calls "A New Era of Responsibility."

and more!

In response to nonprofit organizations worried that limiting the deduction for charitable contributions will reduce donations, The Washington Times reports, Orszag "said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference." Orszag noted that "in the recovery act, there's $100 million to support nonprofits and charities." In essence, then, Obama plans to take money people otherwise would have given to the charities of their choice and give it to the charities of his choice.

Positive vs. negative rights, in action!

Is this kind of thing the Hope and Change folks voted for? If so, then I need to find a deserted island....here's why:

Even the name of Obama's tax credit is insulting: "Making Work Pay." What makes work pay is the willingness of other people to pay for it. Taxes subtract value from this arrangement; they do not add to it. Obama not only wants to take his cut; he wants to take credit for taking less than he could have—indeed, for letting you keep anything at all. As far as he's concerned, the fruits of your labor are yours only by the grace of government.

Hold tight....ride's getting bumpier

2009-03-03T15:21:00.001-05:00

How does a government spend money to "solve" a recession? Poorly, very very poorly.

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.

The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.

......snip.......

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

Excellent!

2009-03-02T13:21:00.003-05:00

Go here, you won't regret it. At all.

A taste?

Today, I found out my mother has another new boyfriend. She told me she wanted me to meet him, and I reluctantly agreed. When I walked out to meet him in the living room, to my surprise, I knew him. He's 18, my mother is 44. He also happens to be in my second period high school math class. FML.

Special thanks to the Kimzilla.

Hey! Yes, I'm still alive, but barely

2009-02-27T11:28:00.002-05:00

I know it's been a long time since I rapped at ya', so here goes.

I've really been trying to give President Obama a chance -- I'm not a fan of some of his policies, but he's an excellent politician and an engaging character. However, if he continues to scare the crap out of the stock market, I'm going to be broke, and I wish he'd get back into "Hope and Change" more than the "Misery and Darkness" he's been playing up lately. Read this.

What’s particularly odious about Obama’s scare tactics is that he’s using them for the mother of all bait-and-switches. He justifiably scares people about the magnitude of the financial crisis, but uses that fear not to sell them on a solution to the crisis but to trick them into signing up for a new Great Society. It’s like convincing someone he’s got cancer and then telling him that’s why he needs to buy a new car.

My gut tells me that Obama's talking about how sorry the economy is not only to get his economic agenda enacted ("WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING, TO SHOW THAT WE'RE WORKING ON THE PROBLEM, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T WORK!!"), but also to lower expectations so that any sign of progress results in Obama's getting the credit. In 2012, we will hear this: "I singlehandedly, through the force of my overwhelming will and personality, solved the worst economic crisis the world has ever seen!" even though it's us working folk who pay their bills and their taxes, that "solved" the problem. Remember that -- the way out of an economic crisis is through the initiative of private enterprise and individual ingenuity and creativity, not handouts from the government.

It is an historic day, indeed

2009-01-20T09:15:00.002-05:00

So today, January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will get sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. Whether you voted for him or not, today is a day to remember--and not just because Obama's an African-American, but because today shows the progress America and Americans can make. Today's inauguration was unthinkable not 30short years ago.

Now THIS is a book review

2009-01-19T14:39:00.002-05:00

Awesome.

Obviously this sounds like a flippant analysis, but that’s more or less exactly what Friedman is up to here. If you’re going to draw a line that measures the level of “freedom” across the entire world and on that line plot just four randomly-selected points in time over the course of 30 years—and one of your top four “freedom points” in a 30-year period of human history is the privatization of a Nigerian oil field—well, what the fuck? What can’t you argue, if that’s how you’re going to make your point? He could have graphed a line in the opposite direction by replacing Berlin with Tiananmen Square, substituting Iraqi elections for Iran’s call for Israel’s destruction (incidentally, when in the last half-century or so have Islamic extremists not called for Israel’s destruction?), junking Iran’s 1997 call for dialogue for the U.S. sanctions against Iran in ’95, and so on. It’s crazy, a game of Scrabble where the words don’t have to connect on the board, or a mathematician coming up with the equation A B -3X = Swedish girls like chocolate.

RTWT--there are graphs correlating happiness and the size of Valerie Bertinelli's ass.

Law enforcement is NOT a war, dammit!

2009-01-15T16:50:00.003-05:00

Do you want to know why people mistrust the police? The War on Drugs, that's why. Read the whole thing, and you'll understand why I'm glad not to be prosecuting anymore. Seige mentality + law enforcement = bad policy, bad cops, bad outcomes.

Read this too.

Anybody notice there's a war going on?

2008-12-30T09:18:00.004-05:00

Apparently, while we were all snuggled away, waiting for Santa to arrive, Israel has invaded Gaza to rid the area of Hamas. Now I think Israel has every right to defend itself as it sees fit, and, after however many efforts to get the Palestinians to stop shooting rockets into Isreal (even after the voluntary evacuation of Isreali settlements in Gaza and the West Bank), it appears that Hamas will not stop its efforts to kill Israelis.

But that's beside the point of this post. The point is that the IDF now has a Youtube channel so the public, all over the world, can view certain military operations and evaluate Israel's tactics for itself. Of course, the IDF posts the videos, but it's an interesting use of the format, don't you think?

UPDATE: And, as is typical with all things Israel, Youtube is taking the IDF videos down, for some reason. Who do you think complained?

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

2008-12-24T08:48:00.002-05:00

We here at Tannerball wish everyone a Merry Christmas. Hope to start posting more, soon. 2009 should be an interesting year....

Top 5 uses of the word "Blagojevich"

2008-12-11T14:32:00.001-05:00

From a facebook group I'm part of (these are mine):

5. "Go shave your balls, you dusty old Blagojevich!"
4. "Oh, my achin' Blagojevich....you got any ointment?"
3. "This Blagojevich tastes a bit off." "That's because it's mayonaisse."
2. "Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed Blagojevich."
1. "Blagojevich me?!? Blagojevich YOU!!!"

Excellent

2008-12-07T17:31:00.001-05:00

Economists Warn Anti-Bush Merchandise Market Close To Collapse

Yup.

2008-12-05T11:17:00.001-05:00

Read this....

2008-10-30T15:56:00.001-04:00

and you'll understand why I hate politicians.

Ah, the city of brotherly love. And rioting.

2008-10-30T09:45:00.003-04:00

Phillies win the world series!!! Riots, bedlam ensue!!

Indigent criminal? Well, good luck, sucka!

2008-10-28T15:47:00.002-04:00

Jesus. Even with all the problems surrounding indigent criminal defense in Virginia, where I do indigent defense, and Georgia, where I prosecuted, Louisiana's system seems positively barbaric.

A few facts about Louisiana's criminal justice system that might be helpful in putting the seriousness of this scandal into perspective:

• About 90 percent of criminal defendants in Louisiana are indigent.

• Louisiana only provides post-conviction legal aid in death penalty cases. Everyone else must either hire a lawyer, find a lawyer to handle their case pro bono, or handle the appeal themselves. Obviously, most have no choice but to opt for the latter.

One criminal defense lawyer in Louisiana told me that if you're convicted of murder in Louisiana and you're innocent, you're actually better off getting the death penalty. At least then you'll get a team of lawyers, investigators, and experts to help with your appeal.

Read it all.

Old Joe Biden, the everyman's Bullshitter....

2008-10-28T11:37:00.002-04:00

Is Joe Biden qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? This is the familiar knock on Palin (which may be correct, although she's at least willing to acknowledge that she's got a lot to learn). Joe just says, well, whatever comes into his head at the time, regardless of whether it's correct, true, or even remotely close to accurate. It seems that he says things with greater authority, and, dare I say, gravitas, when he's got absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

Okay, so here's an explanation ...

2008-10-02T13:33:00.002-04:00

of the current financial crisis. I still am trying to get my head around this situation, but it appears that although the MBS's have lost most of their value, the actual assets bundled into them are still paying off like a green grocer. What to do? It's an odd situation.

Fell on bad days.

2008-09-29T18:16:00.002-04:00

So, our betters in Congress get us involved in shaky investments, those investments go south (along with the government's player in the mortgage market), now they're hard at it to try to fix the mess, and they don't get the job done. Dow plummets, largest loss in the history of the market. Well done, Congress!! What are you going to do for an encore--rape my grandma while pouring sugar in my gas tank!

And, lest you think I'm not aiming this at everyone -- I BLAME EVERYONE!!!! I happen to be an innocent meager investor, and this year has removed a very significant portion of value from one of about two valuable assets I have.

Makes me feel like my man Tommy:

Presidential debates...

2008-09-26T23:52:00.002-04:00

are usually something I avoid, but here's my take: Maybe I've had too much to drink, but the whole aesthetic of the debate favored McCain. Obama came off as someone who's never had his various positions questioned in any substantive way. He was on defense, and his defense came up lacking. McCain was direct, and he was able to point out where he differed from the Bush administration. Obama's running a campaign against someone other than McCain, and it showed.

We shall see.

UPDATE: see here:

OK, I’ll give you a real close now. Obama strikes me as a modern Chamberlain, praising his (oh-so-transient) “peace with honor.” McCain, however, comes across as “peace when we’re done kicking you ass and not one moment sooner.” And since this was ostensibly a foreign policy debate, I give the win to McCain. Oh, and one other thing — Obama is still talking as I write this. But he’s spending his last answer angling for the European vote, which does nothing but reinforce my point.

Don't be this guy....

2008-09-25T15:55:00.003-04:00

Man arrested 1,000 times.
Mugshots here. Thanks to the CEF for the link.

Obama will protect your shitty job.

2008-09-22T14:33:00.000-04:00

Obama Promises To Stop America's Shitty Jobs From Going Overseas

Motivational poster maker, for the surly.

2008-09-14T08:40:00.003-04:00

Awesome. You can make your own.

Jules Winnfield, youth hockey coach

2008-09-09T16:45:00.000-04:00

Sarah Palin

2008-09-04T11:22:00.002-04:00

Well, her hair may be out of date, or too long, or something, but she rocked it out last night. There's finally something to get at least a little excited about for this election -- you've got the Messiah running with Senator Blowhard, and the Meanest Man This Side of the Pecos running alongside a striking looking woman who, given the opportunity, would gut you like a fish if you pissed her off. I'm a fan -- we'll see how things unfold.

And sexism? Everybody keep moving, nothing to see here. Obama's above that sort of thing, right?

Reunions are fun. Really, I mean it!

2008-09-02T22:33:00.001-04:00

Went to my 20th high school reunion this past weekend. Very fun, good to see lots of folks I haven't seen for a very long time. Good times.

Democratic Convention -- outdoors is teh fun!

2008-08-28T13:48:00.002-04:00

They got puppets and such to make sure everybody takes the left, like, totally serious. There's nothing like paper mache to let everybody know you mean business!

Oh my goodness

2008-08-23T07:50:00.003-04:00

This is going to be really, really fun. I mean really -- they can't be serious about this. Joe Biden? Crazy uncle Joe? This is the guy who gets drunk at Thanksgiving, feels up his cousin, and then confesses to having drunk all the wine in the house through a straw! AWESOME!!!

I like eggs, a lot...

2008-08-22T17:23:00.002-04:00

but I'm suspicious of chickens who can write on their eggs. Very disturbing.

Virginia is for lovers. . . or, well, maybe not

2008-08-21T12:33:00.003-04:00

Watch out, porn merchants, both the Commonwealth and the Federal Government are comin' to get ya!

A taste of the trial:

For most of the movie, Jones says, the only thing that offended him was the low production value.

"It looked like they just hired four hookers and shot it in a warehouse," he says.

Finally, at 4:18pm an actress screamed out for her partner(s) to, er, finish "on my f***ing face!" and (spoiler alert) evidently someone complied with the request, for so too did the movie finish. At that point, Wood called for a brief recess, during which several gallery members stepped out for a cigarette and, because it was raining, a shower.

However, watching all the naughty material almost ended up for naught. When the jury returned, the prosecution called as a witness Dr. Mary Anne Laydon, a University of Pennsylvania psychologist specializing in rehabilitating the victims and perpetrators of sex crimes, and perhaps a welcome change of pace for the jury, considering that she was a woman wearing clothes. When Buzzelli asked Laydon to evaluate a still image from Sugar Britches, she testified, "The female has no pubic hair, no breasts, an angular body type. Typically this is someone whose body has not yet fully developed sexually. In most industrialized countries, this occurs at the age of 12."

Cambria sprang up to object.

"Right from the beginning," Cambria said, "the Commonwealth has tried to make this an underage case. They have no proof and no good-faith basis to allege that any one of these performers is underage, and I move for a mistrial."

Buzzelli, having made this argument in federal court before, protested vehemently.

"It speaks for itself, that girl is clearly made to look like a child!" he said.

Robertson went one step further.

"It's no accident she looks the way she does," he said. "This film does appeal to pedophiles. Pedophiles will buy this film and get off on it!"

Wood wasn't buying it.

"Give me a break!" he said. "You're saying she's like a child because she has small breasts? I saw these movies; every one of these women was shaved!"

Read the whole thing--it's perhaps the best article about a court case I have ever read.

The truth is stranger than fiction, no error. Once again, we have people being turned into criminals for conducting what somewhere else would be perfectly legal. Obscentiy prosecutions are absolutely unique, in that the jury is asked not just to apply the law, but to base its decision on "contemporary community standards." That means there are potentially different results in different localities, even in the same state, which is a tricky thing indeed.

It's also difficult for me to see the value of a prosecution like this -- does Mr. Robertson actually think he's going to keep porn out of Staunton? I mean, he must have heard of the internet by now...

i can haz cheezburger

2008-08-15T11:34:00.002-04:00

Most excellent site, most excellent story.

Maryland, cigarettes, the Commerce Clause, and the lash!

2008-08-12T14:46:00.002-04:00

Maryland politicians are remarkable folks.

Politicians in Annapolis are scratching their heads wondering what happened to all those chain smokers who were supposed to help balance Maryland's budget. Last year the legislature doubled the cigarette tax to $2 a pack to pay for expanded health-care coverage. Eight months later, cigarette sales have plunged 25% and the state is in fiscal distress again.

A few pols are pretending to be happy that 30 million fewer cigarette packs have been bought in the state so far this year. As House Majority Leader Kumar Barve put it, fewer people smoking is "a good thing." Yes, except that Maryland may be losing retail sales more than smokers. Residents of Maryland's Washington suburbs can shop in nearby Virginia, where the tax is only 30 cents a pack, and save at least $15 per carton.

The Maryland pols are so afraid this is true that they've made it a crime for residents to carry two packs of cigarettes that weren't purchased in the state.

Let's examine two things here: first, the dubious morality of relying on smokers to fund government, and what happens when you raise the rent on those smokers. Second, how in the hell can this be consitutional?

On the moral point first: government, in its infinite wisdom, taxes certain products at higher rates than typical consumer goods. These can generally be considered "consumption taxes"--if you are going to buy these products, government is going to tax you because there are increased costs associated with your using the products. Gasoline, as an example, is extremely useful to the end user, but there are costs associated with consumption of gasoline, so it's only fair for the consumer to shoulder the burden of those costs through taxes. With cigarettes, arguably the end consumer should pay more per pack because of the costs associated with treatment of smoking-related illnesses amongst the pool of sick people who rely on Medicare or Medicaid for medical treatment.

The problem, of course, is that government is greedy--in the case of Maryland, instead of using the money to offset costs related to tobacco use, the legislature expanded the state-financed health care benefit, after raising the tax to $2.00 per pack. Well, of course people who have access to less-expensive cigarettes will go elsewhere -- in this case, just across the border to Virginia.

Now, there is absolutely nothing illegal about a Maryland resident purchasing cigarettes, or any other lawful product, in Virginia -- people do this every day by catalog or internet shopping. What Maryland has now done, however, is criminalize those who are engaging in perfectly normal and legal behavior for failing to pay a consumption tax. In other words, if this criminal statute passes muster, then any state can impose criminal liability on people engaged in perfectly legal interstate commerce based upon how much money is spent. If this is legal, what's to keep Virginia from saying "you can buy wine in Maryland, but any more than two bottles and you're a criminal." Or to keep Ohio from saying "if you buy clothing in Kentucky and avoid Ohio retail sales tax, then if you buy more than two shirts, we're gonna lock you up."

This leads to the second point of this post: the US Constitution doesn't permit this type of law.

The Congress shall have Power .....

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The US Congress, and it alone, can regulate trade amongst the states. States cannot impose restrictions on trade from other states, such as import duties, prohibitions (except in limited circumstances, like diseased meat), or anything like that, unless the State itself is a market participant. Here you go:

Under the resulting protocol for dormant Commerce Clause analysis, we ask whether a challenged law discriminates against interstate commerce. [cits.] A discriminatory law is "virtually per se invalid," [cits.], and will survive only if it "advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives," [cits.]. Absent discrimination for the forbidden purpose, however, the law "will be upheld unless the burden imposed on [interstate] commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits." [cits.]. State laws frequently survive this Pike scrutiny, see, e.g., United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 550 U.S. ___, ___-___,127 [*1809] S. Ct. 1786, 167 L. Ed. 2d 655 (2007) (slip op., at 14-15) (plurality opinion); Northwest Central Pipeline Corp. v. State Corporation Comm'n of Kan., 489 U.S. 493, 525-526, 109 S. Ct. 1262, 103 L. Ed. 2d 509 (1989); [***20] Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 472-474, 101 S. Ct. 715, 66 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1981), though not always, as in Pike itself, 397 U.S., at 146, 90 S. Ct. 844, 25 L. Ed. 2d 174.

Some cases run a different course, however, and an exception covers States that go beyond regulation and themselves "participat[e] in the market" so as to "exercis[e] the right to favor [their] own citizens over others." [cits.]. This "market-participant" exception reflects a "basic distinction . . . between States as market participants and States as market regulators," [cits.], "[t]here [being] no indication of a constitutional plan to limit the ability of the States themselves to operate freely in the free market," [cits.] ("[W]hen a state or local government enters the market as a participant it is not subject to the restraints of the Commerce Clause"). Thus, in Alexandria Scrap, we found that a state law authorizing state payments to processors of automobile hulks validly burdened out-of-state processors with more onerous documentation requirements than their in-state counterparts. Likewise, Reeves accepted South Dakota's policy of giving in-state customers first dibs on cement produced by a state-owned plant, and White held that a Boston executive order requiring half the workers on city-financed construction projects to be city residents passed muster.

Maryland is not a market participant in the selling of cigarettes. Its criminalizing the possession by its own citizens of more than two packs of out-of-state cigarettes is clearly discriminatory. The program it seeks to fund can be funded through the general budget through the general power to tax its residents. Even if you take the balancing test of Pike, as stated above, its seems to me that the State would lose -- the benefit the state gains by enacting this law is to solve a problem of its own making. In other words, I think the Commerce Clause prohibits state governments from criminalizing otherwise perfectly legal out-of-state commerce in an effort to fix a budgetary problem due to its own unwise choices.

Also, from a policy perspective -- why in the world would a state want to encourage people to smoke in the first instance? That's what needs to happen for the revenue to keep coming in, right?

I'd like to hear the counterarguments--I'm not certain I'm right, but it sure seems like it.

Slacking lately...

2008-08-09T09:32:00.003-04:00

Summer's been quite the whirlwind, between work, swim meets, a short trip, yada yada yada. Sorry about that, but I've just been a bit tired and uninspired. Here's an excellent Rescue Me minisode for your enjoyment:

Lots of stupid news out there. John Edwards is a tool, as everyone already knew. Obama's starting to falter as the press clues in to its inability to be critical, and starts being critical, a little.

Bernie Mac died. That's a shame--he was a talented dude.

The Olympics started in Beijing, and some guy killed an American before plunging to his own death.

Here's the Tannergirl doing what she does best, with Tannerdad going a bit crazy with the yelling:

Have a great Saturday -- weather in the 'ville is beautiful, and the Tannerkids and I are off to the mall for some morning hijinx.

Meanwhile, in Cobb County, Georgia

2008-07-28T09:58:00.004-04:00

My former trial partner and most excellent (and surly) friend Henry Thompson just got done procecuting a nasty murder case, and the defendant got death.

Good work, I guess -- the death penalty is one of those things that makes me squirm. This dude appears to deserve it, however.

"This makes me want to kill some bitches."

2008-07-15T20:58:00.001-04:00

Awesome.

I also love how they make a big deal out of pretending that they care what hubby thinks. Some of them are so brazenly unashamed - and proud - of how thoroughly they’ve emasculated their man that they even look right in the camera with a dull-eyed evil grin and say things like, “I like to let him think his opinions count, too.” Die, lady. Just die.
You’d almost feel sorry for these guys but you know what? They’re adults. They made a choice to marry these psychos and knock them up repeatedly, and to allow themselves to be relegated to “just-another-kid” status. Tough shit. Get a helmet.

She's right -- we men need to step up and be men. Marriage is not a contract that permits wives to treat their husbands like the doofuses on TV, or some sort of ATM that provides the ability to live well materially. We're real people, generally pretty smart, and have a lot to offer -- that's why women love us in the first place. I'm finding women later in life want a "real man" -- one who says what he thinks, is sensitive to a woman's concerns, can listen, but, at the end of the day, is not anything other than his own manly self.

Maybe I'm wrong, and my relationship history ain't the best, but we men need to step up and be, well, men.

Best show on TV, ever.

2008-07-12T19:27:00.001-04:00

Uga VI: RIP

2008-06-30T10:18:00.003-04:00

Georgia's beloved mascot dies. I saw the Auburn game pictured above--he tried to bite the Auburn player who had just scored. That's a good dog.

"Big Oil": why they make a lot of money without doing what we think they ought to do! Damn them!

2008-06-30T09:48:00.002-04:00

As we all know, politicians rank somewhere between used-car salesmen and lawyers on the credibility sale. But what to do with this kind of lying?

ExxonMobil “only spent $10 million on renewables last year,” House Energy Independence Committee Chairman Ed Markey (D., Mass.), moaned June 22 on ABC’s This Week.

“I am very angry, frankly, at the oil companies,” presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) said June 12. “Not only because of the obscene profits they’ve made, but their failure to invest in alternative energy to help us eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.”

“We are forcing oil companies to change their ways,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) told journalists May 7. “We will hold them accountable for unconscionable price-gouging and force them to invest in renewable energy or pay a price for refusing to do so.”

"Obscene" profits? "Unconscionable price gouging"? These politicians know that what they are saying isn't true, but that doesn't stop them from trotting out a boogeyman to distract the public from the real problem with domestic energy production -- Congress is not letting oil companies, coal companies, power companies, and the like do what they do best, which is develop new technologies or utilize property to generate energy. We know this, the politicians know it, and the oil companies damn sure know it. Sure, an oil rig is ugly (to some -- I think the rigs are incredibly cool), but it is also a safe and effective way of producing energy domestically, which in turn has the effect of our becoming more energy independent.*

Now, I take issue with the article linked above, but only for one reason: the oil companies investing in alternative energies aren't doing so from the goodness of their hearts, as that article implies (he may not have meant that, but it does appear to imply that). They are investing for the same reason anybody else invests in new technologies -- to make money, either from the technology itself or from the goodwill generated by the projects. And, as Martha would say, that's a good thing.

So what the politicians want to do is force these same companies, which are investing billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy, to contribute more to the effort. All the while Congress can sit back as energy prices rise and rise, and say "well, we're making Big Oil pay for alternative energy research, so we've done all we can do."

Worse still, a huge segment of our population will like them more for it.

*As I understand Obama's position, since it will take 10 years or so to get things going enough to make a difference, then we ought to spend our money on ethanol and other alternative fuels. Maybe he's right, but I don't think so. We can't possibly grow enough corn/switchgrass/other stuff to meet even the goals GWB set. It's also dirtier, a less effecient use of food-producing land, and does nothing to support at least one of the goals of energy policy -- reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

** I don't really get McCain's position on this either -- open up offshore leases again, but don't touch ANWR? Seems a bit daft to me.

Me, I like solar power. In the South (and probably elsewhere), everybody who has the money could generate at at least a portion of their own power on their roofs--if I ever build a house again, I'm gonna install some solar panels for the lights and such. Should be fun. And hideously expensive.

Hopefulness. Changeytude. Same shit, different day.

2008-06-24T14:44:00.002-04:00

Jon Stewart: you'll note he has to tell the audience it's okay to laugh at Obama and his various foibles. Jesus.

Obama: cultism and imagry

2008-06-21T09:06:00.003-04:00

What the hell?

Ah, Presidential politics

2008-06-19T16:30:00.002-04:00

Missed this a few days ago.

Barack Obama is warning supporters that the general election fight between him and John McCain may get ugly, but the Illinois senator is vowing not to back down.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama said at a fundraiser in Philadelphia Friday, according to pool reports.

Uh huh. I hope he also brings a gun permit, a trigger lock, and a good lawyer. And a health care plan. In his next fantasy I suppose Obama will want to channel his inner Clint Eastwood, who once explained that "I've got a firm policy on gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be the one controlling it."

Yup, Barack Obama ready to shoot guns and be a badass. Now, of course, he's being hyperbolic here -- he wouldn't dare use a gun to fight off a potential stabber, would he? Wouldn't he negotiate and use his Winnie-the-Pooh diplomatic skills to ensure that his would-be murderer could see the error of his ways, and voluntarily disarm?

Sarcasm aside, I used to think Obama was slick, likeable, and smart. Lately, he seems tone-deaf, arrogant, and, well, kinda dumb. Of course, he's running against the Republicans, so he's not going to have too hard a time with any of it.

First, they came for the speed limits

2008-06-09T16:47:00.004-04:00

So, of course, with gas prices rising and folks all a-twitter about it, and the environmental "climate change" movement gaining ever more power, we begin to see calls for freeway speed limits to be reduced to 55 again, just like the miserable 70's.

Why is this difficult to understand? People drive faster because they want to get places. Speed limits are for safety -- they are not for fuel efficiency. If I have a car that gets 30-35 MPG, why should I be penalized by the government for the perceived sins of the SUV driver? If I can go 70 on I-64, I get to Richmond in one hour flat. If I go 55, it takes an hour and 20 minutes. That's 20 minutes I could have spent with my kids, sleeping, working out, reading, whatever -- for no corresponding increase in the safety of the road.

Also, if you want to drive an SUV or a minivan (most of which get as bad or worse mileage than the hated SUV), I don't begrudge you that -- you just have to buy more gas than I do. That's your problem, not mine.

As for global warming/climate change/whatever you wanna call it -- let me know when someone can definitively say human activity is really responsible. The earth was a hell of a lot hotter, and had way more CO2, back in the era of the dinosaur. And the Vikings. And all kinds of other times in the history of this planet. Are we so arrogant that we think we can destroy it by driving big cars? I reckon Al Gore is that arrogant, but he's also an idiot.

Cross posted at a new group blog just getting started: The Building Badness Foundation Quarterly Report.

Truth is not a defense . . .

2008-06-05T12:11:00.003-04:00

before a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Background: McLean's magazine, based in Toronto, printed an excerpt from America Alone, a book by Mark Steyn, which avers that the West's (particularly Europe and Canada) declining birthrate has set the stage for immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants, to take over and potentially radicalize the West (I haven't read the book -- I'm plagiarizing what I understand to be among the central themes). Now, think what you may of his premise -- it is supported greatly by things Muslim leaders have said.

Certain Muslims in Canada took offense at this, and filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, even though none of the parties to the complaint reside or have any real connection to British Columbia, as I understand the jurisdictional prerequisites of the tribunal. No matter -- there apparently aren't any rules.

The HRC has the authority, even if the printed speech is entirely true or entirely opinion, to sanction the offender with fines, injunctions, etc., if the speech has the potential of subjecting a person or group to "hate," whatever the hell that means. There are no rules of evidence, and the proceedings are apparently a farce.

They certainly are in McLean's case.

"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.” —Canadian “Human Rights” Investigator Dean Steacy, responding to the question “What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?”

This is the way free speech ends, not with a bang but as the result of an administrative hearing in a windowless basement in Vancouver, Canada.

At least that’s where a “Human Rights Tribunal” is taking place this week that will further solidify the Canadian legal position that the right not to be offended by something you read is more sacred than the freedom of the press.

Oh yeah--the "judges" on the tribunals? Not judges at all, but employees of the Human Rights Commission, who have a vested interest in keeping the commissions going so they can save their jobs!

Read all about the show trial here or here or here (with much more material about the HRCs).

To some extent, Mr. Stacey is right: freedom of speech is an American concept (although it didn't really start with us), insofar as protecting the worst kind of speech from government intervention is a necessary evil to preserve a greater freedom--that of the free flow of ideas. One does not need to venture very far to understand what life can be like where there is no freedom of speech -- Cuba imprisons journalist and others for writing bad things about the government. Even if the things they write were wrong (and they aren't), would any of us tolerate living in a society where saying "I can't stand George Bush" or "I think Obama's a crook" would get you locked up?

What the hell is going on in lovely Canada?

Read it read it read it, and learn!

2008-05-24T08:52:00.003-04:00

Mark Steyn says it all right.

I was watching the Big Oil execs testifying before Congress. That was my first mistake. If memory serves, there was lesbian mud wrestling over on Channel 137, and on the whole that’s less rigged. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz knew the routine: “I can’t say that there is evidence that you are manipulating the price, but I believe that you probably are. So prove to me that you are not.”
Had I been in the hapless oil man’s expensive shoes, I’d have answered, “Hey, you first. I can’t say that there is evidence that you’re sleeping with barnyard animals, but I believe that you probably are. So prove to me that you are not. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence and prima facie evidence, lady? Do I have to file a U.N. complaint in Geneva that the House of Representatives is in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?”

But that’s why I don’t get asked to testify before Congress. So instead the Big Oil guy oozed as oleaginous as his product before the grand panjandrums of the House Sub-Committee on Televised Posturing, and then they went off and passed by 324 to 82 votes the so-called NOPEC bill. The NOPEC bill is, in effect, a suit against OPEC, which, if I recall correctly, stands for the Oil Price-Exploiting Club. “No War For Oil!,” as the bumper stickers say. But a massive suit for oil — now that’s the American way!

I just love it -- I think you may be doing something illegal, but I have no proof, but you have to prove to me that you're not. Excellent. That's one of our esteemed and honorable lawmakers showing just how effectively she can say stupid things. The oil execs brought to testify in this kangaroo proceeding should have said "I'm here because you asked me. If you want to grandstand and call me a jerk, do so, but be aware that not only are you wrong on the facts, you're dishonest. If you're not lying, then you're an idiot that doesn't understand basic economics. If you're just pandering to your constituents, well, pander away and make sure that you try to kill the goose that laid the golden egg for the American economy."

Why don't we just nationalize the industry? That has worked so well in the past. Oh no wait....

UPDATE: Learn some more. American oil companies, supply of oil, and the policies that keep us paying more at the pump than we need to. But we must protect the majestic caribou!!! And China can drill in the Caribbean, but our companies can't even explore for oil in the most promising areas for domestic oil production. Sheesh.

Oh look, he's wearing a little turban!

2008-05-23T08:24:00.001-04:00

Them intartubes are much fun.

2008-05-16T08:33:00.002-04:00

If you don't like the internet, you haven't been here.

Simple = true = disconcerting = uncomfortable = political suicide

2008-05-14T16:31:00.003-04:00

So Thomas Sowell says it right. Trade-offs are a necessary part of life, political or otherwise. Remember that when you think "it sure would be nice if those mean developers would build the necessary infrastructure, but I also want them to build houses that cops and teachers can afford."

Well, which is it, young feller? Do you want I should build that road or do you want I should build inexpensive houses?

Money comes from somewhere, ladies and gentlemen, and it's almost always the end consumer that pays the costs associated with bringing a product, any product, to the market. Do you think gas taxes are paid by the producers of gas? Think again! Do you think import duties are paid by the importers? Think again! Ultimately, the consumer pays, because companies pass all their costs along to whomever the next consumer of those goods or services are.

So, I ask you, when you think something is an unalloyed good, who pays for it? We all do, in some form or another, be it higher prices, decreased mobility, decreased choice in the marketplace, whatever. Trade-offs are inevitible in life, and we shouldn't act, or even hope, like they aren't.

You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake!

2008-05-14T16:29:00.000-04:00

First, they came for the jolly roger

2008-05-09T15:54:00.003-04:00

ALL YOUR FLAGS ARE BELONG TO US!

Via Hit and Run.

So there . . .

2008-05-09T09:48:00.001-04:00

Some other smarty pants agrees with my rant on sticking it to "Big Oil."

If you tell oil companies that they won’t be able to keep their profits past a certain point, you know what they’ll do? They’ll make money right up until that point and then they’ll stop. Unlike the guy building the better mousetrap, oil companies aren’t in it for the glory, they’re in it for the money. No oilman will go home hungry and wake up like Scrooge on Christmas morning, having repented because of a windfall profits tax.

Now, there will be plenty of punishment doled out, more than at a Belgian S&M club during recess at the European Parliament. But the crack of the windfall whip will land in unintended places. “Corporate sacrifice” means sacrificing share value, jobs and, most of all, reinvestment.

So people dependent on pension funds — union workers, government employees and the like — will be asked to sacrifice some of their retirement income. Jobs dependent on oil and gas extraction would be cut. And, as Schumer explains, money that would otherwise be invested in exploration and improved efficiency will instead be diverted to “alternative” energies that politicians (like Schumer) think are better investments.

No wonder Schumer’s so cocky, given the boffo success of Washington’s “investment” in ethanol, which creates more greenhouse gases than oil does, contributes to deforestation, and is fueling the starvation of millions around the globe.

McCain--the candidate of unrepentant violence

2008-05-08T16:08:00.000-04:00

McCain Vows To Replace Secret Service With His Own Bare Fists

Ninnyhammers! All of Them!! CACAFUEGO!!

2008-05-07T11:50:00.002-04:00

What are we looking for in our presidential candidates? HANDOUTS! POPULIST BUNK WITH NO POSITIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT! SUBSTANCE!

Take this "gas tax holiday" stupidity. What does it do? Well, it tricks people into thinking they're getting cheaper gas for a day. They're not, and Hillary (and McCain) know it.

Oh, and that "windfall profits tax" on BIG OIL (cue boogeyman music) is the rankest of stupidities. Think about it this way: a widget generates a 10% profit margin. A $10 widget, therefore, generates $1 of profit. Now, a huge increase in global demand forces the price of that widget up to $100. The company takes $10 in profit. Bully for the company, right?

Not according to the democratic candidates for president. It's somehow "unfair" for the oil companies to reap large profits, even though their profit margin isn't any bigger now than it was when gas cost 75 cents a gallon. The real dollars are greater, but that's what business of all sorts are run to do -- make large profits. It benefits the shareholders (a.k.a. the owners of the company), it benefits society at large because more profits mean more capital the company can invest in itself and other things, like alternative energy sources.

Who would you rather investing in alternative energy -- a company that has to answer to its shareholders and make a profit, or Congress? We're seeing right now how effective Congress is at getting things done -- we're right now subsidizing ethanol production to the point where there is going to be a global food crisis!! Good work, Mr. Senator! Starving poor Africans so we can feel virtuous about using less gas. Whoops!! Did someone say ethanol production at its current production level does absolutely nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil? And that burning ethanol actually can produce more greenhouse gas emissions than gas? I SHALL IGNORE SUCH FACTS! And these are the idiots that would get to decide precisely what a "windfall" is. Why not just be honest and say "we want to redistribute the profits made by oil companies because it is politically expedient and popular to do so, and oil companies are easy targets that no one cares about. Remember that awful Valdez oil spill?"

Oh yeah -- did you know that Big Oil, such as Chevron, is actively promoting and researching alternative energy sources? Of course not -- if you listen to our idiot politicians. You'd also think pharmaceutical companies are the very devil, trying to kill everybody and make huge profits for their money-grubbing-cigar-smoking CEOs, instead of developing life saving treatments every day that we all feel entitled to have at virtually no cost.

It's looking more and more like anarchy for me. Anyone care to join me in the Independent Republic of Hank?

This is teh awesome.

2008-05-06T14:20:00.002-04:00

Read the whole thing. Ten insulting words you should know. My favorite?

10. CACAFUEGO (n)
Definition: A swaggering braggart or boaster.

Analysis: Cacafuego literally means "shit fire" in Spanish. Anyone who boasts their new knowledge of insulting words from this article can be called a cacafuego.

That's not the only interesting thing about it:

Cacafuego is also the nickname of a 16th century Spanish galleon captured by Sir Francis Drake (El Draque or The Dragon as he was known to his Spanish victims). The ship's original name was Nuestra Señora de la Concepción (Our Lady of Conception), but for some reason it's called by her sailors as "cagafuego" (fireshitter) or "cacafuego" (shitfire).

It was Drake's biggest plunder: it took his crew four days to transfer the cargo from the Cacafuego. In all, Drake got 80 pounds of gold, 26 tons of silver, 13 cases of silver coins, jewels, and more.

Synonym: BLATHERSKITE, BRAGGADOCIO, FANFARON, GASCONADER, and RODOMONTADE (English is full of this kind of word, though I think caca "shit fire" fuego is in a class of its own!)

Via Ace of Spades.

New favorite blog

2008-04-30T19:13:00.002-04:00

New one on the roll. This one is flat out awesome. Any woman with balls enough to call herself a shitweasel is a-okay in my book.

More on the anti-smoking smokists

2008-04-29T16:49:00.002-04:00

This, from my pal cf, is spectacular. RTWT.

THE BIG, brave Passive Americans responded with a vengeance. They began shouting at smokers in restaurants. They shuddered and grimaced and said "Ugh!" as they waved away the impure air. They put up little signs in their cars and homes: at first they said, "Thank You for Not Smoking," but now they feature a cigarette in a circle slashed with a red diagonal. Smokists even issue conditional invitations. I know—I got one. The woman said, "I'd love to have you to dinner, but I don't allow smoking in my home. Do you think you could refrain for a couple of hours?" I said, "Go ---- yourself," and she told everybody I was the rudest person she had ever met.

Smokists practice a sadistic brutality that would have done Vlad the Impaler proud. Washington Times columnist and smoker Jeremiah O'Leary was the target of two incredibly baleful letters to the editor after he defended the habit. The first letter said, "Smoke yourself to death, but please don't smoke me to death," but it was only a foretaste of the letter that followed:

Jeremiah OLeary's March 1 column, "Perilous persuaders... tenacious zealots," is a typical statement of a drug addict trying to defend his vice.

To a cigarette smoker, all the world is an ashtray. A person who would never throw a candy wrapper or soda can will drop a lit cigarette without a thought.

Mr. O'Leary is mistaken that nonsmokers are concerned about the damage smokers are inflicting on themselves. What arrogance! We care about living in a pleasant environment without the stench of tobacco smoke or the litter of smokers' trash.

If Mr. O'Leary wants to kill himself, that is his choice. I ask only that he do so without imposing his drug or discarded filth on me. It would be nice if he would die in such a way that would not increase my health-insurance rates [my italics].

The expendability of smokers has also aroused the tender concern of the Federal Government. I was taking my first drag of the morning when I opened the Washington Post and found myself staring at this headline: NOT SMOKING COULD BE HAZARDOUS TO PENSION SYSTEM. MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY MAY BE PINCHED IF ANTI-TOBACCO CAMPAIGN SUCCEEDS, REPORT SAYS.

...

Smokers have become the new greenhorns in the land of sweetness and health, scapegoats for a quintessentially American need, rooted in our fabled Great Diversity, to identify and punish the undesirables among us. Ethnic tobacco haters can get even for past slurs on their fastidiousness by refusing to inhale around dirty little smokers; WASP tobacco haters can once again savor the joys of being the "real Americans" by hurling with impunity the same dirty little insults their ancestors hurled with impunity.

The tobacco pogrom serves additionally as the basis for a class war in a nation afraid to mention the word "class" aloud. Hating smokers is an excellent way to hate the white working class without going on record as hating the white working class.

And this is from 1990, before state-wide bans and other freedom-reducing political hijinks!

So please, hug a smoker today. Even if you have to hold your nose. Soon, a bad habit that gives pleasure will be outlawed altogether somewhere. Who will the busybodies have to be angry with? Who will they harass? We know it's not folks with guns, for obvious reasons -- they shoot back. Oh wait, now they're after trans-fats. Where does it end? When will we all be walking around wearing helmets because it's safer? In keeping with an earlier post, I say, if you don't want to be around smoke, don't be. If you don't want trans-fats in your diet, DON'T F$#@IN' EAT THEM! How hard is this?

Banning the bacon dog. Good God

2008-04-27T08:54:00.002-04:00

Mommy! Mommy! Save me from my addiction to bacon dogs!

Mommy alert!

2008-04-24T15:12:00.002-04:00

So, now you can't smoke at bingo games. I know plenty of people who just love smoking bans, because they don't like smoke (and, in some instances, smokers). What they don't understand is the slope we're sliding down when the government gets to make these choices for us.

Remember, there is nothing to keep a non-smoker from saying "I don't want to go to Miller's, for it is smokey and I don't like the smoke."

When the government says "you can't smoke in public places," there is a real economic impact that no one intends, and that's the difference. If a smokey bar goes out of business because not enough customers come in, well, that's life. If a regular bar/public place of business that permits smoking goes out of business because the government bans smoking from public places, then the government has just inserted itself into a market in which it has no expertise and no real accountability, and screwed up an otherwise perfectly legal business. If you can't understand the difference, you aren't paying attention.

Of course, there are all the "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" people -- to them, I say, if you don't want your kids around smoke, don't take them places that permit smoking. What people forget is that no one, and I mean no one, has a right to go wherever they want whenever they want -- you can get banned from bars, even if you don't smoke. Just because a non-smoker wants to eat dinner in perfect non-smoking bliss doesn't mean we that don't mind it (or, gasp, even smoke some) have to give up our seats at our places.

I keep talking about bars, because I like smokey bars, but the bingo thing is even worse. Bingo is a totally voluntary pursuit, and the bingo halls generally donate the money to charity. Now, the government has banned smoking and is interfering with the revenues generated, and the good work that bingo-charities often perform. And to the lawmaker that says "it just takes a period of adjustment," well, sometimes private businesses don't have six months to recover. Oh, and the ones that do make it through, generally make some sort of arrangement to get around the ban so they don't lose their smoking customers.

What's wrong with personal choice/responsibility determining whether businesses permit smoking? There are plenty of non-smoking restaurants and such here in town, and they do fine, as do the ones that permit smoking. To non-smokers who think smoking bans are okay -- I say remember that you don't have any right to go to Miller's, or Blue Light, or West Main, or wherever -- the owner can bar you from the premises for whatever reason, or no reason at all.

I hate Illinois Nazis.

Interesting juxtaposition

2008-04-24T10:09:00.002-04:00

So in America (although the race was in Japan), where women can do pretty much anything they want, Danica Patrick wins an Indy Car Race. Awesome.

In Saudi Arabia, women are not permitted to drive golf carts.

And there are those who say we in America living in a fascist/theocratic dictatorship. Ugh.

You can't make this stuff up.

2008-04-22T13:27:00.002-04:00

Via cf from Kentucky, we find out that a priest in Brazil was trying to set the world record for flying using only helium-filled party balloons, all in his quest to raise money for a "spiritual rest stop" for Brazilian truckers. He's lost at sea now.

Now this is how you cuss out your manager.

2008-04-16T16:24:00.001-04:00

Totally not safe for work or for kids. Like, not at all.

One of these is my newest client . . .

2008-04-16T15:18:00.001-04:00

Should be interesting. Watch the video for a more complete initial rundown.

Truly a new way to look at me . . .

2008-04-05T11:14:00.001-04:00

Today Now! Host Tracy Gill Recommends New Tracy Gill Biography

Papa! Papa! I got a prize from the sisters!

2008-04-03T16:46:00.000-04:00

Kids . . . You gotta be firm.

Me! Me! Pick me! Good God pick me!

2008-04-03T16:42:00.001-04:00

The best job in the whole wide world. Gettin' paid to drink the beer.

So, when Hillary lies and lies and lies, does anyone hear it?

2008-04-01T08:18:00.003-04:00

Remember when she said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, and then we found out that she was born years before he ascended Mt. Everest? We all just laughed it off - she's a Clinton, after all, and this little cute lie doesn't really matter.

Well, Christopher Hitchens unleashes his peculiar and effective venom on Hillary for the Tuzla story (you know, where she had to duck sniper fire, save a baby, ride a goat to safety, and then broker a peace deal), and it's pretty strong -- like cobra strong.

OPENING DAY!!

2008-03-30T22:53:00.001-04:00

Braves. Nationals. New ballpark in DC. Result? Great freakin' game. Zimmerman (UVA man) homers to end the game.

Just drop off some chicken skins and lobster shells!!!

2008-03-29T14:00:00.000-04:00

Tannerboy = way cool pirate

2008-03-24T09:29:00.000-04:00

He's five, he's cool.

Okay so this is getting out of hand...

2008-03-19T18:01:00.002-04:00

This dude really doesn't like Obama. I don't get it at all. Obama may be many things, but a pimp he is not. I really don't understand this kind of invective. Maybe that's why I don't go to church. Of course, a presbyterian minister preaching like this would be, well, unusual.

Obama, Race, and Adults

2008-03-19T11:10:00.001-04:00

Not a big Obama fan, but I like Jon Stewart's take on all this business with the Right Reverend Wright.

Athens, GA--a'clobbering on St. Paddy's day

2008-03-18T13:02:00.002-04:00

So you're minding your own business, snatchin' purses in downtown Athens, and what happens? Some uppity drinkers come running after you, tackle you, and sit on you until the cops come. Excellent:

During the scuffle, the man allegedly tried to pull a knife but it was knocked out of his hand, Blackmon said.
"He was in the process of pulling out his knife, when he got clobbered," Blackmon said.

I think I'd sue somebody too

2008-03-17T13:38:00.002-04:00

Yuck. Don't they have bathrooms on planes? And they sell porn at the airport. That dude needs, well, something different in his life.

YMCA!!!!!

2008-03-16T10:00:00.001-04:00

Holy crap.

Going to Yale has its advantages....

2008-03-11T20:43:00.002-04:00

Like your best college friend, who you've fallen out of touch with a bit, showing up in Time magazine. What are you gonna do, when your friend is a mad scientist?

Tiny ninjas hate the angry cheese!

2008-03-11T20:28:00.004-04:00

We don't know why the ninjas hate the angry cheese or the triceratops. They just do.

And then, the oral sex!

2008-03-11T10:13:00.003-04:00

So Eliot Spitzer likes him some hookers. Whatever. Here's why you really shouldn't like him:

The rules don’t apply to Eliot Spitzer, or at least, that’s how Eliot Spitzer has acted throughout his public life. Sic transit gloria mundi.

UPDATE: WHORES!

The Alma Mater does something very cool.

2008-03-09T13:29:00.002-04:00

Tony Blair, teaching at Yale. Very cool. Nice to be the best college in all the land.

American ingenuity, sticking its thumb in the eye of the man/nanny

2008-03-07T20:10:00.004-05:00

Right on. Smoking ban? Just make everyone an actor in a stage production!

Awesome. I mean it.

2008-03-05T14:46:00.003-05:00

Long time friend and sporadic commenter CF directs us to this great T-shirt, apropos of an earlier post and one possible interpretation of Ms. Steenbergen's comment about Hillary "giving good girlfriend."

"I have earned every wrinkle."

2008-03-04T10:38:00.002-05:00

Hillary. Running for President as the candidate of "experience." What kind of experience? "Clinton's longtime friend Mary Steenburgen told a crowd earlier today that Hillary Clinton does girlfriend really, really well.'"

Oh goody! But, then again, I hear Obama does hopefulness really, really well, and McCain does toleration of torture (of himself) really, really well. For whom should I vote, with choices like these?

STEAMBOAT! THE PHOTOGRAPH

2008-03-03T16:27:00.004-05:00

So here I am at Storm Peak with my buddy (click for large shot). Skiing was incredible, weather was great, and I am exhausted. Video presentation to come.

Crazy awesome

2008-02-22T16:36:00.002-05:00

Barack Obama thought you'd like some chocolate. Just keep clickin'. Via Ace of Spades.

SNAKES! GIANT FREAKIN' SNAKES!!!1!

2008-02-22T16:21:00.002-05:00

All your southern states are belong to us!

New look for the site

2008-02-22T16:17:00.006-05:00

You'll note a new look for the site. The art is by the Tannerboy, after playing in the mud. Many thanks to the daytimer for sharing the photo.

Life is good, people--eat it up!!!! And if you answer the question above, well, you'll receive the people's ovation and fame forever. On this site. That virtually no one reads. Happy friday--happy hour beckons!

UPDATE: Anonymous commenter #2 will receive the people's ovation and fame forever, with this answer: "He doesn't have shit all over him...and he looks like Mike Satterfield." Excellent work, lady or gentleman! Be nice to know who the commenter might be . . . some decadent Georgia grad, I'm sure.

My first ever online poll

2008-02-21T16:53:00.001-05:00

Choose wisely. Just so you know, "my job" right now consists of listening to tapes of a Board of Supervisors meeting in anticipation of litigation over a sewage treatment facility. So I'm going with that one.

This guy had some issues

2008-02-21T16:47:00.003-05:00

With his wife. Choked her out, chopped her up in a machine shop, then gave a tearful interview during which he denied responsibility. 50-80 years, he got.

I can't think of anything to say except . . .

2008-02-20T12:14:00.002-05:00

someone actually spent time doing this. Really?

Via The Corner.

You gonna eat your fat?

2008-02-19T17:16:00.002-05:00

MMMMMMMMM. Short ribs, braised in wine and stock, cajun seasoning, stored overnight in the fridge. Yes, that white stuff is fat that rendered out of the meat. Fantastic.

A better use of the internet

2008-02-19T15:18:00.004-05:00

An industrious classmate of mine from high school, Julie Smith-Thacker, has started up a blog to try to locate members of the class of 1988 from Paul G. Blazer High School in Ashland, Kentucky. She even posted some yearbook photos, and I'm in one (the dorky one with the academic team). This is what the intertubes are all about!

Here's her photography site, also.

This, dear readers, is what happens when you have to organize a 20-year class reuinion.

The end of the universe.

2008-02-15T11:57:00.001-05:00

Ah, Valentine's Day -- ruining self-esteem and destroying lives annually.

2008-02-13T15:59:00.000-05:00

Online Dating Helping Pathetic Women Get Their Hopes Crushed More Efficiently

Holy Crap!!!

2008-02-12T14:00:00.001-05:00

Via Instapundit, we are directed here. There are more problems with this than I can think up right now, but here goes.

The Patriot Corporation Act has not gotten the attention that I would hope it would. But, basically it says that if you play by the rules, if you pay decent wages, health benefits, pension; do your production here; don't resist unionization on neutral card check, then you will be designated a "Patriot Corporation" and you will get tax advantages and some [preference] on government contracts.

First, the government gets to define a "patriotic corporation" by that corporation's adherence to certain policy preferences of Obama's (and others, to be fair). Let's assume for a minute that a corporation in, say, Virginia, makes widgets and employs 50 non-unionized workers, at $15 per hour, but doesn't have a pension plan, opting instead for an employer/employee 401K plan that produces better benefits than a typical pension. That corporation is not a patriotic corporation, according to the formulation laid out above. Not even if it sponsors a Little League team, grants generous vacation and health benefits, gives money in all sorts of community outreach programs, etc., just because it doesn't permit a union--that its employees apparently don't need, because if they did, they would work somewhere else. And nowhere in this "patriotic corporation" explication (and I haven't read the whole act, so sue me) is any mention of whether my hypothetical widget corporation makes the best widget in the whole wide world. Oh, and that "neutral card check" things makes it so no one in the union has the right to a secret ballot when voting on issues -- meaning that every person knows what everyone else's vote was.

Second, I thought the Democrats were against defining things as patriotic or unpatriotic by virtue of the various policies espoused by people. Recall John Kerry shouting "don't question my patriotism" when questioned about his various "plans" to save us from ourselves? A good number of my lefty friends believe that dissent is the highest form a patriotism -- isn't granting government benefits to corporations because they conform to set policy prescriptions the exact opposite?

Third, this whole notion is eerily fascistic -- government control of the private means of production and all that. Since when does a corporation need to be "patriotic" to serves its customers and employees well? Sure, it would be nice if every company gave to the poor, provided high wages for its employees, and had apple-pie bake-offs every Friday -- but isn't that between the corporation and its employees (and yes, I know all about child labor laws and the like -- you folks know what I'm on about here)?

What's truly objectionable to me, speaking as the libertarian/anarchist that I am, is that the government gets to select certain corporations and grant benefits to those corporations without any regard to the quality of the work performed or to be performed. This is wrongheaded, stupid, and counterproductive.

Of course, as Instapundit says, "THEY TOLD ME THAT IF GEORGE W. BUSH WERE RE-ELECTED, people would want the government to start rewarding and punishing companies based on how "patriotic" those companies were. And they were right!"

UPDATE: With his usual concise prose, Thomas Sowell examines what I think I'm describing much more articulately and cogently.

Good God in Heaven. . .

2008-02-12T13:46:00.000-05:00

Yet another reason not to go to prison. Ever.

The waxing of the floor is complete . . .

2008-02-12T09:06:00.001-05:00

Awesome.

Tunak Tunak!

2008-02-11T16:01:00.000-05:00

I have been accused of wasting time on this blog, instead of working. FYI--this post took about 30 seconds, including finding THE MOST AWESOME MUSIC VIDEO IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. THE WORLD!!

Amazing Grace

2008-02-11T12:30:00.000-05:00

Dropkick Murphys. They rock.

STEAMBOAT!

2008-02-11T12:08:00.001-05:00

Heading to Steamboat Springs at the end of the month to go skiing. The reports are very good, and there's currently plenty o' snow. Haven't been skiing in like 12 years, though, so I may die. And then where would you be, dear readers? WHERE?

Which is more boring?
	Reading the dictionary
	Watching soccer
	Eating oatmeal
	This poll
	Your job
	Hillary's hair
	Obama's hopefulness
	McCain's surliness

pollcode.com free polls