Turns Out Bill Clinton Pardoned Two Members of the Weather Underground

Barack Obama got hit pretty hard in the debate Wednesday night over his relationship with former radical Leftist and Weather Underground member Bill Ayers- and rightfully so.

There's no reason to have any cordial association with such a man regardless if he's your neighbor or even your in-law. Obama has shown himself to be at best a push-over who can't muster the courage to assert himself if for no other reason than to improve his prospects or at worst a radical sixties retread with an extreme agenda.

What didn't come up Wednesday was the fact that Bill Clinton pardoned two members of the Weather Underground in his final hours in office.

He pardoned Linda Evans, imprisoned for her participation in several bombings and Susan Rosenberg who participated in a bank robbery that left two police officers and a guard dead.

How's about next election the Democrats just don't even consider nominating anybody with sympathetic ties to radical terrorists? Is it really that hard? It speaks volumes about the elite of the Democratic Party that they can't come up with any candidates with semi-clean records.

You will recall that their last candidate, John Kerry, met with North Vietnamese communists in France while American soldiers were still dying. During his campaign in 2004 he also met with a member of the known Albanian terrorist group the KLA and gladly took his campaign contributions.

And of course there's former Democratic President embracing Hamas leaders this weekend in Syria against strong objections from the State Department.

This has to really eat away at everyday Democrats who still hold some semblance of patriotic sentiment.

The Man Who Made Me a Conservative

About six-and-a-half years ago I was just out of college and pretty much politically ambivalent. If anything I leaned Democrat just because my family and community did. I even voted for our abysmal, current Democratic governor in 2002 over what I then saw as his correct position in opposition to school vouchers.

Though my years in the school district might have eventually done the job without him, I can credit my conversion to conservatism largely to one man: Thomas Sowell.

I recall I was flipping through our local newspaper and came across the uncharted territory of the "Opinion" section. I must have been bored because I set in to an article by Dr. Sowell.

I don't recall the topic, I just remember that it made so much sense I read it several times. To make a long story short I've read every article since, as well as the majority of his books. He is, in my opinion, the most formidable living American intellectual and a national treasure.

Read today's Thomas Sowell article and you'll see how his no-nonsense style and knack for attacking politically incorrect issues with common sense can open eyes.

Then I strongly urge you to watch this series of short (5 min.) "Uncommon Knowledge" interviews with Dr. Sowell called "Facts and Fallacies". You won't be disappointed:

Part 1: Feminist Rhetoric vs. Reality

Part 2: Lying With Income Statistics

Part 3: Problems With College Professors

Part 4: Soaring Tuition

Part 5: Black Crime Rates

Does This Cancel Al Gore Out?

Check out the graph below and notice the total absence of correlation between levels of carbon in the atmosphere and temperatures over the past nine years.


The violet line is the observed temperature change from the UK's Hadley Climate Research Unit. The blue line is the observed temperature change from NASA's MSU satellite. The green line is the observed CO2 level.

CLICK ON IT FOR A CLOSER LOOK


This graph was included in a letter to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from a group that includes a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. The letter challenged the panel to acknowledge that there "is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change."

You can read the letter here, because you know you won't hear about it on the news.

Kick the Butt, Pass the Bong

In sort of a follow up to the last post about government issued medical marijuana below, I looked into California's marijuana program.

I came across a "Frequently Asked Questions" section on their official site and found that they allow minors to receive and smoke medical marijuana with parental consent.

Now were these same minors to receive and smoke cigarettes (usually filtered by the way) from their parents a misdemeanor would have been committed.

Anybody else find this kind of surprising given California's stridency in anti-smoking legislation? In some municipalities they've even banned smoking in public parks and homes.

Uh-oh, I foresee another advocate standoff brewing.

Surprise Surprise, Pot Smokers Not Paying Their Debts

In a story that could just as easily be from The Onion, Canadian news is reporting that two-thirds of citizens receiving government issued marijuana are delinquent in their payments for it. One would imagine the checks they did get had Cheeto fingerprints and smelled of patchouli.

Really? Nobody foresaw this?

Even your local, corner drug dealer, working with a 6th grade education, knows better than to take IOU's from a user.

But such is the inevitable progression of socialism. Once people begin to expect cradle-to-grave support from the government, you're gonna have a hard time getting them to take any responsibility whatsoever, even for their weed.

Viva socialized medicine!

On The Bright Side...

One of my all-time favorite quotes/passages is this one from Viktor Frankl:

“We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”

I wish kids memorized this one in school like the Gettysburg Address or the Kama Sutra... whatever they're teaching these days.

Too many people today are getting caught up in the gloom and doom alarmism about the economy and such, while forgetting they're in control of their own lives, not to mention already in the greatest country in the world.

Here's two clips of people that beautifully illustrate that life is what you make of it:




The second clip you're going to have to click on, but it's well worth it.
Watch this very inspiring clip of a rock 'n' roll group made up of senior citizens here.



....................................................................................

Liberals Tripping Over Each Other

Among today's progressives no designation warrants more self-righteousness than "advocate" (though "green" is gaining ground).

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "If you would lift me up you must be on higher ground." That truism certainly isn't lost on today's progressives.

Riding the gravy train of dispersed costs and concentrated benefits, advocates have found themselves wielding a surprising amount of power and influence. So what happens when progressive advocates' interests collide?

Two recent stories give us a preview of things to come as one area of advocacy (environmentalism) splinters into smaller sects with bigger illusions of self-importance.

In California it's the tree-huggers versus the solar power advocates. Here in Wisconsin it's the wind power advocates versus the Audobon Society.

This story from the left coast tells of a conundrum where a hybrid driving environmentalist is being forced to cut down his long established trees because they'll block 15% of the sun to his neighbor's proposed solar panels.

Apparently California was already so nutty back in 1978 that they put a law on the books saying solar panels trump trees.

Back here in Wisconsin super clean wind farms are meeting harsh opposition because they claim the lives of too many birds. It's unlikely that the birds will win this one though as global warming concerns supercede all others ("You're just helping some birds while I'm saving the world.")

Who knows, maybe if the global warming fanatics step on enough toes we'll see a backlash of critical analysis of the costs and the facts. We can only hope.

Pssst Barack...Your Liberalism's Showing

I've always known that Barack Obama was teeming with elitist liberalism just under the surface. Up until now however, the closest glimpse we got came not from him, but via his wife in her "first time in my adult life I'm truly proud of my country" line.

No longer. On Friday, Obama told a group of elite San Francisco liberals that small town residents in the Midwest "cling to guns or religion" because they are "bitter" about their lot in life.

This is big news and will hopefully sour independent voters on him. As for the self-described Obamaniacs, I doubt this makes even a blip. What he said is classic liberal boilerplate and they're no doubt wondering what the fuss is all about.

There's several layers of stupid in Obama's gaffe, but what sticks out most for me is the way in which he referenced religion. We already know Obama's stance on guns: he doesn't like them and thinks there should be less of them. So by using "guns" and "religion" interchangeably it's almost impossible to deny an implied negative connotation for both.

For someone who has talked and written extensively about his "faith" doesn't it seem unlikely that he'd feel the need to explain it in others? It sounded less like religion was a part his life and more like it was a peculiarity. Call me crazy, but I think Obama's religiosity has been at least partially strategic.

For a more in depth take I suggest checking out this well done article on Politico that lists 12 reasons why this was such a huge mistake.

Lottery Jackpot Winner On Welfare 3 Years Later

There's a t-shirt out there that says: "We’ll solve poverty the day after we solve laziness and stupidity."

That's obviously oversimplifying, but read this story and tell me it doesn't reinforce that sentiment a bit.

I guess a man in the UK won a 5 million pound (roughly $10 million) lottery only three years ago and is already on SKINT and BENEFITS; two of Britain's welfare plans.

Stories like these should give pause to those who think all the chronically poor need is more money thrown their way. Different people have different priorities and do different things with their money, therefore it should not surprise anyone that they end up with differing degrees of wealth.

"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you always got." Hence the rich keep getting richer and the chronically poor stay poor. Good habits are why over 80% of all the millionaires in America made their money during their lifetime as opposed to inheriting it. So don't envy them, emulate them.

Who's Supposed To Be Watching Jimmy Carter?

Note to our liberal friends: Whoever was supposed to make sure Jimmy Carter didn't do something mind-numbingly retarded is in big trouble.

He got out of the country again and he's making a huge mess.

WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER.

"Organic" Food Not All It's Cracked Up To Be

Just when I thought "green" was becoming a religion they go and do something reasonable.

I was very surprised to come across this article today in the "green content" section on MSN.

The article lists 6 myths about organic foods along with explanations. I simply assumed the article would be glowing with praise for the organic movement, but was taken aback to find a somewhat pessimistic take on it all.

Here are the 6 myths with my own cliff-notes explanations:

MYTH #1 ORGANIC FOOD IS ALWAYS BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
Inefficient methods use twice the resources.

MYTH #2: IT'S MORE NUTRITIOUS
Studies go both ways. No proof found.

MYTH #3: IT TASTES BETTER
Taste tests show only organic apples to score better.

MYTH #4: YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE AS CAREFUL ABOUT WASHING IT.
E. coli - the worst culprit, is equally present on any produce.

MYTH #5: YOU'RE SUPPORTING SMALL FARMS OR ECO-COMPANIES
Industry largely owned by mega-companies and produce is often imported adding to eco-impact.

MYTH #6: IT'S BETTER FOR YOU
Ingredients are ingredients, regardless of how they were grown.

They did go on at the end to say that organic livestock may be treated better and that your chances of getting Mad Cow Disease, although already infinitesimal, are nil with organic beef.

Personally I've never sought out any foods because they were "organic" and have generally thought the phenomenon to be as much about the vanity of the consumer as about the environment. Nonetheless it's heartening to see that some in the media are not above critical thinking on environmental issues.

Democrats Are Blocking Their Own Border Control Bill

In a move that's almost hard to believe, Democrats in Congress are now refusing to vote on a border security bill that they themselves wrote. A whopping 49 Democrats were co-sponsors of a bill (called SAVE) beefing up the number of border patrols, outfitting them with better body armor,and expanding the social security verification system.

Now it comes time to actually put the bill to a vote and 33 of those same Democrats that co-sponsored the bill are refusing to sign off on it. Nancy Pelosi is spearheading the effort to bury this bill.

Democrat voters should hang their heads in shame, because this is about as low as they can sink.

Here is the full article at Investor's Business Daily


..

McCain Voters Have Better Musical Taste

Okay, maybe that's a tad bit subjective, but a new poll of 27,000 likely voters and radio listeners has found John McCain to have a definitive edge among those considering themselves classic rock fans.

Obama had the edge among fans of 80's and 90's rock and alternative music.

Making McCain's popularity among classic rock fans more impressive is the fact that 30% of respondents identified themselves as Democrats versus only 22% Republicans.

Makes sense to me. If a general theme could be drawn from 90's and alternative rock it would be: "Everything sucks." This, coincidentally, is the general theme of the modern Democratic party.

I left 80's rock out of that equation because it's quite a bit more upbeat (the Reagan effect naturally). Still, when compared to the classic rock of say Led Zeppelin, 80's rock may sound good, but ultimately lacks substance. This, coincidentally, is the general theme of Barack Obama's campaign.

Obama's Pastor Also Former Muslim and Black Nationalist

While I would imagine that not much more damage can be done by Obama's church affiliation, there's still some juicy side-notes popping up.

It turns out,according to the New Republic, that Reverend Jeremiah Wright was formerly a Muslim and black nationalist. This obviously makes his marching with Louis Farrakhan and meeting with Mohmar Qadaffi slightly more interesting.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

"After many lectures like this, Obama decided to take a second look at Wright's church. Older pastors warned him that Trinity was for "Buppies"--black urban professionals--and didn't have enough street cred. But Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity's guiding principles--what the church calls the "Black Value System"--included a "Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.'"

The way it is worded almost makes it sound as like "former Muslim and black nationalist" was a part of the selling point for Obama. Do you agree?

Didn't Know About Planned Parenthood's Parentage? What else don't you know?

I imagine most politically engaged people have at one time or another thought to themselves: "If only everybody was as familiar with the things I know, then they'd all be liberal/conservative/libertarian etc.."

I'll admit I largely feel the same and think I've done a pretty good job of putting it into practice via successful debate. Whether I nudge someone over towards the conservative side or not I'm almost always guaranteed to pull out a fact that my counterpart "can't believe" until the point where I produce proof.

The difference for those on the liberal side is that whether they believe it or not nearly every card (or fact in this case) in the argument for contemporary liberalism is already on the table. There's little a liberal can tell you that you haven't heard a hundred times before. There's a reason of course.

For starters most Americans have spent 17 or more years in schools where the teachers are generally more liberal than their parents, the textbooks and curriculum are almost exclusively written by liberal academics, and even the books in the library are chosen by librarians who happen to belong to one of the most radical unions in America.

Then it's off to college to instructors even more radically liberal, and a student culture where the only thing less cool than being a conservative is being a virgin.

Apart from all this (and family of course) the main sources of information about the outside world are newspapers, television, and to a degree movies - all mediums largely delivered through a liberal filter.

So basically there's no excuse for any of the "inconvenient truths" that animate liberals NOT being widely disseminated in the public domain.

Anyways, I bring this up in response to the story about numerous Planned Parenthoods accepting donations with the specific goal of aborting black babies. The story's serious enough in itself, but the political junkie in me can't help but wonder how many outspoken liberals are even aware of Planned Parenthood's parentage - in particular that it's founder Margaret Sanger referred to blacks as "human weeds" and saw abortion as a way to cleanse the population of it's lesser members (She would have preferred wholesale sterilization, but settled for abortion).

Honestly, how many people today do you think know about the eugenics movement and it's link to abortion? Do you think if the word "eugenics" was as often associated with abortion as "back alley" and "coat hanger" that it might take a few folks down a notch?

Likewise I'd venture a guess that 9 out of 10 college students today could tell you that JFK was a Democrat, but less than 1 in 10 know MLK was a Republican.

I'd also bet that if asked who "outed" Valerie Plame the majority response would be "Scooter Libby" not the confirmed culprit and Bush critic Dick Armitage. Don't even bother asking about Sandy Berger.

Well read conservatives are filled with all these little tidbits so I decided to make a quick list of "Did you know?" questions guaranteed to burst a few liberal bubbles:

Did you know that...

-Americans spend more money on taxes than on housing and health care combined?

-The polar bear population is not facing extinction and is actually growing?

---More than twice as many people move from Canada to the U.S. as move from the U.S. to Canada every year? This despite the fact that WE HAVE ALMOST TEN TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE and they have "free" healthcare.

--Four times more people have been killed by their own governments in the past century than have died in all international wars combined ?

--Ann Coulter has been to roughly 67 Greatful Dead shows?

-The unemployment rate was 5.4% in Nov. '96 when Bill Clinton was re-elected largely on his handling of the economy. Today the unemployment rate under Bush is only 5.1% yet it's all doom and gloom? (Can you say media bias?)

-Universal Healthcare in New Zealand actually requires banning immigrants who are too fat (They cost too much you see)?

-Less than 50 of the roughly 200 countries in the United Nations are democracies?

-The global polar bear population has grown five times larger than it was in the
1970's.

-The United States already admits more legal immigrants each year than all other countries in the world combined.

-In '06 Democrats in Congress had over six times more money personally invested in military-related companies than their Republican counterparts?

-Despite what Michael Moore may have you believe, regular Cubans go to hospitals that look like this?

-Hardly discriminated against, 140 women graduate from college today for every 100 men?

-The editorial boards of both the New York Times and the Washington Post wrote in favor of drilling in ANWR all the way back in the late 80's.

-In the unregulated U.S., carbon output fell 1.3% in '06 while it rose .4% in progressive Europe?

-There is much more forest coverage in the United States today than there was in 1920?

-Handgun crime rose %40 after handguns were banned in the UK?

-Multi-national companies (or "sweatshops" to some) on average pay twice the average local wage?

-The government never injected blacks with syphilis during the Tuskegee Experiment.

-Only 1.5% of oil company stocks are held by corporate directors and officers, while 43% are held by mutual funds and 27% of that by institutional funds (teachers,police officers,firefighters).

--A person could live for a whole year on the corn it takes to make enough ethanol to fill one SUV tank?

-The Pilgrims tried collectivism for their first two years here and only abandonded it after they nearly starved to death?

-Under their universal healthcare system the average wait for surgery or theraputic services in Canada was 18.3 weeks in '07?

-George Bush fired only 8 U.S. attorneys while Bill Clinton fired 93?

-Minorities are more likely to be rejected for home loans by minority-owned banks than traditionally white banks?

-The federal government spends over $23,000 per household? (Did you pay your "fair share"?)

-Whites do not have the highest household income in the United States? (Asians do)

-Palestinians have more rights in Israel than in any Arab country?

-More people were killed in Southeast Asia during the first three years of communist "peace" than were killed in the 13 years of war prior?

-Contrary to the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" narrative, from '96-'05 people in the bottome fifth of income earners saw a 91% increase in income while the top 1% had an income decline of 26% ?

-Man of the people Fidel Castro controls a fortune estimated at $900 million while the average Cuban makes less than $20 a month ?

-In '04 the average earnings of the top 10 athletes and entertainers was almost double the average earnings of the top 10 earning CEO's?

-Hurricane Carter was never exonerated, wasn't anywhere close to being the champion at the time of his arrest, and is still in all likelihood guilty of murder?

-Since the General Social Survey began in 1972 Republicans have reported being happier than Democrats of equal income levels EVERY SINGLE YEAR? (Where's the hatred and bigotry?)

-The "rich" carry more of the tax load now under Bush than they did under Clinton?

-The infamous Katherine Harris of the Florida 2000 election fame actually ordered a statewide recount, but Al Gore fought against it.

-PETA kills thousands of animals every year?

-Every one of the top 10 individual donors to 527 groups in the '04 election supported Anti-Bush or Democratic-allied groups? (Party of the rich anybody?)

-Slavery existed among the American Indians long before Europeans settled here?

-That dirty looking Che Guevera guy on your shirt personally executed dozens if not hundreds of people ?

-Contrary to reports of "disenfranchisement" and a stolen election blacks in Florida voted in greater numbers than ever before during the 2000 election?

-There has been no observable global warming for the last nine years despite growing carbon output?


And that's a short list....

Absolutely Not Buying Any More of Their Vodka

In the absolut stupidest marketing move ever check out the new ad campaign for Absolut Vodka in Mexico:



For the same price I'd suggest Three Olives brand, or even save some money and go with the Smirnoff.

Socialists Do The Darnedest Things

For any of you that have somehow managed to square universal healthcare with your notion of limited government, property rights, and liberty in general, I direct your attention to New Zealand.

You may recall back in November of 2007 that a British couple were denied residency by New Zealand immigration officials on the grounds that they were too fat. If your neighbor's health is your responsibility then it logically follows that you should have some control over who gets to be your neighbor (or countryman in this case) right? And the tangled web continues...

Today we hear that an elementary school in New Zealand has barred students from bringing cake to celebrate their birthday. Why? Due to new government guidelines for healthy eating.

New CPR Standards

Was it just me or did anybody else feel slightly relieved when they announced that mouth-to-mouth is no longer considered necessary in CPR?

Had To Add This

Did We Say Profiteering Was A Bad Thing???

Don't tell the anti-war activists, but according to the Associated Press in the last reported year ('06) Democrats in Congress had over six times more money personally invested in military-related investments than congressional Republicans.

That's an inconvenient truth that could only slightly be explained away by spilling yet another inconvenient truth in that 7 of the 10 richest senators and congressmen are Democrats.

Party of peace, party of the little guy...meh.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with making money or investing in our defense, but I know of at least one group where that won't get any...uhhh support:

Third Graders Plotting Murder

Few things bother me more than seeing bad parenting in action. Perhaps it's true that many parents of past generations were a little too distant and overly stern, but it's my opinion that the pendulum has since swung way too far towards parents who are obsessed with being "cool".

I can't count the number of times I've cringed while overhearing parents of all ages swear freely around their children. Those same parents also seem to be the same ones who will bend over backwards to accomodate said childrens' demands, no matter how ill advised or inappropriate.

Today I got a huge helping of "Whoa!" on the bad parenting front. The whopper being the story of nine third graders who planned (rather thoroughly) to subdue and stab their teacher. The students went so far as to bring a steak knife, duct tape, and handcuffs to school while also delegating tasks like covering the windows and cleaning up the blood. This was supposedly in retaliation for a scolding one student received for standing on his chair.

There is so much wrong here, but the first question that jumps out at me is "Aren't these kids scared of what their parents would do to them?". For me, as a child any punishment I got at school was secondary to what I would get at home. Disrespect towards a teacher was out of the question. Had I plotted possible murder I probably wouldn't be here writing this now. These students, like so many today, were at the very least not afraid of their parents' consequences enough to factor that in.

The second question that jumps out at me is "How entitled do you have to feel and how unaccustomed to rejection/discipline to you have to be to think stabbing someone is an equal reaction to it?" Sure there's some nutty kids out there, but a group of nine that all agreed to this idea???

The blame for this can be evenly split between schools and parents. In today's schools self-esteem and self-righteousness are overflowing while consequences are pathetically lacking - particularly for students who receive the waaaaaayyy overutilized "special education" label as some of these kids apparently did. They can plot a somewhat sophisticated assualt plan and probably know every song on the pop charts by heart, but they can't remember how to add? Sounds convenient. The "special-ed" label comes with more money from the state and federal government for schools so it's no wonder it's so outrageously abused.

These "special-ed" students then find themselves largely immune to punishment due to their designation. In one case at the high school where my father taught somebody stuffed a paper in the gas tank of the assistant principal and lit it on fire in an attempt to blow up his car. The student was caught when the fire blew out and the paper was found to have his name on it. Unfortunately the student could not be expelled because...you guessed it: Special-Ed.

The "Terrible" Economy: A Self-Fulfilling Cliche

I would strongly suggest reading this article by Professor John Lott.

He points out just how much our perceptions are driven by the media. He uses the example of today's economy and how it is repeatedly referred to as in a "recession" (which it is demonstrably not). Going back to the Clinton years he finds that when the economy did go into an actual recession there was little media attention at all paid.

It should be surprising -though it's not- that he found upwards of 40% more articles mentioning "recession" in a period of healthy growth (4.9%) last year than he found in three months of recession leading up to the 2000 election. There is little explanation other than in 2000 Al Gore was running on the Clinton economic record and the media dared not burden him with the truth.

He goes on to quote Ben Stein as saying: “The actual economic conditions are not that bad. I think if we have a recession, if we have a serious recession a great deal will lie at the media’s feet.”

Considering that consumer confidence numbers are at a 16 year low despite the fact that the economy has been far worse several times in the last 16 years, I think he's absolutely right.

Bowling Lefty

Barack Obama was in Pennsylvania on Sunday trying to show that he was a regular guy, but succeeded -in my mind- in doing the opposite. For a "down to earth" campaign stop Obama bowled a game at the Pleasant Valley Recreation Center.

Now I'm a pretty bad bowler who's probably gone twice in the last five years. If I crack 130 that's a great game for me, but on the other end there's little excuse for dipping below 100. Barack Obama bowled a 37.

Maybe it seems like nitpicking, but that score is just too low to go without comment. In the exact opposite spirit as was intended Obama showed that he is so far removed from the average guy that he apparently has never handled a bowling ball before.

And in an extra bit of useless irony: he bowls lefty...

**UPDATE** Watch this video where Mary Katherine Ham tries her hardest to bowl a 37 - the only rule: No intentional gutterballs.

Interesting Amateur Ad

From Hot Air via Conservative Grapevine here's an amateur mash up ad that's choppy, but still conveys an interesting contrast between Barack Obama and John McCain:

Self-Sorting: A Sordid Story of Sorts

Surely to the surprise of many an angst ridden college student it appears the United States is not the only country in the world where people are sometimes discriminated against because they are different.

Across Mexico giganté street rumbles are brewing and they're not over turf, drugs, or even soccer. No, the coming clash is about music. Specifically the "Metalheads", "Punks", "Rockabillies" and the "Gangsters" want to run the "Emo" kids out of town (info on "Emo"). One particular city saw over a thousand people go on an Emo beating spree while riot police had to be called in.

Aside from the obvious pointlessness of the violence, I find this worth commenting on because I often get the impression that people think harmony, togetherness, and general uniformity among people is the natural order of things. When our workplaces, college campuses, etc. don't look like we imagine them because one gender is better represented in a certain field or different ethnic groups have different test scores there's no shortage of people clamoring for a "solution".

Good luck. People have been separating themselves for as long as we've been around and for as many reasons as there are stars. Not only is every person different, but every little difference leads to different prospects. Thomas Sowell pointed out way back in 1984 that "A whole industry exists to determine the statistical profile of people who view given television programs..". Given that, we shouldn't be surprised when distinction like race, gender, or even musical preference occasionally put people at odds.

March Madness By the Dollars

Here's an interesting link that uses the NCAA tournament bracket to compare schools by the median income of their graduates. It goes to show just how much education does pay off. My Boilermakers make it to the Sweet 16, but then have the misfortune of running up against Duke. That's okay. Hey Blue Devils: All the money in the world can't buy you your reputation back after your faculty and President sold out the Lacrosse team in front of the whole country before the evidence was in.

Is All Fair For The Fairer Sex?

In my new April '08 issue of Fast Company magazine a particular statistic jumped out at me and sparked some questions. It was: "Women make over 80% of all purchasing decisions across every brand category."

Now I'm familiar with laws of the cosmos like women love to shop, dogs chase cats, socialism is unsustainable, etc. but an 80-20 split between the sexes far exceeds what would have been my estimate (probably 60-40). So anyways a few questions it raised for me were:

1."Can women really be considered disadvantaged or submissive yet still control the vast majority of consumption?"

2. "Though the 'women make 78 cents for every dollar men make' claim is terribly misleading, wouldn't that even further widen the 80-20 gap between spouses in terms of an input vs. consumption ratio? (For instance a couple with yearly budget expenditures of $40,000 would hypothetically have roughly $22,470 of that contributed by the man and $17,530 contributed by the woman? The 80-20 split would dictate that she decides how $32,000 is spent while he only decides on $8,000. So she controls 183% of the amount she contributes while he controls only 36% of what he contributes. It ends up working out then to a 84-16 split.)

3.How can "gender equity feminists" sleep at night?

I realize there's a ton of factors to consider here and my point isn't to argue that women have it made or anything. I will however, argue that these statistics suggest at the very least that women today aren't victims of society in any general sense despite what many a liberal will have you believe. This isn't an unimportant point to make considering that women are covered under affirmative action and therefore entitled to preferential treatment. Just saying....

UPDATE: Check out this great article somewhat on the subject.

My Top 15 Favorite Blogs

The hardest working man in blogging, John Hawkins, listed his top 40 blogs this morning. Here's a top 15 list I threw together.

15. Mises Economics Blog
14. The Dartmouth Review
13. Ace of Spades HQ
12. Free Market Cure
11. IMAO
10. Hot Air
9. Boots and Sabers
8. Iowahawk
7. Redstate
6. The Corner (National Review)
5. Rachel Lucas
4. Scrappleface
3. Instapundit
2. Right Wing News
1. Little Green Footballs

Can We Say We Told You So?

Via Conservative Grapevine this story in the Washington Times is a big one that will predictably be buried.

Since the Vietnam War, where we won on the ground yet lost the battle of public opinion, many conservatives have claimed defeatist news coverage emboldens our enemies to fight longer and harder.

It would appear now that our logic has been verified by Harvard researchers in a study published in the National Bureau of Economic Research. Turns out there are measurable increases (7 to 10 %) in attacks on civilians and U.S. troops in Iraq following measurable increases in both negative U.S. media coverage of the war and negative statements by politicians. Further bolstering these findings is the fact that attacks increase more sharply in areas with higher exposure to international news.

I don't expect you'll hear a whole lot more about this story so why not pass it on and make sure it makes the rounds.

Absolutely Pointless Activism

Here's some anti-war protesters in all their strange glory.

That link goes to a story about some anti-war protesters in Illinois who ran through a church on Easter Sunday squirting fake blood on themselves and attendees.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when some of these genius plans are hatched:

Lefty: Dude, you doin anything with your family over Easter?

Moonbeam: How many times do I have to tell you, the family is just a construct of the ruling elite to prop up the whole patriarchal machine.

Lefty: I guess that's a "no".

Moonbeam: I'm dropping by to get my laundry, but after that I'm outtie dude. I don't care about their stupid God or their commercial holiday. Baaaaaaaa baaaa! Idiots.

Lefty: So what are we gonna do?

Moonbeam: Let's really show 'em man. Let's wake some people up to what's really happenin dude. Let's hit 'em in their comfort zone.

Lefty: Huh?

Moonbeam: In church dude, in church! They can't ignore us when we've got them all together. This is our chance to show them how right we are.

Lefty: Dude church is like early and you haven't been up before noon since you graduated.

Moonbeam: This is different man. This is important. We can squirt water with red food coloring all over them so they think about blood and war and stuff. They can't turn away, can't deny it. It'll be brilliant.

Left: I've got some Halloween masks we could wear to hide our faces.

Moonbeam: Are you stupid? We don't wanna marginalize ourselves.

Should The Government Withhold Your Mortgage From Your Paycheck?

First take a moment to read this article by Professor Walter Williams. I dug it up from 2003, but the theme is just as pertinent if not more today.

He brings up a hypothetical situation where the government begins withholding your mortgage from your paycheck so you don't mess up and get foreclosed on. After all, if us taxpayers are going to bail out people who can't live within their means, we've gotta make sure they can't do it again right?

Such an idea might find a lot of supporters today as foreclosures hog the news. If you're anything like me though you'd say, "It could probably help a lot of people, but it's none of the government's business." Professor Williams agrees and notes that the constitution simply doesn't grant such a power.

Some people can't wrap their head around that kind of thinking though. They're of the impression that the mere possibility of helping people trumps all other concerns. Slap those people if you see them. If they complain tell them it was for their own good, and then they're stuck. After all if they say "Who are you to decide what's good for me?" then you've made your point.

Again hypothetically, Prof. Williams raises the prospect of government mandated exercise. There's no question that exercise is good for you so a mandate would just spread the good right?

This one really hits home because I own a gym. How big of a boon would it be for me if say everybody was mandated to have a gym membership? I'd be rolling in it, just ask a corn farmer. It may sound nice, but these pesky things called principles lead me to again say "It's none of the government's business." and of course it's not.

The "general welfare", the "common good" or the interstate commerce clause in this case all made perfect sense in their original contexts, but have since been perverted beyond recognition.

Perhaps one of the most compelling cases for conservatives and libertarians to hold their noses and vote for John McCain is that the Roberts court appears to want to clarify some very big issues of contention. Right now it's the right of individuals to bear arms, but if we're lucky who knows, maybe we can clear up "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" before they sneak in every nook and cranny of our lives. A strong conservative majority on the court would make that much more realistic.

The Tide Is Changing (And it's colder)

From one of the most unlikely places (the left-leaning NPR) we hear that ocean temperatures are actually cooling . One of those things you'd think we'd want to know about before enacting legislation to put American industry at a huge competetive disadvantage with other countries who will ignore any emissions caps.

NASA scientist Josh Willis reports the findings, but predictably downplays any conclusions that may be drawn from it: "There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," he says. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

WAIT A MINUTE. I thought the whole man-made global warming argument hinged on the notion that growing carbon buildup (still only 38 parts per 100,000)is creating a greenhouse effect that traps heat on the Earth's surface. If carbon dioxide is the key factor and MORE CARBON = MORE BUILDUP = MORE HEAT TRAPPED, then how is it possible to have one year be cooler than the last, particularly when we know conclusively that man's annual carbon output is growing every year?

It would seem to me that this necessarily proves carbon isn't in itself enough to effect the climate. Is my logic off?

Obviously I'm not a scientist, but I am a realist and it's clearer every day that people are rushing to judgement on the global warming issue. And speaking of rushing to judgement watch the video in the post below, you'll see what I mean...

Hilarious Commercials I'd Never Seen

Here's five funny Ameriquest commercials that I'm pretty sure I've never seen on TV. Anybody else seen them?

Obama Admits That Welfare May Have Worsened Erosion of Black Family

In his morning speech, Barack Obama made a statement that has been historically considered sacreligious among Democrats. Here's what he said:

"A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened."

The belief that welfare equals compassion and is the height of morality has been taken as gospel among Democrats since the 1960's. He didn't make this a theme, but nonetheless I'm glad he let it slip. Considering that he's proposing $800 billion in new spending (much on social programs), it will be interesting to hear him reconcile the two stances.

Perspective on the Invective: Global Warming Firebrands Must Contend With Inconvenient Facts

Pretend you're playing a game of Red Rover with 100,000 of your closest friends or rushing the field after a big Michigan football win. Now envision 38 people trying to stop either crowd in their mad dash. How do you think they'd do?

Why this exercise? Turns out carbon dioxide, the alleged culprit behind global warming and such annoying additions to today's daily language as "carbon footprint" and "carbon neutral", makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere.

But this carbon is supposedly trapping heat near the Earth that would otherwise disperse into space right? That's what they say, but think about it and tell me if that doesn't sound ridiculous. There's a lot of climate scientists who think so too.

Just last month they held the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York, where hundreds of climate scientists skeptical of the hysteria gathered to compare evidence that we're barking up the wrong tree.

The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, has actually suggested suing Al Gore and his travelers for duping the public, specifically by advocating the purchase of carbon credits (from a company he is a part of).

Wisconsin's very own Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, has also come out strongly against those who take man-made global warming as religion. Bryson says: “...there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It’s been warming up a long time.”

I'm not a climate scientist, but it seems to me that until people are as familiar with statistics like the 38 parts per 100,000 as they are with stories about castaway polar bears, we can't honestly say "the debate is over".

The "Obama's Preacher" Video

Sure you've probably already seen it or will soon on TV, but for those of you who haven't here go:
It's the minister (Jeremiah Wright) at Obama's church giving a sermon that is not only over the top, but also demonstrably contrary to reality in some cases. For instance he makes the claim that Obama's not rich (he lives in a $1.3 million house), that he's not privileged (he graduated from Harvard and married a Princeton grad), and that he's not white (technically he's as white as he is black).

The greater issue however, in my mind, is the fact that Obama would choose to belong to a church like this for some 20 years without leaving. Intelligent people of any color could find a handful of things in this clip alone to tune this guy out for good.

Some have opined that since Obama was raised by a white mother and followed a course few blacks relate to(Ivy League), that membership in this church is his attempt to re-connect with his "blackness". That is all well and good for the first month or maybe even the first couple years, but 20 years suggests that he has either bought into this church's viewpoint or has been afraid to walk away from it. Both of those options are problematic, particularly when you hope to become the most powerful person in the world.

Was I off?

Mr. Smith's Money Goes to Washington (and suburbs)

Four of the top five fastest income and job growing counties are suburbs of Washington D.C.. Anybody want to venture a guess why?

Forbes has an article this morning listing the "5 Best Places to Get Ahead" in the U.S.. They decided this by figuring together both recent income and job growth in the respective cities while excluding any cities with median incomes below $75,000 (pretty steep in my mind).

Anyways, though they didn't comment on it really, I found it very telling that four of the top five best places to get ahead were in the Washington D.C. metro area.

Stafford County, VA., Calvert County, MA., Loudoun County, VA., and Charles County, MA.. are the four in that order.

When you have a $3 trillion federal budget running through Washington it's inevitable that a lot of government employees, contractors and lobbyists will benefit handsomely from that largess. But it runs contrary to common sense that it would be booming while the rest of the country is in an economic slowdown.

Keep that in mind next time you hear politicians discussing rolling back the across the board tax cuts now in place.

An Interesting Cartoon From the Past

This short cartoon is from 1948 and it was made to explain the superiority of America and capitalism over other forms of government. It features a snake-oil salesman named Dr. Utopia who comes to town offering different "isms" in a bottle. The moral of the story is that people shouldn't let themselves be taken in by people offering "utopia" via communism, socialism, fascism, etc. and should resist people who push class warfare. Sound familiar?

Wayyyyy Over the Top Public School Moonbattery in Illinois

Via Rachel Lucas this story is almost hard to believe, but sadly the direction we're heading. Deerfield is only about 45 minutes away from my little corner of the world (Kenosha,WI)

Read this and tell me that public schools haven't gone way past inclusiveness right to anything goes moonbat advocacy.

Earth Day Hypocrisy

I found it kind of funny that in yesterday's mail I received an Earth Day product catalog. It was made up of 38 pages of innocent tree and included products like the 10 Reasons to Plant a Tree bookmark. One reason that didn't make the top 10 was: "So we can send out tens of thousands of unsolicited 38 page catalogs filled with non-biodegradable plastic trinkets and paper goods without conscience." (The number one reason was: "Trees provide shade to keep us cool". Seriously)

The log in their eye

Free speech has always been conditional on the left and here's an ironic example .

The link is to an article on the Daily Kos criticizing what they call "progressive" blogs apparently banning posts by Hillary supporters. The post includes a poll in which Kos kids can vote on whether they agree with such practices or not. The irony is that up until 3:45 (when I voted) a full 41% of Kos readers actually agreed with the Hillary supporters being banned. They're not as "forward thinking" as they imagine themselves I guess.

Here's just one of the Kos kids' comments to this blasphemous article:

She, and all her supporters, should be banned. If she loves McCain so much she should aske for a spot as his VP and get the hell out of the Democratic party.

by nisleib on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:51:13 AM PDT

California: Perhaps the sun is getting to their heads

If you're ever trying to coax a friend from the emotional bonds of liberalism it's good to start by referencing California.

The term "Parisian Determinism" has been used to describe the phenomenon in which ideas (always bad) fashionable in Paris become fashionable in the United States roughly twelve years later. But Paris is far away and twelve years isn't soon enough to get people riled up. Instead I think we should concentrate more on "Californian Determinism".

While just as shortsighted as French logic, bad ideas from California run the risk of spreading through the states faster than you can say "veggieburgers".

Of particular interest today is the unanimous ruling by a California appeals court that threatens to outlaw homeschooling in the state and criminalize parents who resist.

The ruling in effect bars any homeschooling not done directly by a certified teacher. A whopping 160,000 students stand to lose out if this is upheld. One of the judges was quoted as saying parents could be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply.

Wisconsinites should take particular notice of this as our courts recently shut down a successful e-school network after a similar challenge. California's move will no doubt embolden WEAC to set their sights on Wisconsin homeschoolers as a whole.

Do we really want to be in the same boat as California? This is the same California which a few months back passed a bill ridding future textbooks of any references to "mom and dad" or "husband and wife" lest non-traditional families be discomforted. It was also ordered that students be allowed to use the bathroom and locker facilities of whichever gender they "identify" with.

You can't make this stuff up. What you can do though is let people you know in on these little reported developments and ask them to do the same. As much as people in Wisconsin may be split on politics, I think we can all agree that California is the last place we should be emulating.

A Show of Republican Strength?

Seems that the conventional wisdom about Republicans getting steamrolled in November has at least one exception to contend with.

The New York Times is reporting that the Democratic National Committee is only $700,000 in the black while the Republican National Committee has a hefty $25 million cash on hand.

While I'm at odds with McCain, it does appear that having a set nominee this early has given us this particular advantage.

Hollywood: You wouldn't leave your kids with them, but you're supposed to take their political advice?

Okay, now it's getting weird. Watch this new ad in support of Barack Obama and tell me this whole thing hasn't crossed over into La-la land.

We "Know" So Much That Isn't So

The straight facts on the charge of "Tax cuts for the rich!" right from the tax foundation via the IRS:


source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

TAXES UNDER CLINTON 1999

*Single making 30K - tax $8,400

*Single making 50K - tax $14,000

*Single making 75K - tax $23,250

*Married making 60K - tax $16,800

*Married making 75K - tax $21,000

*Married making 125K - tax $38,750
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAXES UNDER BUSH 2008

*Single making 30K - tax $4,500

*Single making 50K - tax $12,500

*Single making 75K - tax $18,750

*Married making 60K- tax $9,000

*Married making 75K - tax $18,750

*Married making 125K - tax $31,250

As you can see, everybody who pays taxes has recieved a cut as of late. Bush may be open to other reasonable criticisms, but "ruining" the economy or only caring about the rich isn't one of them.

The Wall Street Journal also has this to add: "In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share."

So next time you hear someone say "tax cuts for the rich" pull out these hard facts and tell them to start looking elsewhere for their news.

Obama Way Too Eager to Cut Defense Spending

While I am not of the illusion that we spend all of our defense dollars wisely, I was rather taken aback by this Barack Obama video in which he outlines numerous cuts he plans to make in military development. The first specific thing he mentions is that he will "cut investments in unproven missile defense systems". Besides the fact that these are not things that should be publicly advertised it is surfacing during nuclear tensions with Iran and just a week after we successfully shot down a rogue satellite- in space nonetheless.

Considering that the military and the courts are the two specific undeniable areas of concern for our federal government (not to mention Obama's plan for $800 billion+ in foreign aid) this seems like a very strange area to suggest cutting funding and betrays a degree of liberalism that has been suspected, but rarely nailed down in him.

How Can You Argue?

Republican presidential candidates this cycle fought for the title of "most conservative". No similar "most liberal" debate occurred among Democrats. Is it possible that even though we don't always vote that way, deep down we still realize the wisdom of conservatism and distrust liberalism? Well if so, good for us.

"Progressive" nanny-types, unpopular after initiating Prohibition, then became "liberal" nanny-types who have since the 1960's slowly spoiled that label too. Now while trying to regulate everything from your health insurance down to your diet they want to be called "progressives" again. Still, I call them liberals (among worse things) so that folks don't forget their actual mischief.

The terms liberal and conservative are obviously generalizations, but still exist because they represent marked differences in policy, worldview, and as I'll show you, results.

Conveniently, today's statistics can tell us which way cities lean and to what degree. Of cities with 100,000 plus populations we know America's most conservative voting city is Provo, Utah. The most liberal voting city is Detroit, named last month by Forbes as America's most miserable city.

You haven't heard of half the top conservative cities, but the most liberal list includes three recent "U.S. Murder Capitals" with Gary and Washington D.C. behind Detroit in the top five. Hmmmmm.

Conservative policies, heavy on property rights, light on taxes, and tough on crime do tend to make for more inviting places to live. In the '04 presidential election Republicans won 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in teh nation. That's hard to argue with.

Ah, but what about lovely Canada, our very liberal neighbors with "free" healthcare, speech codes and such? The fact you'll wait twelve weeks for an MRI aside, Canada apparently isn't so great. In 2006 a record 10,942 Americans moved to Canada, yet 23,913 Canadians moved here. So even though we have nearly ten times as many people as Canada they still send twice as many people here than visa versa. That's an absolutely staggering indictment of liberal governance. And you don't even want to hear about Europe.

So liberal policies are treacherous, but how do liberal institutions stack up? Let's agree that liberal influence wholly permeates at least three areas of American life: education, organized labor, and the entertainment industry. How are they looking today? Well our schools test behind most developed countries, union membership is at its lowest level in decades, and the products Hollywood and the music industry put out speak for themselves (This year's Grammy winning Album of the Year was called "Rehab").

On the personal level it's the same story. Since the General Social Survey began in 1972 Republicans have reported being happier than Democrats every single year (kinda gives a new meaning to the "Blue State" designation).

Really it's because they've got more money though right? Hardly. Republicans in the second lowest income quartile were happier than Democrats in the highest one. If Republicans were truly filled with hate and bigotry as is often charged, would they really be so happy?

Instead I think the tendency of many Democrats to see people, and hence themselves, as victims of "the rich", corporations, mortgage lenders, etc. can drag them down.

How can self-esteem develop if you don't think yourself capable of skipping foods with trans-fats, avoiding smoky bars or putiing on your seatbelt without first passing a law? "I don't think I can. No you probably can't either. But YES WE CAN!".

Experience be damned, many in both parties still think left is the way to go because it's both easy and fashionable. In the worst instance Democrats seem poised to nominate "rock star" Barack Obama, who last year had the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. And with his campaign, as in most rock shows, the actual words (or meaning in this case) are more or less undicipherable, but people still hear the beat and bounce along with the crowd anyway. This is not the time for that.

Front and center is the issue of who will nominate the next one or two members of the evenly split Supreme Court, the Senate's most liberal member or the mildly conservative John McCain?

Consider for a moment that the last justice nominated by a Democrat (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) was previously head lawyer for the feminist organization NOW as well as the perennial anti-Christmas crusading ACLU. Is now really the time for more "change" like that?

Yes YOU can.

Ronald Reagan was saying "Yes you can" before such pronouncements were cool. While he may say it smoothly, what Barack Obama is really saying when saying "Yes WE can" while also calling for more government "solutions" is "No you can't (at least not without us)".

A Rather Apalling Display

This link speaks for itself. That every Democratic presidential candidate paid homage to that website (Daily Kos) and it's influence by appearing at their convention gives one pause. Keep in mind these quotes come from their site's writers, not just any old people dropping by and leaving nasty comments.

Education Degradation IV (Parts I-III start way at the bottom)

Is it smart to put 14-year old girls in closed environments with 18-year old boys?

That question, tossed around previously on WLIP, came back to me upon hearing the details of the brutal sexual assault recently perpetrated in Lincoln Park.

Everything is wrong with that incident, but it stuck out that the attackers spanned from 14 years old all the way to 17. 12th graders hanging out with 9th graders?

When Kenosha switched to the middle school model, 9th graders, who’d in my day have been "little junior high kids", found themselves in close proximity to older students with drivers licenses, money, sex drives, and occasionally gang affiliations and drug connections. They would now share the same locker rooms, go to the same dances, often attend the same parties, however they would not possess the same maturity or judgment. Not surprisingly they haven’t adapted well.

It’s jaw dropping, but would you believe that Wisconsin 9th graders have had the highest rate of drug and weapons suspensions of any grade for eight years straight? What’s more Kenosha’s 9th graders not only consistently have the highest drug and weapons suspension rate in the district, but in the last available year (‘05-‘06) their rate was 117% higher than the state average.

There’s more to this than just complaining. See the move to the middle school system jammed an extra grade into high schools not built for it. Predictably we’ve arrived at the present junction where the same people (teachers’ unions and “progressives”) who pushed for the middle school system are bemoaning the crowding it caused and demanding you pay $50-60 million to build a new high school. That’s the wrong thing to do, and it’s not just about the money.

As the previously mentioned suspension statistics illustrate, 9th graders have simply been ravaged by the move to high school. I’ve seen it firsthand and most teachers will admit as much, but there’s also comparisons to show this resulted from the move to high school and not “society”.

You see there are still a few districts in the state with traditional junior highs (7th-9th). Wisconsin Rapids, Menomenee Falls, and Manitowoc are the three I’ve found. While these districts have slightly lower drug and weapons suspension rates than the state by roughly 16%, there’s a huge difference in their 9th graders who collectively have a 69% lower suspension rate than the state average and a rate almost four times lower than Kenosha’s 9th graders! Yes, they’re ahead academically too.

Now also consider this: Elementary school students in the U.S. compete equally against other countries’ elementary students on standardized tests. When they get to middle school they lose ground, and by the time they're in high school they're testing worse than Bangladesh. Our different school environments obviously matter. So if kids do their best in the elementary format why not keep them there for 6th grade? The same logic applies to keeping 9th graders in junior high with the added behavioral benefits as a huge bonus.

Returning to the original junior high system makes a lot of sense. Firstly students do better both socially and academically that way. Secondly, it would be better to build a few smaller elementary schools than one huge high school. Elementary schools serve as anchors of their neighborhoods and don’t require hugely expensive extras like swimming pools, auditoriums, mega parking lots, athletic facilities, weight rooms, showers (what would Al Gore say about the carbon footprint?) and these days police officers.

Still, in February the teachers’ union will implore you to vote for a new high school to ease overcrowding. However as I’ve previously noted there are fewer students in the youngest four grades than the oldest four, indicating that today’s high school crowding is a temporary bottleneck not a dire emergency.

The obvious motive of the teachers’ union is clearing classroom space for the 4-year old kindergarten Jim Doyle supports and Hillary says she’ll offer nationally. “Progressive” thinkers cheer such developments, as the brave new world they envision requires socializing children their way as young as possible. Hopefully though you recognize that 4 year olds should be allowed to just be kids and that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for what I know firsthand to be indistinguishable from daycare.

So I urge you to vote against the proposed high school and talk seriously about restoring the junior high system. High school has been shown to unnecessarily strip from 9th graders a degree of both innocence and opportunity at a very crucial point in their development. The same is no doubt true for 6th graders shuttled to middle school prematurely. They’re not old enough to miss that those things yet, but as adults with the benefit of hindsight, not to mention now statistics, we have an obligation to reverse that past misstep.

Socialized Medicine-Lite in Wisconsin

'The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.' -- Winston Churchill

If only Mr. Churchill had kept that thought in mind when he advocated “universal” health-care for all British citizens. He mistakenly assumed that the disaster socialism wrought everywhere else would somehow make an exception for health-care.

Unfortunately economic realities don’t care about being fashionable, thought “compassionate”, or spoken highly of by anchors and editors. Britain’s universal health system was and is a failure in all categories except equality. The damage has been spread rather equally.

Yet some still think themselves more clever than the sum of human history. They include our local state senator Bob Wirch as well as all Democratic Presidential frontrunners.

I recently watched State Senators Wirch and Jim Erpenbach try selling their $15 billion Healthy Wisconsin plan to a Gateway audience. They gradually conceded more problems with their plan. For instance they acknowledged that big business would benefit greatly from Healthy Wisconsin while small businesses would hurt the most.

They also admitted that healthy people would be most penalized while the unhealthy would benefit the most. So for the record we have Bob Wirch advocating a competitive disadvantage for small business and lowered incentives for healthy choices. It’s a wonder that didn’t make his talking points.

Now while their plan for Wisconsin isn’t textbook socialism, it’s a huge step in that direction. Proposals on the national level though go the whole way. So how does socialized medicine match up anyway?

I’ll start off by assuming that you’ve all heard much about our “uninsured” and statistics placing the U.S. behind so many countries in life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.. They’re true, but only half of the story.

Firstly, while they exist, specifics about the uninsured are wildly exaggerated. Over 17 million of the uninsured live in households with above-average incomes. Many, like myself some years ago, simply weigh the risks and decide to chance it. Even then 45% of all uninsured at any time become insured within four months. As for life expectancy, if you were to adjust for our sky high rates of “fatal injury” (suicide, auto-deaths, and murder) our life expectancy standings greatly improve. This even leaves aside our astronomical rate of obesity related deaths for which our healthcare system bears little or no responsibility.

The superiority of our health care is best illustrated by noting survivability rates of illnesses. For instance my father is a cancer survivor. Considering the US has the highest cancer survivability rate in the western world, how would you begin convincing me to scrap our system.

Over 64% of all cancer patients in the US survive more than five years. In the UK under “universal” healthcare less than 50% survive. They largely die waiting their turn.

That’s not an exaggeration, but simple economics. Artificially lower the cost of a service and you’ll get shortages, which in health care terms translates to waiting lists. I urge every open minded person to visit www.waittimes.net (Ontario’s official health ministry site) to get a feel for just how long you’ll wait for care in a “universal” system. People simply use more when costs are indirect. Like any bureaucracy socialized systems are also terrible at translating priorities. For instance, since 1987 all of Canada (pop. 26 million) spent less money on hospital improvements than the city of Washington D.C. (pop. 618,000). And the state of Washington now has more MRIs than all of Canada. Not surprisingly the average wait for an MRI in Canada last year was over ten weeks. Here it’s a matter of days. We pay more and get more. When getting more means life or death that’s a good deal.

Still though costs could be lower in the U.S.. Back in 1940 only 10% of Americans had health insurance yet we lived to tell. What’s changed? The government got involved that’s what.

Today government directly pays for 45% of all health-care spending. That’s 45% of people who don’t shop around and 45% of the health-care industry that doesn’t need to compete. College tuition costs have risen similarly since the government got involved with student loans.

In our misguided quest for arbitrary equality via government we’ve caused all kinds of havoc. In the end if it’s equality you want the best way to achieve it is through raising others up rather than bringing everybody else down. But unfortunately envy of the successful is as much an animating factor for liberals/progressives as concern for the poor will ever be.

For those of you who are truly concerned with raising people out of poverty, then census data for the 90’s should be instructive. The ten lowest taxed states saw a greater than 10% average reduction in their poverty rates during the 90’s. The ten states with the highest taxes saw more than a 7% average increase in their poverty rates. Taxes hold the poor down and create a disincentive to ingenuity and therefore competition. Government out = prosperity in.

Considering that the $15 billion dollar tax hike for Healthy Wisconsin would make Wisconsin far and away the highest taxed state in the nation let’s hope Bob Wirch is taking note.

An "F" for the Big "D"

An "F" for the Big "D"

Michigan Democrats recently stepped in well deserved controversy by offering up a state budget that proposes supplying every child in the state with an iPod or comparable Mp3 player (See article here: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007704060333 ).

Now such absurdities hardly cause one to blink these days, but this instance gave me occasion to revisit a past column on "progressive" government and how it's fared in Michigan's only metropolis Detroit.

As a Wisconsinite I can certainly relate to the frustration felt by folks whose states' political landscapes are drastically altered by a single big city. Milwaukee these days has become a parody of itself. The last few years have been marked by the beating death of a man by 20 people (some as young as ten), the gang rape of an 11-year old by possibly fifteen, and the tire slashings of 20 Republican party get-out-the-vote vans on the morning of national elections (the culprits none other than the son of a past Democratic mayor and the son of Democratic congresswoman Gwen Moore).

The situation in Detroit however, a few high-profile cases aside, makes Milwaukee look rather tame . They say there’s a lot in a name, but in this case there’s also a lot in a nickname - at least a lot of irony.


Take Detroit’s most common nickname “Motor City”. It conjures up images of
the once thriving industrial city where state of the art automobiles rolled
off the lines and union bosses were the toast of the town. Today that
picture has somewhat rusted over.


Turns out that in “Motor City” today one-third of local households
can’t even afford a car. And now, to cast further gloom on an already
grim picture, Detroit automakers recently laid off tens of thousands of
workers under crippling labor costs and increased competition.


The city’s other well-known moniker “Motown”, while a play on “Motor
City”, came to be more widely associated with the uniquely styled soul
music that took its name. Yet, like “Motor City”, today “Motown” also
evokes painfully ironic comparisons with the past.


Where once Diana Ross and Co. reigned supreme, today’s most
widely recognized “musical” export is the foul, nihilistic rapper Eminem
while the public face of the city is a bejeweled 34 year-old known as the
“hip-hop mayor” in light of his thug-like entourage and penchant for
club hopping and rap music.


So what went wrong with Detroit? Perhaps a newer, less catchy
nickname for “The D” can lend some clarity to what has become of this
once proud city: “Most Liberal City in the U.S.A”.


That’s the distinction Detroit has earned according to a study of
voting patterns done by San Francisco based Bay Area Center for
Voting Research. While Detroit voters aren’t so liberal in the Howard
Dean,tinfoil hat sense, they are more likely than any other large locale to
favor governmental solutions to perceived problems. No shock
here, but Detroit has been run almost exclusively by Democrats for four
decades now.


A quick overview of their report card:


As of 2004, Detroit had the highest unemployment rate among our fifty
largest cities with 14.1% out of work. This figure was more than
double the 6.5% average of the other forty-nine. Given recent
transgressions Detroit’s figure may now threaten to climb even higher.


Reactionaries quickly jumped on the automakers, but even the liberal
media can’t overlook the fact that local union workers have long been
overly naive in their demands. As it is the average union laborer for a
Big Three manufacturer costs their employer $65 an hour, or roughly
$130,000 per year.


Even those no longer needed on the floor are still staples on the
payroll. Before the recent wave of cuts the Big Three had a combined
12,000 workers idling in job banks passing their time with community
service and crossword puzzles at over $30 an hour each.


Big unions may deliver the Democrats millions of votes, but what they sometimes
give workers are unrealistic promises that risk chasing employers
out of state, into bankruptcy, or overseas, while leaving laborers out of luck.


Surveying Detroit’s other social indicators the scene doesn’t get much
rosier. For example, Detroit today has only half the population it had
in 1950, while a quarter of all land is currently vacant or abandonded.


Strong as they claim to be regarding education decades of Democrats
have left Detroit with nearly half their adults functionally illiterate
(47%). Lest anyone reactively call for more school funding let me add
that Michigan is currently ranked as having the second highest tax
burden in the nation.


With a murder rate over five times the national average Detroit ranks
the fourth worst in the nation. The highest murder rate actually belongs
to the second most liberal city, Gary, Ind..

Survey the list of murder hot spots and the hits keep on coming. New
Orleans, recently exposed by Katrina as crime ridden and corrupt,
notches the second highest murder rate. Yet, only one in four charged
with murder in The Big Easy ever serve time. It begins to make sense
when you reflect that New Orleans has been headed by almost
exclusively Democrats for over thirty years.


Now I’m just piling on, but the third highest murder rate goes to the
fourth most liberal city, Washington D.C.. Only two words need be said
about their political discretion: Marion Barry.


It appears here that while liberal figureheads and ACLU lawyers seek
superficial civil-rights for extremely small, but well funded interest
groups they neglect the most basic of civil right government is sworn
to protect: the right to be secure in your person and property.


The examples abound, but reflection on the left remains non-existent.
With “social progress” like this it’s no wonder, as George Will points
out, that 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in the nation voted
Republican in 2004. Results can’t be much more clear cut than that.


Who knows, maybe in a show of solidarity with their most reliable
liberal brethren we’ll see the Democrats hold their ‘08 national
convention in Detroit to showcase their handiwork. Gary 2012! I won’t
hold my breath.


For further reading see: http://www.mises.org/story/1918

How "Free to Choose" Are You?

“Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow man”
-Milton Friedman

Recent trends suggest (as did his recent death) occasion for another look at those words from the great economist who spent most of his life reminding people they should strive to be “free to choose”.

Dr. Friedman was describing the fundamental understanding of a free society as one in which others, including the government, can’t make you do anything you don’t want to do. You could say you are assured non-interference…but that’s all. Success and happiness are up to you.

You have your rights and others have theirs, so long as nobody demands anything from anybody else but non-interference. Simple enough you’d think, but in practice we’ve been all too quick to drop that understanding for personal preferences. We want to be free to choose for ourselves, but have no problem employing force when others don’t choose what we think they should.


As America’s most brilliant Longshoreman Eric Hoffer said: “We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their private ails.”

So, who are these “troublemakers” anyway? Well we pretty much all are. But while folks of every political leaning are guilty, today only those of the liberal/progressive persuasion are actually proud of it. Try as you will you’d be hard pressed to find initiatives from today’s Democrats that don’t take from someone or mandate something. While Republicans have their share of liberal impulses (huge agricultural subsidies to the tune of half all farm income and a vast expansion of Medicare) they at least acknowledge the rights of people to their earnings and property.

In fact, in this sense liberalism/progressivism the world over shares the same fundamental flaw as Islamic fundamentalism: They both attempt to foster virtue through force, which of course is impossible. An act can only be virtuous when you are free to choose otherwise.

For instance some fundamentalists argue that women be made to cover themselves because modesty is a virtue. Modesty certainly is a virtue, but by making burqas mandatory they actually remove the possibility of virtue there. Only those women who freely choose it have claim to said virtue.

Back home liberals/progressives use force all the time in the name of virtue. Raising taxes is the most glaring offense, but others examples like affirmative action, minimum wage laws, campus speech codes, eminent domain land seizures, etc. abound.

Some taxes are necessary, but today the fact is that over 40% of your income will go to the government one way or another and well over half of those taxes are simply given to someone else deemed more in need. We actually spend three times as much on welfare as it would cost to raise every poor family above the poverty level. Personally giving help to someone in need is virtuous. Paying taxes with the the threat of jail if you don’t is not.

Affirmative action is doubly problematic. Not only do forced quotas effectively negate the virtue of mostly nondescriminating employers but they also needlessly cast a shadow of doubt over the virtuous achievements of so many.

Now comes Barack Obama’s call for “Universal” health care. As I pointed out before, rights are only valid if they impose no measurable burden on another person. So can we provide health care to everyone without imposing a burden on anybody else? Not a chance. If you’re healthy and your neighbor drinks like a fish and smokes like a chimney, who bears a heavier burden with “Universal” health care? The answer is simply whoever makes more money. I see no virtue in that.

Not only is virtue through compulsion impossible, but often the rhetoric of those arguing for it runs in stark contrast to virtue by appealing to envy. Dr. Thomas Sowell writes “Envy was once considered to be one of the seven deadly sins before it became one of the most admired virtues under it’s new name ‘social justice’.” Charges like “tax cuts for the rich” come to mind.

Friedman also wrote” A society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither.” And he was right. When we take our eyes off of the prize (freedom) to demand superficial equality and pretend we’re virtuous we forget that our successes are all the more remarkable precisely when they aren’t guaranteed. Only when we are truly “free to choose” can our actions take on true meaning.

Education Degradation Part III

-While tragic, the recent stabbing of a 12 year old girl at a local middle school has no doubt vindicated those parents refusing to accept boundary changes quietly. In the case of some students let’s face it, those students moved will without question be put into schools that are rougher places. Will they survive? Of course. Will they be better for it? Probably not.

Parents who are concerned with their children’s school environment, pay taxes, and very well may have chosen their address on account of the neighborhood school have every right to protest this and every reason to be perturbed by the arrogant manner in which the local school board president has dismissed them.


-A local columnist recently lambasted those parents protesting TeenScreen, the proposed universal mental health screening of our local 8th graders. While he is correct in pointing out the good intentions of the program’s sponsors, he subsequently dismisses those of the parents and is sadly mistaken on almost everything else, not the least of which being that schools have any business dealing in mental health in the first place. This columnist (Bill Guida), in classic liberal elitist fashion, told parents to butt out and leave it to the experts. Unfortunately the only people who can really explain their suicides are no longer with us and the only likely result of the screening would be more money in the pockets of both psychologists and drug companies. However Mr. Guida has long made clear the low esteem in which he holds the sense of everyday people, favoring smoking bans and mandatory helmet laws for those without free will and recently claiming that folks (except him of course) are “force fed” fast food via advertising. Just listen to the experts and the gummit’ will make everything alright…

Mr. Guida being no peculiarity, contemporary liberals/progressives, forever frustrated with Americans’ fondness for rugged individualism, have always seen schools as their great opportunity for experimentation with collectivism. Every time the schools take on another unnecessary responsibility like feeding children, babysitting, sorting them by race, etc. they see a microcosm of their perfect society: the government (largely made up of them) providing for every waking need. At one time this fact wasn’t at all hidden. Those considered the founders of our public school system were nearly all avowed socialists.

These disagreements weren’t always necessary. But like so many other things, when you add the word “public” to anything it’s like putting ketchup on a steak, it can only be so good. This should come as a surprise to no one however after the track record of public housing projects, public assistance (welfare), public retirement (Social Security), public healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid). Those that weren’t immediate failures are nonetheless impending economic disasters.

I apologize for the imagery, but can any of you honestly say you prefer public toilets to your own? The tragedy of the commons is very real. Parents can forbid their child from playing with the third-grader next-door with the fowl mouth and mean streak when he drinks, but at school they’re powerless. Parents can teach that one religion, one country, one attitude is preferable, but once they get to a public school they will hear that everything under the sun is equal and the only one’s who are lesser are those that would dare to say otherwise.

School choice in the form of vouchers would do much to remedy this rift, not to mention school crowding...