what if?

Thought for the Day

"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal."

– F. A. Hayek

Not Inequality

But opportunity.

A good column at the New York Times pointing out what really matters to people.

While Americans are hearing more and more about class conflict, there is little indication that they are increasingly divided along these lines. People don’t necessarily want to take money from the wealthy; they just want a better chance to get rich themselves. They care about policies that give everyone a fair shot — a distinction that candidates in both parties should understand as they head into the 2012 campaigns.

The issue here is not about class envy. Rather, it’s a perception that government policies are skewed toward helping the already wealthy and powerful. While a December Gallup poll found few respondents wanting the government to attempt to reduce the income gap between rich and poor, 70 percent said it was important for the government to increase opportunities for people to get ahead. What the public wants is not a war on the rich but more policies that promote opportunity.

Do "regular folks" begrudge those at the top for their wealth?  No.  They recognize that in a free society, people with different talents putting forth disparate efforts will reap rewards (or not) in a distinct manner.

Nevertheless, they do want some equity in opportunity to succeed.  That is where our government should focus:  opening up opportunities for as many as possible and stomping out "crony capitalism." 

What If?

A member of Congress ponders "what if" our government were responsible, honest and did what needed to be done to turn our nation around?

The Religion of Global Warming

Apparently more and more are challenging the Holy Grail.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

Over and over, we hear that Democrats are the party that embraces science, and Republicans are neanderthals with their heads in the sand.  If this is so, then why don't more Democrats speak out against attitudes that ignore further research and do not allow for challenge to current dogma?

Why indeed?  Perhaps this has something to do with it.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Liberal Logic

Read this, and you will have great insight into how some liberal minds function.

Doesn't make sense to you, either?

This is a large part of how we've arrived at where we are today.  Remember this the next time you have a choice at the voting booth.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

Does this sort of spending make sense to you?

Sold as a way to create jobs while building infrastructure and an environmentally sensitive economy, the stimulus plan was drafted in haste by Democrats in Congress and then signed by Mr. Obama on Feb. 17, 2009. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was priced at $787 billion when enacted; the official estimate is now more than $800 billion.

The failed solar-panel maker Solyndra has attracted a federal investigation, but there are other worthy competitors for the title. Mr. Grabell reminds us of the $783,000 grant to study why young people consume malt liquor and marijuana, and the $219,000 to study the "hookups" of college students. (Perhaps these research efforts could have been combined.) Then there is the $92,000 spent by the Army Corps of Engineers "on costumes for mascots like Bobber the Water Safety Dog."

If the aim was to create jobs, why were the funds not specifically directed to areas with the highest unemployment? If the aim was to underwrite vital construction projects, why did an Alaskan village called Ouzinkie, population 167, receive a $15 million airport? "By contrast," Mr. Grabell notes, "major hubs such as Newark and Las Vegas didn't get any stimulus money. Atlanta, the busiest airport in the world, received nothing in the first round of grants."

With money carved out of the stimulus for Democratic constituencies such as government workers and for various anti-poverty programs, only about 10% of the spending, or $80 billion, was devoted to infrastructure—and very little of that total went to critical work. The political necessity to fund the "shovel-ready" projects promised by the president meant that money didn't go to the bridges most in need of repair but to jobs that could quickly clear the thicket of regulatory permitting. Repaving roads was a typical activity; less than 12% of the infrastructure spending went for work on bridges.

If this is your idea of improving the nation - then vote for President Obama again in November!

 

 

 

It's Come to This

You're an employer.  One of your employees is a diligent and hard worker.  In fact, doing a fine job is so important to her, she works through her lunch break to finish a project.  You respond by:

A)    Giving her praise.

B)    Giving her a raise.

C)    Firing her.

Did you guess "A"?  Maybe a combination of "A" and "B"? 

Well; if you guessed anything other than "C", you got this real life problem wrong.  No, I am not kidding.

Sharon Smiley had worked for 10 years as a receptionist and administrative assistant at a Chicago real estate company until she was fired for skipping lunch one day. After a two-year battle, an appeals court in Illinois has found that denial of her unemployment benefits was "clearly erroneous."

Smiley, 48, punched out of work for lunch Jan. 28, 2010, but remained at her desk to finish a project assigned by a manager because she did not plan to eat that day, she said.

An employee fired for working too hard.  Now I've seen everything.

Running with Losers

If you have to fake it at your blog, you might as well hang it up.  So - I won't.

Let's face it, conservatives and libertarians, Republicans and lovers of small government.  The Republican field sucks.  At best, it's mediocre plus.

Don't take my word for it.  Read what Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal has to say on the matter.

Whose Life is it Anyway?

A long time philosophical issue appears in real life.

Former rugby player Tony Nicklinson had a high-flying job as a corporate manager
in Dubai, where he went skydiving and bridge-climbing in his free time.

Seven years ago, he suffered a paralyzing stroke. Today he can only move his
head, cannot speak and needs constant care.

And he wants to die.

To try to ensure that whoever ends his life won't be jailed, the 57-year-old
Nicklinson recently asked Britain's High Court to declare that any doctor who
gives him a lethal injection with his consent won't be charged with murder. This
week, the court will hold its first hearing on the case.

Most people who want to die, who are physically able to do so, can lawfully
commit suicide," said Nicklinson's lawyer, Saimo Chahal.

But that's not the case for Nicklinson, who has "locked-in syndrome" - a
condition in which a person's body is paralyzed but mind intact.

Under U.K. law, anyone who helps Nicklinson die could be charged with murder,
even if they are carrying out his wishes. A murder charge has a mandatory life
sentence, regardless of the motive or circumstances.

If someone is of sound mind, is able to express their views and wishes about their own life, and those views and wishes can be reviewed in depth - then should that person be able to have their views and wishes followed?  Should society be able to overrule that person's beliefs?  Or - should they be honored, as long as various constraints are followed with care?

I am of the opinion that yes; all of us should have the ability to take our own life, with caveats.  Still - I realize this is a complex issue and that good arguments can be made for various views.

At the very least - we can all have great sympathy for those whose lives have been compromised like that of Nicklinson.

 

 

Give Peace a Chance

Those who rally for peace against war always mystify me.  While I'm sure there must be some tiny minority out there who really does like war - I cannot imagine that this minority's numbers are significant.  You would think that almost all of us would choose peace over war, all things being equal.

Sometimes, however, things are far from equal. Sometimes we face atrocities or potential horrors that can only be stopped one way:  by war.

Who among us would prefer that this happened - rather than war to stop it?  Give peace a chance.  But if the chance doesn't pan out - then this should mean war.

When a group of high-ranking Nazi bureaucrats sat down 70 years ago today
(Jan. 20, 1942), they didn’t plot the death of 6 million Jews; they aimed at 11
million.

Dubbed the Wannsee Conference, after its location, it was chaired by SS
Obergruppenfuhrer Reinhard Heydrich, who brought together some of the most
efficient managers of mass murder history has ever seen.

The 90-minute agenda was direct, having been transmitted by Hitler to his
deputy, Reich Marshal Herman Goering, and then onto Heydrich: “Make all
necessary preparations” for a “total solution of the Jewish question” in all
territories under German influence, coordinate the role of all government
organizations in accomplishing that goal — and then submit a “comprehensive
draft” for the “final solution of the Jewish question.”

In other words, for the first time, the administrative, industrial and
transportation resources of an entire nation would be deployed for the purpose
of genocide.

 

In Defense of Capitalism

Hope you just read my previous post.  This new one will better explain just why capitalism offers the best opportunities for people - and the most fair.

There’s nothing selfish about capitalism. Like every economic model, it is a matrix within which individual actors can behave morally or immorally. But here’s the thing: no one has yet come up with a system that rewards decent behaviour to the same extent.

In an open market based on property rights and free contract, you become wealthy by offering an honest service to others.  I am typing these words on a machine developed by the late Steve Jobs. He gained from the exchange (adding fractionally to his net wealth) and so did I (adding to my convenience).

Under the various forms of corporatism tried by fascist and socialist regimes, by contrast, someone else – generally a state official – gets to allocate the goodies, guaranteeing favouritism and corruption.

Greed – that is, the desire for material possessions – is not a product of markets, but a product of a human genome evolved in a competitive environment. Capitalism harnesses greed to socially productive ends. The way to become rich in a free economy is to give others what they want, not to suck up to those in power.

In fact, it is difficult to think of a more ethical relationship than one created by a free contract. Each party will add to the other’s well-being by doing precisely what is expected of him.

Are there flaws with capitalism?  Absolutely!  We are a flawed species; how could there not be?  Yet, as David Hannan says, better that millions decide with their actions and their assets what they wish to choose and not choose, than that some tiny government committee mandate what we all must do or have.

Nothing is wrong with creating and earning wealth - nothing.  If it is earned honestly and fairly, it is a good thing.  Those who have wealth can use it to create great good. 

What matters is that opportunities are available for all to better themselves.  That is where we should focus; doing as much as we can to make sure that no one is shut out from improving their lot in life.

We can't even do that perfectly.  Some of us are smarter or prettier or more charismatic or have specific talents; those people rate to do better than others.  Some of us have greater challenges.  A moral society will reach out a hand to help those with significant disabilities.  But competing in an equitable marketplace; nothing can be superior to that.

Whose Side Are They On, Anyway?

When a politician decides to compete to be his party's candidate for president, obviously he wants to win.  He'll do everything to achieve that goal.

Yet, should "everything" really be everything?

Charles Krauthammer says "no" - and I agree with him.

The struggling Democratic class-war narrative is suddenly given life and legitimacy by . . . Republicans! Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry make the case that private equity as practiced by Romney’s Bain Capital is nothing more than vulture capitalism looting companies and sucking them dry while casually destroying the lives of workers.

Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO nods approvingly. Michael Moore wonders aloud whether Gingrich has stolen his staff. The assault on Bain/Romney instantly turns Obama’s class-war campaign from partisan attack into universal complaint.

Suddenly Romney’s wealth, practices and taxes take center stage. And why not? If leading Republicans are denouncing rapacious capitalism that enriches the 1 percent while impoverishing everyone else, should this not be the paramount issue in a campaign occurring at a time of economic distress?

Now, economic inequality is an important issue, but the idea that it is the cause of America’s current economic troubles is absurd. Yet, in a stroke, the Republicans have succeeded in turning a Democratic talking point — a last-ditch attempt to salvage reelection by distracting from their record — into a central focus of the nation’s political discourse.

The president is a very smart man. But if he wins in November, that won’t be the reason. It will be luck. He could not have chosen more self-destructive adversaries.

Winning a battle is no good if the war is lost.  And yes; every person running to be the candidate of their party should never forget the greater war.  That is for your party to win the White House and be able to implement the principles for which your party stands.

Republicans arguing that capitalism is bad is no different than standing up and saying "I am a moron and a whore; just saying anything so I can knock someone else out."

Voters should take note.  So should every candidate.

The Secretary and The CEO

No, Virginia.  It is not true that most secretaries are paying a higher rate to the IRS than their wealthy bosses are....

The nearby table from the CBO report shows that in 2007 the average income
tax rate paid by the 1% was 18.8%, compared to 4.2% for Americans in a broadly
defined middle class from the 21st to 80th income percentiles. The poorest 20%
on average paid a net negative income-tax rate of 5.6% because of the checks
they receive for tax credits that are "refundable." These are essentially
transfer payments redistributing income from the rich and middle class to the
poor.

As for all federal taxes, CBO found that in 2007 the top 1% paid an average
rate of a little under 30%, compared to 15.1% for middle-income earners. In
calculating this overall tax burden, CBO takes account of payroll taxes, which
moves the rate of the lowest 20% of earners into positive territory at 4.7%. CBO
also apportions to individuals who are shareholders the tax that corporations
pay on corporate profits.

The main point is that the average effective tax rate on the richest 1% is
already twice as high as that of the middle class. No matter how many times Mr.
Buffett asserts it, secretaries and plumbers do not on average pay a higher tax
rate or less in taxes than do CEOs. Here is what the CBO concludes: "Taken as a
whole, the federal tax system is progressive."

This and That

For a day and a half, I've been nursing a lousy cold.  Why do they call it the "common cold" when it makes you feel uncommonly awful?

In any case, here are a few items that I neglected to post - all of which are of interest.  Enjoy!

One guy giving back and working to improve our schools.

Why does the MSM investigate every scintilla of dirt on Republicans - but - stays mute about Democrat unknowns - like our president's records from college?

One man's story of media bias.

 

 

Buffaloed in Buffalo

Teachers and unions.  Assuredly there are reasonable discussions to have regarding both.  What should compensation be for teachers?  Should we have public unions?  How should unions and teachers interact?  And so on and so forth.

Today, however, I read this story.

In Buffalo, New York, the heart of the American rust-belt, the public school system pays for its teachers to get plastic surgery. Hair removal. Miscrodermabrasian. Liposuction. If you can name the procedure, it's probably covered.

No, I am not exaggerating. And no, this article is not an excuse to make "Hot For Teacher" cracks. When I write that Buffalo's school system pays, I mean it literally. The perk is included as a self-insured rider in its teachers' contract. Therefore, the district has to cover the cost of each nip and tuck itself. There's no co-pay, so the school district ends up footing the entire bill. It estimates the current annual cost at $5.2 million, down from $9 million in 2009.

This in a city where the average teacher makes roughly $52,000 a year. The plastic surgery tab would pay salaries for 100 extra educators.

If you read the entire column, then you will understand the history of this policy.  Still - whatever the origins.  Are there any among us - any - who don't acknowledge that this is insane and a system out of control?

Redistribution

Over and over, the left tells us that economic inequality is unfair.  Our government must do something to right this wrong.

Yet, econ professor Donald Boudreaux writes of another type of inequality.

Dirty Words

Sometimes I let the occasional "F" bomb or some other nasty phrase fly.  In general, however, I aim to keep my speech above the gutter most of the time.  As a society, I think it raises us all to do so.

Still, another principle is far more important than whether one uses foul language - or, salacious images on the (pardon the expression) boob tube.  That is our principle of free speech.

The Supreme Court is hearing a case about the regulation of what broadcasters can and cannot do.

Somebodiness

Today we honor the man who was integral to the fight for civil rights in our nation:  Martin Luther King Jr.  MLK Jr. is my national hero for the last century.  Read what he said in 1967 to get a glimpse of why.

Now the first thing that we must do is to develop within ourselves a deep sense of somebodiness. Don’t let anybody make you feel that you are nobody. Because the minute one feels that way, he is incapable of rising to his full maturity as a person. You know a lot of people have segregated minds and one of the first things that the Negro must do is to desegregate his mind.

I had parents who taught me from the very beginning that I was somebody, and that I should never feel inferior. They taught all of us that, that we should feel that we are as good as any other children. And I remember day after day getting on that bus -- it was a segregated bus. Negroes had to sit in the back. And often we had to stand over empty seats because the seats up at the front were reserved for whites only.

And I started getting on that bus going across town and every time I got on the bus, even though I found myself having to take my body back to the back of the bus, I always left my mind on the front seat. And I said to myself one of these days, I’m going to put my body up there where my mind is.

And so I say, let us keep moving, let us move on toward the goal of brotherhood, toward the goal of personal fulfillment, toward the goal of a society undergirded by justice.

Preventing God given rights to some diminishes and harms all of us, irrespective of color.  Today, let us honor the man who did so much to awaken our nation to that truth - and for helping us to move "toward the goal of a society undergirded by justice."

Occupy This

As any of my readers know, I'm a supporter of free markets and capitalism.  Ergo, you will not see me bashing Wall Streeters in general.

In particular, however... do not think that choices those who work in high finance are immune from committing acts of enormous stupidity.  Here is one.

Goldman Sachs investment banker Jeffrey Verschleiser, accused in lawsuits of  illicitly profiting from bad mortgages that led to the 2008 meltdown, is  spending $1 million to take over a swanky Aspen, Colo., hotel for his Upper East  Side daughter’s bat mitzvah, sources said.

Verscheisler is taking over the luxury Hotel Jerome for the entire weekend,  and perks for the guests reportedly include autographs from pro skiers.

Sure.  Ruin the financial lives of untold thousands.  Then follow it up with an obscene display of wealth and materialism.  Silly me.  I thought that the purpose of a bat mitzvah was to celebrate a girl's entry into womanhood, learn about her faith and then celebrate with family and friends.

I didn't realize that parents behaving as buffoons and teaching their daughter all the wrong sort of values was also an integral part.  Live and learn.

The Leaf Blower Paradox

An insightful and amusing analysis of Obamanomics.

Obama’s fundamental misapprehension of employment economics reminds me of an intriguing paradox I observed first-hand just a few months ago when I visited a relative who lived in a suburban tract:

Twice a week, my relative hired a “gardener” to clean up the front yard. I put “gardener” in quotes because this young hardworking immigrant didn’t actually know anything about plants or gardens; basically his only task was to get rid of the leaves that fell from the trees in front of the house. He achieved this very quickly and efficiently by using a gas-powered leaf-blower. Perhaps when he was first hired his technique was to blow all the leaves into a big pile which he would then load into his truck for removal. A few may have gone into the neighbors’ yards, but hey, they were out of my relative’s yard, so problem solved. I imagine that over time, as he got hired by more and more people in the tract due to his low rates, he worked quicker and quicker and sloppier and sloppier, until the day I observed him, when he no longer even made a pretense of gathering the leaves into a pile; instead, he just blew them all into the neighbors’ yards, and then hopped into his truck and drove off to his next client. At three or four yards per hour, he was (metaphorically at least) raking it in.

But here’s where the paradox begins. The neighbors would come back from their jobs at the end of the day, and see all the leaves on their lawns, and they’d call up their own gardeners who would proceed to do the exact same thing in reverse — blow all the same leaves back into my relative’s and adjacent neighbors’ yards. This cycle would go on across the entire tract, because the same leaf-shedding trees had been planted along every street: everyone would hire gardeners to blow the leaves back and forth from yard to yard. At the end of each week, exactly nothing had been achieved: all the leaves were back where they started. And then the cycle would begin again.

A normal person would look at this situation and say, “What a monumental waste of effort. So much human labor for no purpose whatsoever; after all those man-hours, nothing has changed. All the leaves are back in their original positions.”

Obama would look at this same situation and say, “How can you claim that nothing was achieved? Forty-seven gardeners are now fully employed!”

But I look at it and see what the radical theorists see: It’s not true at all that nothing has changed. Maybe the leaves are all in their original positions, but a great deal of money has been transferred from the middle-class homeowners to the immigrant gardeners.

Just Say "No"

To stimulus spending.

Why?  Because it just doesn't work.  Steven Malanga explains.

Massive investment subsidies failed partly because officials were ill-suited to
select the right projects and often instead gave money to favored insiders. Even
former Mayor Anthony Masiello described the federal government's redevelopment
funds as "a politically motivated system trying to please everybody."

But Buffalo also struggles because it remains among the highest-taxed
localities in the country. According to Cato Institute scholar Dean Stansel, a
Buffalo resident pays 25% more in income taxes than does the average resident in
America's 100 largest metro areas. Buffalo's 8.75% sales tax, according to the
Tax Foundation, is the fifth highest among the country's 120 cities with more
than 200,000 residents. And the property-tax burden in Buffalo and surrounding
Erie County ranks in the top 10% nationwide.

These taxes have gone to support a spendthrift local government that
nourishes itself at the expense of the private sector. In 2003, then-Gov. George
Pataki appointed a financial control board to audit Buffalo's finances. The
Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority accused city government of financial
mismanagement, inadequate oversight, and fragmented record keeping. It detailed
numerous wasteful practices in city government, including loading employee
contracts with expensive provisions.

I am not "anti-government."  The government surely has its role - an important one - in our society.  But when it comes to "creating jobs" and having an environment that leads to a healthy economy rather than a sick one, the private sector is superior to the public.  It's far, far from perfect - as we have seen repeatedly throughout history.  Yet, its system of allowing people to try and choose, rather than a government that dictates and chooses, is what works.

 

Believe

Michael Medved gives his views as to why some have such antipathy Tim Tebow.

I, however, an agonistic, cultural-only Jew must share the thoughts in this column by Rick Reilly.

I've come to believe in Tim Tebow for what he does off a football field, which
is represent the best parts of us, the parts I want to be and so rarely am.

Who among us is this selfless?

Every week, Tebow picks out someone who is suffering, or who is dying, or who
is injured. He flies these people and their families to the Broncos game, rents
them a car, puts them up in a nice hotel, buys them dinner (usually at a Dave
& Buster's), gets them and their families pregame passes, visits with them
just before kickoff (!), gets them 30-yard-line tickets down low, visits with
them after the game (sometimes for an hour), has them walk him to his car, and
sends them off with a basket of gifts.

Home or road, win or lose, hero or goat.

Please read the whole thing.  How can you not admire a man who does this?

 

Crime and Transformation

Though long, a fascinating study of a woman who transformed from a 60's radical in prison.

When I first started visiting Clark, I also wondered whether her transformation was a calculated effort to get out of prison. Over time I’ve come to see her differently. A dozen former inmates told me stories of how Clark helped them sort out their own troubles while they served time with her. Sheila Ryan, a former N.Y.P.D. investigator who spent 10 years at Bedford for killing the man she claimed raped her, told me that when she first met Clark in prison in the 1980s, she wanted nothing to do with her. “I thought, My God, you’re responsible for killing cops, and here you are laughing?” But she has changed her mind. “She is truly remorseful and sorry for what happened,” she said. As Elaine Lord, the former Bedford Hills superintendent told me, prisons should rehabilitate, not just warehouse. And Clark is a model for what’s possible in prison. “She is not the person who was involved in that crime,” Lord said. “She’s a different person. We have a right to be angry at them, but it doesn’t change anything. There has to be an end.”       

Not long ago, Clark spoke at a Bedford Hills event. Her theme was the Book of Jonah. Like Jonah, she told the audience, she had spent years in self-destructive behavior and had been cast overboard into a stormed-tossed sea for her actions. Like Jonah, she found rescue in the belly of the whale, in her case behind bars. “In prison,” she said, “I learned who I was.”

More than a few philosophical issues to mull in this real life story.

The Insanity that is Government

Am I anti-government?  Not in the slightest.  I am most grateful that I live in a nation that has different branches to balance one another, free elections, a military to protect us, infrastructure, and so on and so forth.

Nevertheless, there are more and more instances in today's world where it seems that government has lost any sense of common sense.  This past week, we find out that oil refiners are being fined for not using a required biofuel.  Might seem reasonable to you - except for the fact that the biofuel required does not exist...

And then - there is this.

Live and Let Live

Often, we hear that radicalists are rising in America.  To be sure, they are out there.  There are those who have staunchly held beliefs, far to the left - and far to the right.  Frequently they are those who shout the loudest and are featured in the news more than others.

But have we turned into a nation of extremes?  Paul Rahe doesn't think so - and neither do I.  In fact, here is Rahe's view of what happens when the last moderate Democrat leaves the current administration.

In many respects, our nation is one where most people are willing to "live and let live."  If their neighbor has a different religion, political beliefs, preferences, etc., that's OK with them - just as long as they don't try to impose all of them on everyone else.

The party that promotes its own principles and policies, yet listens to those with different ones and yes - compromises some - is the party that will survive.

The Lord Taketh Away (Twinkies)

And giveth.

Vienna Beef dogs in casings now available in stores!

Waiting with bated breath until they move from Chicago grocers to those in Minneapolis!

Ho-Ho; Say It Ain't So!

Hostess files for bankruptcy.

What will happen to the Twinkie Defense?

Checks and Balances

One of the great features of our government is its system of checks and balances.  The executive, legislative and judicial branches; none is supposed to be stronger than the other.  And, each is there as a counter weight to the others.

Nevertheless, humans being humans, they sometimes try to seize more power.  Yet, lucky us.  Our Constitution is there to ultimately prevent the overtaking of the other branches by one.

Still - it doesn't mean that any given branch may not try at any time.  Such as - now.

Last week's recess appointments of Richard Cordray as the first chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members to the President's National Labor Relations Board—taken together with other aggressive and probably unconstitutional executive actions—suggest that this president lacks a proper respect for constitutional checks and balances.

The Obama administration has offered no considered legal defense for the recess appointments. It even appears that it got no opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel in advance of the action—a sure sign the administration understood it was on shaky legal ground.

But, you may argue.  The Republicans did it, too.  And, this president is a wise individual; surely it's OK for him to overrule....  Nope.

The English philosopher John Locke, who so influenced our Founding Fathers, wrote that a "good prince" is more dangerous than a bad one because the people are less vigilant to protect against the aggrandizement of power when they perceive the ruler as beneficent.

I fear many Democrats are falling into this trap. They like President Obama and his policies, and they are willing to look the other way when it comes to constitutional niceties. The problem is that checks and balances are important, precedents created by one administration will be exploited by the next, and not all princes are good.

Raising the Debt Limit

Putting it into personal terms, so we can all better understand it.

Joy and Love!

Philosophy Professor Keith Burgess-Jackson was married Friday!  Warmest wishes for a long and fulfilling marriage with your stunningly pretty bride, Katherine!  (Katherine really is a knock-out, and I'm hoping Keith will post wedding photos when he gets the chance.

Keith is a most special online friend of mine, as he was the person who convinced me to start blogging and set up what if? 

I sometimes wondered if Keith would stay a bachelor forever.  The answer is a resounding "no" - and - I am so happy for the newlyweds!