Amy Sees The Sights In D.C.
Okay, so I get a little carsick! (Gregg's pictures to come.)
photo by Gregg Sutter
An Idiot Remarks
Over on my entry about Obama hanging out with Khalidi, there's this bit of genius from a commenter who calls himself "anonymous gentile American." I'm working feverishly to finish the last chapter of my book (which, I just got word, my editor absolutely loves!) so have at it:
Amy: your writings and your support for that bastard Daniel Pipes tells me that you are a Talmudic Zionist and most probably you are also an Israeli dual-citizen! What exactly is it about the West that you "hold dear?" The ability of the Jewish media enterprise to masquerade as regular American media? The fact that Jews can always get away with slandering Arabs as "terrorists" on Jewish media? The fact that 7 out of 10 Billionaires worldwide are Jewish, yet only 1 out 25000 people worldwide are Jewish? The fact that the U.S. Military does whatever Israel commands them to do? The fact that Jewish families in America are rich beyond belief largely because of 400 years of profit from the African slave trade?You think it's wrong to bash Israel? Do you have any clue how many billions of our dollars go there? Do you have any clue about the Israeli spies involved in 9-11? Did you know 9-11 was an inside job with the help of Israeli MOSSAD? How about when Rachel Corrie got run over by the IDF while protesting the Zionist settlements in the West Bank? How about when Israel attempted to invade Lebanon in 2006 and dropped bombs on ambulances?
Posted by: (anonymous gentile American) at October 31, 2008 9:03 AM
Personally, I'm with my pal Ken Layne, who had the idea that all the Israelis should relocate to Baja (and probably take all the Christian Arabs with them -- who are increasingly being murdered for their religion by the Middle Eastern Muslims) so all the various primitive, tribalistic factions and sects left in the Middle East can kill each other without distraction.
Another thing I do have to add before I go back to the word quarry: Black people sold black people into slavery, and do you really think Jews were in this country in any number in the Civil War days (and whatever the rest of that 400 years is supposed to be)?
Most Jews I know in this country came from Eastern European peasants being chased around Europe by the Cossacks. My own great grandfather came here from Kiev, and collected metal scrap on the streets of Detroit to send my grandpa to college so he could have a better life.
Jews do well because Jews have an ethic for education and building and inventing things instead of strapping on bomb vests and blowing themselves and innocent civilians up.
Also, why not put your name behind your views? I do. Coward.
John Cleese Finally Listens To Me
Marriage licenses should be renewed every four years, just like dog licenses, he says. (I guess they have stricter dog licensing rules in the UK.) Michael Seamark writes in the Daily Mail:
Given that he's on his third divorce, John Cleese is hardly speaking from a position of strength with his views on marriage.But the comedian yesterday proposed the idea that wedding licences should be regularly renewed - a little like dog licences.
As for becoming parents, Cleese, a father of two, said couples should have to pass tests before being able to have a child.
That happens to be one of my fantasies. And, of course, I would advise against getting married at all if you aren't having children. As I've written numerous times, like here, for those who do get married:
Treat your marriage license like a driver's license -- renewable every couple of years.
Of course, as a person without children, I see no reason to get married at all. If my relationship gets boring, and we stop making each other happy, we'll break up. But, because we aren't forced to stay together, we're just together because we're happier together than we are alone, it's going great so far.
Also, as I've written before, we live separately, and Gregg travels to Detroit every few weeks, so it gives us space to miss each other. When we do travel together, it's this huge treat. I think, for a lot of married people who live together, it's just moving the same old fights and drudgery to an out-of-state/out-of-the-country location.
The Drug War Corrupts Everything
Reason's Nick Gillespie on the drug war's creep -- how "prohibition functions as what he calls a 'structuring event' in American life, forcing all sorts of activity--from education and athletics, from law enforcement to foreign policy--to pay hypocritical and misdirected lip service to a Just Say No mentality."
"The drug war screws with everything that it touches, and it touches everything," says Gillespie. "What I want to do is try to create a post-prohibitionist mind-set, where we are no longer merely reacting to prohibition and trying to get rid of it, because in a way we become twinned with it."
"It's a basic human impulse to alter your consciousness," he says. "And drugs are one of the tools of choice in that."
Personally, I'm sick of paying for drug users to be in jail. And, like Gillespie, I know that all drug use is not abuse (far from it). Surely most of you know highly productive people who use drugs -- same as you know highly productive people who use martinis. Enough is enough.
How To Catch Really, Really Dumb Terrorists
It appears to be the TSA's goal. Great piece by Jeffrey Goldberg in this month's Atlantic on how easy it was for him and security expert Bruce Schneier to fool the TSA:
As we stood at an airport Starbucks, Schneier spread before me a batch of fabricated boarding passes for Northwest Airlines flight 1714, scheduled to depart at 2:20 p.m. and arrive at Reagan National at 5:47 p.m. He had taken the liberty of upgrading us to first class, and had even granted me "Platinum/Elite Plus" status, which was gracious of him. This status would allow us to skip the ranks of hoi-polloi flyers and join the expedited line, which is my preference, because those knotty, teeming security lines are the most dangerous places in airports: terrorists could paralyze U.S. aviation merely by detonating a bomb at any security checkpoint, all of which are, of course, entirely unsecured. (I once asked Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, about this. "We actually ultimately do have a vision of trying to move the security checkpoint away from the gate, deeper into the airport itself, but there's always going to be some place that people congregate. So if you're asking me, is there any way to protect against a person taking a bomb into a crowded location and blowing it up, the answer is no.")Schneier and I walked to the security checkpoint. "Counterterrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better," he said. "Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers." This assumes, of course, that al-Qaeda will target airplanes for hijacking, or target aviation at all. "We defend against what the terrorists did last week," Schneier said. He believes that the country would be just as safe as it is today if airport security were rolled back to pre-9/11 levels. "Spend the rest of your money on intelligence, investigations, and emergency response."
Schneier and I joined the line with our ersatz boarding passes. "Technically we could get arrested for this," he said, but we judged the risk to be acceptable. We handed our boarding passes and IDs to the security officer, who inspected our driver's licenses through a loupe, one of those magnifying-glass devices jewelers use for minute examinations of fine detail. This was the moment of maximum peril, not because the boarding passes were flawed, but because the TSA now trains its officers in the science of behavior detection. The SPOT program -- Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques -- was based in part on the work of a psychologist who believes that involuntary facial-muscle movements, including the most fleeting "micro-expressions," can betray lying or criminality. The training program for behavior-detection officers is one week long. Our facial muscles did not cooperate with the SPOT program, apparently, because the officer chicken-scratched onto our boarding passes what might have been his signature, or the number 4, or the letter y. We took our shoes off and placed our laptops in bins. Schneier took from his bag a 12-ounce container labeled "saline solution."
"It's allowed," he said. Medical supplies, such as saline solution for contact-lens cleaning, don't fall under the TSA's three-ounce rule.
"What's allowed?" I asked. "Saline solution, or bottles labeled saline solution?"
"Bottles labeled saline solution. They won't check what's in it, trust me."
They did not check. As we gathered our belongings, Schneier held up the bottle and said to the nearest security officer, "This is okay, right?" "Yep," the officer said. "Just have to put it in the tray."
"Maybe if you lit it on fire, he'd pay attention," I said, risking arrest for making a joke at airport security. (Later, Schneier would carry two bottles labeled saline solution -- 24 ounces in total -- through security. An officer asked him why he needed two bottles. "Two eyes," he said. He was allowed to keep the bottles.)
More here on Schneier's blog, including a reply from the TSA's Kip Hawley.
When I went through security in Los Angeles, I heard the guy in front of me complaining to a TSA guy, "Those pills are fifteen dollars a pop!" Turned out he'd had his pills taken. They were in his ziplock baggie, and somebody else picked it up and ran off with it. This is why I'm always really careful about how I let my stuff through -- not to let it through until the asshat in front of me has gone through the metal detector.
Oh, is that uncharitable of me? Well, this time, on the way back, my stuff sat there because a man and a woman were apparently completely ignorant of TSA procedure and left their laptop in the bag, and the guy had his cell phone on him, etc. And my stuff sat there like a hen laying an egg for quite some time while they and their stuff went back and forth through security. I commented to Gregg, who travels all the time and could probably remove his shoes, belt, and laptop with great speed in his sleep, that they should have a special line for retarded travelers. He put it in a more P.C. way -- a line for "experienced travelers." Problem is, people like that would probably take that line anyway. UPDATE: Apparently, these lines exist -- just not on airlines we fly.
Back to the guy with the pills, the L.A. TSA people rolled videotape and figured out who it was, found the guy at a gate, and asked him for the baggie, which he pulled out and gave them. Told them he picked it up by accident. No arrest made, the TSA guy I asked told me, because he produced it when asked, and didn't put up a fuss, and because it was about 5:30 a.m., and they thought it was possible he picked up the bag accidentally, and really did believe it was his. Um, yeah, but the guy didn't have a ziplock bag. It's not like he mixed this one up for his.
Oh, and I told the TSA guy I spoke to he should read Schneier's blog. He hadn't heard of it, but he thanked me. Sigh. I just love that the people in charge of security show so little interest in the topic.
P.S. The Atlantic is having a contest based on TSA dude Kip Hawley's remark conceding the point of Goldberg's article, that our aviation security system is not designed to catch smart terrorists, but stupid terrorists. Hawley's comment:
"Clever terrorists can use innovative ways to exploit vulnerabilities. But don't forget that most bombers are not, in fact, clever. Living bomb-makers are usually clever, but the person agreeing to carry it may not be super smart. Even if "all" we do is stop dumb terrorists, we are reducing risk."
And so, the contest: How would the Hawley Principle of Federally-Endorsed Mediocrity apply to other government endeavors? An example:
"FEMA Administrator R. David Paulison said yesterday in a press conference that his agency is well-equipped to cope with the consequences of strong winds and heavy precipitation. `FEMA has been criticized for its performance during Hurricane Katrina, but I would like to point out that Katrina was a very big hurricane,' he said. 'Most storms, in fact, don't become hurricanes, and it is these storms that we will focus our efforts on.' Paulison went on to say that FEMA is also prepared to handle the after-effects of such moderate storms as minor flooding, downed tree branches, and missing cats."
E-mail it to Goldberg.Atlantic@gmail.com, and post it here, too. Funniest wins a subscrip to The Atlantic, one of my monthly must-reads.
And finally, also via Schneier, the TSA is planning to remove the dumbass size restrictions on liquid by Fall 2009. You'll still have to take the stuff out of your bag, however.
Quebec Isn't Bashful
From Canwest news service/The Calgary Herald, a little advance warning to those who'd be tempted to come over and multiply (and not just in math class) and have Sharia law installed:
A Quebec government plan to force new immigrants to sign a declaration saying they will respect Quebec's common values is a political stunt designed to increase the government's support prior to a provincial election, opponents of the new plan said Wednesday."It is a political move to gain votes and I hope that most Quebecers see through this," said Ehab Lotayef, the vice-president of Parole Arabe, an Arab community organization. "I don't know what it can achieve. I am all for new immigrants learning more about the place they are coming to, but this is a place that already has a charter of rights."
Starting in January, immigrants applying to come to Quebec will be required, as part of their application process, to sign a declaration promising to learn French and acknowledging that they understand that men and women have equal rights and political and religious powers are separate.
..Anyone who refuses to sign the declaration will not have their application accepted, Quebec Immigration Minister Yolande James said Wednesday after unveiling a series of measures designed to help immigrants better integrate into Quebec society.
"Coming to Quebec is not a right, it is a privilege," James said. "If you refuse to sign the declaration, you won't be able to come here."
Note the statement from the Parole Arab guy: "I am all for new immigrants learning more about the place they are coming to..." But...? Women and men having equal rights a problem for him? Political and religious powers being separate an issue?
Those who can't live in the West on the West's terms should go back to places they'd be more comfortable -- places where women and gays are stoned, and religious nutters rule all. Merci, et fermez la porte on your way out.
What Doctors Would Do At The End
From LiveScience, the measures doctors would want if they had brain death that left them unable to speak or recognize people:
Dr. Marsha Wittink of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and her colleagues surveyed more than 800 physicians with an average age of 69. The physicians answered questions about their health status and end-of-life preferences in 1999 and again in 2002.They were asked to consider what treatments they would want in the event of brain death that left them unable to speak or recognize people. They reported how likely they were to desire each of 10 interventions, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), major surgery, a feeding tube and dialysis.
The results showed physicians fell into one of three groups regarding life-sustaining treatments, including:
Physicians who would want most of the interventions, considered aggressive care (12 percent in 1999, and 14 percent in 2002).Physicians who would want intravenous fluids and antibiotics as the primary interventions, considered intermediate care (26 percent in 1999, and 26 percent in 2002).
Physicians who would decline most interventions, considered the least aggressive care (62 percent in 1999, and 60 percent in 2002).
While age and declines in health didn't impact a study participant's end-of-life choices, individuals without advance directives such as a living will or durable power of attorney were most likely to change their wishes over time.
Me? Unplug, unplug. Don't want to be a human turnip. And, should I get Alzheimer's before it's curable, I plan on doing myself in before I lose it entirely.
Here's a copy of a living will.
Bleeding Heart "Justice"
In the WSJ, Northwestern law prof Steven G. Calabresi looks forward to the kind of judges it seems Obama would appoint, and why:
Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.
In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."
He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.
This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.
Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." Mr. Obama's emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.
The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.
The Republicans Flunk Science
McPalin panders to the just folks by snarking on science funding. If only they'd done their homework. Lawrence M. Krauss writes in the LA Times:
During the second and third debates, McCain railed against another supposed example of government waste: A request from Barack Obama for "$3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago."The "overhead projector" in question is in fact a 40-year-old Zeiss optical projector that needs to be replaced at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago. The one-ton, 10-feet-long instrument is the central component of the Adler, the first planetarium ever built in the Western Hemisphere. It projects the night sky on the dome of the Sky Theater at the planetarium, which has hosted more than 35 million people since it opened, including more than 400,000 schoolchildren every year. In fact, the request -- made by Obama along with others in the Illinois congressional delegation, including three Republicans -- wasn't granted.
If it had been, it wouldn't have been a waste of government money. The National Academy of Sciences has targeted science education as a key goal in preserving the economic competitiveness of our nation. Similar "overhead projectors" in Los Angeles and New York have recently been replaced with the help of federal funds. McCain's gleeful attack sends this message: Encouraging science literacy is not worthy of government support.
Finally, last week, Sarah Palin gave her first policy speech, urging the federal government to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Along the way, she too attacked science earmarks by claiming that the shortfall needed to fully fund the act was less money than was allocated to projects that have "little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France."
Fruit flies can be made to seem like a silly thing to spend money on. But Palin was referring to research at a lab in France supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The subject is the olive fruit fly, which threatens the California olive industry. The U.S. is working with France because that nation has dealt with an olive fruit fly infestation for decades, far longer than California.
Maybe Palin also should have been told that a University of North Carolina fruit fly study last year demonstrated that a protein called neurexin is required for nerve-cell connections to form and function correctly. That discovery may lead to advances in understanding, among other things, autism, one of the childhood disorders that has been stressed by the McCain-Palin campaign.
It is easy to attack what you don't understand. But politicians would be wiser to attempt to better appreciate how science affects the issues central to our political priorities before rushing to use scientific research and education as a scapegoat in their campaigns.
Hating Men -- Supposedly For The Greater Good
Men alone are made out to be monsters on the Dallas buses carrying domestic violence ads for The Family Place, a domestic violence shelter whose executive director is uninformed that men are domestic violence victims...or knows and doesn't care...or knows and is purposely ginning up controversy to stretch her publicity dollar. Whatever her reason, the shelter's advertising is ugly, toxic, and wrong. Columnist/blogger Glenn Sacks explains the campaign:
Several hundred Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) buses feature misleading, father-bashing ads purporting to address the serious issue of domestic violence.One ad depicts a happy little girl with the message "One day my husband will kill me." Another shows a smiling boy with the message "When I grow up, I will beat my wife."
If they're going to run these ads, they should also run ones picturing a little girl that say, "When I grow up, I'm going to shoot my husband and get away with it, and then get custody of my kids!" But, they don't. As Glenn writes:
To depict only males as perpetrators of domestic violence, and only females as victims, is a severe distortion. DV research clearly establishes that men account for half of all DV victims and incur a third of DV-related injuries, as women often employ the element of surprise and weapons to compensate for men's strength.
A comment under Kim Horner's Dallas Morning News story on the ads shows their effect:
ellen34 | 18 hours agoWell Ms. Flink, you did shock and offend. I took my son aside after seeing it and explained to him how certain women in this society abuse their positions to promote hatred towards men and boys. He got a lesson about misandry, and learned how women sometimes behave badly. Not sure if that was your goal, but that is what it accomplished.
For a sense of the double standard, here's an excerpt from a column I wrote in response to a letter from a woman who threw an ashtray at her husband's head:
If your husband tossed an ashtray at your head, do you think he'd be describing himself as "Still So Angry Inside" or "Still In Court Trying To Get The Charges Reduced"?It doesn't take much for domestic violence against men to be taken seriously...usually, just a chalk outline where a man's body used to be. The rest of the time, people tend to shrug it off or even find it cute: "Well, well, well, she's quite the firecracker!" Granted, male abusers can do much more damage with their fists, but put a heavy object in a woman's hands, and good morning brain damage! (Just wondering...has your husband gotten the ashtray out of his skull, or does he have to hang around smoking areas with his head bent down so people have someplace to flick their ash?)
To protest the DART ads, click on the link to Glenn's site.
Obama Hangs Out With The Israel-Bashers
And the LA Times sits on the tape of it. Andrew C. McCarthy writes for NRO:
Let's try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor ... who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.Now let's say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.
Question: Is there any chance -- any chance -- the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we're pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y'know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?
Do we really have to ask?
So now, let's leave thought experiments and return to reality: Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi -- former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?
...The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi's allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat's press agency.
Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?
Gateway Pundit reports that the Times has the videotape but is suppressing it.
Back in April, the Times published a gentle story about the fete. Reporter Peter Wallsten avoided, for example, any mention of the inconvenient fact that the revelers included Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers's wife and fellow Weatherman terrorist. These self-professed revolutionary Leftists are friendly with both Obama and Khalidi -- indeed, researcher Stanley Kurtz has noted that Ayers and Khalidi were "best friends." (And -- small world! -- it turns out that the Obamas are extremely close to the Khalidis, who have reportedly babysat the Obama children.)
Nor did the Times report the party was thrown by AAAN. Wallsten does tell us that the AAAN received grants from the Leftist Woods Fund when Obama was on its board -- but, besides understating the amount (it was $75,000, not $40,000), the Times mentions neither that Ayers was also on the Woods board at the time nor that AAAN is rabidly anti-Israel. (Though the organization regards Israel as illegitimate and has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism, Wallsten describes the AAAN as "a social service group.")
What A Woman Wants
Jennifer Carden wanted a baby, and Jennifer Carden's needs were all that mattered. Gautam Naik writes for the WSJ:
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. -- When Jennifer Carden was told that her unborn child had a rare and potentially fatal genetic condition two years ago, she was convinced that the diagnosis could be wrong and the baby might survive. Her doctors and husband disagreed. They tried, but failed, to persuade her to terminate the pregnancy.The Cardens' baby, Parker, was born on Valentine's Day 2007, and doctors said he had a kidney disease that often kills infants in their first year. But Parker survived and is now 20 months old. He has poor language and motor skills and may never walk. Already hospitalized three times, Parker's medical odyssey has stretched the Cardens' finances and put a huge strain on their relationship.
It started on October 1, 2006, when Carden, 19 weeks pregnant, went in for a routine ultrasound:
The doctor told Mrs. Carden and her husband, Charles, that the fetus had enlarged kidneys and a portion of the brain was thickened.According to the Cardens, the doctor told the couple that their window to terminate was small -- just five weeks -- and recommended they see a specialist to confirm the diagnosis via another ultrasound and an amniocentesis. The diagnosis: A potentially fatal genetic disorder called autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease.
...The disorder occurs in about one in 20,000 individuals, and up to 75% of babies afflicted with it die in the first year after birth. After that, their chances of survival are good. But more than one-third need dialysis by the age of 10.
...The Cardens already had a tumultuous family life. Each had an 8-year-old son from a previous relationship, and Mrs. Carden's first boy lived at the Carden home. The Cardens also had a child of their own, Jackson, then a year-and-a-half old, who was recovering from major abdominal surgery needed to stave off a life-threatening intestinal blockage. A few months earlier, Mr. Carden had moved 150 miles away to Grand Rapids to take a sales-training job with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. His wife planned to join him later.
The prospect of having another seriously ill child and the additional financial burden worried Mr. Carden. He suggested the couple terminate the pregnancy and try to have another child. When he first broached the idea during a kitchen conversation with his wife, Mrs. Carden flung his dinner plate into the sink and said: "I won't terminate. It's a marriage breaker."
...In August 2007, Parker's condition began to deteriorate. His kidneys couldn't hold on to nutrients, so he'd get dehydrated and had to drink two liters of water a day. He rarely slept through the night. He picked up infections and was often on antibiotics. He would eventually need surgery to install a feeding tube.
...In the past few months, doctors have told the Cardens that their son now has about 60% of his kidney function. Because Parker may never walk, his mother has ordered a wheelchair. His life is a series of appointments, including physical therapy, occupational therapy, feeding therapy and language therapy.
Beyond all the suffering this kid will likely go through, I'll ask what I've asked before in cases like this: Who's going to take care of him when his parents die?
But forget about then; what about now? What of the other kids the Cardens already have who will surely get greatly diminished attention and financial support from their parents?
There are all sorts of bleeding hearts bleating about this in the WSJ's comments section. One commenter, a guy named Carl Fattal, echoes my thinking on this issue:
I think it's highly irresponsible to bring into this world a kid with known serious illnesses. Of course I'm speaking as someone who does not have a problem child, which make me less emotional and more logical and thoughtful about the issue.Making the child suffer all his/her life is not fair for him/her. Don't tell me a paralyzed/ill child won't suffer because he/she smiles every now and then. Overall they are at a disadvantage and cannot live a normal life. Normal life is hard enough without illnesses. I know from seeing a lot of family friends with ill/paralyzed kids and two friends who work with "problem" children.
Also think about the huge burden you are willingly imposing on society. You will be hoarding huge resources for that one kid, resources that will not be used to make life for everyone better, provide better education for everyone, etc. That sounds like a harsh materialistic comment, but it's not. I'd say the same thing to someone who knowingly smokes or does activities that have a high chance of leading to sustained medical conditions. Keyword: knowingly.
Medical advances can now predict a lot of known diseases before the pregnancy goes too far. This is your chance to take advantage of medicine for PREVENTION rather than being selective by rejecting medicine when doctors recommend prevention. Worse is that you go back crawling to doctors and suing them so they provide a lot of medical care to your sick child after the fact, after ignoring medical advice. Put religion aside for once and think pragmatic and logical.
Another commenter, Jerry Brotherton, said it straight:
The mother is to blame for all of Parker's future torments.
Why I Am Not A Muslim
I'm actually an atheist, but in reading this Ann Landers of the Muslim world I was reminded of the Bertrand Russell book, Why I Am Not a Christian
I wear Hijab but do not wear Niqab, my husband says that if I do not start covering my face then he will divorce me. He says that whatever he asks me to do I should do. I do not want to disobey my husband but to wear niqab would cause me great hardship and sadden me deeply. I guess it is due to lack of eeman that I feel this way but feel that he is trying to force me to do something that I do not want to do. Can you please advise me on this matter.
The answer:
Praise be to Allaah.The evidence of the Qur'aan and Sunnah indicates that it is obligatory for women for cover their faces. This evidence includes the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way)"
[al-Ahzaab 33:59]The cloak (jilbaab) is a garment that the woman places over her head and lowers over her face.
So you have to fear Allaah in this matter and respond to two commands: the command of Allaah and the command of your husband. Undoubtedly this will be very good for you. This matter will make your husband happy and bring happiness to your home. Feelings of difficulty will pass if you are patient and get used to it. These feelings of difficulty will turn to joy when you see the effect that your way of dressing has on him, so you will be responding to Islamic commands and the command of your husband which is in accordance with the laws of Allaah. You will be closing the door to the shaytaans of those who may look at you, and will also be protecting the gaze of chaste and good people from looking at something which they are not permitted to see. And there are other benefits which you will see and appreciate when you respond to this command.
Sisters who wear niqaab often come to regret the years in which they used to uncover their faces, after Allaah honoured them with the niqaab. If one of them were to be given all the wealth in the world to uncover her face, she would not do it. We have even seen many chaste women who have left their husbands because they wanted them to take off the niqaab. So think about the great difference between your situation and theirs. Where now can we find a man who is keen to keep his family chaste and covered? There are very few of them. Should we disregard these few or should we appreciate their actions which spread good in society?
We remind you to fear Allaah, and we remind you of the actions of the believing women when they responded to the command of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):
"and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)"
[al-Noor 24:31]
al-Bukhaari (4481) narrated that 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: "When this verse was revealed, the muhaajir women took their waist wrappers and tore them at the edges, and covered their faces with them.
See also the answer to question no. 21134, which explains the obligation of women covering their faces.
Your husband should also read question no. 20343, which explains the husband's duty to offer sincere advice to his wife, and ways of doing that.
And Allaah knows best.
(I guess that's what they tell the ladies before they stone them to death.)
P.S. Here's a book headscarf lady should read: Why I Am Not a Muslim
Your Money In Somebody Else's Pocket
That's "economic justice"? So suggests Barack Obama in a radio interview, calling it "redistributive change." Um, right. Keep your hands off my hard-earned change.
Always beware when politicians use euphemisms.
via Drudge
The Dirty Little Secret Of The Banking Industry
Paulson's Piggy Bank, aka The Department of the Treasury. (Sorry it's kind of a crappy photo, but we sped past, worried that some big hand would reach into our car, grab us, and shake us down for our cash.)
Bankers' best friend, Henry Paulson, who's been dispensing billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded allowance money to his buddies, apparently "forgot" to attach any strings before he forked it over. Whoopsy!
Shockingly, bankers are acting in their interest instead of the taxpayers'. (Who woulda thunk it!)
You can, however, thank The New York Times' Joe Nocera, who somehow snuck onto a recording of a JP Morgan employee-only conference call, and found out where that money they were supposed to lend to keep the recession from getting worse ($25 billion in federal funds in their case) is actually going to go. Nocera writes:
In point of fact, the dirty little secret of the banking industry is that it has no intention of using the money to make new loans. But this executive was the first insider who's been indiscreet enough to say it within earshot of a journalist.(He didn't mean to, of course, but I obtained the call-in number and listened to a recording.)
"Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase," he began. "What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop."
Read that answer as many times as you want -- you are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy. On the contrary: at another point in the conference call, the same executive (who I'm not naming because he didn't know I would be listening in) explained that "loan dollars are down significantly." He added, "We would think that loan volume will continue to go down as we continue to tighten credit to fully reflect the high cost of pricing on the loan side." In other words JPMorgan has no intention of turning on the lending spigot.
It is starting to appear as if one of Treasury's key rationales for the recapitalization program -- namely, that it will cause banks to start lending again -- is a fig leaf, Treasury's version of the weapons of mass destruction.
In fact, Treasury wants banks to acquire each other and is using its power to inject capital to force a new and wrenching round of bank consolidation. As Mark Landler reported in The New York Times earlier this week, "the government wants not only to stabilize the industry, but also to reshape it." Now they tell us.
Indeed, Mr. Landler's story noted that Treasury would even funnel some of the bailout money to help banks buy other banks. And, in an almost unnoticed move, it recently put in place a new tax break, worth billions to the banking industry, that has only one purpose: to encourage bank mergers. As a tax expert, Robert Willens, put it: "It couldn't be clearer if they had taken out an ad."
Is anybody AWAKE out there? At what point do the taxpayers start screaming? I mean, almost everyone I know is downscaling in various ways, and the government is giving our money to bankers and hoping they'll do the right thing?
Excuse me if I'm too economically naive to know if this is somehow a must to keep from having breadlines on the streets. Do tell me if I am. And if we must fork over the money we work hard to earn...can't we attach a string or two? At least a couple piece of dental floss with a couple weak stopgaps on the other end?
Just Perfect On Palin
Heather MacDonald has a terrific piece on what's wrong with Palin -- how little there there there actually is. You have to read the whole thing, over at City Journal, but here are a few excerpts:
I'm, like, man, I really don't know if I'm ready for a vice president who goes: "My son's, like: 'Mom, I'm in the army now,' and I'm, like: 'I'm so proud.'" And who's, like, "And [my son] goes, 'O.K., well I'll be praying.' I'm like--total role reversal here, that's what I've been telling him for 19 years.'" Or who goes, "This is a time when, man, politics have got to be put aside." (As Alaska governor Sarah Palin told Sean Hannity, William Kristol, and Katie Couric.)...Her speech differs somewhat from the verbal knots into which George W. Bush so often tied himself. She is less given to malapropisms; apart from her teen mannerisms, her linguistic oddness is more subtle, and seems more often driven by a failure to grasp subject matter.
Nevertheless, Palin's verbal hodgepodge may say nothing about her qualifications for the vice presidency. Judgment and political acumen could well rest on different mental capacities than the ability to order thoughts into smooth sentences. But the inability to answer a straightforward question about economic policy without becoming tangled in words suggests either ignorance about the subject matter or a difficulty connecting between ideas. Neither explanation is reassuring.
...Conservatives once insisted that women can't always have it all: raising a child requires certain unavoidable trade-offs between family and career. A mother, a father, and day care are not fungible, particularly for very young children. Yet now comes Sarah Palin, with a disabled baby who will be barely a year old when the next president and vice president take their oaths of office, and conservative pundits suggest that only the fear of strong women could lead someone to question whether a mother with such a young, needy child can serve both her oath of office and her family as each deserve.
Liberal hypocrisy on Palin's family dilemmas has matched the conservative turnaround with perfect symmetry, of course. And perhaps both sides will blithely and unapologetically switch places yet again as soon as circumstances allow. Still, the conservative position on the family happens to be the right one. So, too, was the erstwhile conservative defense of articulateness, knowledge, and uncommon achievement. It's a shame to have sacrificed these ideas, even temporarily, in the quest for political advantage.
Over in McCainland, from CNN, it sounds like the honeymoon is over. (They're even trotting out the "D" word, as in "diva.") I'm guessing Palin will be known as the rash choice that cost the little man the presidency.
I've repeatedly made it clear how unqualified I think Palin is for the office, so I'll ask you about all four losers we have running: Do we deserve the presidential and vice-presidential candidates we got -- or is there something terribly wrong with the system? How did it end up that we get to choose between two socialists who are simply bribing different sectors of the population? Handouts to the rich, handouts to the poor and middle-class...it's all my money going in somebody else's pocket. Whose pocket it is...that's just details.
Where Relativity Meets The Road
Seen on the mean streets of Washington, D.C.
Was It The Free Market Or The Very Meddled-With Market?
I got this from the Ayn Rand Institute, "Greenspan Has No Free Market Philosophy," contesting Greenspan's contention that there's a flaw in his "free market ideology" -- his expectation that the self-interest of lending institutions would protect shareholder equity:
...According to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, "any belief Greenspan ever had in truly free markets was abandoned long ago. While Greenspan long ago wrote in favor of a truly free market in banking, including the gold standard that such markets always adopt, he then proceeded to work for two decades as leader and chief advocate of the Federal Reserve, which continually inflates the money supply and manipulates interest rates. Advocates of free banking understand that when the government inflates the currency, it artificially increases prices and causes booms in certain sectors of the economy, followed by inevitable busts. But not only did Greenspan lead the inflation behind the .com bubble and the real estate boom, he blamed the market for their treacherous collapses. Greenspan should have recognized that what he wrote in 1966 of the boom preceding the 1929 crash applied here: 'The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market--triggering a fantastic speculative boom.' Instead, he superficially blamed 'infectious greed.'"Should it be any shock that Greenspan now blames the free market for today's meltdown--rather than the Fed's policies, which fueled an inflationary housing boom, which rewarded reckless lenders and borrowers from Wall Street to Main Street? Greenspan didn't mention the word 'inflation' once in his testimony.
Here's Paul Kedrosky from Newsweek with another take:
Most economists now agree that Greenspan, as chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, kept interest rates too low for too long. What's less widely appreciated is his role as a technology booster. In March 2000, at the peak of the dotcom bubble, he gave a speech about a revolution being built on the Internet. It was transforming finance, he said, making it possible to "reallocate risk" via the "creation, valuation and exchange of ... complex financial products on a global basis." In short, Greenspan saw that the tandem of the Internet and fast computers were perfect for splitting mortgages into tiny pieces, repackaging them and then shunting them to yield-hungry investors across the country and around the world. But he should have known it would create what his fellow economists call an "agency problem": Remote owners of teensy mortgage pieces didn't police loans, didn't worry enough about loan quality, and were impossible to negotiate with should a loan become troubled. They just wanted cash flow. And so the fuse for a future credit crisis was lit....You can go to Yahoo Finance to check the recent share price of Wal-Mart, its market capitalization and its current sales. There is no one free place where you can do the same thing across subprime mortgages, asset-backed securities, credit swaps and all the other arcana inherent in taking the temperature of modern global markets. Instead, you have to wander from site to site, sort of like building a jigsaw puzzle from disguised pieces strewn around an entire city. It is part treasure hunt and part puzzle-building.
That's not the end of the problems. Information about financial time bombs, like derivatives, is veiled in acronyms that make you want to gouge your eyes out. (Consider two different measures of the performance of mortgage securities: ABX.HE.AA.06-2 and ABX.HE.AA.06-1--such lovely and lyrical names!) There is an entire language required to understand this new generation of financial technologies, from credit default swaps to collateralized debt obligations to residential mortgage-backed securities, not to mention the corresponding three- and four-letter abbreviations. There's also data on current account deficits and yield spreads. Most people, faced with this tsunami of data, do the only rational thing: they give up.
The trouble with giving up, however, is that the world goes on without you. And one of the obligations of being a citizen in a free society is vigilance--watching what is happening in your neighborhood, whether it's financial or physical. A lack of regulatory oversight certainly played a role in the current crisis, but over-relying on regulators is a dangerous practice. Citizens need to take responsibility. Apathy and indifference in the face of a complex and fast-changing world is a path to ruin.
Nevertheless, if the Internet's data smog has bludgeoned the average consumer into indifference, it has also enabled traders to act more swiftly and decisively. Traders, bankers and financial engineers have built up the mental shortcuts needed to keep track of a hundred credit default swap spreads, or 10 favorite bonds to watch, or myriad structured-mortgage finance product prices. This generation of bankers is the first to be truly Web aware, and they use the technology to the maximum. That's meant lower costs and faster trading, but it has also helped aid and abet the current crisis. We have used the Internet and modern communications technologies to create a shadow-banking system, an unregulated lending network that was, by 2007, as large as the traditional banking system. It is now shrinking, but its remnants must be dragged into the light, with over-the-counter derivatives pushed onto central clearinghouses.
Consider that many unregulated financial transactions are carried out over instant messaging. Want to set up a $100-million credit default swap on the bank of your choice? No problem. Just IM a few trader friends at other hedge funds or banks, propose the idea, and then seal the deal with whoever likes your terms. No phone conversations, no messy paperwork, just a few quick messages and it's done. This kind of easy access to peers has turned trading into a high-stakes, low-documentation videogame, and in doing so it has encouraged and facilitated many risky behaviors...
Again, I'm not an economist or knowledgeable enough about economics, so I can't really comment intelligently on this. And I do think there has to be some regulation -- to name just one example within my range of knowledge and experience, to prevent identity theft.
Eric Drew, who was battling leukemia in a hospital, had his identity stolen (I blogged about his dual struggle a while back). And like me, he thinks financial institutions should have to look out for customers more in granting credit -- not just do what's cheapest for them, in turn, letting people's lives get eaten by identity theft. And this guy, Eric Drew was already having his eaten in the most profound way when he got the creditors coming after him for the debts, in his name, by his thief. From StreetInsider.com:
Every year millions of Americans are the victims of identity theft, and in a lawsuit filed against major credit card companies, identity theft victim Eric Drew claims that the credit industry is facilitating the crimes. By attempting to maximize profits by fully automating their identity verification systems, credit card companies such as Bank of America, Citibank and Chase are knowingly fostering rampant fraud and forcing their customers to deal with the results of their irresponsible credit card issuing practices.Criminals armed with only a few pieces of personal information such as an address and a social security number are able to fraudulently apply for credit cards under the victim's name. Currently there are no reliable identity verification systems in place to prevent thieves from receiving and using the cards. Identity theft losses totaled over $52 billion in 2002 and affected almost 10 million Americans.
"It's the worst customer service in America," said Drew, an identity theft victim in 2003. "These banks are intent on issuing as many cards as possible -- and forcing their legitimate customers to deal with a complicated mess to prove their innocence when fraud occurs."
In Drew's case, the theft was particularly heinous. While fighting for his life battling leukemia in a hospital, his identity was stolen by a hospital worker. Health Associated Identity Theft (referred to as a HAIT Crime) is difficult to fight because the victim must dispute fraudulent charges, contend with hostile collection practices, and attempt to repair damaged credit ratings from a hospital bed or convalescent home.
Drew is suing Citibank, Bank of America, Chase, Equifax, and Experian, claiming that they didn't verify application information, and is attempting to mandate that the credit industry verify an applicant's identity prior to issuing credit.
"Americans need to know that financial institutions are not only causing the identity theft problem, but are forcing us to clean up their mess," added Drew. "Even with all the other issues I'm dealing with, I decided I couldn't let this go on happening to others without a fight."
Washington, D.C.
We hit one of the most beautiful cities in America last night at dusk, and had dinner with Matt Welch and Emmanuelle Richard, whose latest co-production was a really darling baby. There's the capital building off in the distance.
We just stopped here enroute -- to see Matt, Emmanuelle, and the monuments -- but we might pop in at the Library of Congress today (two nerds on the road, what can I say?) to take a look at Jefferson's books.
Boohoo, Did Your Mansion Lose Its Value?
Obama isn't the only socialist running for president. Matt Welch told me of a Jacob Sullum piece on reason -- which I'll link below -- in which Sullum brings out a few sickening details of McCain's $300 billion buyout plan I bet you haven't seen in elsewhere in the media:
McCain says he would "buy up the bad home loan mortgages." Bad from whose perspective? Does he mean mortgages that exceed the current value of the homes they were used to buy (which are bad from the borrowers' perspective) or mortgages on which the homeowners have started to miss payments (which are also bad from the lenders' perspective)?Since preventing foreclosures is one of McCain's aims, you might think he has the latter sort of loan in mind. But according to The New York Times, McCain's chief economic adviser "noted that about 10 million Americans had mortgages that exceeded their homes' value." He said "literally millions of people" could benefit from McCain's plan, adding, "The question is how many people pick up the phone."
That suggests anyone with negative equity would be eligible, regardless of his financial position or payment history. If so, a multimillionaire whose mansion is worth less than it was when he bought it could get a fixed-rate, 30-year mortgage at 5 percent, with the principal based on the home's current value.
That's better than my mortgage, and I bet it's better than yours (especially the part where you can reduce the principal you owe). Can you get in on this deal? Only if your purchase and/or financing decisions were particularly ill-advised.
Under McCain's plan, neither the borrowers nor the lenders bear the cost of their risky choices. Taxpayers do, to the tune of $300 billion or so--his estimate of the difference between what the government will pay to buy mortgages at their face value and what it will get back at the McCain-discounted value, assuming borrowers who have already shown themselves to be bad credit risks pay off their new loans.
McCain concedes his plan will be "expensive" but says it's necessary to "stabilize home values in America." Somehow McCain knows the market price for homes is not the correct price, so he plans to artificially prop up the value of these assets, benefiting one group of Americans at the expense of others. The straight-talking maverick thereby abandons any pretense of fiscal conservatism, devotion to free market principles, or opposition to pork barrel politics--all to restore "some trust and confidence back to America."
You know, I do feel a resurgence coming. But I think it's my breakfast.
That makes two of us. And if McCain and Obama keep up the campaign promises in reality, eating every meal twice may become a reality for many of us.
Torn Up Credit Card Aps? No Problem.
Bank of America, whose tellers, seven times, gave away a total of $12K of my money to thieves with only a fake driver's license and the wrong expiration date, strikes (out) again, as one of those who granted credit to somebody who tested them by sending in a ripped up credit card ap. From NBCChicago, Lisa Parker reports:
Five applications were torn up, some into as many as two dozen pieces, and then taped them back together. Target 5's Lisa Parker reported that she wrote around the tape, filling out the application the way an identity thief might if he had been digging in the garbage. The result was a messy, crooked patchwork....The results of sending in five taped-up applications were three new credit cards, from MBNA, Bank of America and Chase, with credit lines worth more than $21,000. They were new accounts opened based on Parker's Social Security number and basic financial information. On the Bank of America application, Parker said she changed her address to one where she has never lived, and the card was sent there.
"I'm shocked," Colen said. "I'm surprised, and I'm disappointed in the banking industry. The easier they make it for people -- for the wrong people -- to get credit cards, the more difficult our job becomes."
Privacy advocate Bob Bulmash was a bit more blunt.
"What were they thinking?" he said. "It's like opening the door to a bank for a guy with a mask on -- it's evident there is something wrong here."
Yeah, B of A, keep up those "multiple levels of security" your spokesenabler Betty Riess bragged to the press about. (Do let us know when we actually encounter one of them.)
Word to everyone: Don't assume anyone -- the government, financial institutions, the police -- is protecting you or will protect you. Freeze your credit, buy a microshredder, and burn the remains of what you shred if it isn't against the fire laws where you live.
I'm An Advice Columnist, Not A Physicist
There are gender differences in the jobs men tend to do and women tend to do, and they start showing up at a very young age. Even the most P.C. parents, who try to socialize their children to be (heh!) "gender-neutral," are likely to find that little girls (except those with a rather rare syndrome) play with dolls and little boys play war or play with transportation toys. And that's not just human little girls and little boys. Vervet monkeys show the same pattern.
There's a report out of the U.K. now about how the differences play out in later years. Emily Ford writes in the Times of London about a study by J.R. Schackelton on the wage-gender gap. He found little evidence of "direct discrimination" by employers, and said the discrimination was usually inferred from the pay gap rather than being based on evidence:
In a competitive market, wages are determined by supply and demand -- and women's work and lifestyle preferences account for much of the disparity, Professor Shackleton argues. More than a quarter of women in higher education are studying nursing or education, leading to lower-paid careers in the public sector; more than 70 per cent of undergraduates who study English or psychology, which also tend to result in lower-paid jobs, are female.In one study cited by Professor Shackleton, men were more likely to see themselves as very ambitious, while for women job satisfaction, being valued by their employer and doing a socially useful job were often more important. Two thirds expect to take career breaks. The author agreed that women doing part-time work were penalised, but he said that part-time workers tend to be happier than their full-time peers. Men's higher salaries carried with them other disadvantages -- poorer working conditions, a higher likelihood of serious injury at work and a higher risk of being made redundant.
"Many people assume that the pay gap is caused by discrimination, but it's simply not the case," Professor Shackleton says. Attempts to address the gap through legislation can be counterproductive. "Forcing employers to increase pay is an extremely costly business and means job cuts for men and women."
Kat Banyard, campaigns officer at the Fawcett Society, which aims to reduce inequality, said that the pay gap was largely because of the "motherhood penalty" and outdated perceptions of female roles.
"The claim that sex discrimination is not a cause of the pay gap is unsubstantiated and sends a misleading message. Government research proves that up to 40 per cent is based on discrimination and prejudice against the value of women's work," she said. "Women caring for children are often forced to take on low-paying or part-time jobs. That's not a free choice."
Whoopsy! There's that myth again, that you can have it all. Sorry, if you care for children, you can't possibly work seven days a week like I do. And if you work, say, four days a week, you should make less money. Is that really that hard to figure out?
No, I'm not going to subsidize your choices -- not unless Obama gets elected and makes me. But, feel free to find yourself a nice husband before you get knocked up, and see if he'll bring home the bacon -- while helping ensure that your children have the benefits of an intact family.
And ladies, if you want to make some serious dough, don't become an arts administrator or go into P.R. Or, if you aren't much for college, work on an oil rig instead of in retail, and you'll find yourself much more in the money.
Clothes Call
It's this close to the election and people are clucking about how the RNC spent $150K on Palin's clothes. I couldn't care less. And I likewise don't care about how many houses McCain had or whether Obama's wife ordered lobster and champagne at a hotel (somebody left that in the comments here -- don't care enough to look up to see whether it's a rumor or true). Whatsamatter? Couldn't find any issues of interest?
P.S. I do care that she seems to be reinventing the vice presidency. Don't they teach high school government in Alaska? Perhaps remedial courses for incurious and uninformed governors?
The Truth About Islam
An excerpt from a comment on JihadWatch that disputes, so well, what the multi-cultis are desperate to believe, from Hugh Fitzgerald of DhimmiWatch:
Islam inculcates a view of a world that is divided in two (leaving out the nearly-insignificant, hardly-existing, lands of transient"truce" or Dar al-Sulh), between Dar al-Islam, the lands where Islam dominates and Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the Land, or Domain, or House, of War, where Islam does not yet dominate, and Muslims do not yet rule. Between the two Houses, between Infidels and Believers, a permanent state of war exists and must exist, until the whole world belongs to Allah and to his people.This is not a fabrication, made up by those who for some unaccountable reason have it in for Islam. This is Islamic doctrine. It is not the less Islamic doctrine if your smiling Muslim co-worker earnestly, with a great show of sincerity, attempts to deny this doctrine or at least professes amazement and puzzlement when you attempt to ask him about it, as if he simply had no idea.
Every single apostate has testified to what Muslims discuss freely, and of which they are certainly well aware, when they think no Infidels are around to overhear. Again and again they stress the well-practiced mendacity of Muslims. Should we disbelieve Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and all the other "defectors" from the Army of Islam? Can't we tell that they are sturdily and bravely telling the truth, in what they speak, and what they write, and can't we see the obvious meretriciousness, not only of the CAIR people, but of those Muslims, in groups or individuals, who attempt to deny that what is in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira, either exists, or if it exists, that it can possibly mean what of course they know perfectly well that it means -- and some, admittedly, may fail to admit this not out of deep and sinister malevolence, but only out of embarrassment.
But even if it is only out of embarrassment, one has to ask: why do you still call yourself a Muslim, why do you remain loyal to a Total Belief-System that indeed does inculcate such things, even if you, personally, are at leasst indifferent to, and possibly opposed to, the most dangerous and disturbing and worst of what Islam teaches? What is the hold of this on you, why do you insist on not openly telling the truth about it? Why are you yourself not a defector from the Army of Islam? Why do you not even recognize -- this to Pakistanis and Iranians and other non-Arabs -- that at some point in the past, your Hindu or Jain or Buddhist or Zoroastrian ancestors were forcibly, not willingly, converted to Islam because they hoped to avoid the status, to which as non-Muslims was the very best they could hope for, of dhimmi, which meant permanent humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity.
The texts of Islam are immutable. What Islam inculcates remains, to be found, always and forever, in those texts. No matter what selective or bowdlerized version the British or the French or other governments, in government-funded mosques, think they can present and so mold the minds of Muslims to accept a sanitized Islam, the real texts will always be there, always available to the Believers. Large-scale integration of those whose creed is not only alien but also permanently and deeply hostile, to all non-Muslims, simply is not possible for any Infidel nation-state. Those who put their faith in such policies of integration are foolish, building on sand, evading reality. That reality will have to be confronted, and confronted soon, while there is still time, and the steady degradation, and greatly-rising expense, for Infidels, has not yet reached, as it soon will, nightmarish proportions.
Also from Fitzgerald, on his own site, an excerpt from a piece with the information above that also includes the cost of monitoring Muslims in the U.K.:
The cost of monitoring Muslims in the U.K. must now be staggering. The cost includes putting non-Muslim agents -- or paying Muslims who may not always be, and who very often may not be, reliable -- to monitor nearly two million people. The thousands (by now) of mosques, the madrasas, the coffee shops, the curry-shops, the convenience stores, the very monica-ali streets, reeking of Rawalpindi in the midst of John of Gaunt's once-sceptered isle (the scepter being quite different from the decapitatory knives of today), have to be patrolled, not only for the usual crime, but for the Islam-promoted schemes and plots, of which are so many.There are, at the moment, about 2,000 groups or individuals that are apparently being watched. What does that take, in round-the-clock manpower? How many policemen or security agents are left for the task of protecting British citizens from ordinary crimes, when so much time and money must go into the monitoring of Muslims?
...And think what those huge Muslim families -- huger by far than those of the indigenous Infidels, or even of the other, non-Muslim immigrants -- and the burden they place on Infidel taxpayers. Think, for example, of the expense those huge families have caused the National Health Service in Great Britain -- think of the obstetricians, the gynecologists, and of course the translators who so often must be paid. And think of the much higher incidence of serious congenital illnesses among Muslims, because of their insistence on marrying, so often, relatives, illnesses that must be expensively treated. And that rampant and even fanatical endogamy reflects the general mistrust of others that is observable among Muslims, who growing up in a faith full of acts of aggression and deception, helps mold men of similar inclinations or worries.
And the monitoring of Muslims, the agents, the tapping of phones, the huge payments to informants (who may themselves be merely getting on the Infidel payroll, and not really offering anything of value), the enormous costs of securing airports, train and bus stations, planes and railroads and busses, schools, government offices, symbols of authority, churches and synagogues and Hindu temples, the residential dwelling-places of important officials who may have earned a special hostility, and all the rest -- it adds up.
I have heard different calculations for the cost of each Muslim in a non-Muslim land. One person has suggested a figure of $100,000 annually; another has suggested a figure of $250,000 annually. Take your own pencils and paper. Find out what your government spends, in monitoring Muslims and in guarding non-Muslim sites, in giving Muslims health care (used disproportionately) and education (used sparingly, but often the education of fellow non-Muslim students is disrupted by the atmosphere created), and housing, and all the rest.
Go ahead. Figure it out.
Now ask yourself a few questions. Here's one to start with: how many non-Muslims in Great Britain are now routinely being denied procedures that might save their lives -- new but expensive cancer treatments, or open-heart surgery -- because the NHS "doesn't have the money"? And ask why it "doesn't have the money" and how long you think you, or others, should be expected to quietly endure, as you have endured, this situation?
Obama-conomics
How many pockets does he have to pick before the people start to turn on him? Econ prof Adam Lerrick writes in the WSJ:
In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.
What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.
Calculating how far society's top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners -- at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.
Are people really going to do that? Or is it just going to suck to be somebody who works hard and does something with your life?
As I said to a friend in my French class last night: "I woke up at 3 a.m. on Tuesday to work on my book. (And then I was on deadline for my column all day.) I don't do that so I can hand over my money to somebody who slept in."
"Marriage Is Not A Smart Idea For The Alpha Male"
Joseph Dunn writes for the Times of London that more and more men are realizing that they don't need to be married to be happy:
I've lost count of the number of times a friend's girlfriend has taken me aside and asked me when I am going to "come in from the cold". Usually I yawn and say, "When I meet the right person", but even I don't believe it any more. Truth is, I probably have met the right person, probably more than one. But I've been in a couple of long-termers and I've seen what marriage can do to my friends, and I've decided I am happy in Guyland and I want to hang out here longer.This should be a bit of a worry. Under Deeson's rubric, if I continue walking single file, I will -- in a few years -- be suicidally unhappy and statistically more likely to be heading for an early grave. I will drink more, smoke more and slowly go to seed. Women will stop regarding me as an "eligible bachelor" and begin seeing me as, well, a sad spinster.
Problem is, I just don't buy it. For a start, bachelors are different now. Traditionally they can be one of two things: a toxic bachelor who spends his evenings with a bucket of KFC and a can of lager, or a career bachelor who is too busy to socialise because he is working until 3am.
Over the past five years, however, a third type has emerged. Dubbed "city adventurers" (which, I grant you, sounds a bit naff -- Bear Grylls in pinstripes?), these are single men aged 25-39 with an average wage of more than £40,000. They spend their spare time eating out, going to the pub and the cinema and taking weekend breaks. They will probably ski or snowboard and, when asked, they will say they are knowledgeable about wine (though they probably aren't).
In short, they lead interesting and fulfilling lives. "We have the time to pursue things that we really want to," says Duncan, a 33-year-old art director who has found a new lease of life since breaking up with his girlfriend. "My friends who are settled have almost every minute of every day accounted for. Because all of my time is not taken up by a relationship, I can write that script, play some squash, chase dreams and enjoy the finer things in life."
Too many feeble men give in to the supposed security of marriage. They see it as panacea to their problems (including, but by no means limited to, alienation, indecision, and lack of direction and motivation). "I don't want to be the oldest father at the school gates," lamented one friend recently, explaining why he was getting engaged to his girlfriend, who we all know will make his life a misery.
Marriage like this is for wimps. "I genuinely pity most of my married friends, who feel trapped, bored and frustrated," wrote Mike from Hong Kong. "The only men I know who are happily married are the laid-back guys who need a woman for direction. Marriage is not a smart idea for the alpha male."
Or for me -- which isn't to say I'm unpartnered, just that I'm not partnered in the traditional, suffocating (to me, at least) way.
A few months ago, somebody wrote in the comments here about how someday I'd "take (my) relationship to the next level," meaning get married. And, a couple years ago, a woman at a Christmas party pulled me aside to remark on how happy my "husband" and I looked together, and went on a bit about how wonderful it was to see a couple so in love. She asked if we were newlyweds. "Actually, he and I aren't married..." I started to say. Her face fell. "Don't worry," she said. "Someday you'll meet 'The One'!"
Grrr. I was used to this sort of thing. "Um, actually, we're very happy together," I told her, "And I can't imagine being without him." I explained that I have no interest in getting married or even living with anyone. My boyfriend, who I've been captivated by since the moment in 2002 that he turned and locked eyes with me at the Apple computer store at The Grove, lives 13.2 miles from my house. Why? Well, as I once explained here in blogland, "I'm annoying as fuck, yet I can be quite charming on a part-time basis. I would venture that this describes many people; they just aren't willing or able to admit it. If they would, they might live more reasonably -- and more happily and peaceably -- with their partners, by living apart."
Obama's Big Vote Buy
Why is everybody so determined to give away our money? McCain wants to give it to the bankers, in buying their worthless loans at face value, and Obama wants to give it to a good bit of the population...just because. I'm so charmed.
William McGurn writes on WSJ.com about the Obama "tax cut"; really a tax bribe in which 95 percent of Americans will get a check -- including the estimated 44% of Americans who will owe no federal income taxes under his plan:
In most parts of America, getting money back on taxes you haven't paid sounds a lot like welfare. Ah, say the Obama people, you forget: Even those who pay no income taxes pay payroll taxes for Social Security. Under the Obama plan, they say, these Americans would get an income tax credit up to $500 based on what they are paying into Social Security.Just two little questions: If people are going to get a tax refund based on what they pay into Social Security, then we're not really talking about income tax relief, are we? And if what we're really talking about is payroll tax relief, doesn't that mean billions of dollars in lost revenue for a Social Security trust fund that is already badly underfinanced?
...Now, if you have been following this so far, you have learned that people who pay no income tax will get an income tax refund. You have also learned that this check will represent relief for the payroll taxes these people do pay. And you have been assured that this rebate check won't actually come out of payroll taxes, lest we harm Social Security.
You have to admire the audacity. With one touch of the Obama magic, what otherwise would be described as taking money from Peter to pay Paul is now transformed into Paul's tax relief. Where a tax cut for payroll taxes paid will not in fact come from payroll taxes. And where all these plans come together under the rhetorical umbrella of "Making Work Pay."
He quotes Andrew Biggs:
"It's interesting that Mr. Obama calls his plan 'Making Work Pay,'" says Mr. Biggs, "because the incentives are just the opposite. By expanding benefits for people whose benefits exceed their taxes, you're increasing their disincentive for work. And you're doing the same at the top of the income scale, where you are raising their taxes so you can distribute the revenue to others."And that leads us to the heart of this problem. If the government is going to give tax cuts to 44% of American based on their Social Security taxes -- without actually refunding to them the money they are paying into Social Security -- Mr. Obama will have to get the funds elsewhere. And this is where "general revenues" turns out to be a more agreeable way of saying "Other People's Money."
Well, isn't that nifty!
Spent An Hour Trying To Access The Internet
Will post a blog item as soon as I can. Time Warner is gifting hundreds of us in my neighborhood intermittent service for WEEKS because they have too many subscribers on one node...and had to "order a part," they told me (which sounds like bullshit on a stick the more I think of it)...and I screwed up my Verizon mobile broadband modem in the middle of the night while trying to switch between the shitty cable signal and my Verizon mobile broadband.
Luckily, Verizon gets on the phone in seconds, not 20 minutes, like the arrogant fucks at Time Warner, but the Verizon tech couldn't fix this...I need to download the software...on dialup! Charming!
UPDATE: I'm on -- had to get on AOL dialup! (the backup to my backup, and thank goodness I have it) and download my Verizon software and reinstall. It took over an hour on dialup.
On mobile broadband now, but way behind on my deadline. Will blog when I can. Have a blog item sort of done, but not totally, but I'm too in the red to finish it.
Whaddya wanna bet TW stops providing such crappy service and they start answering their phone pronto the day my neighborhood is wired for Verizon's FIOS?
UPDATE: Here's the e-mail I sent to a guy looking for advice:
SUBJECT: have a few problemsTime Warner Internet service out for the 13th day and I'm deadline now and a mess because of the outage. Will get to your question when I can. Feel free to email Alex.Dudley@twcable.com to complain that I'm not able to have time to give you advice, in large part, because of their service. And sorry. I don't like to take this long. Best,-Amy
Feel free to start a convo below on whatever topics. Including hating on companies that are monopolies and use that position to behave most arrogantly and disrespectfully to the customers who pay them for a service.
The Real Threat To Airport Security Is The Guy Bending You Over
You'd think the TSA would take the uniforms and badges of people who leave their fine force, huh? If so, you'd be real idealistic. Alan Levin writes on ABC.com:
The agency overseeing security at the nation's airports failed for years to track security passes and uniforms of former employees, creating widespread vulnerability to terrorists, says a government watchdog report obtained by USA TODAY.The Transportation Security Administration lacked centralized controls over the secure passes issued to some of its employees, according to Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Richard Skinner. The passes grant people access to the most sensitive areas of an airport, such as where baggage is screened or planes are parked.
Investigators found numerous cases in which former employees retained their passes long after they had left the agency.
The investigation also found that TSA uniforms were frequently not collected when employees left or were transferred.
Can we please start referring to this department as the Transportation "Security" Administration? ("The 3,000-plus Stooges" seems a tad impolite.)
Welfare For Fat Cats At Every Turn
Judith Lewis writes for the LA Weekly about what the late "Heal The Bay" founder deemed California's fake water drought. If we managed water better, Dorothy Green claimed, there would be plenty for the state of California:
I didn't go to talk to Dorothy Green because she was dying. I wasn't looking to do a tribute. I went because I was working up a story about water, about how we use it and abuse it, mismanage it and waste it, and about how the bipartisan water bond being pushed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senator Dianne Feinstein -- with its provisions for new dams and "water conveyance" projects -- is a really bad idea. In August, I had gone to a protest rally against the water bond at which Green had spoken, and in the brief interview we had that day, I realized how much of my thinking about water -- about Southern California's wasted storm water, the Central Valley's reckless and polluting agricultural irrigation, the rage that simmers up in me when people call storm drains "sewers" and dump crap into them --traced back to Green. I had never sat down and talked to her. She gave me her card and told me to call.A few weeks after the rally, I did. I told her I wanted to follow up on some of the ideas she'd brought up, specifically her claim that California wasn't really suffering an epic drought. "It's a manufactured drought," she'd told me. "It's being staged so that Big Ag can take control of the water supply and sell it back to consumers at a profit." I asked if we could set up an interview.
"Sure," she said, "but you'd better hurry. Because, you know, I'm dying."
...The melanoma she'd fought back for 30 years had resurfaced in 2003 as a brain tumor, "the first of a half-dozen metastases," she explained, and left her struggling to keep her body balanced and her mind from stubbornly wandering. "Oh, brain!" she'd say as she paused, and then continue on in a perfectly articulated explanation of the Reclamation Act of 1902, which stipulated that water subsidized by the state, harnessed and husbanded for agricultural irrigation, should go only to family farms.
Her pauses were mitigated by the urgency of her message, by the sense she had that this was her last chance to save the declining species of the California Delta, including the smelt and salmon, and to put right more than a century of corruption that had robbed California's citizens of their right to clean, safe water -- to drink, to water their gardens, to swim in.
"If water were managed differently -- better -- there would be plenty of water for the state of California, even with all the people in it now," she insisted. "What we need is for the state to do its job." She was calling for a restructuring of the State Water Resources Control Board, "so that appointees to the board could never be fired for political reasons." She was still working hard to make it happen.
And she was still trying to persuade California's lawmakers and citizens that "Big Ag," as she called it, had spent the past century pulling a fast one on the public. At the time of the Reclamation Act, "a family farm was 160 acres," Green explained. "The Central Valley clearly does not have family farms. And yet they exist on water subsidized by the state. It's a huge scandal." As she explains in her 2007 book,Managing Water: Avoiding Crisis in California
, the limit was later raised to 960 acres. "But before that, they played a lot of interesting games, setting up farms to make them look like family farms, when they were actually corporations.
"What we want to find out now is who really owns the farms in the Westlands Water District, which is the largest water district in the nation. Nobody has really taken a look at this business of Big Ag, of all these corporations. Who are the real owners? How many owners are there, really, of this subsidized water?"
Name That Program
I'm applying for funding for my speaker program for inner-city/"at-risk" kids, and I need your help naming the program.
FYI, I would not see a dime of the money, nor would any speaker. The money is to fund coordinating it nationally, through a highly-rated charitable organization for at-risk kids that's already plugged into schools. I'll give you the description line for the program:
Monthly role models for inner-city kids: Self-made adults with cool jobs talk in schools, demystify making it, detail their failures, and map out what's possible with hard work.
Help me out. See what you can come up with. Try to make it something that explains the whole program in a few short words. It could work out to be an acronym, too.
Oh, P.S. I have to name this sometime today.
UPDATE: The idea's name can have a maximum of 50 characters in it. So there can be a short name, like Eric's suggestion of "Lifewise" -- and then a description.
Advice From A Really Hot Female Cop
I thought that would get your attention. She's very smart (scholarshipped to one of the top colleges in the country back in the day), and very street-smart. And, she dresses like she stepped out of the fashion pages -- in a classy/sexy way -- on the job, on days when she isn't wearing her cop suit. You've gotta love a hot blonde in a sleek Italian designer dress, Manolo Blahniks, and a gunbelt.
Naturally, we met at the designer resale store. I overheard her chatting with the store manager about identity theft, so I came up and pretended to be eyeing a sweater right nearby. I liked what I heard, so I introduced myself and invited her to join my friend Jill and me for drinks. We've been friends ever since.
Cathy Seipp would've loved her. The principal at my friend's kids' Brentwood public school practically had a seizure when she came to a school dance recital dressed as above -- chic outfit complete with gun belt.
The principal pointed to her gun. "Are...you...(cough, sputter, gasp!)...allowed...to have that thing in public?"
My friend: "I'm a police officer."
(Like the 6-year-olds are going to disarm her and take over the school.)
Anyway, I'm posting about her because she bugged me once again yesterday to get Lojack for my computers. She e-mailed me:
Hey, they just recovered a computer that had Lojack on it. You should definitely get it.They literally were able to monitor the burglar's every key stroke.
Here are a couple of the plans: Lojack For Laptops Standard - 3 Year
I'll Take The Bed And Couch Without The Evil Crap In Them, Thanks!
A lesson I learned early on: When they say, "it's not the money, it's the principle," it's almost always the money.
Turns out the fire retardant chemical manufacturers lobbied hard to get their shit put in our couches. And soon, it'll probably be in our beds, too.
Now, perhaps there are those who want these chemicals in their furniture. I am not one of them. Why can't I, and everyone else, have a choice?
A caution: I haven't read the studies here -- so if you do read them and find flaws, do tell. Also, they're only on animals and not on humans as of yet. I still don't want this crap in my couch or my bed. And if I don't, and I need a new couch, what does that mean -- that I have to spend extra to get my couch shipped from out of state? And can I even get a couch shipped in without this stuff? (Nanny-state, nanny-state, go away...and stay the hell away, wouldja?)
Arlene Blum,executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute and a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley's Department of Chemistry, is also opposed to having the fire retardants in our furniture. She asks, in the LA Times, "Did the state kill my cat?":
My beloved cat, Midnight, died a few days ago -- possibly because of toxic chemicals in my furniture. In two years with hyperthyroid disease, Midnight went from a plump 14 pounds to a skeletal five. A year ago, a veterinary epidemiologist found that Midnight's blood contained among the highest levels of PBDEs documented in animal research. That's when I learned that the chemicals in my cat came from my couch. And that my furniture is uniquely toxic because I live in California.Since the 1980s, fire-retardant chemicals such as PBDEs have been added to furniture to meet a California-only requirement that the foam inside resist a 12-second exposure to an open flame. The chemicals evaporate from the foam, settle in dust and coat walls with a thin film. Cats that groom themselves and toddlers who crawl in dust show especially high levels of PBDEs, but everyone with this chemically treated furniture gets some exposure.
In dozens of animal studies, these fire retardants also have been shown to harm reproduction and scramble brain development. Studies are underway to determine if PBDEs are contributing to increases in autism, hyperactivity, birth defects, infertility, diabetes and obesity in people.
...The fire retardant is known to cause thyroid problems in rats, mice, kestrels and frogs. The EPA suspected a link after its 2007 study of cats found substantially higher levels of PBDEs in the ones with hyperthyroidism. In 1980, when PBDEs were first added to furniture, hyperthyroid disease in cats hardly existed, according to my veterinarian. Now it is an epidemic in California.
Were Midnight and my family safer from fires because of the toxic chemicals in our couch? Probably not. Furniture fabric in California is not required to be fire resistant. In a fire, fabric burns long enough to ignite even treated foam.
...San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno's AB 706, a bill that sought to remove toxic fire retardants from California furniture and maintain fire safety, was just voted down by the state Senate. Manufacturers of fire retardants -- Chemtura Corp., Albemarle Corp. and Israel Chemicals Ltd. -- spent millions on lobbying to stop it.
Instead, more Californians may soon be sleeping in a cocoon of chemicals. Technical Bulletin 604, a proposed state regulation requiring comforters, mattress pads and pillows to resist an open flame, is expected to be enacted soon by the California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation. Yet the state has not asked for any information on the health or environmental effects of the chemicals likely to be used.
Defrauderhood
Yet another man who isn't the father is being made to pay child support for a child who has no genetic relation to him -- because some woman gamed the system, and the system is ripe for gaming, especially in the paternity fraud department.
Jarrel Wade writes in the Tulsa World Herald of a guy who got back a DNA report that there was 0.00 percent chance that he was the father of the child he was paying child support for, and he believed his debt for the child would be forgiven...but it wasn't -- and won't be, according to Oklahoma law:
In child support cases, the burden of proof is on the alleged father -- the accused -- according to Oklahoma statutes.An alleged father must appear at a child support hearing to request a paternity test. If he does not appear, he is legally designated as the father and child support is established in most cases.
Once designated as the father, that person is financially responsible for the child until he or she is 18 or adopted with a few stipulations for petitions which may vacate the original order, according to Oklahoma statutes.
DHS records show that Samuels was served papers to appear for his child support hearing in 2001, but Samuels said he was working in Texas at the time and could not have received the notice.
Wagner said by Oklahoma law someone can be legally served if the subpoena is put into the hands of someone 15 or older who lives at the same residence as the person.
But Samuels said the documents never touched his hands.
Regardless of the outcome of the DNA test, which Samuels spent three years trying to get, it was already too late.
Samuels was ruled the default father in 2001, and legally, DNA has no bearing.
"If you got me on default, you should still have to prove that I'm the father," he said.
This is the second recent story in the media of a default father being forced to pay child support in a bureaucratic nightmare with DHS.
The first, reported by The Oklahoman, was about Micheal Thomas of Tulsa, who had shown that he had never even met the mother and that he had DNA evidence that showed he wasn't the father. Still, he became a default father after missing his initial court hearing.
DHS does not keep statistics on the number of established fathers or default fathers who are not genetically related to the child they are responsible for, Wagner said.
In the eyes of the law and DHS, once paternity is established, there is no difference.
I've been posting stories like this for years. Enough already. Think about how you'd feel if you were, for example, paying car payments on a brand new Jag every month -- but it isn't your Jag, and, in fact, you're driving an aging Ford Taurus. I mean, who would put up with this? These men are made to, and it's sick, and it's wrong, and I'm sick of posting these stories because it means legislators are doing jack shit about the injustice...still.
Why isn't it a crime to steal from men in this way?
via ifeminist
The Inciter
Peggy Noonan gets at what I realized about Sarah Palin a few weeks ago, that what she's really good at is inciting emotion, playing on emotion, pushing buttons, pulling heartstrings. She's not dumb -- she's streetsmart. But that's not enough. Noonan writes in the WSJ (finally getting into saying what she thinks on-microphone):
People can come from nowhere, with modest backgrounds and short résumés, and yet be individuals of real gifts, gifts that had previously been unseen, that had been gleaming quietly under a bushel, and are suddenly revealed. Mrs. Palin came, essentially, from nowhere. But there was a man who came from nowhere, the seeming tool of a political machine, a tidy, narrow, unsophisticated senator appointed to high office and then thrust into power by a careless Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose vanity told him he would live forever. And yet that limited little man was Harry S. Truman. Of the Marshall Plan, of containment. Little Harry was big. He had magic. You have to give people time to show what they have. Because maybe they have magic too.But we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office. She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for? For seven weeks I've listened to her, trying to understand if she is Bushian or Reaganite--a spender, to speak briefly, whose political decisions seem untethered to a political philosophy, and whose foreign policy is shaped by a certain emotionalism, or a conservative whose principles are rooted in philosophy, and whose foreign policy leans more toward what might be called romantic realism, and that is speak truth, know America, be America, move diplomatically, respect public opinion, and move within an awareness and appreciation of reality.
But it's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn't think aloud. She just . . . says things.
Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she's not a big "egghead" but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. But what instincts? "I'm Joe Six-Pack"? She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation--"palling around with terrorists." If the Ayers case is a serious issue, treat it seriously. She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts.
No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can't be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush's style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don't, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing.
In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.
Letterman squeezes the truth out of McCain, via MSNBC:
(McCain) said he didn't know (Palin) well before choosing her, but that he was impressed by her reputation as a reformer.
Great. I was impressed to that end by Andrea Jefferson, the very last lady I talked to at Time Warner, the new field supervisor of all the techs for my area. I'm happy they seem to have put somebody who cares about reforming things in charge. I'm not about to vote for her for vice president.
Letterman repeatedly pressed McCain on her qualifications, asking if he was confident she could lead the country in a time of crisis."In all due respect, one of the people I admired most was an obscure governor of a southern state called Arkansas and he turned out to be a fairly successful president," McCain said, complimenting Bill Clinton. "Ronald Reagan was a cowboy, no experience in international affairs. I think she has shown leadership."
Bill Clinton was an international affairs student and Rhodes Scholar who worked as a clerk for the Foreign Relations committee. Ronald Reagan showed great interest in foreign affairs. Sarah wanted to be a newscaster, another pretty face on TV reading the news and her path diverged into local politics and then state politics in a state the size of a city. The thing is, since graduating from school, she doesn't seem to have read much news, other than the very local kind, over the years.
The Debate
I was in the book quarry, digging up words to stick on the page, so I taped the debate but have yet to watch. Give me your take on it:
Who won? Why? Did the debate change your mind about anything? If so, what and why?
White Shame
Benjamin Schwarz writes in The Atlantic about White People, jumping off from Christian Lander's blog Stuff White People Like. Subhead on the story: "The new "white people" are bigoted, but not the way you think--or they'll admit." And note that these White People, in Schwarz' words, "aren't always white, and the vast majority of whites aren't White People ([Lander] doesn't even capitalize the term)":
When I interviewed Lander on the telephone in July, he acknowledged that White People are in fact "desperate to define themselves as other than white." Indeed, he rightly places "diversity" and "tolerance" highest on the list of virtues prized by White People (as did Brooks for Bobos). Of course, this group shuns the suburbs (sterile, bland ... white--a view that hasn't advanced much since Malvina Reynolds's contemptuous "Little Boxes" of 1962) while it embraces certain neighborhoods as "authentic" (Williamsburg, Echo Park, the Mission) and spurns other enclaves and cities (say, Astoria, Reseda, Concord). Lander's White People approve of the kind of diversity that affords them the aesthetic and consumer benefits of what they like to think of as urban life--that is, the kind that allows them toget sushi and tacos on the same street. But they will also send their kids to private school with other rich white kids so that they can avoid the "low test scores" that come with educational diversity.Here and elsewhere, accompanying the book's mockery of the essentially innocuous solipsism of White People is what Lander, a man of the left, described to me as his exasperation with progressives' "cultural righteousness" and "intolerance and groupthink"--a set of attitudes that enhances and is enhanced by a profoundly smug and incurious outlook. To be sure, these faults aren't peculiar to the progressive and the hip, but Lander repeatedly and cleverly shows how some of White People's favorite activities (watching political documentaries, "raising awareness," foreign travel), which they complacently embrace as broadening, are in fact lazy and tend to be intellectually and politically stultifying: White People "like feeling smart without doing work--two hours in a theater is easier than ten hours with a book."
Anybody's thoughts turn to my merry band of trolls?
Time-Warner Hell
Time-Warner is a monopoly where I live and this is now my NINTH TENTH day (Fri, Oct. 17) with intermittent Internet service -- which I had during my deadline, which I have had as I have the final chapter of my book due.
I have spent maybe five or six about eight hours total on the phone with them. I spent an hour and 20 minutes on the phone just Wednesday night -- first waiting on hold for 20 minutes with that "We value you as a customer" recording. (If you "valued me as a customer" you'd pick up the fucking phone!) I just wanted to know if they'd done the service they said they were going to do on Wednesday sometime, to repair "the node."
From my e-mail to them:
This past Monday or the Friday before, can't remember which, I was eventually told (after hours on the phone the first few times) that the problem was that your company signed up too many subscribers and your company needed to fix "the node," and needed a part...which they had to ORDER!...which would take days to arrive...which they would have today. Unbelievable. Your company knows it has the number of subscribers it does because YOU GET CHECKS FROM ALL OF US!The city of Moorpark in the past has fined you for treating customers as I've been treated. I also suggest you look on the Internet -- Google the name of your company and "intermittent service" and see the hits you get. Check out BoingBoing.net -- Cory Doctorow's piece on his experience -- mirroring mine. Here's Carey from Consumerist from October 5.
I have to stay home all day Thursday, with my substandard Internet service, again waiting for a technician. And not one of these people in your South Texas office could tell me if that "node" was replaced or fixed. Again, how would you feel if you paid for service and got this level of service, then had to invest so much time and aggravation into trying to get what you pay for? Please make this right.
I would have Internet service with ANYBODY else if another cable company existed. At this point, I'd have it with the garbage company if I could. Unfortunately, TW is a monopoly here, so I have no choice but to remain one of their customers victims.
I just got off the phone with a woman in their corporate offices who's going to actually try to do something about this. I also faxed Rocky Delgadillo, the City Attorney, to see if he'd bring suit against the company again. UPDATE: Actually, it sounds like the suit hasn't gone to court yet. Here are some details, from a Tom Corelis story on InsiderTech.com:
According to the soon-to-be-filed complaint, the City of Los Angeles says Time Warner made false and misleading statements to subscribers regarding its quality of service, violating state laws and the terms of the franchise agreement it worked out with the city. Subscribers spend time waiting in agonizingly long hold queues, the city says, and Time Warner's technicians subjected subscribers to excessive repair work delays. Parts of the agreement mandated that Time Warner customer service representatives answer subscribers' calls "within 30 seconds," and repair service interruptions within 24 hours of notification.The city says it will file its suit in a Los Angeles County Superior Court. Time Warner Cable provided no immediate comment.
Officials in the city of Costa Mesa, California - less than an hour's drive south of Los Angeles' - are mulling similar plans in light of Los Angeles' announcement.
"I requested a copy of the city of Los Angeles' filing so that I can assess if we need to pursue action of our own," said Costa Mesa City Attorney Kimberley Hall Barlow. Los Angeles officials say that Time Warner could pay "tens of millions of dollars" in fines if courts rule against it.
If you live in L.A., and experience what I do from TW, please contact Delgadillo with your story:
Delgadillo's fax: (213) 978-8312
Delgadillo's phone: (213) 978-8100
e-mail: rocky.delgadillo@lacity.org
Mail a complaint to California Atty. General Jerry Brown here:
Executive
1300 I street (eye street)
Sacramento CA 94255
Tell YOUR hell story with Time-Warner below!
Also, if you have Verizon FIOS, which is not available here yet, please let us all know how it's working for you. To change your crappy Time-Warner service to Verizon, click here.
And a little neighborhood flack-tivism:
UPDATE: My service will not be fixed until MONDAY MORNING. Actually, now it seems the date is Wednesday, October 22.
I finally had to call the media relations guy in New York to find this out. Also, after being on the phone for all that time Wednesday night, and all the time Thursday day, at 1 p.m., begging to know whether they'd fixed the node when they said they would, it was he who finally told me that I'd spent more than a half day waiting for nothing -- that no, they hadn't fixed the node on Wednesday and that it would be probably Monday (really Wednesday, a tech and his supervisor told me an hour or two later).
This company is absolutely vile and taking advantage of their monopoly position. I'd love to see them sued blind, and I don't care for a second that the lawyers usually get the money in those suits. Just that they have to pay.
Everyone in my neighborhood who has Time Warner Cable is furious. And lucky me, I don't have these sucky monopolists for my television service, because, as I said in the flyer now posted on my gate, I'd rather have service with the garbage company if I could. Thankfully, for television, I have a choice, and I'm sure as fuck not going to choose Time Warner when I do.
Finally, I've started telling all the Time Warner people I speak with that I wish, from the bottom of my heart, that each and every one of them will have the exact same service with which they provide their customers.
Amy Alkon Gives The Scoop On Bank Of America And Identity Theft On Mari Frank's Radio Show Today, 5-6 p.m., PST
I'm on today, on 89.9 fm in Irvine, and streaming live on the Internet from KUCI.org. At the KUCI link, scroll down and look for the link to lawyer and identity theft expert Mari Frank's show, Privacy Piracy, in the 5-6 p.m. slot (that's Pacific Time), to hear the details on what I've discovered about Bank of America and their "security" measures in the wake of having my identity stolen.
If you are an identity theft victim, I recommend Mari's book, From Victim To Victor
Sorry to be a little lax in remembering to blog this -- I just turned in my book manuscript, minus the last chapter on Monday night (two months late, thanks to the months of hell I went through after B of A dispensed my money, seven times, to two thieves who basically presented used Kleenex for identification). In trying to get the book in, pretty much everything else has fallen by the wayside. But, Mari's terrific, and knows the topic like nobody else, and I recommend listening to this show and others she does.
Also, please, please, consider freezing your credit! It's the only reason my life, as I know it, isn't pretty much over.
Mari's site is here.
Nebraska Is For Dumping
Yet another woman has dropped her teenager off at a Nebraska hospital under their "safe haven" law -- except this one drove 700 miles from Michigan to do it. Martha Stoddard writes for the World-Herald:
A Michigan mother drove more than 700 miles to leave her 13-year-old son at an Omaha hospital in the middle of the night - a place where the family had no ties.What drew her, according to officials with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, was Nebraska's unique safe haven law.
The teen became the second child from another state to be left at a Nebraska hospital under the law, which sets no age limit on the children who can be left.
A 14-year-old Council Bluffs girl was left last week at Creighton University Medical Center. She has since been returned to her family.
The safe haven law, which took effect July 18, says people cannot be prosecuted in Nebraska for leaving a child with a hospital employee on duty. They can, however, be charged with other acts of abuse and neglect and can lose their parental rights.
In the Michigan case, a woman identifying herself as the boy's mother left him at the Creighton hospital about 1:30 a.m. Monday, said Todd Landry, children and family services director for HHS. The family is from the Detroit area.
Landry said the boy's mother remained in Nebraska at least until Monday afternoon and had talked with state officials at least twice.
HHS officials were still gathering and verifying information, but it appeared the mother came to Nebraska specifically to drop off the teen, who has since been placed at an emergency shelter.
"Just like every other of the instances of safe haven use, the child does not appear to be and was not in any immediate danger of being harmed in any way," Landry said.
He said he could not give information about why the family decided to make use of the safe haven law. He said there was no indication the teen had violent tendencies and that he was not a state ward in Michigan.
The family likely found out about the Nebraska law through news coverage of the safe haven law. The law - and the mounting number of families making use of it - has drawn national and international attention.
More here, in the Detroit Free Press.
I don't know about you, but I think there need to be limits on the "return policy" on children. This law was good as intended -- so parents wouldn't kill unwanted newborns, but instead drop them off the hospital. Parents shouldn't be able to experiment with indulgent parenting and then dump the kid if it doesn't work out. And also, part of the risk of having children is having one who turns out to be "the bad seed," or autistic or somehow stricken with a serious illness. Parents need to bear that risk, and the results; the rest of us shouldn't.
Hitchens Drop-Kicks The Geezer
I think it's a sign of what dogs all four candidates are. "Vote Obama," says Hitchens on Slate -- weeks after a piece disparaging him for being "vapid, hesitant, and gutless"; "a dusky Dukakis." The rest of the subhead on his more recent piece is "McCain lacks the character and temperament to be president. And Palin is simply a disgrace." Hitchens writes:
Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience. McCain occasionally remembers to stress matters like honor and to disown innuendoes and slanders, but this only makes him look both more senile and more cynical, since it cannot (can it?) be other than his wish and design that he has engaged a deputy who does the innuendoes and slanders for him.I suppose it could be said, as Michael Gerson has alleged, that the Obama campaign's choice of the word erratic to describe McCain is also an insinuation. But really, it's only a euphemism. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear had to feel sorry for the old lion on his last outing and wish that he could be taken somewhere soothing and restful before the night was out. The train-wreck sentences, the whistlings in the pipes, the alarming and bewildered handhold phrases--"My friends"--to get him through the next 10 seconds. I haven't felt such pity for anyone since the late Adm. James Stockdale humiliated himself as Ross Perot's running mate. And I am sorry to have to say it, but Stockdale had also distinguished himself in America's most disastrous and shameful war, and it didn't qualify him then and it doesn't qualify McCain now.
The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her--her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations--were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.
It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them.
I used to call myself a single-issue voter on the essential question of defending civilization against its terrorist enemies and their totalitarian protectors, and on that "issue" I hope I can continue to expose and oppose any ambiguity. Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the "experience" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke. One only wishes that the election could be over now and a proper and dignified verdict rendered, so as to spare democracy and civility the degradation to which they look like being subjected in the remaining days of a low, dishonest campaign.
A friend's mother whose grandma has dementia has seen McCain's speeches and wondered about him -- whether he has the beginnings of it. I've seen mention of that here and there, and while I'm certainly not qualified to make a diagnosis, or even an observation in that department, I have to say I think his age, vis a vis his choice of vice-president, is a huge factor. I think a lot of other people feel that, too -- and Palin's inexperience may be the swaying force that loses the Republicans the election. What a motley bunch we have running for the highest office in this country.
The Truth, She Is Made Of Spandex
From a piece by James Rainey in the LATimes, CNN slimes Palin, attempting to tie her to secessionists. Just disgusting. I'm sick of this stuff from both sides and from the media.
Why It Matters If Obama Is A Muslim
Campbell Brown goes dhim:
So what if Obama was Arab or Muslim? So what if John McCain was Arab or Muslim? Would it matter?When did that become a disqualifier for higher office in our country? When did Arab and Muslim become dirty words? The equivalent of dishonorable or radical?
Whenever this gets raised, the implication is that there is something wrong with being an Arab-American or a Muslim. And the media is complicit here, too.
Yes, the media is complicit -- mainly for not reporting the truth, which I've discovered by reading about Islam and what's in the Quran, since 9/11 -- which happened blocks from my old apartment in New York.
Islam is only posing as a religion. It's a totalitarian system, bent on taking over the world and converting or killing "the infidel." This is what the Quran commands. (The New Caliphate, etc.)
But don't take my word for it. Here's a quote from the late George Mason from the link above:
Islam is a global movement, the goal of which is to bring every living human being on the planet under its crushing totalitarian rule, the likes of which has never before been seen. Some of Islam is obvious and easy to identify. Some of it, however, lies beneath the surface, like an iceberg. The true nature of Islam sports a remarkable disguise.No other movement, not even Fascism or Communism, has been so determined to conquer the world and rule with such rigid, detailed, complete control over the day-to-day activities of the lives of everyone on the planet. Islam has a multi-pronged plan in place to accomplish this goal, and it is being implemented with increasing success throughout the world. Islam seeks to make the rest of the world become just like it: squalid, backward, and primitive.
Wherever it interfaces with populations it has not yet conquered, Islam destroys buildings, blows up men, women, and children, and imposes tight controls on people's lives. Islam is nihilism personified. Most of the worlds wars and conflicts are due to aggression caused by Islamists, fueled by Islam's evil doctrines. Islam brainwashes its own children, as well as the children of the conquered, in order to assure that future generations will continue carry out Jihad. This has been going on for 1400 years, yet the movement remains unopposed in any meaningful way anywhere in the world to this very day.
Why is Islam meeting with so little effective resistance?
The most important reason for its success today is that it has a very clever "cloaking device." It calls itself a "religion." The evils of Fascism and Communism, the one passively allowing Christianity, and the other openly rejecting all religion, were much more visible to the world. These clearly political movements were content to call themselves just that: "Political movements." They did not attempt the intellectual fraud of calling themselves "religions."
...Start calling Islam what it is.
Call it a toxic ideology, a death cult, even your death sentence. In fact, Islam, among other things, is a vicious political movement, which gives itself a mantle of respectability and gets away with its actions only by providing itself with the "cloaking device" of religion. Islam is totalitarianism. It wants to conquer you, and kill you and yours. It wants to destroy everything you value.
If you do not withdraw your sanction of Islam, you will play right into the Islamists' hands. This is happening right now at the highest level of government. We watch our highest officials bowing and scraping to their future Muslim killers, while reassuring our people that Islam is peaceful, that Islam is a great religion, that Islam is wonderful, and worst of all, that Islam has been hijacked by some bad guys who twist it to their uses. Don't be played like a Wurlitzer. Islamists are selling you sanitized Islam while practicing the real thing. It is terribly important to remember that lying and deceit are among Islam's most valued weapons.
Jump over the religion barrier. Keep your own peaceful religion, which teaches that the initiation of force is wrong, but that self-defense is right. Recognize and reject Islam, which has as a central commandment to erase the Infidel -- that's you -- from the face of the earth.
Now, do you get it? For further training, check out JihadWatch, Dhimmiwatch, and TheReligionOfPeace.com.
Oh, and for those of you who went blank at my calling Brown "dhim," here's the link for you.
Conspiracy Comedy By Naomi Wolf
Katherine Mangu-Ward reports over at reason that Naomi Wolf is losing it -- and just can't shut up about it. First, there are the trials and tribulations of running for office. Mangu-Ward puts it so perfectly:
Naomi Wolf, bestselling author of The Beauty Myth, lover of earth tones, and speaker of truth to power, was recently found crumpled on the floor in Newark airport between a T.G.I. Friday's and a World's Best Yogurt, sobbing into her cell phone. How do I know about this embarrassing episode? Private detectives? Security camera footage? Nope. Wolf tells me, and anyone else who cares to know, all about it in the first section of her new book."I am not ashamed of this abasement," she writes, "because I was actually heartsick."
What could possibly be so terrible that it would overcome the powerful natural instinct to minimize contact with the floor of Newark airport at all costs? Apparently, it is difficult to run for office in America.
And then, they're stealing her mail! All the stuff of great interest to national security:
At a Ron Paul Revolution March this past July, Wolf told the crowd--composed mostly of people waving banners with legends like "Read Atlas Shrugged" and "Mises Saves"--this story: "My daughter is 13 years old. She's in summer camp right now. She's writing me letters. I'm not getting her letters. I'm not getting half of my mail. And when my mail arrives, it's ripped wide open. I showed it to the Post Office and they said 'That's not possible.'"When she retold the story at Borders last month, she mentioned that birthday party invitations for her daughter were now also being intercepted.
Explanation Number One: Thirteen-year-old girls are terrible correspondents and worse friends, and Wolf's daughter will be spending the next few months silently mortified that her white lies about letter writing and her social ostracism have taken the national stage as part of her mother's conspiracy theories. Explanation Number Two: The American secret police believe that vital information is contained in correspondence from teenage girls, and have confiscated all letters written in pink ink.
Your call.
Naomi Wolf: Own Worst Enemy Combatant. (At least she's consistent!) Here, from a previous Advice Goddess column I wrote:
...Feminists see a cruel plot against women who eat. According to Naomi Wolf, author of The Beauty Myth, there's a patriarchal conspiracy to keep women dieting so they'll be too weak and hungry to compete with men.Whatever you do, avoid reading Naomi Wolf, who suggests that, until women can shovel down just as many donuts as men do, they "cannot experience equal status in the community."
What I don't understand is how this woman earns a living selling her ideas. Perhaps someone can explain. What does it take, some super-secret special kind of publicist?
By the way, I think the Post Office is wonderful. I mail a letter to somebody in Los Angeles, and for 42 cents, it's there the next day. Just amazing. In this case, I vote for the notion that for letters to get there, they have to be written, stamped, and mailed.
Runt-To-Own
Matt Welch on the little guy running for president. As Matt wrote in his excellent book, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick
And yes, Matt knows it was Marlon Brando, not Charlton Heston, in Viva Zapata!
Growing Up To Be A Suicide Bomber: "A Childhood Dream"
That's actually what this sicko young Muslim woman called becoming a suicide bomber.
Amy the atheist here. No fan of the evidence-free belief in god. That said, these days, only the Muslims raise their children to be suicidal murderers. Just barbaric. From the BBC, watch the video here.
I found it kind of stunning when the guy with the plummy BBC accent asked her if she'd have "any pity" for civilians she was murdering -- talking to her as if she's a civilized person with Enlightenment values.
A quote from the story: "All the Palestinian people were created to fight in God's name. If we just throw stones at the Jews they get scared. Imagine what happens when body parts fly at them." The bomb belt which she hopes will end her life - and kill many Israelis - rested on the table next to us.
Le Docteur Is In
When the Republican nominees refer to "Wall Street greed" and "predatory lenders" to explain the global financial crisis, and the French remind us how capitalism should be done, something's really upside down. Economist Judy Shelton, author of Money Meltdown
France's president held out the possibility that all is not lost, that we can fix what is broken. "The financial crisis is not the crisis of capitalism," according to Mr. Sarkozy. "It is the crisis of a system that has distanced itself from the most fundamental values of capitalism, which betrayed the spirit of capitalism."
The "true capitalism" Sarkozy describes is, Shelton writes, "a capitalism that accords primacy to the entrepreneur -- that compensates hard work, innovative solutions, stalwart commitment and personal discipline." She says it requires the following:
- Free-market clarity. Consumers must be able to properly judge the inherent value of goods brought to the marketplace if markets are to function properly; this applies to financial instruments as wholly as it does to products and services. When the trade-off between risk and return is obscured by an implicit government guarantee -- as exemplified by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities offered with a "wink" from Uncle Sam to eager purchasers around the world -- the consequences can prove extremely damaging. False advertising leads to compromised market outcomes; it constitutes a betrayal of the consumer.- Monetary integrity. Monetary-policy decisions that "stimulate" the economy by issuing too many claims to real production, or "constrict" the economy by reducing the amount of available purchasing power or capital investment, utterly confound the notion of stable money. Money represents a moral contract between government and ordinary citizens -- the sanctity of money rests in its reliability as a store of value. Inflation robs the worker of savings he has accumulated through his labors; by means of government stealth, it diminishes his future purchasing power. The U.S. mortgage mess can be partially traced to the environment of perpetual inflation that seduced citizens into believing the price of housing would rise forever.
- Financial validity. What turns the reputable practice of granting credits to deserving borrowers into a high-stakes casino game where the biggest stacks of chips are held by speculators working for the world's largest banks and investment houses? The $700 billion in bailout money begrudgingly approved by Congress only begins to address the problem of estimating the total overhang of outstanding financial instruments by settling on a price for the mortgage-backed securities. Imagine the Blackjack dealer staring into the anxious faces around the green velvet table; all the players are desperate to know what is printed on the face-down card as trillions in wagered bets await resolution. Exotic financial derivatives that gamble on the anomalies of the global economy -- currency movements, interest-rate disparities, governance incongruities -- mock the very concept of "investment" to generate future higher returns from production.
- Regulatory responsibility. Rule of law is a core requirement for civil society; without it, anarchy reigns. Government regulation does not create wealth, but it is a necessary condition to provide the stable and predictable environment that permits buyers and sellers to carry out economic and financial transactions with confidence. Trust is achieved through transparency, first and foremost. And while government regulation, at its best, merely functions as the incorruptible referee -- it will never dream up the breakthrough projects that become capitalism's greatest success stories, nor have the discernment of the venture capitalist who recognizes an entrepreneur with a brilliant idea -- it nevertheless plays a key role. Governments should view economic freedom as a basic human right, to be respected and protected by ensuring that markets function smoothly and openly.
- Entrepreneurial opportunity. Much of the resentment felt by citizens toward the massive investment companies who peddled bad government paper, and the craven politicians who promoted the practice, stems from the perception that capitalism is rigged toward the most powerful. When the owner of a small retail outlet or medium-sized service firm gets into financial trouble -- who steps in to help? Why are the rules to start a business so onerous, why is the bureaucratic process so lengthy, why are the requirements for hiring employees so burdensome? When does the entrepreneur receive the respect and cooperation he deserves for making a genuine contribution to the productive capacity of the economy? Equal access to credit is sacrificed to the overwhelming appetite of big business -- especially when government skews the terms in favor of its friends. It is time to pay deference to the real economic heroes of capitalism: the self-made entrepreneurs who have the courage to start a business from scratch, the fidelity to pay their taxes, and the dedication to provide real goods and services to their fellow man.
Shelton rounds out her piece with a little reminder from a speech Sarko gave to Congress last November, offering, in her words, "the most profound assessment of our nation's gift to the world":
"What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind," he said. "America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who -- with their hands, their intelligence and their heart -- built the greatest nation in the world: 'Come, and everything will be given to you.' She said: 'Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent.'"
Payoffs For The People
It's not a tax cut Obama is proposing, so much as it is a big old handout. Welfare...for everyone! The WSJ editorial page lays out the I'll-buy-you plan:
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
About McCain's version of this they write:
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
The Writing's On The Wall
Funniest bathroom graffiti you've seen? Preferred category: sluts, not farts.
Politics As Usual, In One Sense
I expect politicians to be sleazy, and I don't see sleaziness alone as reason not to vote for one. In fact, I find it naive.
Nathan Thornburgh writes for Time about the real problem with the Palin abuse of power issue -- how ham-handed it was:
Did Governor Sarah Palin abuse the power of her office in trying to get her former brother-in-law, State Trooper Mike Wooten, fired? Yes.Was the refusal to fire Mike Wooten the reason Palin fired Commissioner of Public Safety Walt Monegan? Not exclusively, and it was within her rights as the states' chief executive to fire him for just about any reason, even without cause.
Those answers were expected, given that most of the best pieces of evidence have been part of the public record for months. The result is not a mortal wound to Palin, nor does it put her at much risk of being forced to leave the ticket her presence succeeded in energizing.
But the Branchflower report still makes for good reading, if only because it convincingly answers a question nobody had even thought to ask: Is the Palin administration shockingly amateurish? Yes, it is. Disturbingly so.
The 263 pages of the report show a co-ordinated application of pressure on Monegan so transparent and ham-handed that it was almost certain to end in public embarrassment for the governor. The only surprise is that Troopergate is national news, not just a sorry piece of political gristle to be chewed on by Alaska politicos over steaks at Anchorage's Club Paris.
A harsh verdict? Consider the report's findings. Not only did people at almost every level of the Palin administration engage in repeated inappropriate contact with Walt Monegan and other high-ranking officials at the Department of Public Safety, but Monegan and his peers constantly warned these Palin disciples that the contact was inappropriate and probably unlawful. Still, the emails and calls continued -- in at least one instance on recorded state trooper phone lines.
Palin was a really dumb choice for McCain, and I think her lack of qualifications will be something that tips a number of undecideds to Obama. I certainly don't feel good about the possibility of this woman being president. And no, not because I disagree with her on many issues. I disagree with Newt Gingrich on many issues, but the guy is smart as hell, capable for the office of president, and I'd vote for him in a hot second.
Frankly, in this race, Biden, who I don't like, is the one of the four losers running who's the most qualified to be president. The guy knows them ferriner's pretty well, and at least he doesn't seem to be a little hothead like McCain, nor did he suggest, as McCain did, paying face value to banks for a bunch of dog-ass mortgages, on the taxpayer dime. On the bright side, I do like McCain's health plan.
My fellow Americans...please join me and hold your nose as you vote. Would it be electioneering to pass out barf bags outside the polls...or just helpful?
Hey, Muslims! Jews Aren't Just Apes And Pigs
I know that nasty book, the Quran, helps you believe Jews are apes and pigs.
Guess what: those ape/pig Jews are also lifesavers. Aaron Heller writes for the AP of a cancer-stricken boy who's been brought from his native country of Iran to Israel for treatment:
The 12-year-old boy -- who was identified only as Roy, to protect his privacy -- was wheeled on a stretcher into the Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv, after treatments in Iran and Turkey failed.Israel granted the child a special permit to enter the country and he arrived at Ben Gurion Airport on Friday. The rare arrangement was mediated by an Israeli businessman of Iranian origin. The boy was accompanied to the hospital by his father and veiled mother, who were also granted special entrance permits into Israel.
Iran and Israel are bitter enemies and have no formal relations. Iran's president has denied the Holocaust and repeatedly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
Sheba CEO Zeev Rotstein said it wasn't the first time Israeli doctors have treated children from adversarial states.
"We hope that with the love and affection we give these kids we are paving the way for at least some understanding between people," he said. "We can't change the politics. We are not politicians. We do this because we feel it is our job."
In what universe do you think the reverse would be the case? (Assuming the Muslim state of Iran was an innovator in something besides death to homosexuals and terrorism.)
The Gillespie Plan
If you want health insurance, pay for it. A quote from the video: "There are those really can't afford health insurance, and there are those who can afford it but choose not to buy it because they want to buy something else." Great piece from my pal Nick Gillespie over at reason.tv:
I just wrote in a chapter in my book about my poor years. I didn't have a bed (I slept on a sleeping bag on a door propped up on two milk crates until my Advice Lady partners and I got our book advance), but I had health insurance. How come? Maybe because I only went out to parties or gallery openings where the wine was free. When I was invited out to dinner with a group, I'd show up after they were finishing their meal, have a glass of water, and leave a dollar. I know, kind of pathetic, but not as pathetic as expecting your mommy and daddy to pick up after you and maybe mortgage their house if you get seriously ill.
Blame The Boy!
The teen years are not exactly the high point of wisdom and judgement.
A teen girl recently sent a nude cell phone pic of herself to a boy in her school -- and guess who gets arrested and sent to juvey on...felony child pornography charges! That would be the boy, 13, who did nothing but fail to develop psychic ability before the girl hit send so he could block her number and stay out of jail. From Craig Civale at khou.com:
The school district caught wind of the problem about a week and a half ago.The sent out a letter to parents, warning them of the images from this apparent school yard game.
"I know some girl was taking pictures of herself and sending it to multiple guys. Obviously, they've still got their picture on their phone because they are now getting in trouble," said Bethany Mitchell, a classmate.
So far only the 13-year-old boy has been arrested.
There's no mention, either, of the boy actually asking for the picture. Even if he did, in what insane world are we holding kids accountable in law enforcement terms for the juvenile pranks that go on in junior high school? Sorry, not kids, just the boys.
I just don't understand how anybody can justify, not only the idiocy, but the one-way idiocy: girl sends photo, boy fails to develop psychic ability and know to block her number, boy gets put in leg irons, maybe ends up getting charged as a sex-offender, girl gets a head-shake or two.
via Glenn Sacks
Should The U.S. Be The World's Police Force?
Via Ayn Rand Institute:
America's Soldiers Deserve BetterWashington, D.C. --Asked when American combat forces should be used to quell humanitarian crises that pose no threat to U.S. security, Barack Obama pointed to Darfur and Rwanda, saying, "When genocide is happening...and we stand idly by, that diminishes us." McCain agreed: "We must do whatever we can to prevent genocide."
But according to Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, "Vowing to send U.S. troops on selfless missions is a travesty.
"What Obama dismisses as standing 'idly by' really means: to protect the irreplaceable lives of American soldiers by refusing to ship them off on sundry 'peacekeeping' missions that do nothing to make us safe. That is not some cold-hearted gesture, but the government's moral obligation. Nothing but a threat to American lives or freedom can justify putting our soldiers in harm's way. Demanding they spill their blood in order to stop warring tribes from slaughtering each other is an obscene violation of their rights--regardless of how noble McCain or Obama thinks the cause is.
"Our soldiers deserve better. Instead of sacrificing U.S. treasure and lives for the alleged welfare of foreigners, we should demand a foreign policy that treats American security as its exclusive concern."
Personally, I think it's the U.N.'s job to quell humanitarian crises, and if the U.N. is broken -- which it is -- our job is to work with other countries to fix it, not to attack those who have not attacked us, or to attack when we are not imperiled.
Never Delete
Nancy Rommelmann sent me this yesterday, a photo of our friend Cathy Seipp, who died last year of lung cancer (and no, she didn't smoke -- Cathy would want me to tell you that...and Nancy is laughing reading that, am I right, Nance?)
The photo reminded me of a moving post I found on OnlyTheBlogKnowsBrooklyn, about the voice of the blogger's late father on the answering machine:
My father's voice is still on his answering machine and I love the way he delivers the message. Especially the way he says: Thank you. There's a slight squeak at the end of the you.I helped him install that machine a few months ago. His old one had broken and he always relied on me for electronic installations. I was his computer geek and phone machine expert and I must say I enjoyed the somewhat misbegotten confidence he had in me.
And I did not want to disappoint.
I sat with him when he recorded the message. He was already sick with cancer but going through a good phase.
He sounds very healthy on the message.
Friends are pressuring my stepmother to change the message. They tell her that's it's disturbing to them. My stepmother doesn't want to take it off. Once it's gone, it's gone. Also, she doesn't hear it because she never calls herself.
My sister wants to keep it there. So do I. We both enjoy this daily encounter with our father. I don't think I can bear the thought of it not being there. He was always the voice on their answering machine.
I still have Cathy's number and Marnye Oppenheim's number and Marlowe Minnick's number and Marlon Brando's number on my cell phone (he and I met in an AOL chat room years ago and became friends). I find it comforting to not lose touch in whatever ways I can.
Callers who are troubled by this guy's message on the phone should e-mail or write letters instead of calling. In fact, the way I see it, I get way too many phone calls, and I'm somebody who's trained her friends not to pick up the phone and call, as there's a good chance I'm either on deadline or napping.
Assuming you're not a friend who's a thousand miles away -- in which case, I'll be glad to talk to you on the phone -- if I really like you, I want to see you in person for some quality time. If I don't want to see you in person; well, why would I want to waste my time talking to you on the phone?
A Banker's Best Boy
John McCain never ceases to disappoint. (If he's "conservative" I'm the next goalie for the Detroit Red Wings.)
"Poor judgement" was the assessment of John McCain in the Keating 5 scandal, and once again, I think the same assessment (at the very least) applies regarding his idea of snapping up all these loser mortgages at full face value rather than actual value.
I'd give anything right now for a viable write-in candidate. Meanwhile, I'm thinking of manufacturing red, white, and blue noseplugs for people to wear to the polls.
The Latino Daddy Gap
Well, I'm in good company -- in a bad way. Like me, Heather MacDonald has been accused of being racist...for telling the truth:
Unless the life chances of children raised by single mothers suddenly improve, the explosive growth of the U.S. Hispanic population over the next couple of decades does not bode well for American social stability. Hispanic immigrants bring near-Third World levels of fertility to America, coupled with what were once thought to be First World levels of illegitimacy. (In fact, family breakdown is higher in many Hispanic countries than here.) Nearly half of the children born to Hispanic mothers in the U.S. are born out of wedlock, a proportion that has been increasing rapidly with no signs of slowing down. Given what psychologists and sociologists now know about the much higher likelihood of social pathology among those who grow up in single-mother households, the Hispanic baby boom is certain to produce more juvenile delinquents, more school failure, more welfare use, and more teen pregnancy in the future....But it's the fertility surge among unwed Hispanics that should worry policymakers. Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birthrate in the country--over three times that of whites and Asians, and nearly one and a half times that of black women, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women bore 92 children in 2003 (the latest year for which data exist), compared with 28 children for every 1,000 unmarried white women, 22 for every 1,000 unmarried Asian women, and 66 for every 1,000 unmarried black women. Forty-five percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage, compared with 24 percent of white births and 15 percent of Asian births. Only the percentage of black out-of-wedlock births--68 percent--exceeds the Hispanic rate. But the black population is not going to triple over the next few decades.
If, like me, you understand that children need daddies, this is a problem, whatever the color of the unwed mother -- whether she's some privileged upperclass WASP or a recent immigrant.
Linda Chavez, however, deems Heather's work "tirades against Hispanics," first calling her facts into question, and then, her tone. Unapproved! Unapproved!
Heather isn't having any of that (scroll down):
Linda Chavez all but declares that my writings on immigration are driven by ethnic hatred. This kind of charge will be familiar to anyone who has taken a public position against affirmative action and found himself called a racist. As a debating tactic, it is low and -- not to put too fine a point on it -- disgusting. It is meant to bully and intimidate. What should be a spirited debate about facts and the effects of policy becomes an assault on character and motive....She doesn't like my skepticism towards Michael Gerson's claim that Hispanic culture is "focused on education." Here are some other targets that Chavez had better start going after:
UCLA's Chicano Studies Research Center and Faculty Center, which in 2006 sponsored a conference on Hispanic student failure. Conference participants presented research that slightly more than 50 percent of Latino students finish high school and 10 percent graduate from college, based on the 2000 federal census. University of California at Davis education professor Patricia Gandara blamed an "absence of a culture" of college attendance for the low college-graduation rates.
The Brookings Institution. Their 2006 report, "A Fifth of America," noted that 45 percent of Hispanic students are dropping out of suburban high schools.
The California Research Bureau, which reported in 2006 that the Latino graduation rate in California was just over 45 percent and in the Los Angeles Unified School District, 40 percent. The Bureau noted that a planned high-school exit exam, fiercely opposed by immigrant advocates, would likely depress Hispanic graduation rates to 30 percent. That controversial exam, by the way, would require students to answer just over 50 percent of questions testing 8th-grade-level math and 9th-grade level English. Academic skills among Latino students who do graduate in California are abysmal: Only 22 percent have completed the minimal coursework required for admission to the University of California, noted the Bureau. It is that persistent underachievement among Hispanics (as well, of course, as among blacks) that creates constant pressure for affirmative action in colleges and beyond.
Harvard economist Roland Fryer, who reported in the Winter 2006 issue of Education Next that the stigma against academic achievement is higher among Hispanic students than among blacks.
...If Chavez can make an argument for a Latino passion for educational achievement with a straight face, let's see her try.
By being a cheerleader for the happy fiction about far too many Latinos instead of the sad and disturbing facts, it's Chavez who's actually doing Latinos a disservice. Pretending there's no problem doesn't make the problem go away. Quite the contrary.
As Heather writes in her latest City Journal piece, Hispanics are a fast-growing population in this country who are seriously lagging educationally. Heather reviews the book, The Latino Education Crisis: The Consequences of Failed Social Policies
The book's analysis is all the more surprising given that its authors are liberals committed to bilingual education, affirmative action, and the usual slate of left-wing social programs. Yet Gandara and Contreras, education professors at UCLA and the University of Washington, respectively, are more honest than many conservative open-borders advocates in acknowledging the bad news about Hispanic assimilation.Hispanics are underachieving academically at an alarming rate, the authors report. Though second- and third-generation Hispanics make some progress over their first-generation parents, that progress starts from an extremely low base and stalls out at high school completion. High school drop-out rates--around 50 percent--remain steady across generations. Latinos' grades and test scores are at the bottom of the bell curve. The very low share of college degrees earned by Latinos has not changed for more than two decades. Currently only one in ten Latinos has a college degree.
One hundred years ago, when the U.S. still required a large industrial and agricultural labor force, Hispanics' lagging educational performance would not have been such a problem. Our current information-based economy is unforgiving to the less-educated, however. When you couple U.S. demographics with the Hispanic education crisis, things look worrisome indeed. By 2025, one in four students nationally will be Latino; in many Southwest cities, Latinos are already about 70 percent of the school population. For the first time in history, the authors observe, the ethnic group with the lowest academic achievement will become the majority in significant parts of the country.
...Some readers may disagree with the book's policy recommendations--more benefits for illegal immigrants, more spending on social services and schools, more Section-8 housing vouchers, more bilingual education. Such programs have all been tried and have failed miserably. A more common-sensical solution is required. Certainly we should create more schools with an ethic of self discipline and hard work and continue doing everything we can to help Hispanic students succeed. But American immigration policy also needs to change. It should favor educated, skilled foreigners over low-skilled family members of existing immigrants. Law enforcement efforts against illegal immigration--targeting employers especially--must expand.
But however debatable some of the book's proposals, the evidence it presents for the "grave . . . economic and social consequences" of Hispanic educational failure is overwhelming. No matter who our next president is, The Latino Education Crisis should be required reading in the White House.
Oh yeah, Heather advises the authors about what to expect -- what I've experienced myself:
Gandara and Contreras had better get used to being called racists from open-borders supporters, as anyone who dares to point out Hispanic family breakdown can attest.
A note: I have to say, I haven't read the studies that either reference, but there seems to be plenty of evidence there's a problem.
Islam Doesn't Work Out So Well For The Ladies
"Pleasure from a little girl" -- what do you think that means? Bahraini women's rights activist Ghada Jamshir on Al-Arabiya TV (Dubai/Saudi Arabia):
Meanwhile, Scotland sounds like it may be on the verge of instituting Sharia law. By "choice," for Muslims. As if the women born into Islam have any choice.
Genius, Scotland. Anything to help Islam rocket the rest of us back to the Dark Ages as quickly as possible.
Oh yeah, and I wish this courageous woman, Ghada Jamshir, a long and healthy life, but I don't think her prospects are too hot.
The Home Ownership Obsession
Personal Finance blogger Ramit Sethi lays it out in "The Truth: What Obama and McCain won't tell you about your money":
Not all homeowners deserve to stay in their houses.
Renting is a perfectly reasonable alternative, but the idea of Americans "losing their houses" is politically untenable. Why? Because America perpetuates a mistaken culture of homeownership. Owning your own home is the kind of BS sacred cow that got us into this mess: Our parents tell us to buy a house. Our friends are impressed if we own a house in our twenties. The government literally encourages us to own a house by offering tax deductions. Homeownership is the American Dream!The truth is, if you're making the largest purchase of your life, you need more than a slogan -- you need to take the responsibility to do some research. (And note that you can't advocate for increased homeownership and also argue for Americans to keep their houses. By not reducing the prices, younger people cannot buy houses at these inflated prices.)
I love this guy. Here's more:
Yes, there was an exceptional amount of predatory lending.
For every blogger who argues loudly about personal responsibility, an angel dies and an Ogilvy executive lights a marshmallow in hell and eats a delicious snack. Wall Street and realtors are also to blame for this. But so are average Americans. It's difficult to have a nuanced discussion about real estate on the campaign trail, so we resort to cartoonishly simplistic caricatures of things like Wall Street's corruption. True -- but also take a look in the mirror.
Even more:
Americans don't know how to be frugal -- yet
Things will get more expensive. Taxes will eventually go up. They have to. Costs of ordinary goods will go up. They always do. If you're expecting it to get easier, you're wrong. The key is to make more money and cut your costs. Sadly, Americans are poorly versed in being frugal. You think it makes sense to buy a new car every few years? You think it's normal to eat out 5 times per week (lunch and dinner)? You feel good about yourself for ordering water when you go to a restaurant, but you blew $50,000 because you didn't take the time to understand your mortgage? You're not frugal. But a few more years of an economy like this and things just might change.
There are areas you cheap out and areas you don't. For example, I have an amazing woman who works for me, editing my stuff. I just gave her a raise, and whenever I make extra money (book advance, article), I cut her in. She deserves it, and it's not right to gouge people who do good work for you.
And while I have an HMO, I pay the top rate there in case something goes catastrophically wrong. It maybe costs me an extra $1,000 or $1,500 a year. But, if I get cancer or something, I don't want financial troubles to be the death of me.
Otherwise, I don't buy new things when old things still work. And I get almost everything for less than everybody else usually pays. For example:
I bought toner this morning -- regular price $90 each at Staples for HP cartridges for my laser printer. My price -- $35.99 for two off-brand ones on eBay.
Glasses prescription? $35.99 plus about $5 shipping online, from eyeglassdirect.com.
Clothes? Designer resale sale rack. I don't even buy retail clothing at Target. $49.99 Isaac Mizrahi dress at Target? $14.99 on eBay, plus $6.50 shipping. Cute, huh?
And, now, I'm supposed to bail out the housing market gamblers and the guys who made millions running companies into the ground? Thanks, but no thanks. (Grrr...as if I have a choice.)
Links within the text are live at Sethi's site.
via lifehacker
What Passes For Conservatism These Days
The commenters over at the WSJ aren't fooled:
o Ben Silverman wrote:Regarding Senator McCain's plan to have the Treasury buy bad home-loan mortgages; this is the exact same plan that Bill Ackman of Pershing Square Capital suggested on Monday at the Value Investors Congress in New York. Ackman, however, did not take credit for it. He said the idea was presented to him by someone in Boca Raton, Florida and alluded to the person being involved in the home building or mortgage industry.
Thought it was interesting that I heard about this idea two days in a row. More so because the second person to talk about it took credit for it. :)
o Robert Avram wrote:
I can't understand McCain's plain
"the government would buy the mortgages of homeowners who cannot afford their monthly payments to help prop up the troubled U.S. housing market. The campaign said it would be implemented using authority granted in the $700 billion rescue plan just passed by Congress."
So let me get this straight. You have two neighbors who both overpaid for their houses. One got a fixed mortgage, lives within his means and makes the payments he contractually agreed to. The other got an adjustable mortgage, HELOC'd to buy a Hummer, Granite Countertops, and some plastic surgery for the wife, and is behind on his payments. The deadbeat gets a handout from John McCain courtesy of the taxpayers...while the responsible person gets nothing? That's outrageous!
Who Do You Think Won The Debate, And Why?
I was working on my book all night (it's due this week), and taped the debate. What's your take on it?
The Bullshit Disabled
Is a scratch on your Porsche a disability? Because I took a few photos a while back of a certain apparently able-bodied L.A. personality parking his Porsche in a disabled spot at my favorite bank when he went to use the ATM. I e-mailed the guy to ask whether he has or had a handicapped permit to park in the space (he deleted my e-mail -- I could tell because he's also on AOL).
Yesterday, as I was looking at my photos of the guy striding to his Porsche, I was reminded of a story my friend Marie Standing told me about the "disabled" drivers taking over all the parking on her block. But, first, a bit on how loosey-goosey California is on who's considered disabled. Ralph Vartabedian writes for the LA Times:
The California Vehicle Code defines "disabled" as those who have "conditions" that include heart or circulatory disease; lung disease; a diagnosed disease or disorder that significantly limits the use of the lower extremities; specific documented visual problems; loss of use of one or both lower extremities or both hands.It doesn't define what kinds of heart or lung conditions would put an individual on an equal par with somebody who has lost both limbs, however. "It is not DMV's place to compare disabilities," said agency spokesman Steve Haskins.
By contrast, the New York DMV law is much more specific. It sets such criteria as an inability to walk 200 feet without stopping, use of portable oxygen and lung disease that sets specific volumes of breathing rates. It requires a disability to impose "unusual hardship in the use of public transportation and prevents the person from getting around without great difficulty."
Despite abuse in California, the Legislature last year relaxed the procedures for getting a placard. In the past, a doctor had to certify that a person was legitimately disabled. Now, the certifications can be made by midwives, nurse practitioners and physician assistants. The sponsor of that bill, Carol Liu, left the Assembly at the start of the year.
Whom does abuse hurt the most?
The truly disabled. In Sacramento, parking officer Gino Henry recalls the time he stopped a woman to question whether she was improperly using her placard. He noticed that she was missing an arm and apologized.
"She said, 'That's OK, officer. I appreciate you doing your job,' " he recalled.
Marie Standing tells her story:
While living for more than a decade in the same apartment behind Saint John's Hospital in Santa Monica, I watched as the steady increase of traffic on our residential street reached a breaking point. In an effort by patients and visitors to avoid hospital parking fees, my once-serene street became a daily musical chairs-type parking rodeo, leaving residents with fewer and fewer parking options. Although we had a two-hour non-resident parking restriction already in place, enforcement seemed beyond the city's limited resources. Enough was enough. I took clipboard in hand and gathered the requisite number of signatures -- two-thirds of those living on the street - in order to convert our parking to permit-only. Boy, was I proud when my efforts resulted in the successful reclaiming of our street and the right to park in front of our own homes.The celebration was short-lived. Although many non-residents were forced to find commercial parking elsewhere, my efforts created a parking mecca for hordes of seemingly healthy and fully ambulatory drivers sporting the prized magic blue hang tag that eliminates virtually all parking restrictions. I should explain that the bumper-to-bumper "handicapped" vehicles that now line my street, sometimes taking up two spaces, are driven by people who, despite their "handicaps," are also completely capable of walking the three city blocks required to reach their doctor's office. (I guess nothing heals a person like the prospect of paying a hospital parking fee.)
Perhaps you haven't had occasion to notice the increasing prevalence of cars now sporting the latest trend in automotive bling, or that the handicapped section of a parking lot has become as competitive as a Trader Joe's lot at lunchtime, but hey, take a look around, you may be surprised to discover that you too could also be "handicapped," if you squint your eyes just right. Handicapped fakery doesn't just bug me because it's a revolting example of American entitlement; it's an affront to all of the truly physically handicapped people who've fought to get the access they need to function socially and occupationally as valuable members of the community.
My neighbor, Mark Christensen, who suffered a brain injury 20 years ago and walks with great difficulty, took action to get a designated handicapped space in close proximity to his apartment -- or so he thought. He is usually free to park there -- providing he comes home at 3 a.m. Unfortunately, this designated handicapped space is frequently poached by some blue tag-sporting poser who is off to the doctor to have his "handicapped" status renewed before skipping three blocks back to his car.
I'm not saying that the handicapped automobile program shouldn't exist; it's just broken. It seems that patients now recognize what pharmaceutical companies spending billions marketing directly to the public realized about doctors: Ask and ye shall receive. So, despite all of the hype about 40 being the new 30 and 50 being the new 40, it seems that receiving a "handicapped" placard has become a right of passage, the early-bird special for people on the cusp of senior citizenhood, or anybody with a doctor who's willing to lie on their behalf. Well, enough is enough. Clearly doctors can't be trusted to prescribe medications or handicapped status without direct supervision, and need to be audited on a regular basis. Being cheap is not a medical condition.
What Do Terrorists Want?
Terrific piece in Wired, "The Seven Habits Of Highly Ineffective Terrorists," by security expert Bruce Schneier, quoting Stanford terrorism researcher Max Abrahms countering the notion that terrorism is "inherently political":
These seven tendencies are seen in terrorist organizations all over the world, and they directly contradict the theory that terrorists are political maximizers:Terrorists, he writes, (1) attack civilians, a policy that has a lousy track record of convincing those civilians to give the terrorists what they want; (2) treat terrorism as a first resort, not a last resort, failing to embrace nonviolent alternatives like elections; (3) don't compromise with their target country, even when those compromises are in their best interest politically; (4) have protean political platforms, which regularly, and sometimes radically, change; (5) often engage in anonymous attacks, which precludes the target countries making political concessions to them; (6) regularly attack other terrorist groups with the same political platform; and (7) resist disbanding, even when they consistently fail to achieve their political objectives or when their stated political objectives have been achieved.
Abrahms has an alternative model to explain all this: People turn to terrorism for social solidarity. He theorizes that people join terrorist organizations worldwide in order to be part of a community, much like the reason inner-city youths join gangs in the United States.
The evidence supports this. Individual terrorists often have no prior involvement with a group's political agenda, and often join multiple terrorist groups with incompatible platforms. Individuals who join terrorist groups are frequently not oppressed in any way, and often can't describe the political goals of their organizations. People who join terrorist groups most often have friends or relatives who are members of the group, and the great majority of terrorist are socially isolated: unmarried young men or widowed women who weren't working prior to joining. These things are true for members of terrorist groups as diverse as the IRA and al-Qaida.
For example, several of the 9/11 hijackers planned to fight in Chechnya, but they didn't have the right paperwork so they attacked America instead. The mujahedeen had no idea whom they would attack after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, so they sat around until they came up with a new enemy: America. Pakistani terrorists regularly defect to another terrorist group with a totally different political platform. Many new al-Qaida members say, unconvincingly, that they decided to become a jihadist after reading an extreme, anti-American blog, or after converting to Islam, sometimes just a few weeks before. These people know little about politics or Islam, and they frankly don't even seem to care much about learning more. The blogs they turn to don't have a lot of substance in these areas, even though more informative blogs do exist.
All of this explains the seven habits. It's not that they're ineffective; it's that they have a different goal. They might not be effective politically, but they are effective socially: They all help preserve the group's existence and cohesion.
Something called "deindividuation" happens in a mob. That's where a person's individual indentity gets swallowed up in favor of group goals -- even if that person would normally be opposed to whatever those group goals are.
Consider a certain group of "progressives" who popped up around these parts. They accused me of using racist language for writing this:
Not surprisingly, black leaders are outraged. Also not surprisingly, their outrage is not directed at women in the black community who squeeze out litters of fatherless children
In response to their accusations, I posted links from my blog to show where I used the very same term to describe rich white women, Catholic women, and Muslim women who had a large number of children, and explained that I feel strongly that children -- of any color -- need daddies. Somebody looking to find the truth would be satisfied at this point. A mob looking for their next kickball is not, and was not.
He Was Against Fannie Mae Before He Was For It
It's a rare and beautiful thing -- a politician who does the unpopular thing because he believes it's the right thing to do. The guy is Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan -- who, per a WSJ op-ed, is not one of the many Republicans who, for years, aided and abetted Fannie and Freddie, then this week ran for polical cover. Ryan was different:
As early as 2000 he was warning in House hearings that Fan and Fred were rushing into subprime loans and mortgage-backed securities, growing and concentrating their risk, and putting taxpayers on the hook. He's so vociferously called for more supervision that he was once stalked by a Fannie Mae lobbyist.In 2002 he co-sponsored legislation that would have put these beasts under SEC accounting standards. Fan and Fred, and their congressional enablers, killed it in committee. In 2005 he signed on to a bill that would have subjected the giants to modest reform. The Fan-Fred alliance speared it in the Senate.
In 2007, Mr. Ryan opposed a proposal by Texas Republican Randy Neugebauer to gut systemic risk protections for the duo. It passed 383 to 36, with 162 Republicans voting for the companies. Many were the same members who this week thought it too politically risky to stabilize a market rocked by the very Fan-Fred privileges they granted.
The congressman was no fan of Mr. Paulson's plan, and initially rallied conservatives around a rival approach. When it became clear that the administration's approach was the only thing going, he spearheaded negotiations to rid it of its worst liberal elements and to include more taxpayer protections.
As credit spreads widened, he said he also realized this was a "Herbert Hoover moment, where he sat by and let a Wall Street crash turn into a Great Depression . . . There are times when free-markets stop and rational thinking goes out the window. It then isn't enough to be a laissez-faire conservative and let Rome burn . . . This bill is not perfect, but doing nothing is far worse than passing this bill."
Compare this to Mr. Ryan's GOP colleagues in Wisconsin. Jim Sensenbrenner and Tom Petri were among those 162 Republicans that let Fan and Fred bust the bank. Yet when this week's day of reckoning came, Mr. Petri complained it was a "half-baked plan," while Mr. Sensenbrenner declared he wouldn't "subsidize Wall Street." Oh, for this righteousness during the half-baked Fan-Fred subsidy days. And this from two guys in safe seats.
This has left Mr. Ryan alone to defend his position back home. It hasn't helped that his colleagues are spinning this as bravery, crowing that it was they who listened to constituents and they who acted on free-market principles. Never mind that these principles were nowhere in evidence back when it mattered. And never mind that should America crash, it will be the free market offered up as sacrifice to the regulatory mob.
Here's the WSJ's Brian Carney on Barney Frank and a few of the other perps in the House, and how so many ignored Greenspan because he wasn't telling them what they wanted to hear:
I wouldn't hire this guy (Frank) to manage a dry cleaner.
Here's the WSJ's Henninger on "moral hazard," reducing risk to ridiculous levels so people take crazy financial chances:
And here's what I think Biden was talking about when he spoke of forgiving some of people's mortgage debts, Steve Moore on the financial rescue package and what would mean to smash the sanctity of contracts in our society:
The Right Regrets
Somebody sent me this Arthur Miller quote:
"Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the right regrets."
What would those be for you?
What's Bullshit And What Just Sounds Like It
Terrific piece in The New York Times by Steven Pinker on what we should and shouldn't worry about from Palin's part of the debate. Don't worry about the folksy accent and speech patterns, he writes. Instead...
Let's take the first myth: Governor Palin subjected herself to the most demanding test possible -- a televised debate. By surviving, she won. As the front page of The Daily News of New York screamed this morning, "No Baked Alaska."But as a test of clear thinking, the debate format was far less demanding than a face-to-face interview -- the kind Ms. Palin had with Katie Couric of CBS.
Why? Because in a one-on-one conversation, you can't launch into a prepared speech on a topic unrelated to the question. Imagine this exchange -- based on the first question that the moderator, Gwen Ifill, gave Ms. Palin and Senator Joe Biden -- if it took place in casual conversation over coffee:
LISA How about that bailout? Was this Washington at its best or at its worst?
MICHAEL You know, I think a good barometer here, as we try to figure out has this been a good time or a bad time in America's economy, is go to a kid's soccer game on Saturday, and turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, "How are you feeling about the economy?"
Lisa would flee. (This was, in fact, Ms. Palin's response.) In a conversation, you have to build your sentence phrase by phrase, monitoring the reaction of your listener, while aiming for relevance to the question. That's what led Ms. Palin into word salad with Ms. Couric. But when the questioner is 30 feet away on the floor and you're on a stage talking to a camera, which can't interrupt or make faces, you can reel off a script without embarrassment. The concerns raised by the Couric interviews -- that Ms. Palin memorizes talking points rather than grasping issues -- should not be allayed by her performance in the forgiving format of a debate.
Pinker's fascinating book, The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature
When you don't know how somebody feels about you, you don't go all full-frontal with your feelings for them. Consider the difference between "Wanna have sex with me?" and "Would you like to come up and see my etchings?" which Harvard psych professor Steven Pinker addresses in "The Stuff Of Thought." With the latter remark, the girl is reasonably sure you aren't looking to guide her around a late-night art exhibition, but "indirect speech" allows both of you to maintain what Pinker calls "a comfortable fiction."
Pinker, by the way, puts up a really entertaining Powerpoint. Here are a few slides on the psychology of swearing from his talk I attended this past spring at the NorthEast Evolutionary Psychology Society Conference at Southern New Hampshire University:
In that last slide, if I remember correctly, he's making a point (in the last night versus the one just before it) about the difference in punch between the "wrong" words and the "proper" words -- a point also made by The Supremes in Cohen v. California (aka the "Fuck the Draft" case)...that sometimes the wrong words are the right words to get a message across.
Um, And Why Is "Faith" A Good Thing?
Religulous, Bill Maher's new docu on religion:
And why are the Christians who are all up in arms about the homos not all up in arms about charging interest?
Islamists, Bugger Off!
The Australians have the right idea. Via Snopes:
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. The same should be done in the United States.A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. On the other hand President Bush hires security people from the UAE (United Arab Emirates of all places) to "secure" our nations ports.
It's nice to know that at least one democracy in the world can appreciate the separation of church and state. Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that this is false.
If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law, and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off". "Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said.
Lipstick On A Chihuahua
Okay, not just yet, but close. Via Instapundit.
A Neighborhood Worth Visiting
Mr. Rogers', in the documentary running on A&E. What an amazing guy. I had no idea. Great documentary, worth watching: A&E's "Fred Rogers." Airing on Biography, too. Next one is October 10. Don't miss it. I'm serious.
A Better Place
It looks like that's where somebody'll finally be putting the vile O.J. Simpson. From CNN's Paul Vercammen:
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (CNN) -- Former gridiron great O.J. Simpson was found guilty Friday of all 12 counts in the armed robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers at a Las Vegas, Nevada, casino hotel last year.The jury reached the verdict 13 years to the day after O.J. Simpson was acquitted of two murders.
Simpson, 61, and his co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart, 54, were charged with a dozen offenses stemming from the sports memorabilia heist. Stewart was found guilty of the same charges as Simpson.
Simpson sat quietly and showed little emotion at the defense table as courtroom clerk Sandra Jeter read the verdicts.
After the verdicts were read, deputies immediately handcuffed Simpson and led him out of the courtroom.
According to the Associated Press, Carmelita Durio, Simpson's sister, sobbed as he was being escorted out of the courtroom. As spectators left the courtroom, Durio collapsed and paramedics were called, court spokesman Michael Sommermeyer said.
Simpson and Stewart could spend the rest of their lives in prison for these convictions. Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass set sentencing for December 5.
Joe Sixpack's Girl
Her mission: Echo McCain's great society message, smile a lot, sound folksy, and try to make it sound like you're saying something when you're saying nothing. Oh, and say a lot of stuff with a lot of pep and spirit that sounds very reminiscent of McCain's Great Society rap.
Palin put on a good show, but it was clear: she was all talk, some memorized facts and talking points, and the bright idea to keep coming back to energy policy when she had nothing to say about a particular issue. Oh, and there were emotional appeals. How soccer moms feel. She knows it. Great. And you may not be a fan of Joe Biden (the "vice-plagiarist" candidate I like to call him), but the guy's been in the Senate a while and knows a few things. He's actually had a passport for quite some time.
I am a fan of the McCain health care plan, which levels the playing field for the self-employed, so we won't be paying for health care with after-tax dollars, while people who work for some big company get it as a before-tax perk. Nuh-uh.
Palin was full of it on gay civil rights and "tolerance," and how she has a wide variety of people in her circle of friends and family. (Translation: "I know gay people.") Unfortunately, Palin's acquaintance with gay Alaskans and "tolerance" from the rest of us won't grant gay people the rights and tax breaks straight people can get through marriage. Both said they were against gay marriage. It's my suspicion it's Palin's religious nuttery that makes her that way, and Biden's voter pandering. My take on it: Allow civil marriage for everyone and let the church marry or not marry whomever they want.
Getting back to the debate, Biden was full of it on the idea that there should be help for those who got ridiculous mortgages -- and not just "adjustments" on the interest, but on the principal. Um, Joe...who pays? How about not me, or the rest of us who happen to work hard to live within our means.
About Palin's remark that they didn't have health insurance at one point. I hope she was using birth control then, and not relying on public assistance to pick up the cost of any catastrophes suffered by her children. Whoops, is that socialism sneaking in? Do as I say, not as I did socialism? (I'm still waiting for a conservative candidate.)
Palin was also full of it when she talked about when Iraqis can govern. Um, lady, these are these endlessly warring tribal barbarians, and they're going to keep warring and killing each other long after you and I are off the planet, providing one of the other warring tribes from a neighboring country doesn't nuke them all off the planet first.
Oh yeah, and there's nucular. Nucular, nucular, nucular. I'd really had enough of that in the last administration. How depressing.
Finally, slick Joe and peppy Mrs. Joe Sickpack both seemed to do okay in tonight's debate overall. He didn't attack her, and she managed to seem strong and folksy and to ramble and say not a lot of stuff substance without really showing it.
The loser of the evening? Of course, the Libertarian party, which didn't manage to figure out that they needed to put forth a candidate with the charisma of Palin or Obama to catch the attention of voters, and become viable for a change.
Change? Yeah, when anybody sees a candidate who embodies any, please wake me from my long depression.
This Message Brought To You By "Assholes For Obama"
You know, if you're advertising something on your car, perhaps it would behoove you not to park like a total asswad? Note how far up the white line is on the left (denoting where the meter space is supposed to end), and how far up the parking meter that's supposed to be for my car's space is on the right.
Yes, in one of the most parking challenged areas in Santa Monica, right off Main Street, this twit takes up two spaces, when it would have taken, what, a single second more to pull up so somebody could park behind her? (At a glance, the stuff inside the car looked rather "her.")
I call this kind of utter oblivion to any other human's needs "Lunar Landing Behavior" -- appropriate on the moon, where there aren't a whole lot of other people who need to park so they make it to their mail place before closing time, etc., but not so appropriate on earth.
Only my Honda Insight or a Smart car could fit in the space left by the jerk -- and I still had to pull up three times to try to get out of the red, getting in and out of my car each time to check, and ultimately forgetting the letters I had to mail because of it. Here's the note I left on the person's car:
Okay, here's a question for you: Are Republicans or Democrats ruder? Where do Libertarians fit in? Or does rudeness have little or no connection to party line?
Look What The Elected Scumbags Stuck On The Bailout Bill
From Taxpayers For Common Sense, a few choice special-interest turds hanging off it:
Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children
Current law places an excise tax of 39 cents on the first sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any shaft of a type used to produce certain types of arrows. This proposal would exempt from the excise tax any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means to enhance the spine of the shaft used in the manufacture of an arrow that measures 5/16 of an inch or less and is unsuited for use with a bow with a peak draw weight of 30 pounds or more. The proposal is effective for shafts first sold after the date of enactment. The estimated cost of the proposal is $2 million over ten years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.The Oregon senators were the initial sponsors of the provisions. According to Bloomberg News, the provision would be worth $200,000 to Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon.
Here we have Oregon Scumbag One, and Oregon Scumbag Two. Kind of like Thing One and Thing Two in Doctor Seuss, only really oily and pandering.
I went on their sites, clicked up "contact me," and sent this message to each:
You vile panderer. Wooden arrows? How do you sleep nights, you oily creep?http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/02/look_what_the_e.html
I looked at Oregon campaign contributions and couldn't find any, either in the name of the company, Rose City Archery, or the owner, Jerry Dishion. Dishion told me he hasn't contributed to either senator, and that this measure was to correct an error in a law passed in 2004, when the cost of 30-cent children's arrows had a 43-cent tax tacked onto them. The cause was initially taken up by Oregon Congressman DeFazio, he said.
Dishion, who was very stand-up-guy-sounding on the phone, said that tax nearly put a bunch of businesses across the country (archeries, I think he said or meant) out of business.
Well, okay, not good, but I asked him if he was troubled that it was tacked onto the bailout bill.
"What difference does it make if a wrong is corrected what bill it's tacked onto?" he said.
Agree? Disagree?
The turd list continues:
Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility
Track owners want to be able write-off the cost of their facilities on their taxes over seven years - a depreciation timetable many of them have used for decades. But the IRS has wanted to stretch it to at least 15 years and has raised questions whether the increasingly popular tracks really belong in the same tax category as amusement parks.Auto track owners are simply trying to get out of paying more taxes - which they'd have to do if they deducted less every year. These owners have gotten plenty of tax breaks over the years from states and localities eager to get speedways. The provision would be extended 2 years till the end of 2009 and would cost $100 million. The provision encompasses all facilities including grandstands, parking lots and concession stands.
Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
Extends until December 31, 2009 a rebate against excise taxes charged on rum imported from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. A $13.50 per proof gallon excise tax is applied to distilled spirits imported to the U.S. Under this provision a $13.25 rebate is returned to PR and the VI, and is retroactive back to January 1, 2008. Permanent law sets the rebate at $10.50 per proof gallon, but the PR and VI provisions have generally been in place since the first Clinton Administration. The most recent extension of the $13.50 rebate expired January 1, 2008. Cost is $192 million.
Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds
The tariff relief (duty savings) is intended to benefit U.S. worsted wool fabric producers that use imported fibers and yarns as inputs, as well as U.S. tailored clothing manufacturers that use imported fabrics as inputs. This provision was originally introduced as a bill in December 2007 by Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Melissa Bean (D-IL). It extends current law provisions until 12/31/14, and in some cases to12/31/15. The 2010 to 2015 cost is estimated to be $148 million.
Not Just Talk
We don't expect politicians to speak the truth writes the LA Times' Tim Rutten. And he's wrong that Islamists always do (he hasn't heard of taqqiya, apparently). But one guy who does, at least in one sense, is the vile man who's the president of Iran, who spoke last week at the United Nations:
In the course of a characteristically rambling diatribe, Ahmadinejad, one of the world's great public anti-Semites, had this to say:"The dignity, integrity and rights of the American and European people are being played with by a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists. Although they are a minuscule minority, they have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the U.S. in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner. It is deeply disastrous to witness that some presidential or premier nominees in some big countries have to visit these people, take part in their gatherings, swear their allegiance and commitment to their interests in order to attain financial or media support.
"This means that the great people of America and various nations of Europe need to obey the demands and wishes of a small number of acquisitive and invasive people. These nations are spending their dignity and resources on the crimes and occupations and the threats of the Zionist network against their will."
There's a temptation to dismiss all this as simply "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" nonsense. But consider this other statement of Ahmadinejad's, made in a TV address in 2006: "Zionists and their protectors are the most detested people in all of humanity, and the hatred is increasing every day. ... The worse their crimes, the quicker they will fall."
Or perhaps this, from 2005: "Israel must be wiped off the map. ... The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world."
By "world oppressor," Ahmadinejad means the United States. He happens to belong to a Shiite sect that believes it can hasten the coming of the Mahdi, the Islamic savior, by the creation of chaos in the world. And like his brethren among the Sunni jihadists, he means what he says.
Mary Halbeck, one of the West's foremost scholars of jihadism and its religious origins, describes Islamist extremists as "committed to the destruction of the entire secular world because they believe this is a necessary first step to create an Islamic utopia on Earth." Their "view of the enemies of Islam means that their depiction in the Koran and hadith [commentaries on the Koran] is valid today in every detail. The Jews in particular have specific negative characteristics. ... They are notorious for their betrayal and treachery; they have incurred God's curse and wrath; they were changed into monkeys and pigs."
This is what the men who brought the hell of 9/11 to America believed. This is what Ahmadinejad believes and what he simply awaits the opportunity to act on.
When the delegates to the U.N. General Assembly applauded Ahmadinejad's speech last week, and the American media passed over it in silence, this is the sentiment to which they gave their respective explicit and tacit approval.
Shame on them; shame on us.
Dump The V.P. Job? An Interesting Idea
Bruce Ackerman writes in the LA Times:
Sarah Palin is the product of a design flaw -- the unintended consequence of the founders' decision to create the vice presidency.For two centuries, presidential nominees have used the office to balance the ticket by naming a running mate from a different region, or one who speaks with a different ideological accent to a specific constituency. This means that a president's death generates a double shock: The nation not only mourns a fallen leader, it must deal with a replacement who may push politics in a new direction.
Teddy Roosevelt -- who replaced William McKinley when he was assassinated in 1901 -- may have been a great progressive president, but he had been named as vice president by the arch-conservative McKinley simply to carry New York. The country elected a right-winger but ended up with something else entirely.
Similar perverse logic led Abraham Lincoln to choose Andrew Johnson as a running mate. Lincoln knew that Johnson was a racial conservative, but he was more interested in carrying Tennessee. This tragic blunder clouds Lincoln's claim to greatness. When Lincoln was killed, Johnson's bitter opposition to Reconstruction helped poison race relations for generations.
Recent elections have lulled us into a false sense of security. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush nominated like-minded, known-quantity running mates, as has Barack Obama this time around. But John McCain's surprising choice should lead us to think again. Mexico and France see no need for a vice president. We should designate the secretary of State to be in charge until a special election can be held to replace a president.
This isn't a question on which the founders deserve any deference. They designed their system for a very different political world.
...If McCain wins the presidency, we can only wish him a long life. But however the race turns out, we should recognize that the founders didn't have the slightest idea that the vice presidency would episodically explode in our face, and it's about time we fixed it.
Islam: A Synopsis
I got this e-mail from a reader -- a brief explanation of Islam for the uninitiated:
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components.The religious component is a beard for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source, CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism & Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.
Imams To Rape Victims: Just Close Your Eyes And Think Of Pakistan
Am I intolerant of people's religious and cultural practices? Absofuckinglutely. Take the charming way imams condone rape, and treat women like possessions, like two-legged dogs that belong to the men they're with. Here's one example, from a Times Of London story by Richard Kerbaj:
It wasn't love that brought Aliya and Hassan together, but a couple of childhood photos he'd seen of her. For Hassan, Aliyah - then a 20-year-old from Manchester - was a ticket out of Pakistan to join his brothers in England in the hope of kick-starting a lucrative career in medicine.As for what Aliyah thought of Hassan? Well, no one cared. Not her mother, who threatened to kill herself if Aliyah didn't go through with the marriage. Not her father, who had routinely molested Aliyah in her formative years, and not her siblings, who desperately wanted to uphold their parents' honour and obey their demands.
For three years after her wedding in Pakistan in 1998 Aliyah - a practising Muslim raised in northern England, who wears the hijab - was raped and emotionally abused by her husband. "He wanted to do things in the bedroom that I didn't want to do," she told The Times. "And in the end he forcefully got what he wanted."
Aliyah, who worked as a factory-hand to support her unemployed husband, went to her local cleric to raise her concerns of being subjected to sexual abuse after her mother refused to listen to her complaints.
"I told my imam that I was suffering and that my confidence was broken," she said. "The imam told me to be patient. And I couldn't say no to him because I was raised to fear men and put up with their decisions."
Aliyah didn't go back to the imam because he was a close friend of her family and she was afraid that he would relay her complaints to her parents. She couldn't seek the advice of another imam because clerics don't usually deal with females that aren't their students or known to them through family links.
"I totally lost faith in spiritual leaders after that," Aliyah said. "I lost faith in imams because they refuse to discuss issues such as rape and abuse and refuse to speak up against it. It's seen as an embarrassing issue for them and they won't get involved because they think their reputation will be ruined and so would the reputation of the community." Aliyah also accused her mother of ignoring her complaints about her sexually abusive father.
Here, via JihadWatch, from Robert Spencer on FrontPage, is abuse closer to home:
Last Sunday Chaudhry Rashid, a Pakistani immigrant living in Clayton County, Georgia, strangled his daughter to death. According to police, Rashid explained to them that he had killed his daughter, Sandeela Kanwal, in order to restore his family's honor, which she had sullied by planning to divorce the husband to whom she had been given in an arranged marriage. Clayton County Police spokesman Tim Owens explained: "Apparently she and the father had argued over the marriage and the fact that it was arranged, and at some point during the altercation he did end up killing his daughter."The family appears to have adhered to traditional Islamic mores. A neighbor noted: "I would see the young lady outside every once in a while dressed in the traditional Muslim gear." Added another: "The father, he would pray at certain times of the mornings and evenings." And indeed, honor killing most commonly occurs among Muslims. While there is no direct sanction given in the Qur'an or Islamic law for it, the practice is encouraged by the shame/honor culture that Islam has created. A transgression of the moral law is not seen only as a sin to be somehow expiated by the individual who committed it, but as a blot upon the honor and purity of the family of the victim - and that blot inheres in the sullied purity of the victim, not the perpetrator.
...Ignoring the clear and close link between of honor killing and Islamic culture, however, the mainstream media searched for explanations elsewhere. CNN consulted Ajay Nair, associate dean of multicultural affairs at Columbia University, to see if honor killing was a "South Asian" problem. Certainly not, explained Nair: "My immediate reaction was that this is an anomaly in the South Asian community. This isn't a rampant problem within South Asian communities. What is a problem, I think, is domestic violence, and that cuts across all communities."
Also ignoring the incidence of honor killings in Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Gaza and elsewhere (including among Muslim immigrants in Germany, Britain, Canada, and Texas), the Chicago Tribune attributed it to the cultural rigidity of Pakistani and Indian immigrants, and even dragged in the crowned heads of Europe: "Such cultural unions serve as social contracts among South Asians and other communities, where a marriage agreement is more about families joining forces than about two people finding love--akin to the arranged marriages of European royalty..."
To this Warner Todd Huston of NewsBusters trenchantly responded: "Last I checked my history books common Europeans didn't go around killing their daughters for marrying 'wrong' and neither did their ages old Monarchs."
If there are women in the world who truly need rescue, it's Muslim women. Especially with the advent of Sharia law in the UK -- supposedly a choice for Muslims, but really not a choice for the broken, mistreated slaves of Islam, women -- there should be special phone lines to deal with their issues and to rescue them from the barbarians, if the women are up for it.
Another disgusting story here mentions The Henna Foundation. Apparently, they're a service organization for Muslim women, but Tuesday night I tried their website (on Safari and Camino) and it was a big white field with nothing in it, just their name and some colored fields on top.
Who's Afraid Of Big Government?
The answer is, neither the Democratic or Republican candidate. The question is, will our country collapse if we don't have a bailout? I am not qualified to answer that -- neither, I suspect, are many of the people who answer that question either way.
Regarding this topic, the Libertarian Party just sent me this message:
McCain, Obama Support Shows Both are Big Government CandidatesAtlanta, GA - "The Senate is set to vote on the Wall Street bailout later today, but the attempt to dress up this bad bill with a few more political goodies is like putting lipstick on a pig," notes Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. "Yet Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, as well as the congressional leaders of both parties, are all backing the bailout. It is evident that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties: Neither of them will stand up for the taxpayers," observes Barr.
"The Senate bill is even less responsible than the House measure," warns Barr. "It would more than double federal insurance coverage of bank deposits, even though the vast majority of Americans already are protected. Some supporters are hoping to add tax measures and increase unemployment insurance benefits in an attempt to turn the bailout into a special interest Christmas tree. In the mind of Washington politicians, $700 billion isn't a large enough bill to stick to the American people," notes Barr.
"Although Sen. McCain likes to pose as a defender of the taxpayers, he is pushing the Bush administration to further intervene in the credit markets and to purchase up to a trillion dollars worth of private mortgages even without Congressional action," Barr observes.
"Sen. McCain says we should call the bailout a 'rescue.' But regardless of what they call it, the bill remains a trillion dollar or more effort by the federal government to bailout private industry," says Barr.
"We need a market work-out, which includes encouraging private investment purchases of assets that both McCain and Obama claim have value if taxpayers buy them. We need to let the business processes work, including receiverships and bankruptcy liquidation," Barr explains.
"To prevent a reoccurrence of this financial crisis, we need federal fraud prosecution--not a government bailout," says Barr. "The starting point for this painful adjustment process is for Wall Street to understand that there will be no further bailouts. Then, Congress should get to work addressing issues such as scrapping harmful federal regulations like 'mark-to-market' accounting standards, which have helped turn serious, but manageable, losses into a full-fledged economic crisis."
"We need political change," Barr notes. "But Senators Barack Obama and John McMain have proved yet again that, despite their rhetoric, they are charter members of the Washington establishment. It is not change that they will give us, but more of the same. Only a vote for Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party will yield the change that the American people so desperately want and deserve," Barr concludes.
Oh, really? How? When there's little chance of Bob Barr getting elected?
And when a libertarian candidate mentions lipstick on a pig in the forest, will anybody notice in the slightest?
