Well I'm glad the country came in second.

Couple of points from this article on immigration.

Tom Tancredo of Colorado: "I wish he'd think about the party and of course I also wish he'd think about the country." This couldn't state my problem with parties any better.

"The elite class in America is becoming a ruling class and they've made enough money by hiring cheap illegal labor that they think they also have some kind of a right to cheap servants to manicure their nails and their lawn, for example.

Steve King of Iowa, "So this ruling class, this new ruling class of America, is expanding a servant class in America at the expense of the middle class of America, the blue collar of America that used to be able to punch a time clock, buy a modest house and raise their families. ... Those young people are cut out of this process."

Wait, is this the GOP inciting class warfare? I thought one of the big GOP rallying cry against the dems was that the dems are always using class as a weapon. If the GOP is using the wildly successful democratic strategies, well, you just get the feeling that the wheels are coming off. It just good for the GOP that their competition is so inept. But if they keep stealing the good stuff, they may find themselves equal sooner rather than later.

Of Course It's a Conspiracy

Everyone knows we bombed our own capital, took down our own twin towers, flooded our own people out of New Orleans, conspired against our own Bills in four super bowls and blew up our own Challenger. Our country is so far ahead of every other country that our leaders have decided the only way to make things at least somewhat competitive (and therefore more fun) is to start sabotaging our own progress. That’s why Bill Clinton had to be talked into humiliating himself and our country’s highest office, why Old Man Bush was convinced to lie about not raising taxes and why W agreed to tack on a ridiculously expensive prescription drug benefit to an already unaffordable program. The Keep It Close initiative probably started with Nixon, but no one can be sure. I’ve been sending suggestions to them for years. I’ve recommended letting the DMV run our hospitals (to reduce our population advantage), putting John Kerry in charge of the Pentagon (to eliminate our military advantage), and leaving the public school system just as it is (to eliminate our education advantage). With hard work and creative problem solving we may even be able to reduce our huge cultural lead over France within a millennium!

Sporting News

Interesting article on sports that has implications to broader ideas. Schoenfield argues that a "cap" on spending in sports isn't all its cracked up to be. Using baseball as an example he compares MLB to the NFL and the NBA to get an idea of how competitive the various leagues are. Going in you would assume that MLB would be the least competitive because there is such a drastic gap between the rich and poor teams. His quick study shows otherwise. Now this is not a deep study with rigorous protocols, but it is an interesting thesis with some equally interesting preliminary results. The gist of it is that the messing with the market doesn't make things better. In business, the difference between any two companies is the quality of management across all levels. Makes sense that the same applies in sports.

Rather than fantasy sports, I like to dabble in fantasy league ownership. If you want to improve the game do the following. One, set a minimum number of wins a team has to have to qualify for revenue sharing. Two, only pay players for wins. Pay them a lot, but only give them a check if their team wins. Three, dump the draft. The last one is huge as I love the draft. But every league would be better if it didn't exist. Finally, and I know no league has control over this, but pay college athletes. With all of the above, games would be more competitive, exciting, and entertaining.

A move towards elections

Colorado state senator Ken Gordon is submitting a bill that would allot Colorado's electoral college votes to the presidential candidate that recieved the most popular votes nation-wide. It comes with a clause that it only takes effect if states representing 270 electoral votes, a majority, join the compact. I like it. It's not as dramatic as getting rid of the electoral college, which I favor, but its a step in the right direction. The full plan from the group pushing it here.

A new buddy flick

Picture this, Unknown Blogger and Bush on the same team. Only in Hollywood right? Nope, I'm solidly with Bush on his guest worker program. Part of me thinks he's going to blow it with me, you know, more pretty words followed by actions that totally go against what he's set up, but like a moth to the flame, I'm drawn to his stance on this issue. My basic position is make work easy, make citizenship hard. Bush has a fight on his hands as the GOP wants to focus on keeping people out, a nearly impossible task that will only lead to more invasive laws. Not that a giant wall isn't invasive. How far we've come from Reagan saying "Tear down this wall!" Now its, "build this wall!" At least the Senate doesn't seem to be taking the insane wall thing up. The house also wanted to make it illegal to help people in need. Again, the Senate seems to be using some sense here. From the people, I love Cardinal Roger Mahoney. The man who was prepared to tell his priests to "violate the law banning humanitarian assistance, if it passed."

I don't understand this new immigration policy push. Not from an economic position. Not from a social position. And not from a humanitarian/moral position. I'm looking to Stalin to explain all this to me.

Maybe Putin had Krytonite in his pocket

Looks like Bush may have read the signs wrong when he peered into Putins soul.

The Emperor's new groove

Bush signs the anti-torture law, then says it doesn't apply to him. Bush signs the USA PATRIOT Act renewal, but says the restrictions don't apply to him. Anyone detect a pattern?

Just to speed things up on the blog.

Stalin: Regan, Bush I, and Clinton all did the same things.

UBlo: I know, I know, the "if people have done it in the past, it must be ok now line of thought." Well, no president has done it to this extent, not when its this serious, and finally, it still doesn't make it right.

Stalin: We're at war, he's using his "Commander in Chief" authority.

UBlo: I know, I know, your unshakable trust in a man you don't know. Well, the Afganistan and Iraq wars are over. Wars are between states, and the officials of both states that we went to war against are no longer in power. This is more like post V-J Day Japan. Congress never declared "War" on terrorism, thus the President, any President, doesn't have the authority he's taken. Three branches. Kind of the cornerstone of our leadership model. The problem is when one party controls all three branches, no branch wants to step on the other's toes. Party first, country second.

Stalin: Your becoming a paranoid freak.

Ublo: You're just saying that because of the nanobots THEY placed in your brain!

Have OJ's people call Charlie's people.

Charlie Sheen thinks he has the real answers to the 9/11 attack. I think the greatest TV show of all time would be a reality series where Charlie and OJ team up to find a) Niclole's real killers, and b) uncover the real story of 9/11. Somebody has to make this happen. Please.

Bizarro world continues

SCOTUS returns a solid conservative ruling from the liberal side, conservatives dissent. Solid commentary, as usual, from SCOTUSBlog. Actual opinions in Georgia v. Randolph, here.

Separation Anxiety

Long time readers of this blog know that I'm no fan of the deficit. In thinking through how to get it down, I came up with a source. Get rid of the tax-excemption for churches. Several reasons for this.

One, while the origin lies in the "separation" clause, it actually brings the church closer to the government. Two reasons. One, it amounts to a massive subsidy to churches, not just say the Roman Catholic Church, but any church with three parishoners and a board. And it applies to all things the church touches, cars, real estate, stocks, everyting. So churches are on the public dole, and the IRS knows this. Which leads to demonstration two of the lack of separation. The government uses the tax-excemption to control the churches. Here is one example.

Two, the real-world application is also counter-intuitive. Its not like churches don't use fire, police, roads, millitary protection, etc, so why don't they have to pay for them. Furthermore, why do I have to support all churches, not just the one I attend? Why should I be forced to support Scientology, or if I'm Muslim, why does the government take money from me to support the local Synagogue? Why am I forced to support James Dobson?

I think the better thing is to get rid of the excemption. Let those that follow a church support that church. Get rid of the scammers, get rid of the subsidy, help balance the budget, all in one fell swoop.

See you in hell...

Hotlantis!

She Blinded Me With...

If you believe the article, then there is a 50% chance that it's wrong. If you don't believe the article, then the odds that you're wrong go up. I've said it before and I'll say it again...if you want good science, stick with Mr. Wizard.

Hurry down Doomsday the bugs are taking over

I don't know Stalin, polls like this are very, very accurate

Was reading an article about a federal court overturning an EPA decision to give power plants the ability ot circumvent the need to increase pollutant controls if they spend less than 20% of the plants worth on upgrades (currently, just about any upgrade triggers the need to add polutant fighting measures). Anyway, I like the ruling, lots of reasons, but mostly because its a very, very stupid allowance. There's no base line value, so if you add 20% value in one year, then next year your allowed to spend 20% of the new combined value. Year one on an $100 plant, you can spend $20. Year two, you can spend $24 (20% of $120), etc. They get to spend 20% of an ever increasing number. Bad wording, blatent attempt to circumvent the Clean Air Act. I agree with the court, if you want to get rid of the Clean Air Act, get congress to vote it down. Scalia says this all the time, and he's right.

Anyway, you can also take an interactive poll. At least this poll acknowledges that its "not scientific" at the bottom, but the wording on this was precious. Why, yes I do think money is more important than saving lives. Awesome. I can't figure out how to make the poll appear here, so you're going to have to see it for yourselves. I can't hold your hand through life anymore.

Something about a mirror

Near the end of an article where Bush says, "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," (which I agree) there was this quote about China. "China's leaders must realize, however, that they cannot stay on this peaceful path while holding on to old ways of thinking and acting that exacerbate concerns throughout the region and the world," Bush wrote. He said these "old ways" include enlarging China's military in a non-transparent way, expanding trade, yet seeking to direct markets rather than opening them up, and supporting energy-rich nations without regard to their misrule or misbehavior at home or abroad. Which got me thinking. If you substituted "China" for "US" how would that list differ...

Enlarging US' military in a non-transparent way...check. No need to elaborate here.

Expanding trade, yet seeking to direct markets rather than opening them up...check. The US has repeatedly broken off multi-lateral free trade talks in favor of one-on-one trade talks with emerging markets so as to allow the US to keep its barriers up, while bringing theirs down.

Supporting energy-rich nations without regard to their misrule or misbehavior at home or abroad...check. I'm guessing holding hands with a Saudi dictator counts here.

Now for the inflametory part. Perhaps my biggest concern for this country is that more and more, by most any objective level, our peer group sucks. This is not just a Bush problem, it goes back before him, (Clinton jumps to mind) but he's on point now. Rather than rise above the other nations and act as a beacon, we're increasingly wallowing in the same mud. Its like we've lost our vision, drive and trust in the experiment that is America. The hypocracy is going to catch up with us, both internally and externally.

Dig this

Bush wants to hire the the former head of Boston's Big Dig project to be the new head of the Federal Highway Administration. That's right folks, the guy who headed up the nightmare that is and was the Big Dig is now the top choice to run our highways. Seriously, I think that Bush just picks the guys with the worst reputations, not bad reps, not "well he could've done better" reps, but the true disasters to run things. I don't know if its because he feels like these types will have unquestioned loyalty to him because he plucked them out of the sewers that their careers became after thier mistakes, or if he just wants to feel superior to everyone, or if its some kind of weird dare. But this guy, Capka has to be nuclear. Just stay away from him. I'm sorry, but some things are just career enders. Give him a lesser job as a reward for his 30 years of service, fine, but why go near the guy now?

I have to give Kerry credit, his quote, "I'm afraid Richard Capka could be the Brownie of highways." is pretty solid for a Democrat, and may be the quote that buries Capka. I mean, if Kerry gets the zinger, you know you have problems.

Stick a fork in him, Chef is done

Isaac Hayes is leaving the Comedy Central cartoon "South Park." Up front, I've never seen an episode of South Park, but I do appreciate the clips I've seen. What gave me pause was Hayes' reason, "There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins...Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored, as a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."

I think what he meant was "I can't support a show that makes fun of MY beliefs," as South Park has a long history of satirising Christianity, and that never bugged him. Also, I saw a clip of the episode in question, and thought it was brilliant. Co-Creator Matt Stone agrees with me on Hayes' hipocracy, "(We) never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin."

Hayes isn't the first person to laugh at others but get offended when it comes back at him, and he won't be the last.

My Prescription for Health Costs

Just read that Sen. Frist proposed a two year moratorium on drug advertising saying "saying commercials drive up health care costs." Now this is not a dig on Frist, (I'm in a good mood so I won't ask Stalin to defend yet antoher GOPer interfering with the free market) but his comments did get me thinking. Why would advertising neccessarily drive up costs? Shouldn't the democratization of information drive down cost? The more people know about their choices the better. I've read that the increase comes from patients asking about drugs, and Dr.'s prescribing them, even if its not ideal or needed, but that's a problem with Dr.'s not the market. A patient should be able to say, "Hey I heard about the drug "Stalimone," I need something that makes me obtuse, condensending, and unable to process new, divergent information." To which the Dr. can say, "While the drug "Stalimone" does bring peace because you don't have to worry about thinking, its not right for you, so I'm sorry, but no." But what is missing from the ads, and this is fairly unique, is any price info. That's the key. I know that most people are insured and don't really care about costs, but the only way for a free market to work in health-care is to start educating people on price.

So here's my plan. This is not a dramatic, "now that this happened all is well" type of plan, but it lays the foundation. Much like no matter how good the lose weight now ads are, you still only lose weight gradually, and with work. first, mandate that drug ads have an equivilant to a MSRP. This begins the training on cost. Training that is neccessary if we are ever to get a handle on rising health-care costs. Then also mandate that Dr.'s must post prices, give estimates, and show total billing before any work is done. If my mechanic must tell me how much a new transmission is going to cost so should my Dr. Then I can begin to place medical services on some sort of price line. It's easier to shop around, and I will be better prepared to pay my own way, a must if a free market is ever to take hold here. As it stands, medicine is like a former communist econonmy. The consumers have no idea what stuff should cost, or can cost. Open up pricing to us, and prices will come down. They always do.

Free prices to the masses, free prices to the masses, free prices to the masses*

*I need to work on my chant.

HuG TV

Who else thought HGTV was for homosexuals until they bought a home? Now I simply can't get enough. UBlo, stay out of those dark, disappointing theatres and put some real "real" in your reality TV. Soon all your treatments will be window treatments!

Movies and Me

Mrs. Blogger and I went to see some movies. Here's the quick review.

"Date Movie" utterly terrible (as roughly expected-but we had a sitter and saw all the other movies at the theater-I wonder how much of Hollywoods box office comes is owed to sitters?). And yes, the movie screams Caveat Emptor, but I actually felt bad for Alison Hannigan because she seems nice enough but she should definitley fire her agent. This was a "career destroying" type bad movie.

"Ultraviolet" Mrs. Blogger did not like it, I loved it. Looked and felt like a comic book, which makes sense as its based on one. Even had scenes where Milla Javionichidghech's nose was blurry, which I think was done on purpose to make her look more like a drawn figure, it just bugged the wife. Solid actions scenes, and a very comic book plot (good or bad depending). I don't know the book so I can't vouch for how well it held to the book.

But Date movie got me thinking. Yes I expected a bad movie, but why would a studio put one this bad out? While it may recoup some of the investment, it must hurt brand name. Then it hit me, no one cares about which studio put the movie out. I can't name the studio of any movie I've seen, whether I loved it or hated it. So there's no reputational damage to the studio (there are direct risks, put out enough movies that don't make back the investment and you go under, for example). So Fox can put junk out because I'll never think before I see a movie "Oh, is this a Fox movie? I don't like them since I saw Date Movie (had to look that up). I'll shy away from actors and directors, but studio...means nothing to me. Its not like an automanufacturer. Ask anyone who made the Mustang II and they'll say "Ford" and Ford suffered because of bombs like that. Its an interesting dynamic. The studios get the profits, but don't take the same risks as actors, directors, or even writers. One bomb (see Alyson Hannigan above) and your career could be over, yet studio's can release bomb after bomb, becasue no one really associates movies with the studio's. Maybe it hurts within the industry, Fox has a harder time attracting A list actors and directors due to bombs, that I don't know. But it doesn't seem like the consumer cares, which I find interesting.

Flat out the right thing to do

WSJ (I know, I know, I'll post the article in the comments section) has an article about taxes today. Longtime fans of this blog know I'm a big fan of the flat tax. Bleeding heart McLieberman (I'm sorry Mc, please come back) says that the flat tax only helps the rich.

Key quotes from the article, "Nearly a million taxpayers hurt themselves in a single year by taking the standard deduction, even though they could have paid an average of nearly $500 less in taxes each had they itemized."

And, "Overall, as many as 2.2 million tax filers, representing roughly 2% of the total, may have paid nearly a billion dollars more than they needed to in taxes, an average of $438 per return, because of failing to itemize, according to the GAO study."

One thing you can bet is that these mistakes are made by folks on the lower end of the income scale as the higher you go, the more likely you are to get professional help.

Bottom line, a flat-tax democratizes the tax process. Its progressive by the fact that everyone gets the benefits, and it rids the current system of the implied penalty paid by the poor because they don't understand and take advantage of all the tax-deductions.

When's an accomplice not an accomplice?

Big news in SD is the passing of the anti-abortion bill. No need to go too far into this as it is a long way from reality as it breaks current law. But I do have this to say...
One, I didn't know the states could pass a law that obviously breaks US Federal Law. I think that's cool. I get that the whole thing is just a ploy to get it in front of the Supreme Court, but I just didn't know you could do that.
Two, a lots been made about the no rape/incest exemption, but to me it makes sense in the scope of the argument.
Three, they did keep a "health of the mother" clause. Good move, this is where the partial birth abortion ban errs.
Four, for some reason it always makes me snicker to read that Planned Parenthood operates the only abortion clinic in the state. I get that there are like 27 people in the SD, but some cities have more than one clinic per block, much less one for the whole state. Clearly not a big demand in SD.
Five, leaving the ability for Dr's to prescribe drugs before pregnancy is confirmed seems like a biiig loophole. Woman: "Dr. I'm scared I'm pregnant. I don't want to be." Dr: "Here, take these and come back in a week and we'll take a look."
Six, and most interestingly. While any Dr. performing an abortion faces five years in the slammer, the mother cannot be charged. How does that work? Regardless of anything else, I think this is a stupid law because of that little gem. Seriously, what's the thinking there? How is the mother not culpable? If its a crime, surely she's the prime mover/suspect. It's not like Dr's are trolling the streets trying to convince unsuspecting women to have an abortion. This is a truely bizzare clause. It strikes me as "my daughter may have done wrong by getting an abortion, but I don't want her going to jail. But abortion is wrong, and we have to do something. I know, let's nail the Drs." It's either a crime or it isn't, jail everyone involved, or jail no one.

Ad Out of Hell

Pour your sugar on me...

The WSJ has hit upon one of my pet issues (when you have as many as I do, its inevitable), the sugar subsidy. I don't know if they give their op-eds away. Let me know and I will post the article in the comments section.

Brief summary, subsidy bad, cost three jobs for every job saved, increase negative trade balance, etc. This is a good time to end it because of a spike in world sugar prices.

Won't happen.

Note to all clinically depressed 40 year old asthmatics, WE WANT YOU!

A WSJ report on new training "techniques" in the Army. I'll copy the whole article in the comments section.

As noted in a previous thread, recruitment is a key indicator of support in Iraq, and I belive an indicator in confidence in the government as a whole. The Army increased its minimum age to 40(after raising it from 30 to 35 about a year ago) plus this "softer, gentler" approach to basic training outlined in the liberal WSJ shows how difficult recuitment is these days.

Also, as an interesting historical comparison. One thing all the great empires had in common before they began their descent was that the quality of the infantry began to decline. Rome handled this by having civilan and professional units (but this move was a harbinger of the end), and the mighty Spartan's did the same after the Pelopennisian War.

Speaking of Spartans...just to be clear, the US has made the decision that 40 year old's who need inhalers and medication to treat depression are superior soldiers to perfectly healthy adults who happen to be homosexual.

Actually, I do hope the Army keeps concise records of those in these new classes. One would expect a higher mortality rate among these recruits, or this may show that the Army's harsher methods were uneccessary.

You too can be a terrorist suspect

Besides wanting to know if your talking to terrorist, the DOHS also wants to know why your paying off your credit cards. Fun reading for you "this law won't creep" proponents out there.

Interesting poll

In the first poll I've seen directly focused on troops, Zogby has some interesting results.

Taken as a group, 72% of troops in Iraq want a withdrawl in 12 months. By branch, guardsmen want out now at about 75%, while only 15% of Marnies feel that way, but 58% of Marines back the 12 month idea. This makes sense to me. Guardsmen and Reserves signed on for a weekend a month and two weeks a year, not extended duty abroad. I wonder if this contributes to the "I know a soldier in Iraq who has high/low morale" conversations we've all heard. If your guy is a guardsman, morale is probably low, if he's a marine, probably high.

I thought the good news was that most feel like they have adequate armor.

However, I thought the answers as far as why we're their were very interesting.
"The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%)."

Seems very discombobulated to me. More than 58% of the troops should have a clear understanding of why they're fighting. I don't know if this is a failure of leadership, or if it reflects the constantly shifting rataionale we're getting here in the states. When only 6 in 10 troops have a clear goal in mind, right or wrong (and reading the reasons, its entirely possible that each of the 6 has a different "clear" objective) it sounds more like a mercenary army than a democratic one. In any case, the administrations latest reason, "to build a democracy in the Middle East," doesn't seem to be connecting with the troops.

This clearly isn't the be-all end-all to understanding the troops, but it is interesting.

My new favorite quote.

Proving that he never read the very constitution he swore to uphold, nor did he pay attention during his High School history class.

"Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead," Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, told the Senate.

I can imagine Jimmy on a battlefield.

Captain Kelso: Jimmy, we have to hold this hill and defend the flag.
Pvt. Bunning: The flag don't mean much when you're dead! I'm outta here.

And yes, I'm officially calling Jim Bunning a coward. I don't see how he can send troops to war to defend America, when he himself admits that American ideals don't mean much. When I think of the absolute disparity between the courage of the founding fathers and the drivel we have today it makes me want to cry. Can you imagine this jackass at the Continental Congress? Would he have signed the Declaration of Independence?

The story is about the Patriot Act (I won't bore longtime readers-hee hee with another long diatribe against this act). However (couldn't resist), everytime I read a Patriot Act piece I wonder...if everyone expects things to return to normal once this "war on terror" is over, especially our own Stalin "Sweetly Naive" Malone, why such stong a desire by the White House to make the provisions permanant? Why not have sunset provisions that need to be renewed? There's a gap to the argument that I just don't understand.