Bus-ted!

From the Miami Herald's Amy Sherman:

"Broward County officials acted arbitrarily and used 'fundamentally flawed logic' when they recommended that the county buy buses that cost at least $16 million more than those offered by a competitor, a hearing officer found in a report released Thursday.
The recommendation that the county award the contract to the low bidder comes as Broward County Transit is struggling with a shortage of working buses and mechanics to fix them.
In fact, BCT is so desperate for buses that starting next month, it will use old Miami-Dade Transit buses that Dade had planned to retire . . . . The buses have about 500,000 miles on them . . . ."

Muscles' Shiny New Year

Here's what's on my mind for '07:

School vouchers: I concede it's our money and, therefore, it should be ours to spend more freely; Mrs. Muscles and I, however, in our second decade of public and private K-to community-college-level teaching, have seen little evidence to support Friedman's assertion that vouchers "would bring a healthy increase in the variety of educational institutions available and in competition among them. Private initiative and enterprise would quicken the pace of progress in this area as it has in so many others."

Simply put, teachers, both public and private, can't compete. People-pleasers and collaborators to the core, Boxers to the administrating Napoleons, teachers will work harder in their classrooms, but leave institutional "progress" to the same sloganeers and sham artists who for a generation have run us ragged in the same ol' system-stymied circles that are the antithesis of innovation.

For my money? It's the teachers, stupid. Let 'em work.

Legalization: "If drugs were legalized, there would be a drug spot in every corner. It wouldn't be a Starbucks. It'd be Weedbucks. McDonald's? McCokeald's. Krispy Kreme? Kracky Kreme."--Chris Rock, "Never Scared"

Drug use should be entirely the user's business if he or she is of age and the rest of us are able to go on with our lives. But if drugs were legalized, where would the business of drugs be done, and who would do it? My guess: on the same corners and by the same kids doing it today.

Physics: What's new?

Jump in, if you please, one and all, especially with "required reading" I should do on any of the above.

Happy New Year!

Welcome to Moe's!

From The New York Times via Albany's Times Union:

"His music was sweaty and complex, disciplined and wild, lusty and socially conscious. And beyond his dozens of hits, James Brown forged a musical idiom that is now a foundation of pop worldwide."

Brown: "I taught them everything they know, but not everything I know."

Added 12/28/06: Why cheap shot artists can't land the left on "black conservatives." Colbert Nation, you're On Notice!

That's What Chanukkah is All About, Charlie Brown

There is an irony in the Chabad of Greater Seattle's demand for the local airport to include a Menorah among its Christmas decorations that I, after 15 years in an "interfaith" relationship, am only beginning to understand: A Menorah stands alone.

A Menorah is much more than a representation of the ancient set of candles, lit with precious little oil, that Jews believe miraculously lasted eight days. Nevertheless, a Menorah lacks the religious significance that holiday displays such as those in Seattle and around the country lead too many kind-hearted people to assume means that Chauukkah matters as much to Jews as Christmas does to Christians. It ain't so, and it's a disservice not only to observant Jews and Christians, but to taxpayers regardless of faith who are paying for this multicultural clusterfuck.

Here's Channukah in a nutshell, thanks to Tracey Rich at the eminently informative Judaism 101: Channukah commemorates Jews who stood against the ruling Greeks who tried to make their rites the Jews'. Channukah is not a holiday of "Peace on Earth"; it's a celebration of defiance and independence. It's the Fourth of July--eight of 'em!

Or as Rich writes, " Chanukkah is probably one of the best known Jewish holidays, not because of any great religious significance, but because of its proximity to Christmas. Many non-Jews (and even many assimilated Jews!) think of this holiday as the Jewish Christmas, adopting many of the Christmas customs, such as elaborate gift-giving and decoration. It is bitterly ironic that this holiday, which has its roots in a revolution against assimilation and the suppression of Jewish religion, has become the most assimilated, secular holiday on [the Jewish] calendar."

Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky, the Chabad of Greater Seattle's spokesman, exacerbates this irony when he says demanding a Menorah at the airport was about "adding light to the holiday, not diminishing any light"; yet the murk is exactly where we as a nation drag ourselves when we conflate Christmas and Chanukkah into a nonsensical "the holiday" for local officials nationwide to slap together every year at the eleventh hour like a playhouse without instructions. Whatever Chanukkah and Christmas mean, is it clearly not the business of the Seattle Port Commission?

To be brutally honest, these entanglements are less "church and state" and more "Mommy, it's my brother's birthday, why don't I get a gift?"

The expedient and compassionate solution is to do what officials around the country do: Simply ignore the civic and religious principles at stake, and let everyone have a happy whatever, usually on the taxpayer's tab. After all, if your local city manager won't celebrate these holidays for you, who will?

But, Christians and Jews, if I have to render unto your Lord and your Lord what is Caesar's, can official celebrations at least be true to the spirits of your holidays, and your faiths?

Can we, for example, instead of Christmatizing Chanukkah, celebrate Rosh Hashanah?

Traditionally, Rosh Hashanah begins the Jewish year with a blast from the shofar, the ram's horn seen above. (Sadly, this was missing from our family's dinner, but, oh, the brisket!) Apples dipped in honey represent the hope for, as Rich writes, "a sweet new year." Pockets customarily are emptied of bread into flowing water to symbolize the casting away of the past year's sins. I'd love to see any of this from the people mover on the way to B terminal.

Happy Chanukkah.

Rapids Response

Hats off--but not niqabs--for Grand Rapids' bus authority. The Interurban Transit Partnership ended a policy that allowed drivers to refuse service to anyone with a covered face after a Muslim woman was told she'd have to unveil herself before she could ride a public bus.

In a city of more than a million people, among whom there always will be "the poor", public transportation is a necessary evil if you're a taxpayer; therefore, if you're a taxpayer, you have a right to ride--or not--and what you wear without harming others should be beside the point. Can we as Americans agree that Grand Rapids is not Jerusalem (or cities throughout Europe), that our public buses are not commercial jets, and to not torch another bridge between ourselves and our ideals until lighting the match is at least a tough choice?


Unfortunately, no ('though some of the knee jerks come with a few worthy one liners about women and Islam). Nevertheless, the buses in Grand Rapids--with all aboard--will roll on. Remember that on the long road ahead . . .

Snarlin' Arlen

Is this the lesson Specter learned from '04 and his nail-biter of a re-election? This sorry, so-called populist, "forced-to-purchase" pap from the McCain playbook? A business offers its services on terms that consumers are free to pay for or to pass up. Why should the NFL be any different?

CO Gov Wades Into Universal Health Care

Newly elected CO Guv Bill Ritter laid out some of his agenda, and it includes keeping his promise to "provide health insurance to 760,000 Coloradans who don't have coverage by the end of this decade" and restore funding to Planned Parenthood.

Ritter says it cost's $7000 "providing" individuals with health insurance, and his democratic opponents say the plan will cost $1.8 billion a year (which at $2,300 a person seems light).

This is more, "Wow that's really expensive and getting more so. Let's throw money at it, that will surely bring the cost's down." thinking. Furthermore, by shifting the insurance burden onto the state, its getting further from the ones who should bear the burden, the individual. Also, not only does $1.8 billion seems light now, that figure will only grow as businesses take advantage of the program and drop coverage (if the state's providing insureance, it loses it's main hook as a "perk") increasing the state insured rolls. At a minimum, having businesses provide the insurance means someone is watching the bottom line. If this thing gets into the government's hands prices will only go up faster (see college tuition). Also (and tied to the point above), if businesses feel they can shift the cost to the State, they will (it's good for the bottom line - short term to medium term), and that will be the next big lobbyist push.

While trying to look after everyone is a noble cause, the state's not the right mechanism. The original idea of group insurance was to guard against catastrophe. Today insurance covers just about everything. When gobs of money are involved, people will line up for their take. Giving that gob access to the state treasury won't do anything but have even more people line up for their cut, drive cost's up, and lead to an actual catastrophe.

I wonder if we could get some kind of insurance on that?

The second thing I want to address is Ritter's plan to refund Planned Parenthood. Long time readers of the blog (Hi Mom) know that I'm opposed to the government giving money to charities, so it should shock no one that I'm against this, regardless of any feelings about PP. However, I do want to point out the flaw in Ritter's solace (he's pro-life) that PP says they will "have to ensure that money for abortion services are kept separate." It shows a fundamental flaw in the understanding of business. When Planned Parenthood creates their budget they look at a whole number. When Ritter insists on sequestering money for the "Planned" part, it really only means that PP will shift non-restricted money originally allocated to the "Planned" part to "abortion services." Regardless of the wording, giving money to Planned Parenthood gives money to the entire organization, the parts you like and the parts you don't like. If Ritter wants to promote the smart planning (contraceptives, abstinence, education, etc) aspect of Planned Parenthood he should fund a group that focuses on just that part.

I want to rail on this, but I can't.

I've been sitting on an article in the NYT for a few days, trying to figure out what to do with it (I know Stalin, if it comes from the NYT, the obvious answer is to "chuck it"). It's an article on people voluntarily giving the State control over their actions.

The example given is gambling addicts giving the State the right to arrest them and confiscate their winnings if they step into a casino. You sign up, go on a list, and bingo (HA) if you're caught in a casino its off to the pokey.

The article starts by saying that Libertarians are against this and worried about it.

Plenty, say libertarian critics. To begin with, they don’t like soft paternalism when it involves the state’s coercive power; they are much happier with private self-binding schemes, like alcoholism clinics, Christmas savings clubs and Weight Watchers. They also worry that soft paternalism can be a slippery slope to the harder variety, as when campaigns to discourage smoking give way to “sin taxes” and outright bans. But some libertarians have deeper misgivings. What bothers them is the way soft paternalism relies for its justification on the notion that each of us contains multiple selves — and that one of those selves is worth more than the others.

Then it gets real philosophical describing the conflict between your current self and your future self (where's my DeLorean?).

Anyway, I'm not to bugged by this, its just too periphery for me. There's a distinct difference between having your Civil Liberties taken away and voluntarily giving them up (I would also cry foul if someone could place on the list). I understand the slope that leads to the State saying, "Hey, lots of people are giving up right "X," clearly no one needs it, lets take it from all." But I can't run around in a tizzy over every slippery slope. I also get that I'm on the hook as a taxpayer to try, jail, and deal with someone on the list. But in the end, my take is if that's what someone feels they have to do, OK. I do have a question about changing your mind. The article does not mention if theres a way to get off the list, for example, but I am much more comfortable with the idea if you can change your mind. Sort of a, "I think I'll lose my house if I don't get this gambling under control, and until I do, I need a powerful disincentive. When I get a grip, I want off the list." The rugged individualist in me doesn't understand, and surely there's some way to accomplish the same end that doesn't involve the State, but whatever.

Also sad that the first person to sign up for the list in Michigan wound up in a casino, lost his winnings ($1,223! What problem?), and is on probation for a year.

Not the most important article, but I thought it was interesting.

Nigerian 419 Still Scamming

This time its churches. I find this absolutely amazing. Is there a better known scam in the world than the "Nigerian Has Money For You, You Just Have To Give Him Some Money First" scam? The deal with this one is that some wealthy Nigerian has left an unGodly amount of cashola to a small church in the US. In order to get the cash, the church needs to pay a tax,and the fun begins. Here's what I find intriguing.

First, from Mr. Premo the skeptical accountant,

"It was brilliant, absolutely brilliant," said Jeff Premo, an accountant hired by the church whose early skepticism about the offer ultimately dissolved after the Nigerians professed their faith.

"I thought I could ask them about, you know, 'Can you confess Jesus as Lord?' And they could answer all that," Premo told ABC News.

I want to be very clear, I know that Mr. Premo is probably not a "scam" expert, and I honesty applaud him for having the courage and gumption to go the FBI and actually arrest the bastards - good for him. Too many people get taken, get embarrassed and don't tell anyone. Clearly Mr. Premo has both the ability to recognize his error and work to correct it (and correct it publicly so that others may learn and avoid the mistake). He's not a moron, he just made a mistake of trust. And that mistake was not seeing that you don't catch a scammer by giving him the ability to lie to gain your trust. Of course the scammer will say anything to get your dollar, even "I confess Jesus as Lord." This reminds me of the story of Amina Lawal, the Nigerian Muslim woman who was to be stoned to death for adultery. The man who she claimed was the father was let go after swearing in court that he wasn't. Hmmmm, facing death, just how reliable is his "oath?" "If you did it you die, if you swear you didn't you live. What say you?" He went with the oath, which tell us nothing. Where was I going with that? Oh yes, the moral is people who are lying to you to get your money will lie to you to get your money. Always remember this.

Two, Mr. Premo felt uneasy, how about a little research on Nigerian Scams? A Google search of those two words gives 1,310,000 hits. Some might call that a "red flag."

Three, $41,000,000! To Hickory Ridge Community Church in Sussex County, Del? Come on man, help me out. I could maybe, maybe understand taking a look at $41,000, or even better, $4,100, but $41million? Astronomical amounts of money from someone you don't know is another "red flag."

In the end, I guess PT Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute.

But you don't have to stay a sucker. Like I said, good for Mr. Premo for allowing others to learn from his mistake. Again, a very courageous act on his part. How many people would allow themselves to be perceived as foolish to America's adoring public? There's no way he comes out looking smart on this, yet he did help nab the scammers and he is allowing himself to be a tool to prevent others from making the same mistakes he made. In my mind, he's more than atoned for that error (but I'm not part of the $350k loss).

Just for fun, Eboloa Monkey Man is site devoted to gaining some measure of pay back on the scammers (mostly by stringing them along and making them take silly pictures of themselves).

A five day work week, what are we...Americans?

It's bizarro world time again. The French loving, pro-union Democrats are making Congress work a five day week, (Not really, votes aren't until 6.30 pm on Monday, and the week ends on 2 pm Friday) and the American Work Ethic, shorter work weeks are for the lazy Republicans are aghast.

Personally I'm torn. In my ideal world, Congress works as little as possible because they're not meddling in every little thing. But if you make $165k+ a year, I don't want you sitting around at home enjoying a beer.

Fun selected comments.

The Democrats are trying to project a businesslike image when they take control of Congress in January. [Again, that's just weird.]

Members need to spend more time in the Capitol to pass laws and oversee federal agencies. [OK, that makes more sense. Bummer for fans of smaller government though.]

"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says." [Hold on, I'll channel my inner liberal for this one. "Right, and working three jobs to pay for food and rent allows me ample time to be with my family you pompous, no-minimum wage hiking, tax breaks for the rich favoring jackass. I work days and my husband works nights. We see each other for an hour a day, how's that help my marriage genius. Tell me how stagnant wages and a loss of high paying jobs overseas helps me be with my family? How 'bout we trade pinhead." How'd I do? Was that credible? I really felt in character.]

Are We "Winning" in Iraq? Depends on Which Admin Official You Ask.

He said:

“Do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?” asked Mr. Levin. “No, sir,” Mr. Gates. (Recently unanimously approved Defense Secretarty Robert Gates) replied.

She said:

Q Does the President today believe that we are winning in Iraq? It's a very straightforward question.

MR. SNOW: I know, but I did not ask him the question today. The most recently asked, he said, "yes." (Tony Snow at a press conference about Mr. Gates' comments).

She said from across the pond:

Asked by Tory leader David Cameron if he agreed with Robert Gates' assessment of the war, (Outgoing English Prime Minister and Iraq ally) Mr (Tony) Blair said: "Of course."

Look I understand that this is a very fluid situation (which to me is an indictment of its own, after all these years we should be clearly winning - but it is what it is), so some hedging either way should be allowed. However, in a football game, if you're up 7-6 in sloppy game, you still say you're winning. If you're down 6-7, you say your losing, and if it's tied 7-7, you say you're tied. Not winning is definitely either down 6-7 or tied (the "we're not losing either" option).

I wonder what the Shiites, the Iranians and the Syrians would say? My bet is without hesitation they say, "Winning."

The Libertarian Problem

Over at Reason Hit & Run I found a link to how Reason Magazines staffers are going to vote in the upcoming election (Like Back to the Future, this post requires the reader to time travel). Reason Magazine for those (most) of you who aren't familiar with it is a "Libertarian" magazine. So here's what I found looking at the intents and party affiliations of the staff of a national magazine espousing the Libertarian cause and ideals.

9 Total people.

0 People call themselves "Libertarian." One "Big fan of the Libertarian party." One, "none officially." One, "former Libertarian, but disenfranchised due to State Law," now "unaffiliated." I know that some states don't require you to list any party affiliation on your voter card, but having lived in one of those states I assure you that people call themselves Republican or Democrat with much gusto and glee.

1 Republican

2 Don't vote

1 Will vote for the Libertarian for Senate because its, "My way of voting for a divided federal government without voting for a Democrat." And with his vote for Congress, "Ditto." Good to be specific that the Libertarian is not the preferred choice, nor is this a long term commitment. Just a protest vote.

2 Libertarian candidates will receive one vote each. To be fair, I do not know the total number of LP candidates who were eligible to receive votes in the various staffer districts.

All in all a very poor showing. I'm not trying to say being a Libertarian should be a requirement for working at Reason, call it a magazine Establishment Clause, but my bet is that if you poll the staff at the Weekly Standard you would find a lot of Republicans ("official" or not) and if you polled the staff at The Nation I would expect to find a lot of Democrats ("official" or not). My point is that if the LP ever, and I mean e-ver, wants to be taken seriously, it must get support from those who are at the front.

The reasons the LP is not taken seriously are:

One, most folks view it as a bunch of freaks. That's just bad pr.

Two, most folks think its just an extension of the GOP. The, "I'm from the Libertarian Wing of the Republican Party" line. If you have your own wing in the GOP, you can hardly be considered an independent, or stand-alone party. You would never hear, "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Republican Party" and there's a reason for that. The Reason staff votes don't do a thing to change this perception.

Three, apparently even those who are steeped in in, ie the staffers of a "Libertarian" Magazine, don't want to claim it. If that's the case, how can we expect anyone else to?

Until the LP can get serious enough to stand alone, have "Libertarian" national magazines own it, and challenge others to do the same, the LP party will flounder with 200,000 members and looking for moral victories in having more votes than the difference between the Dem and GOP, AKA "The REAL Parties" winners in elections. Being satisfied with distant third means we will always be distant third.

Minimum wage, minimum help

Harvard Professor (Which means he's smarter than you) Greg Mankiw has a post about the minimum wage. The part of the post I want to focus on is a study published by the Employment Studies Institute (it's an institute so it must be imortant) showing that minimum wage increases miss their intended targets. Reading the full study, I can quibble with some of the findings, methods and charts but I am very intrigued by the overall findings, and the idea behind them (focusing on, and trying to determine who actually receives the benefits).

What the authors, Richard V. Burkhauser - Cornell University, Joseph J. Sabia - University of Georgia, tried to find was the percent of the total benefit ($18.26 billion) of a minimum wage increase that will hit the intended target, the working poor ($2.3 billion). Again, from just my quick reading of the paper, I can't honestly go into depth about the "facts" of their findings, but I love the concept; rather than go with popular opinion, or gut, thy to quantify the benefit to the intended party. Always a fan of this type of research.

The paper also says that a 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to a 1% decrease in jobs available.

I have to admit, the study backs up my own observations (so it must be right). Most of the people earning minimum wage are either kids early in their wage earning careers, or new hires. As far as kids go, unless there is a compelling reason that the kid will stay, why pay more? The kid will go back to school after the summer, or off to college, or just switch jobs to see what else is out there. Raises will not significantly alter any of those outcomes. But having to pay more may decrease the number of kids you can hire (but apparently only one percent on the aggregate - and lets be clear this is an aggregate. McDonald's probably won't alter their hiring, but smaller companies will, giving an edge to bigger companies - which I'm sure is what the progressives want). Another group is the elderly returning to work. Unfortunately there is no real incentive to pay them more either (but here an increase will definitely help - the study doesn't specifically address this sub-group, but paying them more will unarguably help them). My guess is that this is a very small set of the working population, and again raising the overall minimum wage is blunt way of helping a small group. Finally, the other class are adults finding their way back to the work-force. This can occur for a host of reasons, divorce, illness, job lay-offs, prison, whatever. With this group, earning the minimum wage is a transitory position. The employer does have an incentive to pay them more if they are performing because they have the potential to stick around. Furthermore, one thing that employers cannot long dodge is that you get what you pay for. Pay more, get more.

The study does repeatedly cite less than full time work as a reason for poverty. As will all extraneous information it only clouds the study (as an editor, I would have taken those passages out). They don't address why either the worker elects to work less than full time, or why the employer hires people for less than full time. The authors just throw it in, and it makes the study seem political, "People are poor because they don't work hard" as opposed to sticking to the thesis and the data that the minimum wage misses the intended target. Is part time employment due to other extenuating factors, child care, disability, etc or is it because employers in the area have shifted to part-time employment for financial reasons, and if so, does an increase in minimum wage only exacerbate that problem? Again, it was a throw-away part of the study, added no value, and only raised questions that the paper could not address.

One thing the study does not address, no fault to the study - this wasn't part of their target, is the effects on raising the minimum wage as a floor setting. In other words, if I make X% more than the minimum wage now, if it's increased how much of a raise do I expect to correctly reward me? Here is where you may see more benefit to those who are working for more than minimum wage but are still poor. Again, very blunt, and certainly not an argument for increasing the minimum wage, but I would be curious about seeing any data on the topic.

Minimum wage increases may have been a good tool at the time they were first implemented (1939), but the population, household make-up, and workforce have all changed dramatically since that time (Granted, the NEO-GOP is doing its best to bring those times back). Now it seems it is a rather blunt tool, whose main impact is dulled by the time it reaches it's target. Like all tools and strategies, they must be adapted to fit the actual circumstances to be effective. Tradition is irrelevant in dealing with reality, and there is no guarantee that what worked in the past will work today, or in the future. Personally, I would like to get rid of the minimum wage, and decrease the taxes that diminish take home pay and discourage employers from paying more.

Journalism and numbers

Not a particularly interesting article about letting wild-fires burn (just for kicks, I'm for letting them burn). But in the second to last paragraph there's this

This year, fires have been allowed to burn under supervision across 257 square miles, amounting to 1.7 percent of about 14,800 square miles nationwide, according to the National Fire Information Center.

Totally useless information that's presented in such a way as to look useful. In an article about letting fires burn, the only useful comparison to how much is allowed to burn is to how much has burned. 257 square miles out of a total mileage burn of what? Is that out of 300 miles, or 3000? Longtime readers (Hi Mom) have read this beef before, but I can't help it, it always, always bothers me. How difficult would it have been for Jeff Barnard to ask the National Fire Information Center how many square miles have burned so far, giving the reader some useful information?

In related news, motorcycle helmets save lives.

A Columbia University study shows a correlation between contraception and the decrease in teen pregnancy. While I'm brimming with sarcastic remarks I'm hoping the data will suffice.

I'm also hoping that this study and others like will put an end to the "abstinence only" nonsense that's somehow gaining momentum. I've always felt the best policy was to teach abstinence as an option, using its strength as the only 100% method for both pregnancy and STDs. But its probably more important to educate kids on contraception. I get the appeal of assuming your kids aren't having sex, but they probably are, and I think the double whammy of, "You're having sex, and your pregnant!" is much worse than, "You're having sex!"

Abstinence only just doesn't work. It's a nice fantasy, but reality has a way of making itself known.

Fox Don't Need Your Civil War

Fox news has decided to not use the term "Civil War" when referring to Iraq. Fine, they can do whatever they want, they can call it a "domestic dispute" if they want, their company, their words. I do want to point out a flaw in their reasoning though.

"We’re not using the term because there are non-Iraqis in the fray and that makes it something different."

Not to quibble but every "official" civil-war I can think of has had outside players involved. But don't just take my word, Websters says a Civil War is,

"a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country."

Near as I can tell, that pretty much encapsulates the situation.

Like I said, I don't really care, nor am I too concerned with what Fox calls it. However, for the sake of trying to "solve" Iraq its important to call it what it is, a civil war. Look, I've avoided the words myself, not wanting to give it roots. I've called it "fall out," "the consequence of this war," and other things, but, like all things, ultimately it is what it is. Dubbing the Iraq civil war something that its not for the sake of ego, window dressing, politics or whatever only takes our nation farther from potential solutions. In order to fix anything, you have to correctly identify the problem. In order to find a solution to the Iraq civil war, we have to acknowledge the reality of what's going on.

I think the great political observer Natalie Imbruglia says it best about the Iraq civil war when she writes in the magnum "Torn,"

There's nothin' where he used to lie
My conversation has run dry
That's what's going on
Nothings right
I'm torn

I'm all out of faith
This is how I feel
I'm cold and I am shamed
Lying naked on the floor
Illusion never changed
Into something real
I'm wide awake and I can see the perfect sky is torn
You're a little late
I'm already torn

Supremes to Take on "Tithe or do Time" Initiative

The Supreme Court will look at the legality of Faith Based Initiatives and in doing so will also rule on the ability of taxpayers to sue to stop perceived violations of the "Establishment Clause," AKA the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof), especially those initiated by the Executive branch. Quick synopsis

Generally, taxpayers do not have the right to sue the federal government over its expenditures. The Supreme Court has made an exception with respect to suits alleging that the federal government has spent money in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

But even in Establishment Clause cases, the courts have upheld taxpayer standing only in lawsuits that involve specific congressional approval to spend money that directly benefits religious groups. This case is different because it involves presidential action, rather than funding authorized by Congress.

Since I'm on a bit of a kick predicting outcomes, I'm calling this one 5-4 against the White House, with Kennedy going against Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito.

The way I see it the plan is skirts the edges, it doesn't establish any religion, or prohibit one either. So on that, it will be close. But it does penetrate the "wall" between the two, and that's been the tradition since day one. I think you'll get the four who favor religion and they'll take a "strict constructionist" view and vote for the White House. Combine that with the fact that they are also big fans of a strong executive branch, and this ruling directly effects it - and the Scalia gang are solidly in the White House's corner. The other four, or "skinny gang," generally adhere to the tradition of the Establishment Clause, and prefer a more pluralistic nation, so they'll vote against the White House. So that leaves Kennedy, and I'm going on gut. I could be wrong on him, but you're not going to see more that 5 votes in either direction.

Personally, philosophically, I'm against the Faith Based Initiative...initiative. Charity at gun-point ain't my idea of charity. I don't understand the idea, nor the initiator. First the idea. "Give money to this charity or go to jail." Awesome. Next the initiator. A GOP President should understand that his role is to give me back more of my money, and then let me decide how I want to distribute it. Smaller government, more individual responsibility and all that jazz. Plus, at $2.15 billion in federal contributions to these charities in 2005, I figure I should be able to deduct at least $7 from my next tax bill. And yes, I know I'm carping on religious charities here, but they're making the headline with the Supremes. Be warned however, that before you go all "AH-HA" on me I feel this way about all state "donations" to charities. Give me the money, let me decide, let me have the write-off. Don't take my money, give to who you like, and further penalize me by taking my write-off.

Legally? I don't know. The government can't have 300 million taxpayers all suing over what they think is a legal use of money. On the other hand, since the Feds can't stop spending, we as the "boss" in the relationship need some sort of recourse. Normally, I'd go with, "vote them out that do wrong," but as adults we all know that spending plans never die in Washington. Even if Hillary were to win the gig in 2008, I have a hard time thinking I'll read a headline that says, "Hillary Scraps Faith Based Initiative!" So if certain exceptions exist to sue to stop spending and shrink the size of government, I say, "let is stand." Maybe we can point to that as precedent, and find more ways to act.

Wait, I thought the aliens built the pyramids

Interesting article about new evidence supporting the theory that the pyramids were built, at least in part, with a form of concrete poured into molds.

I'm no expert on the matter, but to me it makes the most sense of the things I've heard. Having said that, I still don't understand how Twinkies are made, so its not like I'm the most reliable decider on these types of things.

Somebody's watching my Nike+

Wired article on how the new Nike+ running system can be used by others to track your movement. Basically an article on the dangers of unsecured long range RFID chips. Now I'm sure readers are expecting a rant about how this is a massive invasion of privacy, and that the Feds will soon use similar stuff to keep track of all of us, and maybe that I would expect this from the big evil Microsoft, but never from cuddly little Mac, but I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint.

What stopped me in my tracks was this,

With a quick hardware hack that Kohno said "any high school student could do in the garage,"

Wait, what? I have an iPod and I can barely work the thumb-wheel thing. High school kids can "hack" into them and make them do other things? Look I watched Alias, so I always figured those kinds of things can happen, but I assumed they were done by really experienced master spies with cool technology. But Wired is saying high schoolers can rework the same iPod that I just discovered had an alarm clock into a tracking device. Wow. And why a garage? Do they need ratchet sets and vices to do this? I'm completely perplexed. Well, that is until Wired dropped this,

the researchers hooked a Nike+ iPod receiver up to a Linux-based "gumstix" -- a tiny, $79 computer that could easily be hidden in door frames, in trees next to jogging trails or in a pocket.

What the hell's a "gumstix?" Are they just making up words so that non-wired readers get confused. Is it a test of some sort? Can I sound cool if I say, "'gumstix' are so last year, and that everyone's moved on to the more modular 'chicklex' system?" As a side note, "gumstix," if they really exist, missed out on a great marketing opportunity. Everyone knows that things sound more extreme with three "x's" on the end. Maybe they would be popular enough for a caveman like me to know about them if they were called "gumstixxx."

Anyway, no big anti-government rant, just wanted to point out an article that demonstrates how woefully technoilliterate I am.

Writers' Corner

Surprisingly literate for anything ESPN-branded, Page 2
is a frequent surf-stop for me and, if I remember correctly, UBlo. Two columnists stand out for their wit and insight on sports, among other topics: Bill Simmons and LZ Granderson, who's new to me, but has two sharp pieces up on who gets to say "Nigger" and my favorite show, The Wire.

Pension Tension

With the recent rash of disgraced politicians some folks have begun to wonder why they'll still get their pensions. Fair question. Certainly committing a crime of jailworthy proportions constitutes a "with cause" dismissal which automatically triggers an out in any employment contract. Taking it out a step further, anytime a politician loses an election they were in essence "fired" which, depending on the plan, either eliminates or significantly reduces the pension payout.

So why doesn't Congress have the above provisions? Because the US Congress is the most powerful union in America. They are both labor and management, sweet deal. As a side note, it always makes me giggle with the GOP attack unions. They are a union. Yet somehow every point the GOP makes against unions doesn't apply to them. Look no further than the fact that Congress even has a pension. At a time when corporations are desperate to get rid of them, there is no talk on the Hill about replacing their pension at all. Now that's a strong union.

Personally, I think we should get rid of the pension plan period - for all government employees. Give them a 401(k), let them work, when the leave they can transfer it to their new gig or convert it into a Roth. It would save the tax payers a bundle. I'd tell you how much, but the Feds aren't required to disclose their Pension Liability (unlike the private sector).