Independent Country

The Partial Observer - The Jonathan Edwards Rule

2009-07-09T04:59:00.001-07:00

Check out my latest: The Partial Observer - The Jonathan Edwards Rule

Shared via AddThis

Your right to own a knife. A knife! A freakin' knife!

2009-07-06T08:28:00.000-07:00

Athletes of the Decade

2009-07-05T16:25:00.000-07:00

If I had one, here is my proposed ballot for Athlete of the Decade so far. Feel free to comment or suggest others. Again, the list can't be final until the calendar year is done:

1. Roger Federer - perhaps the younger, more gifted Rafael Nadal has his number and may eventually surpass him, but Nadal has yet to equal Federer's heart, health, and consistency. Federer's won 15 of the last 25 Grand Slam tennis tournaments. Not even Steffi Graf in the weaker women's division of the late 1980's-early 90's was that dominant. And it's not as if Federer is a biological freak, like the #2 and #3 on this list. That's why I put him on the top: I believe he went beyond his potential and over-achieved the most.
2. Michael Phelps - what is it, 14 gold medals, plus a silver or bronze (or more) at the Olympics? His amazing flippers and long body made him a natural swimmer, but you don't achieve what he has without determination, poise, and dedication.
3. Lance Armstrong - his heart is bigger than most people's - and I mean that literally, and by "literally" I mean biologically. That said, aside from his six Tour de France wins this decade (and seven consecutive overall), I can't tell you if he's ever won any other bicycle race.
4. Albert Pujols - Reminds me of another Cardinal, Stan Musial, who played great baseball year after year while the media (and baseball's history/legend writers) focused on Joe Dimaggio and Ted Williams; today, they focus on A-Rod and Manny. In any case, Pujols has the best combination of batting average and power numbers in generations, with multiple MVP titles and a World Series Championship. No evidence that I know of that he's used performance-enhancing drugs, but if he does then everybody does and he's still better than everyone else.
5. Tiger Woods - 12 major golf championships this decade and 14 overall. With two more majors to go before the "00"'s are gone, he can potentially shoot to #1 on this list.
6. Peyton Manning - Like Brett Favre, started every game this decade. Unlike Favre this decade, Manning won three MVP's and was a Super Bowl winner/MVP, went to the play-offs eight seasons including six straight seasons going 12-4 or better with what everyone acknowledged was a seriously-flawed defense.
7. Serena Williams - The Open Era of tennis that began forty years ago, along with the beginning of the women's professional tour, first saw dominance by Margaret Court and Billie Jean King. Then, there was the Evert-Navratilova rivaly that is probably the greatest in the history of sports, then Steffi Graf, whose chief rival, Monica Seles, saw her career de-railed by a mad-man. Since Graf's retirement in 1999, no woman has dominated women's tennis, because the women's tour has more athletic, well-trained, and tougher women than ever before. Even so, Serena has been clearly the greatest, winning ten majors this decade, with her sister Venus the clear second-best, and a lot of names battling for #3 - Davenport, Hingis, Henin, Sharapova - that come and go. The Williams sisters remain, and Serena is the better of the two.
8. Tom Brady - He won three Super Bowls without a Hall of Fame receiver, and without a Hall of Fame player even on defense. When given a Hall of Fame-caliber receiver in Randy Moss, he shattered the NFL record book.
9. Tim Duncan - six all-NBA First Teams (seven if you include the 99-00 season), plus three second-teams, and three NBA Championships this decade, without an obvious Hall of Fame co-star.
10. Kobe Bryant - Won NBA titles with Shaq, won without Shaq. Won with Jerry West as GM, won without West calling the shots. Granted, never did win titles without Phil Jackson as coach, but neither did Michael Jordan.

Shout out to the U.S.A. on Independence Day

2009-07-03T18:31:00.000-07:00

In honor of my country, I'm presenting, for as long as they're not pulled from YouTube, ten songs about the American experience that seem to penetrate my blood and soul. In no particular order:

10. Jerry Orbach - "Try To Remember" from The Fantastiks

Edit July 7, 2009: new version due to deletion, but still by Orbach

While a great song, this wouldn't be included here if not for September 11, 2001. My all-time favorite radio show, Chicago WFMT's Saturday Night folk show Midnight Special with Rich Warren played it as its first song after the infamous day. Hearing it in that context shook me to my bones. Though he's most famous for his role as Briscoe on Law & Order, I'll always associate Jerry Orbach with this Broadway song first.

9. Tennessee Ernie Ford: 16 Tons

8. Paul Robeson: Ol' Man River

I view the two songs above as two sides of the same coin. Most whites and an even greater proportion of African-Americans have been hard on their luck, even if from different causes. Subsequent folk, country, rock, and blues singers haven't really captured the experience the way Ford's and Robeson's voices can.

7. George Gershwin: Rhapsody in Blue

Not much I can say. You either listen to this and get it, or you don't. But just about anyone can tell it didn't come from a European composer.

6. Steve Goodman: City of New Orleans

Not kidding: every morning when I step outside and the sun is shining, my thought is, "Good morning America, how are you?" (I couldn't find Arlo Guthrie's studio version on Youtube, and am thankful I found a version from the original songwriter instead.)

5. Scott Joplin: The Entertainer - A Rag Time Two-Step

Music beyond religion, music beyond the concert and opera halls for the wealthy, music beyond the sentimental folks songs of hearth and home: music that makes you feel good just by listening to it. Should that even be legal?

4. Blood, Sweat, & Tears doing Laura Nyro's And When I Die

The harmonica, vocal, and brass evoke a sweeping portrait of the West and of the uneducated, down-home philosophies of the prospectors, cowboys, and other adventurers who conquered it.

3. Creedence Clearwater Revival: Down on the Corner

Could any British rocker have possibly composed and recorded this song? This is pure Americana.

2. 1776 Motion Picture: The Egg

If you're unfamiliar with the musical or movie 1776, order it immediately. You can't imagine what a close call the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence really were.

1. Carly Simon - Let The River Run

You may find the more majestic version by Carly Simon from the 1988 Working Girl soundtrack elsewhere. Having heard both, I appreciate both. I appreciate this song not because I believe that God has ordained America as the "New Jerusalem," but rather that the New Jerusalem is wherever human beings have been set free to build their silver cities.

Why I'm Lucky To Be An American

2009-07-02T04:28:00.001-07:00

Check out my latest: The Partial Observer - Why I'm Lucky To Be An American

Shared via AddThis

Shout-out to Canada for Canada Day

2009-06-30T19:34:00.000-07:00

Canada Day is July 1st. As a child, I spent almost 12 years in Canada as an American citizen with "landed immigrant" status. I think the equivalent would be that my Dad had a Green Card and could bring his family over, though we never viewed our time in Canada as permanent.

Many years after returning to The States, I discovered a brilliant Canadian folk group called Tanglefoot.

Most American "patriotic" songs are about war, with homages to Flag and "Freedom." Tanglefoot also addresses war and its costs from the Canadian perspective. For instance, here they are performing a song about the War of 1812 and self-defense from American aggression. The only just warriors in a war are those defending their homes.

And here's a song about World War I:

It is sad that Canada, as part of the British Empire at the time, felt obliged to sacrifice its men in senseless debacles like World War I. On the other hand, the United States also took the side of the British Empire and got itself involved in that stupid war, and our diplomatic blundering led to World War II.

It makes one wonder why the States declared independence at all, if we chose to fight England's battles anyway.

America's most talented kids

2009-06-30T16:51:00.000-07:00

Michael Jackson's death (I'm sorry if you haven't heard about it) brings to mind the dumbest tactical error in the history of contests. And I saw it happen twice.

Some years ago I watched a few episodes of The World's Most Talented Kid with my nieces and nephews. The show had a weekly winner of "most talented" kid.

One of the weeks, a 15 year-old girl came on to sing Somewhere Over the Rainbow.

On another week, a 12 year-old boy came on to sing the Jackson 5's I Want You Back.

Stupid, stupid, stupid! I'm not blaming the kids, but I am blaming their parents/managers for extremely poor advice.

Neither of them won. How could they possibly win?

They were good, and the judges had kind words for them. But the judges couldn't possibly have been comparing them to the other kids performing on the show.

The 15 year-old girl invited comparisons with the 16 year-old Judy Garland.

In the same way, the 12 year-old boy invited comparisons with the 11 year-old Michael Jackson.

Had the two contestants been substantially younger, like seven or eight, the judges wouldn't have compared them with the originals because the comparison would not have been fair. But because they were around the same age as when Garland and Jackson performed those songs, these kids were forcing the comparison, which hurt their chances of winning against the other contestants. Again, the kids were good, but they weren't Garland or Jackson, who were the two most talented kids of all time.

They should have chosen different numbers and provided their own signature.

Speaking of Garland and Jackson, it is interesting that both of them died young - Garland at 47, Jackson at 50. They died 40 years and three days apart. (I looked that up; I am definitely not a "Judy Garland fan" and all that may imply - not that there's anything wrong with it.)

They are also connected by the Wizard of Oz: Garland playing Dorothy in the original, Michael taking the Scarecrow role in The Wiz.

The Partial Observer - Law and Order

2009-06-25T07:37:00.001-07:00

The Partial Observer - Law and Order

Shared via AddThis

Why blackmail should be legal

2009-06-23T15:54:00.000-07:00

Trying to make sense of this AP report:

The husband of Sen. John Ensign’s former mistress made “exorbitant demands for cash and other financial benefits” through an attorney, an aide to the Nevada Republican said Friday.
In a statement, Ensign spokesman Tory Mazzola said the demands from an attorney for Doug Hampton were made within the past month.

“The demands were referred to Senator Ensign’s legal counsel, who is handling the matter going forward,” the statement said.

Mazzola did not name the attorney nor immediately respond to requests for additional details.

Hampton’s lawyer, Daniel Albregts, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

The FBI in Las Vegas and Las Vegas police said Friday they were not investigating the matter.

The headline says Hampton tried to "extort" money from Ensign. "Extort" is a strong word, which I associate with mobsters demanding "protection" money from neighborhood businesses. This sounds more like the commonly-understood definition of blackmail: the willingness to keep a shameful secret for a price.

Ensign decided not to pay the price, and came public with his adultery before Hampton broke it to the media - even though this has harmed his political career. I don't care one way or the other what happened, but it seems odd that Hampton is being viewed as having done something unethical and possibly illegal. Blackmail is actually perfectly legitimate:

It gives the relatively powerless some leverage against exploitive, shameful conduct of the powerful.
It also gives the powerful the opportunity to maintain a healthy separation between their public and private lives. Purchasing their right to privacy is better than having no privacy at all
In cases like this, it gives the aggrieved party, Hampton, a chance to receive compensation

I certainly hope the FBI doesn't investigate. Blackmail doesn't constitute a violation of rights and therefore can not be a crime. To the extent there are federal or state laws against it, they should be repealed.

Otherwise, families like the Hamptons who are used and abused by powerful people are denied their one best option to receive fair compensation.

Smoking in bars

2009-06-22T17:25:00.000-07:00

Last week, Megan McCardle suggested that the inability of bars to ban smoking unless coerced into doing so by state law is a sign of "market failure."

I think the opposite is pretty much true. Expecting there won't be smoke in a bar is like expecting the couple having sex in the porno clip to be faithfully married to each other. Whether you're for or against porn, if that's your expectation, your missing the point.

Those who are offended by cigarette smoke in bars might as well be offended by:

the pool table, because it attracts idlers and riff-raff
the profanity, because it's rude
the commercial rock or country music blaring in the background
the pick-up lines and dancing, because you know what that can lead to
the greasy food

Smoking is part of total package of the bar experience. The bar is the place of the Devil-may-care. If it's inappropriate to do in church, it's just fine in the bar. It's where unhealthy activities reign supreme.

That bars don't ban smoking on their own isn't because many patrons won't prefer it, but because not many insist on it. If given the option to choose between a smoke-free or a smoke-filled bar, will a guy insist to his friends on going to the smoke-free one? That would come across as a tad wussy. Besides, at a smoke-free bar you won't find the girls who smoke.

Time to slaughter NAIS

2009-06-22T08:01:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/time-to-slaughter-nais

Media Announcement: DownsizeDC.org President Jim Babka will appear on the Liberty Roundtable Tuesday morning. See the details on our blog.

Quote of the Day: "Increasingly, we are seeing consumers join forces with farmers in letting the USDA know that NAIS is not a solution for animal health, food safety or food security." - Judith McGeary

SUBJECT: Time to slaughter NAIS

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is the sickly runt of the Big Government's herd of programs. It's time to put it out of its misery.

NAIS was a bad idea from the start . . .

it addresses a "problem" of animal disease control that current laws and agencies already cover
it forces small family farms to put ID tags on each animal at their own expense, something factory farms are not required to do
even though factory farms are at greater risk of disease outbreaks than are smaller farms, and most contamination occurs at the slaughterhouse
it would raise the price of food
through computer hacking and counterfeit RFID tags, NAIS actually makes our food supply more vulnerable to terrorists and other criminals

No wonder, then, that NAIS has faced substantial resistance, especially since the program has already wasted $142 million since 2004 . . .

initial plans to make it mandatory were scrapped (although the USDA encouraged states to make it mandatory, and a few have)
the USDA has fiddled with numbers to suggest that 35% of farms and homes with livestock have been registered. The real number is probably closer to 10%
registrations increased by just 3% last year
on a nationwide "listening tour" about NAIS, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is hearing 90% of farmers demand that NAIS should be killed

Congress is angry about this lack of progress. The good news is that the House Agriculture Appropriations subcomittee has de-funded NAIS for 2010.

The bad news is that Congress is angry for the wrong reasons. Their real purpose is to inject the NAIS runt with growth hormones by making the program mandatory - despite the overwhelming opposition. Both subcommittee chair Rosa DeLauro and House Ag Committee Chair Clint Peterson view zeroing-out NAIS as a lever to force the USDA to make NAIS mandatory.

Please notice the disturbing fact that an Executive Branch bureaucracy has the power to make something mandatory. This is the tale wagging the dog. Only Congress should have the power to make anything mandatory. This is more evidence that we need DownsizeDC.org's Write the Laws Act (WTLA).

In any case, the subcommittee's ruling is not final. NAIS funding could be reinstated at a later stage of the budget process.

Now is the time to overwhelm Congress and the USDA demanding that they slaughter the NAIS program, not only for this year, but for all time. Please send Congress a message telling them that.

In your personal comments, mention the reasons expressed above about why NAIS is a bad idea. Also tell them:

We the people believe family farmers know better how to run their own businesses than do either Congress or the USDA
The American people stand with the family farmers, who overwhelmingly oppose NAIS

To surpass last month's mark of 36,512 messages to Congress, we must pass 1,473 messages today.

The USDA is also accepting comments on NAIS. Please help convince them that NAIS is bad for America and that the American people, not just farmers, are against it. You can do so by going to regulations.gov's NAIS page and clicking a comment balloon. To see how we're growing, please see our Keeping Score section below my signature.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

Powerless Presidents

2009-06-20T19:03:00.000-07:00

Following up on my article Some Change, on the weakness of the Presidency.

Since 1952, the only time one party won three consecutive Presidential elections was 1980-88. George H.W. Bush as Reagan's heir is the ultimate exception that proves the rule, as Bush was the ultimate insider in Washington and the intelligence community. Aside from him, in elections with no incumbent, the less-experienced man always wins. (1968 between Nixon and Humphrey may be close, but the fact is that Nixon had been outside of Washington for eight years by that point and therefore had less current experience.)

In any case, there are other ways in which a President isn't powerful. A couple of superficial examples:

Senators and Reps can be elected for any number of terms (and are); Presidents can not. The second terms of Presidents are often hit by scandal and political defeats. Somehow, campaigning for the approval of historians is less effective governance, in the eyes of the people, than campaigning for re-election. Thus, since 1952 we've had 5 Presidents who had full first terms Presidents re-elected, with just two defeated, whereas, except in 1988, the heir apparent to the two-term President always lost.
Presidents have no privacy, being constantly recognized and with all that Secret-Service detail, even in retirement. I don't know what oaths of secrecy the Secret Service keeps, but the fact is, they are law enforcement officers. Retired Presidents can't indulge themselves the way the super-rich can, or the average member of Congress can.

On a more substantive level, I was recently made aware of a book from last year via Lew Rockwell: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass. I haven't read it, but gleaning from a couple Amazon reviews it seems the thesis of the book is that, after the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy really did convert from being a man of Cold War to man of peace.

I had heard that line before, and used to shrug, not knowing if that's merely what people wanted to believe or if it was really true. But a lot of people are persuaded by this book, and think JFK was done in by people ostensibly working for him.

I had already suggested this in Some Change, but from what I understand of this book (which I haven't read) it seems to strengthen my point of view.

Strengthening my position even further is JFK's interest in UFO's. Micah A.Hanks reports:

I should point out that it is already widely accepted, thanks to a variety of existing memorandums that have surfaced over the years, that Kennedy, as well as Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, were both concerned that “various unknowns” (UFOs) might be mistaken for secret government craft employed by opposing nations, and could thus lead to nuclear war and jeopardize hopes of sharing a future joint space program. “Kennedy’s Memorandum to the Director of the CIA to share UFO files was relayed on to James Jesus Angleton,” Salla writes, who says that Angleton, at the time, controlled access to the nation’s most sensitive UFO files. In turn, Angleton responded to Kennedy’s memo by following a secret directive from CIA Director at the time, Allen W. Dulles, apparently designed with intent on ensuring “that under no circumstances would any U.S. President or his staff gain access to classified UFO files.”

In an earlier post, Hanks recounts the history of other Presidents and UFO's. Most significantly, then-CIA chief George H.W. Bush refused to give President Carter the UFO files, apparently following the Dulles policy. As a Michigan Congressman, Gerald Ford went to bat for constituents who were eyewitnesses of UFO's. As Governor of California, Ronald Reagan had his pilot chase one that he saw out of his airplane window, until it shot up into the heavens. Upon taking office, Bill Clinton asked Webster Hubbell to find out about UFO's and the JFK assassination, and Hubbell hit dead ends.

So that's five Presidents in the modern era with documented interest in UFO's, and even after they became President we know little more about the phenomenon than before, with at least two cases of obstruction by the head of the CIA (one of whom became President himself, along with his son).

Christopher Buckley either knew this, or understood Washington enough to formulate this, in his satirical novel Little Green Men. I won't give away the story of this entertaining read, only to say (as I remember it) that at one point the President discovers that UFO "policy" was out of his control, and he was helpless.

If it is true that there are "national security" secrets such as UFO's that even the President is not allowed to know, then it's possible - probable - that there are other areas in which they are less powerful than we imagine. As I pointed out in Some Change,

[T]he President could be told something like this:"Mr. President, if you don't follow our recommendations, there will be another 9/11, and you will be blamed for incompetence."

Is this an opinion, or a threat? Does the President dare find out?

I also wrote that I believed Presidents are unlikely to be killed off these days. But then I read what could be President Obama's death warrant, his sane, statesmanlike statement on the Iranian election. Ilana Mercer provides good comments and the text. I had very low expectations for Obama, and he's mostly lived down to them, but I still thought he'd be better than McCain, and statements like these is one of the reasons I had some shred of hope in his Presidency. But are zealots within his Adminstration, the intelligence community, and the Military-Industrial Complex happy with this? Are the neocons?

Upon reconsidering, it is clear to me that mainstream America will accept anything and believe anything that mainsteam news sources provide. So it could be that Obama is fair game for assassination - especially if it's blamed on illness. Obama's a smoker, and combined with the stress of office and basketball-playing he could die from a "heart attack" or "stroke."

(An assassination-by-bullet is certainly possible, which would be blamed on a gun-toting bigot and provide an excuse for gun control and hate speech laws. But I suspect this is unlikely, as it would be an admission of more government failure and make all Red State Americans suspicious. This would be a political "bridge too far" in this day and age. What they could do, however, is kill Obama, blame it on his "only tragic flaw" which is smoking, and get all of America to agree to smoking bans, covering up the real reason for his death, which is that he sought dialog with Iran.)

Now that I think about it, I accept that this is not only possible, I predict it. I'm making a public prediction for one reason, so that it won't happen (the same strategy I deployed last week about 70's movie remakes). Obama will die in office, I'm not sure when, but I predict where: Phoenix, Arizona.

It would be perfect in the sense of the Messiah myth, race, major historical events in America, and, well, a synchronistic "parallel" (i.e., somewhere close to the 33rd degree latitutude, between the 32nd and 34th degree latitudes)

Phoenix is the birthplace of Barry Goldwater, who by voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act turned conservative Democrats into Republicans and re-aligned the parties.
The state of Arizona was a famous hold-out in making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a state holiday.
"Phoenix "is a resurrection myth, playing into the Messiah myth
Jesus Christ came from the same 33rd parallel of Nazareth/Galilee
The Civil War was started at Ft. Sumter, along the same latitudinal range
Martin Luther King was born in this latitudinal range in Atlanta, and the Civil Rights Movement commenced with his Montogomery Bus Boycott, also in this range
The range provides the birthplaces of Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton (before 1952, no President had been born south of the 35th latitude; six of the last eleven Presidents have)
The last two Presidents to die in office, FDR and JFK, died within this range
FDR's successor, Truman, was the 33rd President. During his time Major League Baseball and the armed services were integrated. He recognized the nation of Israel, which is in this latitudinal range. The Roswell UFO mystery occurred in this range, as did the first nuclear bomb test in White Sands, New Mexico, and the Nagasaki bomb. (Hiroshima is just north of the 34th)
Baghdad is along the 33rd parallel, and it might be said that overtaking that city led to the collapse of America as we know it.

Again, let me be clear that I DON'T WANT OBAMA TO DIE IN PHOENIX OR ANYWHERE ELSE. I'm just afraid that the more good choices he makes as President, the more likely he will die.

That's because the people who kill him won't care one way or another if Obama's considered a martyr/messiah by history. All they care about is a confrontation with Iran. These folks really are as deranged as the anti-communists in Dr. Strangelove, and to a significant degree are the same people.

There must be more to the bill

2009-06-18T07:36:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/there-must-be-more-to-the-bill

Quotes of the Day: "The Democrats' failure to pass a troop funding bill that will actually get our armed forces the money they need is nothing less than a disgrace." -- House Minority Leader John Boehner, June, 2008

"It's going to be an interesting fall as Republicans try to explain their vote against legislation that they've described as funding for our troops in a time of war, because I'm confident their constituents will be reminded." - a White House Official, June 2009

Subject: There must be more to the bill

The Democrats are pro-war, the Republicans anti-war.

Don't believe me? Check the House roll call vote for the final version of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, which funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just 5 Republicans were for it, and only 32 Democrats against.

What could me more convincing than that?

"But wait!" you will probably say, "There must be more to the story."

You're right of course. In fact, on May 14th there were 51 Democrats and only 9 Repubicans against the bill.

What happened?

As we noted two weeks ago, the bill was already loaded with extras that had nothing to do with the wars.

But when the Senate got their hands on it they added still more unrelated items . . .

* Funnelling billions of dollars to a failed, neo-colonial (i.e. "foreign aid") scheme called the International Monetary Fund
* The Graham-Lieberman measure, an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act to continue the coverup of the detainee abuse scandal

House Republicans wanted the IMF provisions stripped from the final bill, and the detainee abuse coverup retained. Instead, they got the exact opposite of what they wanted, and so they voted no, even though this meant they would not be "supporting the troops."

It's funny. Four years ago, Republicans supported the bill to "support the troops" even when Real ID was attached. Last year, they voted to "support the troops" even though the Democrats added $95 billion in domestic pork spending to it.

Why the change of heart now? Probably because a Democrat's in the White House. It's not "their" war anymore. As our quotes of the day demonstrate, charges of hypocrisy are flying fast and furious, and will likely continue for some time.

And it's all because Congress isn't living under the constraints of DownsizeDC.org's One Subject at a Time Act (OSTA), constraints that would do them, and the country, a lot of good. We ask you today to send a message insisting that Congress introduce and pass OSTA. Tell them . . .

* War spending should be dealt with in one bill, with no unrelated items added to it
* Aid to the IMF should be its own stand-alone bill
* Graham-Lieberman should be its own stand-alone bill

Tell Democrats that adding provisions to the war spending bill is disgraceful, and to atone they should introduce DownsizeDC.org's One Subject At A Time Act. Tell Republicans that if they don't introduce OSTA, they'll have no right to complain the next time similar stunts are pulled.

You can send your message at DownsizeDC.org's One Subject at a Time campaign page.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

Happiness and Suffering

2009-06-17T23:32:00.000-07:00

Instead of my regularly-scheduled Thursday column, there is a special message this week from Discordian Pope Iacobus Rex at The Partial Observer: http://partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=3267

Where's the apology to A-Rod?

2009-06-16T10:23:00.000-07:00

The famous Letterman joke was intended to be about the reputation of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility of two adult public figures: Alex Rodriguez and Bristol Palin.

It was allegedly perceived by some, like their mother Sarah, to be a joke about Alex Rodriguez having sex with her younger daughter, Willow Palin, a 14 year-old girl.

That is, the joke was perceived by some to make A-Rod out to be a child molester.

That's about the worst thing you can imply about a man, in a joke or any other context.

Being made fun of for a scandalous personal life may not please A-Rod, but he understands it comes with the territory. Being accused of being a child sex offender, however, is a low blow and doesn't come with the territory.

Think of it this way: what if, during the Lewinsky scandal, a late night talk show host made a joke about Clinton having sex with a well-known 14 year-old child actress of the day?

Would it be perceived more as demeaning to the girl, or as a vicious, "gone too far" assault on Clinton's character? Clearly, the latter.

Yet, those who believe the joke was intended to be about having sex with a 14 year-old, don't seem to think that A-Rod should be owed an apology as well. I haven't followed this closely, but no one seems to bring it up.

Letterman apologized to the Palins and all who were outraged by the joke, but not to A-Rod.

Perhaps because if Letterman apologizes to A-Rod, he'd feel reluctant to make jokes about him in the future.

By remaining silent, A-Rod is the only one who's conducted himself through this with class.

Trying to understand the mind of the prosecutor

2009-06-16T06:14:00.000-07:00

Football player Plaxico Burress's case has been delayed, probably until 2010, which will allow him to play football. It is still expected that he'll eventually serve jail time.

I don't agree that what Burress did should be a crime at all, and believe he shouldn't be prosecuted. Besides that, what is striking is:

The maximum fine under this law, and any compensatory damages, would have been the cheapest way out for the State of New York.
There is no evidence that Burress had violent intent against anyone, and indeed did not hurt anyone else.
Due to the costs Burress has already paid for his mishap, he should have had is "wake up call" already and jail won't do any good. Jails tend not to rehabilitate people. There are two kinds of reckless people who get in this situation: those who "wake up" and rehabilitate themselves at the first sign of trouble, and those who never "wake up" despite one or more trips to jail. I don't know which way Burress falls, but jail won't make a difference. If he hasn't woken up now, jail could just as easily make him worse.

Why, then, does Mayor Bloomberg and the D.A. office insist on jail time for Plaxico?

Probably for the same reason prosecutors in other cases add count after unnecessary count in order to extract a plea deal and guarantee jail time.

They don't care for justice in the individual case. Imprisonment isn't a particularly just punishment. It adds cost to the taxpayers, it doesn't compensate victims, it doesn't rehabilitate, and its usually temporary, meaning that most prisoners, even violent ones, will be released at some point in the future.

The one thing jails and prisons have going for them is that they are absolutely dreadful places. For me, there are some illegal things I know are wrong and would think I would never do, like commit violence. There are other things I wouldn't do whether they are legal or not. There are some things I might do, or at least try, if they were legal.

I don't do them, not because conscience bounds me to obey stupid and unjust laws, but because I don't want to go to jail.

For me, jail is a deterrent. The more prosecutors cram the jails and prisons with more people, the more they scare the rest of us into compliance.

It's one of the more brutal and inefficient ways to maintain "law and order." It seems to me that a system where victimless crimes are repealed and, in violent crimes, perpetrators are made to compensate victims through work, would lead to more efficient enforcement, a safe society, just outcomes and the best chance at genuine rehabilitation of the criminal.

But I do see the logic in the heavy-handed methods of prosecutors. In our flawed, broken system, the use as jail/prison as deterrence is the one tool they have to "get tough" on crime. It still doesn't make it right.

How to produce more von Brunns

2009-06-15T08:18:00.000-07:00

First, a short, one-question test:

Q: Passing a Constitutional Amendment or federal law against flag desecration would:
a) lead to fewer incidents of flag desecration.
b) lead to more incidents of flag desecration.

Would anyone with half a brain answer a)? It is obvious such a law would inspire protests, and create more of what the law was trying to eradicate.

It is also clear to me that other forms of censorship will most likely have deadly consequences.

But remarkably, columnists and playwrights are promoting censorship. That is, they want "hate speech" laws. This position is so obviously juvenile, and counter-productive, it's a shame that it has acceptance in the mainstream. It takes probably a minute's reflection to realize censorship will only beget more violence. Instead of "rounding up" the von Brunns of the world before they act, such censorship will only motivate them to act because they'll have little left to lose. If they don't shoot hated minorities, they will shoot the very cops who come to arrest them.

As Wendy McElroy has written, the 19th-century individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker thought political violence "could be justified only when freedom of speech and freedom of the press had been destroyed."

This makes sense. Where there are freedoms of speech and press, there is the chance to educate and persuade. Violence would not be persuasive; violence would inspire others not to act against the State, but rather to side with the State.

Admittedly, it could be said that it wouldn't be prudent to use violence even after freedoms of speech and press have been destroyed, because the people still might side with the State.

On the other hand, where there is censorship, there is no "political order" and no ability to persuade. There is a lot less to lose. The calculation is:

1. Do nothing, say nothing, and the State might leave you alone (unless they found out you had said something it doesn't like back in the pre-censorship days).
2. Speak out, and get arrested.
3. Resort to violence, and get arrested.

The question I'm dealing with is not whether it is right to use violence in this situation, it is whether or not more people will resort to it.

Radical movements of every kind attract a disproportionate share of odd personalities, with radical movements founded in bigotry the most disproportionate by far. Such personalities often harbor fantasies of the coming race war and develop a sense of persecution. But like all citizens, they value their freedom to proclaim their thoughts and ideals. To vent, debate, persuade, and educate. They speak their opinion and move on to the next thing. They hope that over time more and more people come to their point of view. Von Brunn was an exception.

What happens if the freedom to speak and write is restricted by the government? What if it becomes a crime to speak or write from a certain point of view?

Then individuals who hold that point of view will have less to lose by resorting to violence. Those who are already unstable will more likely conclude that, with their freedoms of speech and press now gone, it is time to indulge their fantasy and resort to violence.

Moving against the speech of white supremacists will produce more von Brunns, not less.

Freedom of speech has only served to marginalize the white supremacist, Nazi, and other odious movements. Politically-motivated and hate-motivated crimes make the news because of their rarity, not their frequency.

Taking away the First Amendment rights of bigots will not lead to less bigotry. It will, instead, be the last straw for a number of them and provoke more violence.

The Next 70's Remakes

2009-06-12T17:51:00.000-07:00

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is the latest in a long line of re-makes of 1970's movies: The Poseidon Adventure, The Bad News Bears, The In-Laws, Fun With Dick And Jane, Sleuth, and several more that I can't think of off the top of my head.

Considering that Hollywood has run out of ideas, I predict the following movies from the 1970's will be re-made. This isn't intended to be satire; these are fairly serious predictions. Although, now having made the predictions public, there's less of a chance of these movies being made. That's more or less my purpose: I don't want these movies made, but I fear they will be. In no particular order:

20. Sean Penn taking Al Pacino's role in Dog Day Afternoon
19. Will Farrell and Kate Hudson taking the Ryan O'Neal and Barbra Streisand roles in What's Up, Doc?
18. George Clooney in the Paul Newman role for Slapshot. Jon Heder from Napoleon Dynamite and Blades of Glory will probably play one of the Hanson brothers (unless the brothers from 90's boy band Hanson can skate).
17. Will Smith and Matt Damon in the Nick Nolte and Mac Davis roles for North Dallas Forty.
16. Samuel L. Jackson and Morgan Freeman taking over for Walter Matthau and George Burns in an African-American adaptation of The Sunshine Boys.
15. Smokey and the Bandit with Owen Wilson as the Bandit, Vince Vaughn as the truck driver, and Ben Stiller as the sheriff.
14. A Jaws remake with a CGI shark; Nicholas Cage plays Chief Brody, who in this version is a single father, and Halle Berry, or a younger actress, as the scientist Hooper. Brody's oldest child will not be a 12 year-old boy but rather a spoiled-but-hot teenage girl who spends the entire movie in a bikini.
13. Jamie Foxx taking over Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry
12. Russell Crowe, Matthew Fox, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Sean Astin in for Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ronny Cox, and Ned Beatty in Deliverance.
11. John Cusack and Chris Tucker replacing Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor in The Silver Streak
10. Jack Nicholson and Chris Rock taking over for George Burns and John Denver in Oh God!
9. Keanu Reeves in a movie titled Marathon Man with a torture scene and a chase, but otherwise a signficantly revised plot.
8. Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore taking the Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn roles in Foul Play
7. Woody Allen and Abigail Breslin replacing Dudley Moore and Bo Derek in 10 (Okay - that one was a joke, although Allen would probably be interested.)
6. Brad Pitt in the Paul Newman role leading an all-star cast in The Towering Inferno - possibly scratched due to lingering 9/11 sensitivities.
5. Shia Labeouf and Scarlett Johannson taking the roles of Ryan O'Neal and Ali McGraw in Love Story.
4. Cate Blanchett and Julia Roberts in a lesbian-marriage version of Kramer vs. Kramer
3. Jodie Foster in the Faye Dunaway role, David Straithairn in the William Holden role, and Samuel L. Jackson in the Peter Finch role of anchorman in Network. I saw the original just once, on television when I was maybe ten or eleven and remember few details, but I learned more from that movie than an entire year's worth of elementary school.
2. Clint Eastwood and Nick Jonas taking over for John Wayne and Ron Howard in The Shootist, with this one directed by Ron Howard.
1. Morgan Freeman and Charlize Theron in the Art Carney and Lily Tomlin roles for The Late Show. Actually, if they do this right, this could win all the Oscars the original should have won (or at least been nominated for), but it still won't be as good.

Instead of making these movies, I have a suggestion for Hollywood: call me. You seem unable to write an original script. I have a few ideas.

And for readers: instead of watching re-makes, watch the originals! Of the films mentioned above, I have not seen Love Story or 10. Of the films that have already seen remakes, the best originals are The Bad News Bears, The In-Laws, and Sleuth. I was very little when I saw Fun With Dick and Jane and although I remember it's very funny, I can't judge it with adult eyes. The Poseidon Adventure demonstrated the charisma of Gene Hackman, Ernest Borgnine, and Shelley Winters - none of whom were particularly good-looking. They all over-acted with a cheesy script and still kept the movie entertaining and suspenseful. The original The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, is also recommended.

Of the movies I fear will be re-made, I would rank the originals in this order:

1. Jaws
2. Network
3. The Late Show
4. North Dallas Forty
5. Slapshot
6. Kramer vs. Kramer
7. Dog Day Afternoon
8. Marathon Man
9. The Sunshine Boys
10. Deliverance
11. What's Up, Doc?
12. The Shootist
13. Oh, God!
14. The Silver Streak
15. The Towering Inferno
16. Foul Play
17. Dirty Harry
18. Smokey & The Bandit
(Again, I haven't seen Love Story or 10.)

Please let me know in the Comments if any of these remakes are already in the works, or if I missed the boat (considering I didn't do any research for this post) and some of these already have been re-made.

Shouldn't the issue be sex in the military?

2009-06-12T10:47:00.000-07:00

President Obama "disappoints" on gays in the military by supporting continuation of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy even though a convincing majority of Americans support having gays in the military.

Obama's support for the status quo should be surprising to . . . nobody. This is the m.o. of the modern President. Make sure to fail to live up to the expectations of your most fervent and hopeful supporters early on, and then when re-election approaches throw a few crumbs in their direction. Obama doesn't need gay activist or feminist support today, and it's not as if they'll ever vote Republican.

As to the issue itself, I should first start off that there is something about the military I find objectionable at the start. Even though joining is voluntary, to enlist is to sell yourself into slavery, in the sense that it is a job you are not free to quit. Further, our military presence in over 100 countries is not a sound way to "defend our freedom." It instead provokes foreign resentment and makes America less safe.

But I'll put all that aside and for the sake of argument assume that the military is a wonderful institution, the leading reason to be proud to be an American, etc.

So the question is: are gays in the military bad for cohesion and morale?

All I can think of in response is, we have women in the military, don't we? And even though they may not be assigned combat duty officially, in a place like Iraq dozens have died from hostile fire. In the navy, women serve on board ships with men.

What is more likely to undermine cohesion and morale, one gay guy in a unit, or three or four guys in a unit all liking the same girl?

Those who accept women in the military have no grounds to object to gays in the military; indeed, one would assume there would be fewer problems of sexual tension and jealousy with more gays and fewer co-ed units.

If the issue is military discipline, then rules against romantic relationships and sexual contact among the personnel should be strictly enforced. But it seems to me that the main problem today with gays in the military is that the military itself insists on making it an issue.

The Partial Observer - The Roe Train Has Left The Station

2009-06-11T07:36:00.001-07:00

Check out my latest: The Partial Observer - The Roe Train Has Left The Station

Shared via AddThis

Get Your Meth, Imported Assault Weapons, and Whores Here!

2009-06-09T14:05:00.001-07:00

I know this is last month's news, but it's something I intended to comment on but became busy with other things and forgot about.

How freaking stupid can prosecutors be if they want the Craig's List Erotic Services section removed?

It seems to me they'd want people who sell illegal stuff to openly and brazenly advertise.

I don't frequent prostitutes, but if I did, I would rely on a word-of-mouth network. I would have assumed that every last erotic service ad on Craig's List was a sting operation. Indeed, I would have thought that the sex workers themselves would be stupid for posting, because all police would need to do is answer these ads and make the arrests. I'd have avoided that section like the plague.

Do people sell illegal weapons or drugs on Craig's List, or anywhere else online? Wouldn't they be certain that federal or local law enforcement would quickly be on to them?

The more black-market businesses publicly advertise, the easier it is for police and prosecution; the job is half-done. By suppressing this speech, governments are only making it harder on themselves to trace and prevent this activity.

Craig's List was a gift to law enforcement, and it makes absolutely no sense why people should be angry at Craig's List for allowing sex workers who are stupid enough to advertise and risk arrest from doing so. It's not Craig's List's fault that the police didn't take advantage.

It suggests to me that law enforcement does not have any intention of making any serious inroads on prostitution or any other black-market activity. Its dual purpose is rather to keep arrest and incarceration rates high enough to appear effective, yet also keep the "crime" rate high enough to justify bigger budgets.

Laws against vice, as opposed to violent crimes against person and property, are make-work jobs programs for the government. More police, prison guards, etc. The moral well-being of you and I has nothing to do with it.

They think reading the bills is a joke

2009-06-09T07:03:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/they-think-reading-the-bills-is-a-joke

Quote of the Day: "I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace. That two become a law firm; and that three or more become a congress!" -- John Adams in "1776" by Sherman Edwards & Peter Stone

Subject: They think reading the bills is a joke

Henry Waxman hired a speed-reader in case Republicans demanded that the cap & trade bill be read to the members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The Republicans decided not to deploy this "stalling" tactic, so the reader was used only for a couple of minutes, as a joke.

Not only are bills never read before a quorum in Congress, they aren't read in committee either. Our supposed representatives think it's a joke to believe they should know what they're inflicting on us. But we don't think it's funny...

* The cap & trade bill, H.R. 2454, will remake the entire U.S. economy
* The bill is an astounding 932 pages long

But the politicians don't think it's worth reading. In fact, Chairman Waxman introduced the bill on May 15th with the intention moving it out of committee in just one week! It took longer than that, but most of the committee's time was spent defeating Republican amendments - which were also unread.

This bill is so large and convoluted that the normally-reliable Library of Congress still hasn't been able to post a summary of it on their legislative website. It's been three weeks since the bill was introduced and apparently no one understands it well enough to summarize it.

Without DownsizeDC.org's Read the Bills Act (RTBA), Congress has every incentive to make bills as long and convoluted as possible. This allows them to combine reasonable-sounding proposals with special-interest favors. And then, when the bill doesn't work as intended, their solution is always to pass yet another long, convoluted bill.

But under RTBA...

* Congress will have an incentive to make bills as short and clear as possible
* Fewer bills will get passed, meaning government won't grow at such a cancerous rate
* The final version of every bill will be posted on the Internet for at least seven days before a vote, giving the public and the media a chance to read and comment

Tell Congress to pass DownsizeDC.org's Read the Bills Act.

Use your personal comments to tell your Congressional employees that...

* You object to long, convoluted bills like H.R. 2454.
* You're offended by the House Energy & Commerce Committee's speed reading joke
* You'll hold them accountable if they vote for this bill without reading it

To exceed the 36,512 messages we sent last month we need to send at least 1,645 messages today. You can do so using our quick and easy Educate the Powerful System.

We also invite you to add your website or blog to the Read the Bills Act Coalition. It's an effortless way to promote RTBA. In return we'll link to your site on our home page and mention it in a Downsizer-Dispatch reaching more than 25,500 subscribers. You can learn how to join the coalition here.

Today, we welcome one new member to the Coalition:

* North Bay Patriots

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

The Separation of Society and State

2009-06-04T09:21:00.000-07:00

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. "There is one and only one purpose behind State recognition of otherwise-private groups: control. To extend the government's reach into all spheres of life. Tax revenue has nothing to do with it."

Defending LeBron

2009-06-02T14:42:00.000-07:00

Several posts the past few months have been sports-related, and tend to defend heavily-criticized athletes who, in my view, haven't done anything wrong.

There is a larger purpose to such posts. It gets to the question of why we get angry about the choices other people make, even when those choices have no bearing on our lives. This longing to be angry contributes to an ill-mannered, irrational society. This spiritual dumbing-down, in turn, has dire political consequences.

I'm not suggesting anyone thinks there ought to be a law requiring LeBron James to shake the hands of opponents and show up at post-game press conferences. But the habit of pointing fingers at others and yelling "classless!" or "naughty!" is a dangerous one. A polite society would give people a lot of leeway. It would be more tolerant, following the Golden Rule or "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." Ultimately, it would be more free.

Anyhow, here's my latest defense. Basketball star LeBron James led the Cleveland Cavaliers to a league-best 66 wins in the regular season and two early play-off round sweeps, but the Cavs lost to the Orlando Magic in the conference finals, 4 games to 2. After the Magic's clinching victory, James ran off the court without shaking hands in congratulations to any Magic player. Then, he didn't show up for the post-game press conference.

Some of the sports pundits seem bothered by the alleged poor sportsmanship of not shaking hands. Others were more bothered by James's absence at the press conference, indicative of poor leadership.

As to the sportsmanship: Yesterday, I heard Mike Tirico, who called the game on television, say what he witnessed. Normally at the end of games like that the victor dribbles out the clock and it is considered unsportsmanlike to make a final, pointless shot at the NBA level. The Magic's Dwight Howard, unthinkingly and in celebration, did throw up such a shot. Tirico said he saw James flash a look of disgust at Howard, and this may have explained why James, already disappointed, was not in the mood to shake Howard's hand.

As to the press conference: this incident reminds me of Peyton Manning over three years ago after his Colts lost the AFC Championship game to the Steelers. The Colts had come back from three scores down to almost win the game until they missed the winning field goal. Obviously crushed from losing in the play-offs once again, in the post-game press conference Manning was asked why it took so long for the Colts offense to begin to move. Manning said this (from memory, but paraphrased): "I know it's not right to be critical of anyone but . . . there were some protection problems."

The next day, Manning was criticized in the media for, well, telling the truth about his teammates (and/or coaching staff). I agree that it's best not to say something like that, but the level of disappointment and frustration can get the best of any player.

James was in an even dicier situation than Manning. He's a free agent next year. This series proved that he was the best player in the league, but that he was essentially a one-man team. More than one analyst said that throughout the series, the Cavs had the best player, but that Magic players would hold slots 2 through 5.

It seems to me that James acted in the best interests of his teammates. He wasn't going to risk saying something akin to what Manning said, and thereby provoke speculation about his leadership ability and future with the team. Perhaps he had a giant lump in his throat and was too emotional to say anything at all. In any case, no good could come from showing up at the press conference. Not for himself, not for the morale of his teammates, and not for the Cavalier organization.

Unless more inside dirt is revealed, it appears to me that James's "immature" behavior actually revealed character. He stole the spotlight that would have been focused on the inadequacy of his teammates and took the heat and criticism himself. Even in defeat and with the season over, he took one for the team.

Common Sense

2009-06-02T07:08:00.000-07:00

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/common-sense

Quote of the Day: "Students of American history will recall that the important place where work gets done in the legislative body, almost without exception, is in the committees, more so than on the floor although sometimes more attention is paid to the floor." - Paul Sarbanes

Subject: Common sense

Each year the Iraq-Afghanistan spending bill comes loaded with extras that remind us how much we need the One Subject At A Time Act.

Because few in Congress will vote against a bill that "supports the troops," this bill provides an opportunity for legislative abuse . . .

The House and Senate conference committee will soon meet to work out differences in this year's bill. It is unknown what tricks they'll have up their sleeve, but the bill, H.R. 2346, is already bad enough. In addition to funding the wars, there is money for the BATFE, federal prisons, foreign aid, the War on Drugs, forest fire management, and other programs. The total price tag is over $900 per family.

Downsize DC's proposed One Subject At A Time Act (OSTA) would prevent the bundling of these different topics into one bill. Instead, each subject would be voted on as a separate bill. Necessary bills will still pass, but unpopular measures won't. The country would be spared the cost of programs most members of Congress didn't want in the first place.

If members of Congress had common sense, they would actually want to live under OSTA's constraints. Then they could vote for a reasonable and necessary bill without being forced to accept unnecessary, unrelated provisions. Whether the U.S. should fight these wars, and whether the federal government should provide more money for wildland fire management, are two completely unrelated questions. Members of Congress who support one but oppose the other shouldn't be forced to either accept both or reject both.

Demand common sense from Congress. Tell them to pass the One Subject At A Time Act. In your personal comments . . .

tell them you object to the price tag of H.R. 2346, the Supplemental Approriations Act
demand that it be broken up into different bills by department and subject
insist that they oppose any backroom deals in the conference committee that will make the bill even worse

You can send your message at DownsizeDC.org's "One Subject at a Time" campaign page.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org