Thank you for defending America!!!
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Friday, September 7, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Harry Potter - Order of the Pheonix
Well, as a die-hard Potter fan I went to see the new Harry Potter movie. As a die-hard Potter fan I have mixed feelings regarding the movie.
Until Order of the Pheonix (OP) the movies have tracked fairly close to the books. This all changed with OP. I'm not certain this is due to the complexity of the book or the producers/directors just felt like being creative. Since J.K. Rowling is supposed to have a lot of creative control over the movies it's probably the former. However, it's dissapointing in some aspects.
Now, with that said, as a stand alone movie it wasn't bad. True, a little darker than the other previous HP movies. But the books/movies are growing in maturity with her (JKR) audience.
Another surprise I had was that the theatre wasn't as full as expected.
Until Order of the Pheonix (OP) the movies have tracked fairly close to the books. This all changed with OP. I'm not certain this is due to the complexity of the book or the producers/directors just felt like being creative. Since J.K. Rowling is supposed to have a lot of creative control over the movies it's probably the former. However, it's dissapointing in some aspects.
Now, with that said, as a stand alone movie it wasn't bad. True, a little darker than the other previous HP movies. But the books/movies are growing in maturity with her (JKR) audience.
Another surprise I had was that the theatre wasn't as full as expected.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Prosecution for Profit (Part 2)
In keeping with the below post regarding "Government Sanctioned Tort Actions".
Prosecution for Profit
Wall Street Journal, July 5, 2007
When President Bush issued an executive order in May barring federal agencies from hiring private lawyers on a contingency fee basis, the press corps yawned. But Mr. Bush was getting out ahead of one of the bigger legal battles now raging across the country: prosecutorial neutrality.
America's legal system is based on the idea that government officials act on behalf of the public interest, not for personal profit. That's why we don't pay policemen per arrest, judges a percentage of damages they award, or prosecutors a bounty for each conviction. Yet public officials are increasingly violating this ethic by outsourcing legal work to tort lawyers who profit from prosecuting public claims.
The practice developed in the 1990s, when state Attorneys General promised trial lawyers a percentage (a contingency) of any settlement they could beat out of Big Tobacco, and it has since spread like bird flu. In Rhode Island and California, prosecutors have tried to give plaintiff firms a cut of judgments against lead paint makers. Oklahoma wants to reward private attorneys for suing poultry companies. Mississippi AG Jim Hood has signed contingency deals in securities cases.
The practice has become a lucrative new tort business, to the point that plaintiffs attorneys are now recommending lawsuits to state officials. In some instances, governments simply target an industry, and then let the tort lawyers decide whom to sue and on what grounds. The tort lawyers then turn around and send a portion of their profits back to the politicians in the form of campaign contributions.
The good news is that defendant companies are starting to fight back in court -- and are winning. The Superior Court of California in April ruled that the county of Santa Clara could not pay contingency fees to private attorneys -- in this case, tort lawyer giants Thornton & Naumes and Motley Rice -- who were suing lead-paint manufacturers on behalf of the government. The county had argued that since government retained "oversight" of the attorneys, there was no problem.
Judge Jack Komar pointed out the impossibility of determining how much control a government attorney must exercise to make a contingency fee deal legitimate. He cited the California Supreme Court's 1985 Clancy decision, which noted that a contingency arrangement "is antithetical to the standard of neutrality that an attorney representing the government must meet."
Unfortunately, California's high court is one of the few to have addressed such fee agreements. Some defendants have noted the 1927 Supreme Court decision in Tumey v. Ohio, which barred paying government officials a bounty for arrests and convictions during Prohibition. The Rhode Island Supreme Court last year seemed intrigued by this argument, and returned a lawsuit over contingencies to a lower court for more consideration. Still, prosecutors are busy dreaming up reasons why Tumey doesn't apply, and the contingency issue is probably destined for the Supreme Court. In the meantime, some states are moving to bar these contracts, or make them more transparent.
Government prosecutors claim they need outside lawyers because they lack the money and resources for big suits. But surely if the tort bar is as interested in "public justice" as it professes, it'll work by the hour. And if prosecutors feel underfunded, they can always request more money from the state legislatures that control the purse strings. Budgetary oversight is in fact one check on prosecutorial excess.
In the 1935 Berger case, the Supreme Court noted the obligation of a prosecutor "is not that it shall win a case, but that justice should be done." Sometimes that means foregoing a suit, or balancing litigation with other public policy goals. Such concepts aren't priorities for trial lawyers, whose main goal is to hit the financial jackpot. The U.S. justice system is frayed enough without making trial lawyers the deputized vigilantes of public prosecutors.
Prosecution for Profit
Wall Street Journal, July 5, 2007
When President Bush issued an executive order in May barring federal agencies from hiring private lawyers on a contingency fee basis, the press corps yawned. But Mr. Bush was getting out ahead of one of the bigger legal battles now raging across the country: prosecutorial neutrality.
America's legal system is based on the idea that government officials act on behalf of the public interest, not for personal profit. That's why we don't pay policemen per arrest, judges a percentage of damages they award, or prosecutors a bounty for each conviction. Yet public officials are increasingly violating this ethic by outsourcing legal work to tort lawyers who profit from prosecuting public claims.
The practice developed in the 1990s, when state Attorneys General promised trial lawyers a percentage (a contingency) of any settlement they could beat out of Big Tobacco, and it has since spread like bird flu. In Rhode Island and California, prosecutors have tried to give plaintiff firms a cut of judgments against lead paint makers. Oklahoma wants to reward private attorneys for suing poultry companies. Mississippi AG Jim Hood has signed contingency deals in securities cases.
The practice has become a lucrative new tort business, to the point that plaintiffs attorneys are now recommending lawsuits to state officials. In some instances, governments simply target an industry, and then let the tort lawyers decide whom to sue and on what grounds. The tort lawyers then turn around and send a portion of their profits back to the politicians in the form of campaign contributions.
The good news is that defendant companies are starting to fight back in court -- and are winning. The Superior Court of California in April ruled that the county of Santa Clara could not pay contingency fees to private attorneys -- in this case, tort lawyer giants Thornton & Naumes and Motley Rice -- who were suing lead-paint manufacturers on behalf of the government. The county had argued that since government retained "oversight" of the attorneys, there was no problem.
Judge Jack Komar pointed out the impossibility of determining how much control a government attorney must exercise to make a contingency fee deal legitimate. He cited the California Supreme Court's 1985 Clancy decision, which noted that a contingency arrangement "is antithetical to the standard of neutrality that an attorney representing the government must meet."
Unfortunately, California's high court is one of the few to have addressed such fee agreements. Some defendants have noted the 1927 Supreme Court decision in Tumey v. Ohio, which barred paying government officials a bounty for arrests and convictions during Prohibition. The Rhode Island Supreme Court last year seemed intrigued by this argument, and returned a lawsuit over contingencies to a lower court for more consideration. Still, prosecutors are busy dreaming up reasons why Tumey doesn't apply, and the contingency issue is probably destined for the Supreme Court. In the meantime, some states are moving to bar these contracts, or make them more transparent.
Government prosecutors claim they need outside lawyers because they lack the money and resources for big suits. But surely if the tort bar is as interested in "public justice" as it professes, it'll work by the hour. And if prosecutors feel underfunded, they can always request more money from the state legislatures that control the purse strings. Budgetary oversight is in fact one check on prosecutorial excess.
In the 1935 Berger case, the Supreme Court noted the obligation of a prosecutor "is not that it shall win a case, but that justice should be done." Sometimes that means foregoing a suit, or balancing litigation with other public policy goals. Such concepts aren't priorities for trial lawyers, whose main goal is to hit the financial jackpot. The U.S. justice system is frayed enough without making trial lawyers the deputized vigilantes of public prosecutors.
When is it good for a monopoly to be allowed to function and for how long?
An interesting topic came up while discussing the "state sanction tort actions" post (beow).
When is it good for a monopoly to be allowed to function and for how long?
Throughout US history monopolies have been allowed to function in the early stages of an industry with the governemt ultimately breaking it up upon maturity.
The rapid advance of the computer industry might not have occrred (as quickly) had Microsoft not had (and still has)essentially a monopoly. However, at what time should that monopoly be broken up? Or will market forces take care of the problem without government intervention?
When is it good for a monopoly to be allowed to function and for how long?
Throughout US history monopolies have been allowed to function in the early stages of an industry with the governemt ultimately breaking it up upon maturity.
The rapid advance of the computer industry might not have occrred (as quickly) had Microsoft not had (and still has)essentially a monopoly. However, at what time should that monopoly be broken up? Or will market forces take care of the problem without government intervention?
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Mr. Pitts say it all........
Leonard Pitts: Not because he's black
Washington comes across as someone trying to use his race as a get-out-of-jail-free card
08:37 AM CDT on Saturday, July 7, 2007
My wife and I have a running joke.
Say the doctor informs me he's going to administer some test that will hurt like heck. When he leaves the room, I whisper to Marilyn: "You know why he's doing it, don't you? It's because I'm black."
It is, of course, a joke with a point. Namely, that some black folks can read race into anything. Some of us keep indignation in our hip pockets and conspiracy on speed dial.
But we'll get back to Isaiah Washington in a moment. First, the obvious disclaimer: I am not saying race is never the reason bad things happen. Au contraire. One often gets pulled over because one is black. One often gets substandard health care because one is black. One often fails to get the job because one is black.
Worse, because those in charge of pulling people over, giving health care or making hiring decisions are seldom clear and candid that race is their reason, it's easy to become paranoid, to believe everything is race until proven otherwise. So to be black is often to walk a tightrope above a snakepit of suspicions, both founded and un.
Apparently, Mr. Washington has fallen, and he can't get up.
He is, you will recall, the black actor from Grey's Anatomy who used an anti-gay slur during a fight with a cast mate. Months later, backstage at the Golden Globes, he used the word again in denying he had used it the first time. In the ensuing uproar, Mr. Washington apologized, entered what he calls an "executive counseling program" and filmed a public service announcement promoting tolerance. Last month, after all that, he was fired.
Frankly, it was cheesy of his bosses to wait so long. Why let the man jump through so many hoops just to give him the ax at the end?
But what sympathy you might have for Mr. Washington is undercut by the fact that he has gone on a PR offensive to talk about a firing that he believes happened, at least in part, because he is black.
As he told Newsweek: "Well, it didn't help me on the set that I was a black man who wasn't a mush-mouth Negro walking around with his head in his hands all the time. I didn't speak like I'd just left the plantation, and that can be a problem for people sometime. I had a person in human resources tell me after this thing played out that 'some people' were afraid of me around the studio. I asked her, 'Why, because I'm a 6-foot-1 black man with dark skin and who doesn't go around saying 'Yessah, massa sir' and 'No sir, massa' to everyone?' "
Which brings us to two truths that may seem contradictory but aren't: One, there is epidemic racism in this country. Two, you can find racism where it does not exist.
Forgive me, but Mr. Washington seems far more illustrative of the second axiom than the first.
Mr. Washington – like many of us, black and otherwise – seems knee-jerk where race is concerned. I mean, is it so hard to believe people feared him because they thought he was a volatile jerk? Or that a white actor of middling fame who disrupted his workplace would have also been fired? In his rush to make himself a martyr, Mr. Washington fails to consider these and other obvious questions.
He comes across as one of those brothers the running joke is meant to mock – the kind for whom race is a get-out-of-jail-free card. Unfortunately, like the boy who cried wolf, such people trivialize what is serious and give others license to do the same.
He lost his job for saying an awful thing. I wish he'd stop whining and deal with that.
Step 1 is to realize that black is not an excuse.
Leonard Pitts is a columnist for the Miami Herald. His e-mail address is lpitts@miamiherald.com.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Government Sanctioned Tort Actions: Did the country not learn something from Texas?
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis (www.ncpa.org) the trend of states hiring tort specialist to "go after" potential wrong do'ers/industries is a growing. Apparently, nobody learned from the tobacco settlement fiasco that hit Texas a few years back. A fiasco that cost a few politicians their career and some jail time.
While I am a large proponent of privitization of many services government provides; I don't believe justice should be one of them. Simply put, there's the potential for way too much money to be made to keep everyone honest.
REIGNING IN THE TORT VIGILANTES
America's legal system is based on the idea that government officials act on behalf of the public interest, not for personal profit. That's why we don't pay policemen per arrest, judges a percentage of damages they award, or prosecutors a bounty for each conviction. Yet public officials are increasingly violating this ethic by outsourcing legal work to tort lawyers who profit from prosecuting public claims, says the Wall Street Journal.
The practice developed in the 1990s, when state Attorneys General promised trial lawyers a percentage (a contingency) of any settlement they could beat out of Big Tobacco; it has since spread like bird flu.
In Rhode Island and California, prosecutors have tried to give plaintiff firms a cut of judgments against lead paint makers.
Oklahoma wants to reward private attorneys for suing poultry companies.
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has signed contingency deals in securities cases.
The practice has become a lucrative new tort business, to the point that plaintiffs attorneys are now recommending lawsuits to state officials, says the Journal:
In some instances, governments simply target an industry, and then let the tort lawyers decide whom to sue and on what grounds.
The tort lawyers then turn around and send a portion of their profits back to the politicians in the form of campaign contributions.
In the 1935 Berger case, the Supreme Court noted the obligation of a prosecutor "is not that it shall win a case, but that justice should be done." Sometimes that means foregoing a suit, or balancing litigation with other public policy goals. Such concepts aren't priorities for trial lawyers, whose main goal is to hit the financial jackpot. The U.S. justice system is frayed enough without making trial lawyers the deputized vigilantes of public prosecutors, says the Journal.
Source: Editorial, "Prosecution for Profit," Wall Street Journal, July 5, 2007.
For text:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118359933548957734.html
For more on Legal Issues:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=35
While I am a large proponent of privitization of many services government provides; I don't believe justice should be one of them. Simply put, there's the potential for way too much money to be made to keep everyone honest.
REIGNING IN THE TORT VIGILANTES
America's legal system is based on the idea that government officials act on behalf of the public interest, not for personal profit. That's why we don't pay policemen per arrest, judges a percentage of damages they award, or prosecutors a bounty for each conviction. Yet public officials are increasingly violating this ethic by outsourcing legal work to tort lawyers who profit from prosecuting public claims, says the Wall Street Journal.
The practice developed in the 1990s, when state Attorneys General promised trial lawyers a percentage (a contingency) of any settlement they could beat out of Big Tobacco; it has since spread like bird flu.
In Rhode Island and California, prosecutors have tried to give plaintiff firms a cut of judgments against lead paint makers.
Oklahoma wants to reward private attorneys for suing poultry companies.
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has signed contingency deals in securities cases.
The practice has become a lucrative new tort business, to the point that plaintiffs attorneys are now recommending lawsuits to state officials, says the Journal:
In some instances, governments simply target an industry, and then let the tort lawyers decide whom to sue and on what grounds.
The tort lawyers then turn around and send a portion of their profits back to the politicians in the form of campaign contributions.
In the 1935 Berger case, the Supreme Court noted the obligation of a prosecutor "is not that it shall win a case, but that justice should be done." Sometimes that means foregoing a suit, or balancing litigation with other public policy goals. Such concepts aren't priorities for trial lawyers, whose main goal is to hit the financial jackpot. The U.S. justice system is frayed enough without making trial lawyers the deputized vigilantes of public prosecutors, says the Journal.
Source: Editorial, "Prosecution for Profit," Wall Street Journal, July 5, 2007.
For text:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118359933548957734.html
For more on Legal Issues:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=35
Thursday, June 28, 2007
U.S. SUPREME COURT: Reverse Discrimination is Still Discrimination
Today in a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court ruled that school districts that use race as a basis for location placement is unconstitutional. Simply put, discrimination is still discrimination and must not be used to "fix" the ills of the world.....
Article published Jun 28, 2007
Supreme Court rules against race quotas
June 28, 2007
ASSOCIATED PRESS - WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled today that schools cannot take steps to assure racially mixed student populations, dealing a blow to so-called "affirmative action" programs.
In the 5-4 ruling, the high court ruled in favor of parents who were battling the criteria used to admit students to schools in two cities where whites and blacks live in mostly segregated neighborhoods.
The schools had argued that students should be assigned to different facilities, sometimes far from home, to ensure racial diversity.
"Simply because the school districts may seek a worthy goal doesn't mean that they are free to discriminate on the basis of race to achieve it," Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision.
Article published Jun 28, 2007
Supreme Court rules against race quotas
June 28, 2007
ASSOCIATED PRESS - WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled today that schools cannot take steps to assure racially mixed student populations, dealing a blow to so-called "affirmative action" programs.
In the 5-4 ruling, the high court ruled in favor of parents who were battling the criteria used to admit students to schools in two cities where whites and blacks live in mostly segregated neighborhoods.
The schools had argued that students should be assigned to different facilities, sometimes far from home, to ensure racial diversity.
"Simply because the school districts may seek a worthy goal doesn't mean that they are free to discriminate on the basis of race to achieve it," Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision.
Monday, June 18, 2007
-- "Compromise" bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in years
McCarthy Bill Moves To The Senate
-- "Compromise" bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in years
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org
ACTION:
1. Please urge your Senators to OPPOSE the gun control bill (HR 2640) which was snuck through the House last week by anti-gun Democrats. Some people are saying this bill is a positive step for gun owners, but realize this ONE SIMPLE FACT: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer are the lead sponsors of this legislation! These two have NEVER once looked out for your Second Amendment rights!!!
2. Please use the contact information below -- and the pre-written letter -- to help direct your comments to them, and circulate this alert to as many gun owners as you can. It is imperative that we remind gun owners nationwide that gun control DOES NOT work to reduce crime; that, to the contrary, gun control HAS DISARMED millions of law-abiding citizens; and that the answer to tragedies like Virginia Tech is to REPEAL the "gun free zones" which leave law-abiding victims defenseless.
Complete BIll Analysis.... CLICK HERE!
-- "Compromise" bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in years
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org
ACTION:
1. Please urge your Senators to OPPOSE the gun control bill (HR 2640) which was snuck through the House last week by anti-gun Democrats. Some people are saying this bill is a positive step for gun owners, but realize this ONE SIMPLE FACT: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer are the lead sponsors of this legislation! These two have NEVER once looked out for your Second Amendment rights!!!
2. Please use the contact information below -- and the pre-written letter -- to help direct your comments to them, and circulate this alert to as many gun owners as you can. It is imperative that we remind gun owners nationwide that gun control DOES NOT work to reduce crime; that, to the contrary, gun control HAS DISARMED millions of law-abiding citizens; and that the answer to tragedies like Virginia Tech is to REPEAL the "gun free zones" which leave law-abiding victims defenseless.
Complete BIll Analysis.... CLICK HERE!
Survey: Bush Loses Base Over Immigration Issue
Posted By Bobby Eberle On June 14, 2007 at 5:24 am
If President Bush is looking for a legacy, he may have found it. Talk is that the president sees the overhaul of America’s immigration system as his gift to the country… his crowning achievement. It’s hard to believe that the walls of the White House are so thick, that not a single voice from the grassroots is getting through. As seen in GOPUSA’s latest survey, President Bush is losing the Republican base, and the party is suffering because of it.
In a survey conducted this week (view full survey results here) by GOPUSA’s Grassroots Survey Team, respondents were asked to comment on the on-going debate over illegal immigration reform and to indicate their approval of the job President Bush is doing.
Since GOPUSA created the Grassroots Survey Team, we have tracked presidential approval and for all of 2006, the number was relatively high and consistent. In March 2006, survey team members gave President Bush an 81% approval rating. In June of the same year, it was 77%. In September, the rating was 80%, and in October, the rating was 84%.
Then, as the immigration debate resurfaced and President Bush continued to push legislation that is completely counter to the feelings of not only Republicans but the general public, his approval among survey team members has taken a nose dive. In April 2007, presidential approval sank to 65%. But in this week’s survey of over 2,700 respondents, the president’s approval fell to a dismal 40%.
If President Bush is looking for a legacy, he may have found it. Talk is that the president sees the overhaul of America’s immigration system as his gift to the country… his crowning achievement. It’s hard to believe that the walls of the White House are so thick, that not a single voice from the grassroots is getting through. As seen in GOPUSA’s latest survey, President Bush is losing the Republican base, and the party is suffering because of it.
In a survey conducted this week (view full survey results here) by GOPUSA’s Grassroots Survey Team, respondents were asked to comment on the on-going debate over illegal immigration reform and to indicate their approval of the job President Bush is doing.
Since GOPUSA created the Grassroots Survey Team, we have tracked presidential approval and for all of 2006, the number was relatively high and consistent. In March 2006, survey team members gave President Bush an 81% approval rating. In June of the same year, it was 77%. In September, the rating was 80%, and in October, the rating was 84%.
Then, as the immigration debate resurfaced and President Bush continued to push legislation that is completely counter to the feelings of not only Republicans but the general public, his approval among survey team members has taken a nose dive. In April 2007, presidential approval sank to 65%. But in this week’s survey of over 2,700 respondents, the president’s approval fell to a dismal 40%.
Ike for President: Oh, for the days when campaign ads weren't vicious attack ads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va5Btg4kkUE
Bill would allow illegals to join militaryBy
It's official! I've lost all trust in the leadership of the Republican Party. While this initiative might be OK compared to others proposals in the Immigration Bill; it's still a far cry from doing "what's Right"......
Bill would allow illegals to join military
By UPI StaffUnited Press InternationalJune 18, 2007
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Immigration reform being considered in Congress would give some young illegal aliens a chance to become U.S. citizens by serving in the military.
About 750,000 young people might be eligible under the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors or DREAM act, The Boston Globe reports. The bill would allow those who were under 16 when they arrived in the United States, have a high school diploma and meet some other qualifications, to get on track for citizenship as long as they serve at least two years.
Bill Carr, the acting deputy undersecretary of defense in charge of personnel, told the Globe the measure would be "good for readiness."
The Army has had to lower its recruiting standards to meet its goals and the Army and Marines plan to increase their ranks during the next five years.
About 35,000 non-citizens serve in the military under a program that gives legal residents accelerated citizenship.
Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Bill would allow illegals to join military
By UPI StaffUnited Press InternationalJune 18, 2007
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Immigration reform being considered in Congress would give some young illegal aliens a chance to become U.S. citizens by serving in the military.
About 750,000 young people might be eligible under the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors or DREAM act, The Boston Globe reports. The bill would allow those who were under 16 when they arrived in the United States, have a high school diploma and meet some other qualifications, to get on track for citizenship as long as they serve at least two years.
Bill Carr, the acting deputy undersecretary of defense in charge of personnel, told the Globe the measure would be "good for readiness."
The Army has had to lower its recruiting standards to meet its goals and the Army and Marines plan to increase their ranks during the next five years.
About 35,000 non-citizens serve in the military under a program that gives legal residents accelerated citizenship.
Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Ronald Reagan for Reagan/Bush '84
Let's bring back leadership from the conservatives... Not just rhetoric.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The Paleo Blog has a post that must be read
Please link to http://paleo.vox.com/ for this great piece on how capitalism can be screwed up with just a little thought and preparation.
One of my favorite parts in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Robert Murphy is the section on price controls, or more specifically rent controls. Dr. Murphy hits the subject out of the ballpark. To give you all a taste (and a reason to buy the book!), in this entry to The Paleo Blog, I provide a summary, with my own version and comments or observations, of what he says in it. I also include a few empirical examples taken from Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to Understanding the Economy by Thomas Sowell.
One of my favorite parts in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Robert Murphy is the section on price controls, or more specifically rent controls. Dr. Murphy hits the subject out of the ballpark. To give you all a taste (and a reason to buy the book!), in this entry to The Paleo Blog, I provide a summary, with my own version and comments or observations, of what he says in it. I also include a few empirical examples taken from Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to Understanding the Economy by Thomas Sowell.
Typical of all backroom deals the new "Immigration Law" has many "compromises " that do more harm to our personal freedoms. The following is but one "compromise" that will reduce our constitutional right to keep and bear arms....
Courtesy of Gun Owners of America - www.gunowners.org
First, there was the McCarthy-Dingell bill. The folks on Capitol Hill have been telling you we need HR 297, a bill to greatly expand the Brady Law. They say it will stop future Virginia Tech shootings. And, oh yes, there's one more thing: they want you to believe the McCarthy-Dingell gun control bill isn't really gun control.
Now, they want to bring you an anti-gun immigration amnesty bill. Already you're hearing it's not really an amnesty bill. (Yeah, right.) So don't be surprised if they tell you it's not an anti-gun bill either.
Forget, for a moment, the fact that the immigration package negotiated in the Senate could grant amnesty to up to a hundred million illegal aliens who have flaunted our laws.
Forget, for a moment, that it would pull the rug out from under the growing number of states that have vetoed the anti-gun National ID bill passed by Congress in 2005.
Forget, for a moment, that the bill will strengthen existing laws by requiring all legal Americans (like you) to own a National ID card before you can get a job.
In addition to all these things, the bill could, in the hands of an anti-gun administration, result in the closing of every major gun store in America.
GUN CONTROL IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL
Senator Ted Kennedy and the anti-gun zealots who wrote the bill just couldn't resist the temptation to get their hands on our guns. They have included language that GOA has been able to defeat in the past.
When Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced these anti-gun provisions in 1998, the GOA grassroots were able to convince seven senator cosponsors to pull their names from Hatch's bill.
At the time, The Hill newspaper credited GOA with having "generated a significant number of postcards" into Senate offices. "The defecting [seven] senators, echoing the concerns of the GOA, are apprehensive about the violation of Second Amendment rights," reported The Hill.
The current language in the amnesty bill is only slightly different from Hatch's original language almost 10 years ago, but it would essentially do the same thing -- threaten every gun store in America.
In Section 205, for example, all it takes for the employees of a gun shop (of five or more persons) to become a "criminal gang" is:
* For them to commit two or more violations of ANY federal felony gun offense -- which includes virtually all gun offenses, including paperwork violations; and
* For the anti-gunners to find that violating gun laws was a "primary purpose" of the group.
So let's say your local gun store sells two or three firearms to Mayor Bloomberg's thuggish agents under New York City's extraterritorial "sting" operations. Your gun shop is now a "criminal gang."
This provision could even be used against a family of five who drives by two schools on the way to a movie with a gun in the glove compartment. Certainly under a Hillary administration, it would not be surprising to see them treat this infraction as a "felony" under the weird language of Gun Free School Zones Act. Thus, you and your family would become a "criminal gang."
OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL
There is still no official immigration bill -- that is, the working draft does not have an official senate number. The draft was concocted by senators who put it together behind closed doors, all the while bypassing the normal committee process.
While this unofficial draft has been "the buzz" around the country this past week, several things have been overlooked. One thing, to be sure, is the threat to gun owners' rights mentioned above. But also ignored is the fact that the negotiating draft imposes draconian penalties for those who live in states that have the audacity to veto the National ID card (which passed as part of the REAL ID Act of 2005).
If you live in a state such as Montana, Maine, Idaho, etc. which has passed legislation opposing the government's efforts to turn your driver's license into a National ID card, YOU COULD BE DENIED EMPLOYMENT OF ANY SORT.
Gun Owners was already concerned about this law -- which has yet to be implemented -- because of the threat it poses to gun owners' privacy. But now the immigration bill will go even further by requiring all present and future private sector employees to be screened by the Electronic Employee Verification System (EEVS).
And in Section 1(a)(4)(i) of the draft legislation, the bill allows for EEVS approval of your continued employment only if your private employer meets "strict standards for identification documents that must be presented in the hiring process, including the use of secure documentation that contains a photograph, biometrics and/or complies with the requirements [of the] REAL ID Act...."
Hence, no National ID card... no job.
Courtesy of Gun Owners of America - www.gunowners.org
First, there was the McCarthy-Dingell bill. The folks on Capitol Hill have been telling you we need HR 297, a bill to greatly expand the Brady Law. They say it will stop future Virginia Tech shootings. And, oh yes, there's one more thing: they want you to believe the McCarthy-Dingell gun control bill isn't really gun control.
Now, they want to bring you an anti-gun immigration amnesty bill. Already you're hearing it's not really an amnesty bill. (Yeah, right.) So don't be surprised if they tell you it's not an anti-gun bill either.
Forget, for a moment, the fact that the immigration package negotiated in the Senate could grant amnesty to up to a hundred million illegal aliens who have flaunted our laws.
Forget, for a moment, that it would pull the rug out from under the growing number of states that have vetoed the anti-gun National ID bill passed by Congress in 2005.
Forget, for a moment, that the bill will strengthen existing laws by requiring all legal Americans (like you) to own a National ID card before you can get a job.
In addition to all these things, the bill could, in the hands of an anti-gun administration, result in the closing of every major gun store in America.
GUN CONTROL IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL
Senator Ted Kennedy and the anti-gun zealots who wrote the bill just couldn't resist the temptation to get their hands on our guns. They have included language that GOA has been able to defeat in the past.
When Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced these anti-gun provisions in 1998, the GOA grassroots were able to convince seven senator cosponsors to pull their names from Hatch's bill.
At the time, The Hill newspaper credited GOA with having "generated a significant number of postcards" into Senate offices. "The defecting [seven] senators, echoing the concerns of the GOA, are apprehensive about the violation of Second Amendment rights," reported The Hill.
The current language in the amnesty bill is only slightly different from Hatch's original language almost 10 years ago, but it would essentially do the same thing -- threaten every gun store in America.
In Section 205, for example, all it takes for the employees of a gun shop (of five or more persons) to become a "criminal gang" is:
* For them to commit two or more violations of ANY federal felony gun offense -- which includes virtually all gun offenses, including paperwork violations; and
* For the anti-gunners to find that violating gun laws was a "primary purpose" of the group.
So let's say your local gun store sells two or three firearms to Mayor Bloomberg's thuggish agents under New York City's extraterritorial "sting" operations. Your gun shop is now a "criminal gang."
This provision could even be used against a family of five who drives by two schools on the way to a movie with a gun in the glove compartment. Certainly under a Hillary administration, it would not be surprising to see them treat this infraction as a "felony" under the weird language of Gun Free School Zones Act. Thus, you and your family would become a "criminal gang."
OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE IMMIGRATION BILL
There is still no official immigration bill -- that is, the working draft does not have an official senate number. The draft was concocted by senators who put it together behind closed doors, all the while bypassing the normal committee process.
While this unofficial draft has been "the buzz" around the country this past week, several things have been overlooked. One thing, to be sure, is the threat to gun owners' rights mentioned above. But also ignored is the fact that the negotiating draft imposes draconian penalties for those who live in states that have the audacity to veto the National ID card (which passed as part of the REAL ID Act of 2005).
If you live in a state such as Montana, Maine, Idaho, etc. which has passed legislation opposing the government's efforts to turn your driver's license into a National ID card, YOU COULD BE DENIED EMPLOYMENT OF ANY SORT.
Gun Owners was already concerned about this law -- which has yet to be implemented -- because of the threat it poses to gun owners' privacy. But now the immigration bill will go even further by requiring all present and future private sector employees to be screened by the Electronic Employee Verification System (EEVS).
And in Section 1(a)(4)(i) of the draft legislation, the bill allows for EEVS approval of your continued employment only if your private employer meets "strict standards for identification documents that must be presented in the hiring process, including the use of secure documentation that contains a photograph, biometrics and/or complies with the requirements [of the] REAL ID Act...."
Hence, no National ID card... no job.
Monday, May 21, 2007
McCain for Prez? - Let's hope not!
This is yet another example of how this wanna-be-republican loves to pitch a fit whenever he can't get his way. Not only is he blowing his lid over a topic hes wrong on - he obviously feels no one has the right to question his positions.
Good ridence John McCain. May you come in last in the republican primaries.....
McCain Goes Nuts Near Senate Floor
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, launched into a shouting match during a Thursday Capitol Hill meeting, where reportedly the presidential candidate dropped the "F” word and more.
According to reports in the Washington Post and the New York Post, Cornyn apparently got the former POW’s attention when he raised the issue about the number of judicial appeals that illegal immigrants could receive.
In a meeting room just off the Senate floor, McCain opined that Cornyn was purposely raising petty objections to a compromise plan then being hammered out between Senate Republicans and Democrats and the White House.
"This is chickens--- stuff," McCain fired at Cornyn, according to the news reports. "You've always been against this bill, and you're just trying to derail it."
Not to be outdone, Cornyn accused McCain of being too occupied campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations.
"Wait a second here," Cornyn said to McCain. "I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line."
"F--- you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room," McCain reportedly rejoined.
McCain, who has missed 42 votes this year, hasn't been intimately involved in the comprehensive immigration reform debate for months.
Reportedly, the shouting match was played out in front of a bipartisan group of senators and aides who had gathered in the meeting room. Pundits suggest that the temper flare may reopen the can-of-worms that is McCain's "anger-management problem."
Brian Jones, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, acknowledged that a "spirited exchange" did take place.
"Negotiating such a large and important piece of legislation can be intense, and a spirited exchange did occur," Jones said. "[McCain] is somebody who feels very passionate about his work and about solving the problems facing the country."
Good ridence John McCain. May you come in last in the republican primaries.....
McCain Goes Nuts Near Senate Floor
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, launched into a shouting match during a Thursday Capitol Hill meeting, where reportedly the presidential candidate dropped the "F” word and more.
According to reports in the Washington Post and the New York Post, Cornyn apparently got the former POW’s attention when he raised the issue about the number of judicial appeals that illegal immigrants could receive.
In a meeting room just off the Senate floor, McCain opined that Cornyn was purposely raising petty objections to a compromise plan then being hammered out between Senate Republicans and Democrats and the White House.
"This is chickens--- stuff," McCain fired at Cornyn, according to the news reports. "You've always been against this bill, and you're just trying to derail it."
Not to be outdone, Cornyn accused McCain of being too occupied campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations.
"Wait a second here," Cornyn said to McCain. "I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line."
"F--- you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room," McCain reportedly rejoined.
McCain, who has missed 42 votes this year, hasn't been intimately involved in the comprehensive immigration reform debate for months.
Reportedly, the shouting match was played out in front of a bipartisan group of senators and aides who had gathered in the meeting room. Pundits suggest that the temper flare may reopen the can-of-worms that is McCain's "anger-management problem."
Brian Jones, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, acknowledged that a "spirited exchange" did take place.
"Negotiating such a large and important piece of legislation can be intense, and a spirited exchange did occur," Jones said. "[McCain] is somebody who feels very passionate about his work and about solving the problems facing the country."
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Should Sharpton receive the same fate as Imus? YES
Romney calls Sharpton comments 'bigoted'
By UPI StaffUnited Press InternationalMay 10, 2007
FORT DODGE, Iowa (UPI) -- U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says the Rev. Al Sharpton's comments about Mormonism and the 2008 election were "bigoted."
Sharpton, in a debate Monday with atheist author Christopher Hitchens, said "As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that."
Romney told reporters in Iowa Wednesday that Sharpton's comments were "a very unfortunate choice of words on his part."
"I think it was a bigoted statement," he said.
Sharpton said he was not implying Mormons did not believe in God, The New York Times said.
"I predicted that believers (not atheists) would vote against the candidate, in this case, Mr. Romney, for political, not religious reasons," Sharpton said in a statement. "In no way did I attack Mormons or the Mormon Church, when I responded that other believers, not atheists, would vote against Mr. Romney for purely political reasons."
Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
* When will "leader of minority groups" who have a long history of openly racists comments be held to the same standards as everyone else? For too long the likes of Sharpton and Jackson have peddled their form of hate & racism in the guise of civil rights. It is time they meet the same fate as everyone else who exercises their constitutional rights. They get barbecued by the liberal media.
By UPI StaffUnited Press InternationalMay 10, 2007
FORT DODGE, Iowa (UPI) -- U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says the Rev. Al Sharpton's comments about Mormonism and the 2008 election were "bigoted."
Sharpton, in a debate Monday with atheist author Christopher Hitchens, said "As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that."
Romney told reporters in Iowa Wednesday that Sharpton's comments were "a very unfortunate choice of words on his part."
"I think it was a bigoted statement," he said.
Sharpton said he was not implying Mormons did not believe in God, The New York Times said.
"I predicted that believers (not atheists) would vote against the candidate, in this case, Mr. Romney, for political, not religious reasons," Sharpton said in a statement. "In no way did I attack Mormons or the Mormon Church, when I responded that other believers, not atheists, would vote against Mr. Romney for purely political reasons."
Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
* When will "leader of minority groups" who have a long history of openly racists comments be held to the same standards as everyone else? For too long the likes of Sharpton and Jackson have peddled their form of hate & racism in the guise of civil rights. It is time they meet the same fate as everyone else who exercises their constitutional rights. They get barbecued by the liberal media.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Perry Allows overuling of his HPV virus plan...
Gov. Rick Perry, after one of the best speeches we've heard him make, said he won't veto the Legislature's ban on government-ordered vaccines against human papillomavirus, or HPV.
Right up to the end of his statement, Perry looked like a governor ready to do battle with legislators. He had a signing folder with a couple of pens ready on the ceremonial desk in the governor's ornate reception room at the Capitol. He was joined by several women who have battled cervical cancer. And he made an emotionally compelling argument in favor of the vaccinations, decrying the politics that he said changed the focus of the debate away from public health and toward the relative powers of the governor and the Lege. TEXAS WEEKLY (subsciption needed)
Right up to the end of his statement, Perry looked like a governor ready to do battle with legislators. He had a signing folder with a couple of pens ready on the ceremonial desk in the governor's ornate reception room at the Capitol. He was joined by several women who have battled cervical cancer. And he made an emotionally compelling argument in favor of the vaccinations, decrying the politics that he said changed the focus of the debate away from public health and toward the relative powers of the governor and the Lege. TEXAS WEEKLY (subsciption needed)
Moving Primary Dates Proving to be Wrong
Urge to be gripping puts Texas in wrong hands
EDITORIAL BOARD -
Austin American-Statesman, 05/08/07
While a bill to move up Texas primaries to Feb. 5 reposes in a Senate committee, the Florida Legislature has approved moving its party primaries up to Jan. 29, escalating the race of states to move their primary election dates back. There is even talk in New Hampshire of a December primary.
The race to be first has taken on absurd proportions, and the Texas Legislature would be wise not to get caught up in the rush. Senators should recognize that an even earlier primary benefits just about everybody in politics except the voter. In short, the Texas version of the early primary bill serves voters best just where it is — bottled up in committee.
The argument for moving the primary dates back is that states with large populations yearn to be relevant in the presidential nomination derby. There may be something to that, but whatever merit that argument holds is overwhelmed by the reality that early primaries won't work to enhance voter education on the issues. What early primaries enhance are the fortunes of the front-runners whose status is determined by a relatively small stable of donors, pundits, pollsters and party insiders.
Early primaries will magnify the influence of big donors as well because the earlier the primaries, the more expensive the air time. A February primary means a December filing deadline. Candidates not only will have to compete for attention, they will find the competition expensive because of holiday advertising rates.
The real beneficiaries of an early primary are not voters but incumbents — they have established name recognition — other political insiders and the people who give to them.
The March primary date is soon enough — too soon really — but it sure beats moving the date back to strengthen the grip of incumbents and big political donors.
EDITORIAL BOARD -
Austin American-Statesman, 05/08/07
While a bill to move up Texas primaries to Feb. 5 reposes in a Senate committee, the Florida Legislature has approved moving its party primaries up to Jan. 29, escalating the race of states to move their primary election dates back. There is even talk in New Hampshire of a December primary.
The race to be first has taken on absurd proportions, and the Texas Legislature would be wise not to get caught up in the rush. Senators should recognize that an even earlier primary benefits just about everybody in politics except the voter. In short, the Texas version of the early primary bill serves voters best just where it is — bottled up in committee.
The argument for moving the primary dates back is that states with large populations yearn to be relevant in the presidential nomination derby. There may be something to that, but whatever merit that argument holds is overwhelmed by the reality that early primaries won't work to enhance voter education on the issues. What early primaries enhance are the fortunes of the front-runners whose status is determined by a relatively small stable of donors, pundits, pollsters and party insiders.
Early primaries will magnify the influence of big donors as well because the earlier the primaries, the more expensive the air time. A February primary means a December filing deadline. Candidates not only will have to compete for attention, they will find the competition expensive because of holiday advertising rates.
The real beneficiaries of an early primary are not voters but incumbents — they have established name recognition — other political insiders and the people who give to them.
The March primary date is soon enough — too soon really — but it sure beats moving the date back to strengthen the grip of incumbents and big political donors.
Monday, May 7, 2007
TEXAS - Support Strong In Texas For Fred Thompson
The Draft Fred Thompson 2008 Committee announced that 54 of 81 Texas State House Republicans and several Republican Texas State senators "have joined the growing effort to encourage former United States Senator Fred Thompson to seek the presidency." Texas Land Commissioner and Draft Committee leadership team member Jerry Patterson said he has spoken with each Legislator and "found an increasingly strong desire to see Thompson become a candidate."Officials said a new independent poll conducted by Baselice & Associates in Texas shows Thompson tied for second place statewide with 19 percent of the vote. Sen. John McCain also showed 19 percent and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani led with 24 percent. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney held eight percent. “These poll numbers reflect the enthusiasm I’m seeing in the Legislature and around the state. In Texas, the momentum in the race for president is clearly with Fred Thompson. If he enters this campaign, we can put him in the lead within 30 days,” said Patterson State Representative Robert Talton who serves from Harris County, Texas said, “People recognize Thompson’s leadership, his integrity and his remarkable ability to touch Americans from all walks of life. We need him in this race and we need him in the White House.” The Draft Fred Thompson 2008 Committee’s leadership team includes Texas Rail Road Commissioner Victor Carrillo and Republican National Committeewoman Denise McNamara from Texas.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
