There is a story on ABC Online that claims US Attorney General John Ashcroft has ordered a rather cool art deco statue of a semi-nude ‘spirit of justice’ covered up. What is it about any hint of overt sexuality that sends otherwise moderately rational conservatives into such bizarre mental wobbles?
|
|||||
|
In a recent posting on Transterrestrial Musings Rand asked:
It means the Libertarian Party (and others) are starting to raise enough money to be an annoyance. Vote tallies for Libertarian candidates in a number of election races in November 2000 were actually greater than the margins of victory. Many think we would have done even better if not for the onerous regulatory requirements. Harry Browne was prepared to make a constitutional challenge against the very existance of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) but was unable to do so, partly due to internal party bickering. The existing regulations prevent small parties from getting a leg up, but they are of little or no consequence to the Demopublicans. So my take? It’s just another excuse to shore up their monopoly of power. If they can generate good vote-acquring “moral” and “ethical” soundbites while they are at it, it’s an even bigger win for the two faces of the monopoly party. January 28th, 2002 | Comments are closed
 Many groups on both the Left and the Right have big money behind them and manage to keep their message and spin on the television screen morning, noon and night. Thus far we Libertarians have had neither the numbers nor the wealthy backers to do more than an occasional Presidential Campaign ad. But that is about to change and I’ll let Jim Babka’s report speak for itself. I may disagree with he and Harry Browne on some issues, but I still think they are two of the most effective outreach people we have ever had. Without further ado, here’s Jim:
I can’t wait to see the impact of this. Kick the anti-2nd Amendment crowd in the goolies while they’re down. Yeah, that’s the ticket! January 22nd, 2002 | Comments are closed
I just have to share this recent item reported by the Opinion Journal.
Where do they find people like this? Are they grown in a secret government vat? Is there a reason they are deathly afraid of getting their nails clipped? Is this a job for Mulder and Scully? January 21st, 2002 | Comments are closed
Ah yes, the time of Dr. King’s celebration is here again. The time when young commies that I attend school with distort and lie about King’s message to the “African-American” community. So, let me get started right away with debunking the commies distortion of his message. Lie 1: Dr. King supported government intrusion in the market to make things more equal. Lie 2: If you do not support affirmative action, you are a racist, and do not understand the message of Dr. King Furthermore, Dr, King would, I assume, be ashamed that people using his name are crying that they should not be forced to work hard for what they want. If you want to go to the best schools or to the best jobs, you have to work hard, and should not, Dr, King argued, be allowed to just claim your race as a reason for hiring. Lie 3: You better take off Dr. King day, or else you are a racist. Lie 4 (the big one): Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the reincarnation of Dr. King These lies are too easy to refute. The teachers and commie students do not bother to think and thus they are commie-like, Jackson supporters who lie for their cause. Pray for me this week as I attempt to not say any of this in class, so as to stay alive! January 20th, 2002 | Comments are closed
For those looking for some sanity on the issue of Enron Corp’s spectacular fall from grace, take a look at a fine article by Robert D. Kaplan in What next? over on Slate. One of the main things to be drawn from this article was that the top brass at Enron sought to approach not just George W. Bush and his political allies for help, but large numbers of senior Democrats as well. Of course, this will not stop some leftist comentators from trying to tarnish Bush and co with the Enron affaire. January 17th, 2002 | Comments are closed
I am in the process of moving, from my native Michigan to the western suburbs of Washington DC. When I closed on my current home in April 2000, I financed the loan at 7.75% apr for 30 years. I am currently qualified to borrow at 6.40% for 30 years. The yield on 30-year US treasury bonds has fallen by a similar amount. Why do I bring this up? Remember, back in 2000, American politicians were talking up the surplus. Today, thanks to recession, a flat stock market and post-911 spending, the US will probably finish with a deficit in fiscal 2002. But according to a novel theory recently introduced by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, federal deficits cause mortgage rates to rise! So see, tax cuts would increase the deficit, which would increase mortgage rates, which would make new home purchases more expensive, which would hurt working families. Well then, if that is true, why is my lending rate so much more favorable now than it was when the US budget was solidly in the black? The US does not finance much of its debt with 30 year bonds. In fact, the duration of the national debt (a fancy way of saying the average time to maturity) is just under 5 years. The federal treasury does not contribute very much to the demand for long-term funds. So it should not be surprising to learn that there is essentially no historical relationship between federal borrowing and mortgage rates. In fact, the US did not start to aggressively work down the duration of the debt until the Democrats and Treasury Secretary Rubin came into power! If Daschle wants to pay down the debt, why would he want to do it in a period in which yields on long-term debt were falling? As anyone who stayed awake in finance 101 knows, prices and yields move in opposite directions, so lower yields mean that it would cost more to retire long-term debt from bondholder’ hands. This would amount to little more than a subsidy paid by US taxpayers to bondholders, who increasingly are foreign investors. Politicians used to be smart enough to know that they aren’t very smart about economics. Senator Daschle evidently does not feel constrained by his ignorance. January 17th, 2002 | Comments are closed
The USA will possibly face the most punitive trade sanctions in the history of the World Trade Organisation if the European Union is granted the right to act on a WTO ruling that US tax breaks for exporters are a violation of global trade rules. This is entirely a self inflicted wound for the USA. Unlike the vast majority of the rest of the world, the USA claims tax from companies based on their global activities. Quite apart from the fact this is manifestly iniquitous, it is also pretty damn stupid economically. Although EU nations do not attempt to tax globally, the European states tend to subsidise their favoured companies in various ways (which is also stupid from a macro-economic perspective). This in turn has lead the US to deduce for the last 31 years that certain businesses operating in competition with subsidised EU companies should be given tax breaks to help them compete more evenly. There is just one problem with that: making special cases in that manner violates WTO treaty rules. The solution for the US is of course simplicity itself: just abolish all US taxation at the water’s edge like the rest of the world does… no special cases therefore exist. Result? American businesses overseas flourish without the absurd and wildly expensive accounting gymnastics needed to avoid actually paying very much tax to the American IRS on corporate operations in Mongolia (or wherever). The fact is, of the medium and small businesses I know of run by Americans overseas, the reality is that they successfully shelter the vast majority of their operations from the US tax man. So why not just recognize that there is no justification for this very hard to enforce ‘taking’ by the IRS… what reasonable pecuniary interest does the US state have on economic activity beyond its shores? Scrap this extraterritorial intrusion and not only is justice served, the WTO problem simply disappears with a loud ‘poof’! January 16th, 2002 | Comments are closed
There’s Pork in Their Horoscope, The Guv Replies Reader Neil Eden contacted the Inspector General’s Office and received the following reply:
Keep us informed of the responses you get. The fun has only begun. January 15th, 2002 | Comments are closed
On Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds touches on a matter in which true justice does seem to have prevailed. But this is indeed an issue which has long made me of the view that of the many splendid and admirable things about the United States, the US system of justice is most certainly not one of them. As a sheer matter of practical justice, it cannot be right that the winner of a legal action can nevertheless be reduced to penury by having to pay legal fees, particularly if they were not the party which brought the action. Unlike most of the rest of the western world, who operate upon the principle that the looser of an action pays the legal costs of the winner, in the United States both parties to an action are responsible for their own legal costs regardless of who wins or loses… thus a person can be unsuccessfully sued and still end up bankrupted by their own lawyers as they cannot always recover their costs. I cannot help thinking that the overweening power of the Bar in American politics is the reason this has never been addressed. The ‘pay your own costs’ principle is a licence for speculative law suits of dubious merit, a veritable ambulance-chaser’s charter, removing the cost incentive to only litigate when the merits of the case make success highly likely. Surely introducing the ‘looser pays both sets of legal fees’ principle across the board in the USA would, at a stroke, reduce the flood of absurd ’emotional distress’ and ‘tripped on a mat’ litigation as well as making it less attractive for well funded individuals and corporations to use the threat of bankruptcy-through-legal-fees to intimidate those who are less well funded. Also, less wealthy defendants who nevertheless have solid cases can approach far more capable (and thus expensive) defence counsel as upon seeing off the accusations in court, they can recover costs from the other side. January 5th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Over on Inappropriate Responces, the every readable Moira Breen analyses…no, dissects…hmm, no… I’ve got it…Moira Breen mercilessly crucifies Roger Owen, who is the director of the Arab Contemporary Studies Program at Harvard University, in her article “B.S” SCREAMING FROM EVERY PIXEL.
Splendid stuff. If you are into blood sports the way I am, you will enjoy the whole article. Highly recommended December 31st, 2001 | Comments are closed
This latest Don Feder column, advocating the continued embargo against Cuba, nearly chokes to death on its own contradictions. First, Feder contends: Castro has nothing we want and nothing to pay for what he wants from us. If Cuba had something we wanted, of course, they would have something with which to pay for what they want. And in his concluding paragraph, Feder, perhaps unintentionally, concedes that Cuba does indeed have something Americans want: Besides supporting oppression of the Cuban people, unrestricted U.S. trade — and the tourist dollars to follow — would be invested in America’s destruction. As U.S. forces clean out the Tora Bora caves, we would be nuts to subsidize a branch office of the terrorist international 90 miles from our shores. Hmmm … so Cubans do have something Americans want — tourism, for one thing. If they “had nothing we wanted,” they would not earn any income with which to pad the coffers of terrorists, now, would they? The antiterrorist argument is a nonstarter. We do not trade with Cuba now, and they are already a bastion of terrorism. Terrorists could function anywhere, and they generally choose not to set up shop in open, free societies. They operate from repressive places like Afghanistan, Libya and Cuba, right? By keeping Cuba cordoned off from US markets, we are making the place more inviting to terrorists. Moreover, if we opened trade to them, we could at least threaten to shut them out of our markets again if they don’t vigorously prosecute terrorists. Castro has plodded on in Cuba precisely because of the embargo. With no access to American products, Cubans do not see what they have been forcibly denied. Castro can blame America rather than his own kleptomania / thuggery for the nation’s woes. End the sanctions on Cuba, and watch Castro topple. December 26th, 2001 | Comments are closed
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||