Palomares

In January 1966 a B-52 bomber collided with a KC-135 tanker over Spain spilling its contents of Mk-28 hydrogen bombs.  Three landed near the village of Palomares, the fourth fell into the ocean.  The non-nuclear explosives in two of them detonated contaminating a 2 square kilometer area with plutonium.

Here is a story of the veterans that got stuck cleaning it up.

Registration and Background Checks

The Transportation Department wants to require recreational users to register their drones, which would dramatically increase the number of drones registered with the government, compared with the FAA’s proposed rules. While the FAA has issued nearly 1,900 approvals to companies for commercial-drone flights in the U.S., industry officials estimate that there are hundreds of thousands of recreational drones in the country. One FAA official said last month that some officials expect more than 1 million drones to be sold around Christmas this year. WSJ

And how much is this going to cost?  Not just to drone owner/operators but to the taxpayer as well?  I've seen registration fee estimates ranging from free to $5 but nothing on how much it's going to cost the government to keep track of all these drones (anyone looking for a database manager position? Information Security?).  Seriously, it's going to be a database filled with names, addresses and who knows what other data, what the government refers to as personally identifiable information (PII), all of which require expensive security protections mandated by federal law.

Good idea? Bad idea? Or would just banning recreational drone use within X feet of an airport, building, highway, etc. and leaving it to local law enforcement be a better option?  

Government Programs that Didn't Work?

I'm not picking on the WPA, it was just a convenient example of a government program.

Of course there have been lots of government programs whose detractors claim didn't work, most probably, but the question is this:

Can you think of a government program that didn't work, that the government actually stood up and admitted didn't work?  In the thousands if not tens of thousands of government programs over the years there had to be some mistakes, some absolute flubs.  Statistically there had to be some failures, can you think of any examples where the government manned up, took responsibility, and declared "Well this was a complete and utter failure, lets try something else?

I'm not talking about agencies that failed in the execution of their duties, such as the VA, or the pre-9/11 intelligence communities, which were management problems.  I'm talking about programs that were not just mismanaged but that were inherently and conceptually flawed.

I've been looking for examples without much success, how about you?

Thoughts on Religion and Government

“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

~ Benjamin Frankin

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.

~ Thomas Paine

“Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”

~ George Washington

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”

~ Thomas Jefferson

Never let a crisis go to waste

Former White House Special Advisor for Green Jobs Anthony Kapel Jones made his case on This week with George Stephanopoulos:

Hey, you know, government is always your enemy until you need a friend. This Ebola thing is the best argument you can make for the kind of government that we believe in.

 I think I'd rather have Ebola than the kind of government 'Van Jones' believes in.

You got to start putting the Republicans on the defensive for the fact that they believe that you can take a wrecking ball to America's government, never pay a price.

Would that be the price of government democrats aren't paying for?

$17,856,281,000,000

For a brief moment in time, the number NOW

The Government Can

Our Government: Stupid and Industrious

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.  -- George Washington 

Progressives insist that times have changed. We need a more interventionist government, and politicians and activists of all parties frequently employ moralistic arguments and appeals to Christian virtues to make their case. This is a logical misstep.

Charity is a moral virtue God demands of His followers. Progressives commit a category error when trying to apply moral virtues to the congeries of soulless, faceless government bureaucracies.

A corporate entity or government cannot by definition possess virtues.  Only human beings can.

In fact, discussing virtues and morality in the context of government turns the Utilitarianism vs. Deontological ethics debate on its head.

Christianity is a deontological religion. We owe duties to God and to our fellow man.

Utilitarianism, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is “the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good.”

Utilitarianism is logically coherent, but it can lead to very immoral acts: Final solutions, euthanasia, telling individuals where to live and what job they will have.

When discussing what the role of government in peoples lives should be, liberals or progressives argue from the deontological point of view (We have a duty to help the poor!), while conservatives and libertarians argue from the Utilitarian corner (Do what works. Stop doing what does not)

This entire discussion on the role of government is premised on a false belief: If government does not dole out mercy, none shall be doled out. This is nonsense. We are a very giving nation, and reasonable arguments can be made that the multi-trillion dollar war on poverty has destroyed our cities and the nuclear family, consigning even more people to a permanent underclass.

So should government be deontological or utilitarian?

Both. Lawmakers and government bureaucrats have a duty not to God nor citizen, but to the US Constitution. That is the only guide to right and wrong in governance. Government at all levels could also use a shot of utilitiarianism, within the framework of constitutionality. Simply put: If it doesn’t work, stop doing it.

German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord is said to have made the following observation in 1933:

"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities.

Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!"

My purpose of this post is not to skewer Obama, but I think he fits in the clever and lazy category. This would not necessarily be a bad thing if he had the experience of a Reagan,  Eisenhower, or Truman.  Good advisors would also help him out, but instead, like the vast majority of the political class, his minions are in the stupid and industrious category, compounding our troubles.

A picture is worth a thousand words

© 2012 M. E. J. Newman

Checks and Balance

You don't have a right to vote for President!

Art 2. Sect 1. Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

"The Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes." James Madison.

In Federalist #10 he argued "the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority".

Succumbing to the whims of populism, the electoral college is now awarded based on popular vote in 48 of the 50 states.  So much for that check.

The Senate now stands at 53-45 with 2 independents.  Prior to the 17th amendment turning the senate from the representatives of the states to effectively a 'super' house of populism, senators were appointed by the state legislatures. A good map of the legislatures political breakdown can be found here: http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/state-legislature-house-senate-seat-totals-and-party-control.html

As shown on the map linked above, there are 31 Republican controlled legislatures, 17 Democrat, and 2 split legislatures.

One can assume that if Senators were still appointed by legislatures, the make up would be 36D-64R, quite a difference from the popularly (or populistly) elected 53D-45R. So much for that check.

Although congressional seats are apportioned based on population, the congressional districts are apportioned geographically.  This geographical apportionment is what explains the house makeup of  194D - 233R. The House remains the last existing check against populist tyranny.

As Jersey pointed out so astutely a week ago, the people in the cities don't give a rats ass what the rest of us think.

"If you Flyoverland cons think people from the NYC area give a rat's ass what you think about anything that goes on where we're from, or what our gun laws should be, or how FEMA handles Sandy, you're as naive as you are hick." Jersey McJones.

 We don't all live in cities and populist democracy will only represent the urban population centers, as Jersey implies... the rest of us can just screw off, and THAT folks is the problem.  Unfortunately, the other side of the urban bourgeoisie is that they are perfectly willing to dictate what goes on where we're from, or what our gun laws should be, etc., all for our own naive, hick good of course.

The preservation of the Republic necessitates, well, the preservation of the Republic as a republic. Under a populist urban dominated democracy the good people of Flyoverland will eventually rebel against the chaffing yoke of the city-states. The problem must be fixed before then.

Since I first wrote this article the following story has appeared in the news:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15117305-petition-for-texas-to-secede-from-us-reaches-threshold-for-white-house-response?lite

While meaningless in the big picture, it does indicate a restless undercurrent of seccesionism, and the list of states may surprise you. People, at least some people in 20 states are so seriously pissed off at the Federal Government that they are willing to go to, or at least voice this extreme.

They're Ba-ack! ~ Get Whiggy Wit It!

The Modern Whig Party

Conservative Liberals?

Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, and Millard Fillmore to name a few.
 

"The party was conceived in 2007 by active-duty service members in Iraq and Afghanistan, who then started recruiting nonmilitary members when they came back home. They resurrected the old Whigs' symbol, the owl, and chiseled out a platform centered on fiscal responsibility, energy independence, education, states' rights, separation of church and state, and support for veterans. In other words, a Republican head with a Democratic heart."  Andrew Dubbins - Slate.

 The Modern Whig Party: A few thoughts.

Whigs do not argue about whether government should be “big” or “small”, but whether it is doing its job.
 

Idea parties have failed, personality parties have failed, so we designed a process or "methods" party to minimize that chance.
 

The owl throughout history has had powerful meanings. The owl represents knowledge, wisdom, foresight, and intelligence, something Washington and American politics in general seem to lack.
 

Independent Thinking, Meritocracy, and Integrity

1. Fiscal Responsibility

2. Energy Independence

3. Inward Economics

4. State's Responsibility

5. Social Acceptance

6. Education & Scientific Advancement

7. Veteran's Affairs

8. Electoral & Government Reform
 

A Few Highlights

Affirmative Action: should be based on income level, not race, ethnicity or gender.
 

Church & State:  The business of forcing Christmas trees and reindeer ornaments off of city hall property is ridiculous, at the same time, government cannot favor one religion over others.
 

Fiscal Responsibility: Neither government nor corporations or households can be exempt from the basic rules of accounting.
 

Health Care:  Should be available, portable and affordable for all citizens... we do not believe recent health insurance reform legislation will reduce health care costs. More research and work needs to be done on this subject, and legislative changes will have to be made.
 

Reproductive Rights: It should be handled at more local levels of government where common ground might be more easily found.
 

Same Sex Relationships: Each state can determine the extended rights of same sex couples based on their own local values.  

Taxes: The tax code needs to be drastically simplified and made more equitable... passive income should be taxed at the same rate as earned income above a certain income threshold.
 

These highlights are significantly condensed from the Whig positions.  I'm not trying to frame them, merely conserve space.  By all means, please go here: http://www.modernwhig.org/ and read it all.
 

Cheers!

~FINNTANN~
 

 

 

http://www.newsobserver.com/2009/04/26/64410/whigs-rise-again.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2009/12/big_whigs.html

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1975807_1975805_1976014,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Whig_Party

 

The Owl is Coming!

Bread, Circuses, and Common Sense

"Bread and Circuses" from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metaphor for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace, as an offered "palliative."

Some 1900 years ago the Roman poet Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis (Juvenal) wrote:

Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

Populism, or populist democracy has been around for a long time, it comes when you vote for politicians who promise you things you know you can't have.

"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them a general favor; long a habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom.  But the tulmult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."  ~Thomas Paine, Common Sense.

Common Sense... a quality we seem to have lost when evaluating political pitches.  We lack common sense when we believe someone who tells us we're going to cover millions of people with medical insurance on the same number of doctors and facilities, and it is going to save us money.

We lack common sense when we believe someone who tells us we are going to raise enough revenue to cover the deficit by lowering taxes. Common sense dictates you pay off debt either by spending less, or earning more.

Next time some politician tells you something that doesn't pass the common sense test.... boo them offstage. We have to stop rooting for the home team like its a sporting event and start holding our 'players' accountable for their actions. 

And... if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Face it, both the Republican Party and Democratic Party are seriously screwed up, in some ways the same, in others different.  But as long as we keep filling the stands and cheering nothing will change.

I don't want to hear what is wrong with the other party.  I'd like to offer you the opportunity to tell us what you think is wrong with your party. Let's stop talking about 'them' and start talking about we.

Are teachers overpaid?

Big Ed is most definitely ripping us off...

The biggest consumer ripoff in America today -- and the next economic bubble to burst -- is higher education.

Tuition and fees at colleges and universities rose 439 percent between 1982 and 2007. Median family income rose just 147 percent during that period.

Median household income has fallen 6.7 percent since June 2009. The cost of attending the average public university rose 5.4 percent this year. (Jack Kelly)

Closer to home, are primary and secondary teachers overpaid?

It's a complex question, and I'm not one of those who automatically say that they are.  God knows you could not pay me enough to put up with what our public school educators must endure on a daily basis.

The Atlantic published an excellent article asking Are Teachers Paid Too Much? In it they cite four studies, two saying yes and two saying no. It's an short and interesting read.

Two scholars, one from American Enterprise Institute and the other from The Heritage Foundation conclude that Public School Teachers are not Underpaid.

Public school teachers do receive salaries 19.3% lower than similarly-educated private workers, according to our analysis of Census Bureau data. However, a majority of public school teachers were education majors in college, and more than two in three received their highest degree (typically a master's) in an education-related field. A salary comparison that controls only for years spent in school makes no distinction between degrees in education and those in biology, mathematics, history or other demanding fields. 

Education is widely regarded by researchers and college students alike as one of the easiest fields of study, and one that features substantially higher average grades than most other college majors. On objective tests of cognitive ability such as the SAT, ACT, GRE (Graduate Record Examination) and Armed Forces Qualification Test, teachers score only around the 40th percentile of college graduates. If we compare teachers and non-teachers with similar AFQT scores, the teacher salary penalty disappears. (WSJ)

They conclude by explaining how teachers' benefits are far superior what non-public sector workers receive. Here's a link to the study.

Unleash The Market Forces!

My own conclusion, based on what I've read and the many conversations I've had with the many teachers I've known, is that the teachers unions are protecting too many overpaid bum teachers, the education bureaucracy is way too fat, and that results in the good teachers being underpaid.

The free marketplace has price signals and other market indicators that drive employee wages; the public sector does not.  Also, companies must keep bureaucratic overhead to a minimum in order to remain competitive; government agencies feel no such pressure.  This doesn’t make government jobs less worthwhile than those in the private sector, but it does lead us to endless arguments over what a public employee is worth.

Privatizing all education would end this controversy.  Consumers (parents) voting with their dollars would quickly sort the wheat from the chaff and result in the superstar teachers getting the paychecks they deserve, while driving the bums out and into other fields of employment.