World's Stupidest People

I admit it: I love Judge Judy. At least once a week a Pitbull dog owner shows up as a defendant on her show to defend his or her Pitbull that has mauled or maimed another innocent person. The excuses and explanations they present are always ludicrous, and, often they allow their dog to play with small children. If they read the Drudge Report they would see numerous items where previously peaceful Pitbulls suddenly viciously attacked a child, inflicting serious damage. If they read the NY Times, they may have noted that 40% of all reported dog attacks are from this one breed. I think Pitbull owners are the world's stupidest people.

The Social Contract with Owners of Dangerous Dogs

Sierra Rayne May 1, 2014 AmericanThinker (excerpts)

The news that a one-year-old girl recently had her nose bitten off by a pit bull attack in Ottawa has rekindled the always simmering debate over banning these dangerous animals. Barbara Kay -- a social conservative commentator in the Canadian media -- has written two good columns on the subject, calling for an enforced ban on dangerous dogs. The statistics Kay presents are alarming. Pit bulls are such an inherently dangerous breed that just brushing off calls for their banning is simply irresponsible.

As the years go by, the number of dog attacks continue to add up. In the United States alone, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provide the following data: "About 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year. Almost one in five of those who are bitten, about 885,000, require medical attention for dog bite-related injuries; half of these are children. In 2012, more than 27,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs."...

Action should be taken against dangerous dogs. The following two policy options are available: (1) ban the ownership of any and all dangerous dogs, or (2) hold any and all owners of dogs responsible for any and all illegal acts that their pets commit to the extent equivalent as if the owner had committed the crime(s) themselves with intent and under aggravating circumstances.

Some will argue that all dogs can be dangerous, and that we cannot rationally restrict our bans to just one breed of dog. True that may be, in such a case we apparently need to ban the ownership of any and all dogs. Let the dog owners decide which option they would like to pursue. Ideally, we make such decisions based on an intellectually rigorous analysis of breed-related incident statistics. Using the statistics Kay has assembled in her articles, the primary culprit is pit bulls and a few other notable -- but much less problematic -- breeds.

Of course, we shouldn't restrict ourselves to just dogs. Owners should be fully responsible for the actions of all dangerous pets, so all dangerous pets should be banned (again, based on an analysis of species-related incident statistics). Those familiar with the law recognize that blunt instruments very often make bad law, and many readers can clearly appreciate the dangers that arise from the restriction of liberties for law-abiding citizens.

Bans are very blunt instruments, and generally bad law where an activity does not necessarily lead to a criminal act. And by no means is it unavoidable that owning a dangerous animal leads to that dangerous animal engaging in a criminal act. Thus, bans are not the preferred choice from a theoretical perspective, but they may be the only practical option available to deal with the problem.

Option (2) is preferable, as laws should always be constructed to focus on those engaged in criminal activity, capturing as few innocent parties as possible. Deterrence works, and by making penalties sufficiently harsh, illegal activities are minimized. What does this mean in practice? If a dog kills someone, the owner should be punished as though the owner had killed the other person with intent (the default is first-degree murder). No exceptions. If a dog attacks someone using less than lethal force, the owner should be considered to have engaged in the equivalent activity under aggravating circumstances. If a dog causes property damage of any form to another individual, the owner should be considered to have engaged in such activity with intent and under aggravating circumstances.

Dog owners will cry foul, as they do on almost all issues (a particularly whiny species they are). However, owning a dog (or other animal) is not a requirement to exist within civil society, with the exception of those who employ animals for a very narrowly restricted suite of purely legitimate disability reasons. Some will claim they have a fundamental right to own a dog if they so wish. Fine, but then such owners have a responsibility to be fully accountable for any and all actions of the animal they wish to own.

And, in return for someone's right to own a potentially dangerous animal, all other citizens should be granted the unrestricted right to own firearms in order to protect themselves against attacks from such animals. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you get to own a potentially dangerous weapon (e.g., a pit bull) and take it out in public, so do I. Except my choice of potentially dangerous weapon will be a handgun as defense against your potentially dangerous animal weapon.

Will the courts uphold option (2)? No chance, at least in Canada. The Canadian court system is far too conciliatory towards many illegal activities that there is zero likelihood it would uphold any form of legislation deeming the actions of an animal to be those of its owner with intent and aggravating circumstances. One suspects this judicial weakness is a common problem in the West. As a result, despite the theoretical preference for option (2), it is practically unworkable within our current and reasonably foreseeable future legal systems, requiring we pursue option (1). Namely, any and all dangerous dogs should be banned. We can start with pit bulls, and extend the bans if necessary.

Making Sense of it All Part II

In an earlier blog post, I explained my personal belief that there certainly is a God, but that He does not really note “the passing of every sparrow”.  There is a colossal plan being carried out and in a time frame that are both beyond our conception, but the notion that God responds to our pleas for help does not seem to be true.

Where does Jesus fit in?  We know His existence is not a myth because the historical Jesus has been well-documented by archeologists and historians, as have His disciples.  We also know that something stupendous and awe-inspiring certainly took place shortly after his death that instantly changed those disciples from a forlorn group of terrified souls to valiant men of courage willing to face certain, cruel deaths in order to spread the Good News.

Nowadays, men and women clergy mostly do good works, but that was not always true.  Unfortunately, from ancient times until the industrial age, about the only way an ordinary person could advance his situation was by force of arms or by convincing others of his holiness or his magical powers.   Remember that, as a general rule, until the turn of the 20^th century, only priests, generals and persons of royalty lived well.  Virtually everyone else lived short lives of extreme poverty, misery and desperation.  The easiest route to wealth and power was to become a priest.  

Because this is man’s history, and because we know that before the invention of the printing press, the book we know as the Bible was written in ancient languages and was reproduced by groups of monks copying it by hand as it was read aloud to them.  Who knows what copying mistakes were made and what the original text actually said?

This is why I long ago made two major decisions: a. that I could not participate in any religion that was based on one or a few particular passages found in the Bible, and b. that there were two main messages that unquestionably could be found there over and over again – 1. we have been placed here to praise God and to love and help each other, and 2. there is hope for something beyond death.  It is also apparent that to some extent, 2 depends on how we deal with 1.

Some time ago I was discussing with my dentist the subject of reducing plaque.  I asked him if it was really helpful to use mouthwash advertised as a plaque reducer.  His response was, “can’t hurt”.  Even if you find it hard to believe, you should live your life as if you do.  Remember what the dentist said.

Making Sense of it All Part I

My view of history makes it impossible for me to believe in an all-loving God who “notes the passing of every sparrow”, but, on the other hand, my knowledge of statistics and my educated-laymen’s view of science also does not permit me to dismiss the existence of a supreme intelligence or God-creature.

For instance, how could an all-loving God allow leftists in the USSR, Nazi Germany or in China to commit, on a monumental scale, mass-murder of their fellow citizens in order to further some ideology?  This is exactly what happened to many millions of people in those and in other countries temporarily ruled by those who recognized no constraints.  Obviously, I don’t buy the ‘free-will’ argument.

As an aside, those who object to my singling out leftist movements for disdain should remember the scale of things.  For example, history tells us that during the entire Spanish Inquisition, fewer people were killed than that accomplished by a few radical Muslims on 9/11/01.

We live in a finely-balanced universe.  Many physicists have noted that the slightest difference or change in many forces and relationships would long-ago have blown our world into smithereens, and that our universe seems designed to support our planet and life.  This point of view has become so widespread that some atheists have invented (out of whole cloth) the notion of the ‘multiverse’ to explain it away.  (The multiverse would have an infinite number of universes so that a perfect one like ours could be explained as happening by accident – just as they explain the origin and development of life as accidents.)

When you also contemplate the statistical probability of life occurring accidentally out of the brew of primeval earth, you also realize that it was an impossibility, just as scientists like Dr. Behe have proven to my satisfaction that major changes in life forms could not have happened through macro-evolutionary accidents.  Evolution is limited to minor changes such as birds’ beaks evolving over generations to best deal with available food sources.  Darwin did not have the use of an electron microscope to guide him in his research, and was not able to see the incredibly-complex world of the living cell.

Where does this leave me?  It leaves me with the humble opinion that I will never know the mind of God, but that He is there, somewhere.  My guess is that He operates in a time frame beyond my conceptual ability, and that He makes slight adjustments from time to time as He proceeds with His grand plan.  Unfortunately I also believe that praying to Him may do the prayer some good, but nothing more.

Obamacare Website and Identity Theft

If things weren't bad enough, this is John McAfee's opinion of the security situation facing users of the Obamacare website.  The McAfee virus-protection programs run on millions of personal computers:

On Fox Business Network’s “Cavuto” on Wednesday, computer programmer and founder of McAfee, Inc. John McAfee said the online component of Obamacare “is a hacker’s wet dream” that will cause “the loss of income for the millions of Americans who are going to lose their identities.”

For starters, McAfee said the way it is set up makes it possible for fake websites be set up to fool people to think they’re signing up for Obamacare.

“It’s seriously bad,” McAfee said. “Somebody made a grave error, not in designing the program but in simply implementing the web aspect of it. I mean, for example, anybody can put up a web page and claim to be a broker for this system. There is no central place where I can go and say, ‘OK, here are all the legitimate brokers, the examiners for all of the states and pick and choose one.’”

“Instead, any hacker can put a website up, make it look extremely competitive, and because of the nature of the system — and this is health care, after all — they can ask you the most intimate questions, and you’re freely going to answer them,” he continued. “What’s my Social Security number? My birth date? What are my health issues?

According to McAfee, there’s not a quick fix — and as long as it set up this way, it could be a playground for computer hackers.

“Here’s the problem: It’s not something software can solve,” McAfee continued. “I mean, what idiot put this system out there and did not create a central depository? There should be one website, run by the government, you go to that website and then you can click on all of the agencies. This is insane. So, I will predict that the loss of income for the millions of Americans who are going to lose their identities — I mean, you can imagine some retired lady in Utah, who has $75,000 dollars in the bank, saving her whole life, having it wiped out in one day because she signed up for Obamacare. And believe me, this is going to happen millions of times. This is a hacker’s wet dream. I mean I cannot believe that they did this.”

Why No Inflation? Part II

In Part I, the fact that the US Federal Reserve was keeping interest rates at almost 0, which exported our inflation to other countries, and that this could not continue forever, was discussed.  Below are two points of view on what will happen when the Fed is forced to reverse course:

By Kenn Jacobine  September 23, 2013  PolicyMic.com

"Back in June, as the official unemployment rate continued to fall, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke indicated to the public that the Fed might begin to scale back its easy-money policies sometime before the end of this year.  As the Fed met this past week, many economists and analysts expected it to announce that the central bank would indeed begin tapering its current $85-billion-per-month bond-buying scheme known as Quantitative Easing 3.

But these are also the same pundits who have been claiming for five years that the U.S. economy is in a state of recovery. They are either disingenuous or totally clueless

I had no doubt that Bernanke would not begin tapering QE3 now. In fact, QE3 may never end.

In the first place, for five years now the Fed has injected over $2 trillion into the economy through QE 1, 2, and 3, and the real unemployment rate is still north of 14%. More Americans are on food stamps than ever before. Middle class incomes are down and poverty is up. At this point, Bernanke’s largess is a life-support system for the economy. It will not cure the patient, just simply prolong the agony until the day of reckoning.

And the day of reckoning will come when long-term interest rates climb to the level where the current QE-induced housing and stock-market bubbles pop. The carnage from that, however, will be minor compared to the destruction left behind from the mother of all bubbles — Treasury Bills. The point is, in June when Bernanke simply mentioned the Fed might begin tapering, the stock market tanked 550 points and T-bill and mortgage interest rates instantly rose. Imagine the impact if the Fed really pulled the plug on the economy’s life support.  Additionally, because T-bill and mortgage interest rates have been rising that could mean Bernanke has lost control of long-term rates. The only tool he has for combating rising rates is more stimulus. Thus, instead of taper talk, analysts should be asking when the Fed will increase its amount of bond purchases per month.

Lastly, perhaps the biggest reason why the Fed may never be able to cut back on its monetary stimulus, is that to do so would accelerate the insolvency of Uncle Sam.  Realize that even though the current national debt is almost three times what it was in 1996, interest payments on the debt after adjusting for inflation are lower today than they were then. The difference is the rate of interest the federal government is charged. Bernanke has no choice but to keep printing. If he tapers, rates will go up, interest payments will become a bigger share of federal expenditures, and he will have to print even more to keep things going.  The hyperinflation that will result will finish off what’s left of the U.S. economy.

Many will say the above is nothing more than doom and gloom. But the above scenario is real. Bernanke has steered Fed policy down a dangerous path in 2008. Instead of allowing the market to liquidate the mal-investments from the preceding boom, he chose the politically correct path by attempting to re-inflate the bubble. Instead of letting those that were reckless and brought on the crisis lose their shirts, Bernanke launched a massive program of bailouts and bond purchases. He has printed himself (and us) into a corner and thrown away the key. To keep things from crashing he has no choice but to continue printing. Even then, the end will ultimately come and the devastation will be so much worse than 2008’s crisis."

And another, less-alarming view:

Ronald I. McKinnon October 22, 2013   Wall St Journal

On May 22, Mr. Bernanke broached the possibility that the Fed might begin tapering QE3. Although carefully hedged by suggesting that the Fed would wait to taper until the unemployment rate fell to 6.5%, his comments unsettled world financial markets. Over the next four days, long-term interest rates rose sharply, and foreign and domestic stock markets fell.

Subsequently, a chastened Fed chairman, and several presidents of Federal Reserve district banks—including William Dudley of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—suggested that tapering would be deferred. On Sept. 18, the Federal Open Market Committee chose not to taper. After these disclaimers, the bond market partially recovered. However, long-term interest rates (now near 2.5% on 10-year Treasurys) remain higher than before the tapering speech—with volatility also substantially higher.

Yet there is no doubt that the U.S. needs to break out of its near-zero interest-rate trap in order to avoid perpetual stagnation, where real returns on new investments are also driven toward zero. But is there an efficient way out of the trap that the Fed has set for itself? I believe there is.

The Fed can start by raising short-term interest rates, currently near zero, while leaving QE3 on hold. Because the overnight policy rate is unambiguously under the Fed's control, the Fed should announce a schedule of slowly phasing in higher short-term rates that would end after two years, when rates reach some modest upper bound of, say, 2%.

The current constraint on the supply of loan finance, which arises when nominal rates are near zero, would then be relaxed. Commercial banks with huge excess reserves would start lending them out for a modest return. With short rates even moderately greater than zero, the near-moribund interbank market would spring back to life as a needed backstop for commercial banks' extending their credit lines to nonfinancial enterprises large and small. Money-market mutual funds would no longer fear "breaking the buck"—seeing their net asset value drop below $1 per share—when they accept short-term deposits.

After a year or so, when the new program achieves credibility, but before reaching the 2% end point, the Fed could return to the problem of tapering QE3. We now know that merely stopping the central bank's bond-buying program—as initially suggested in Mr. Bernanke's May 22 tapering speech—with future short-term interest rates being uncertain, leaves bondholders with no idea of what the equilibrium long-term bond rate will be. (I assume that simply leaving short rates at zero is not credible, if only because it does so much damage to the financial system.)

Ideally, however, if the new program of phasing in higher short rates capped at 2% becomes credible, this would anchor long-term interest-rate expectations. When QE3 is phased out altogether so that the government no longer tries to influence long rates directly, an efficient free market would then set long rates at the average of expected future short rates—plus a liquidity premium. The liquidity premium could vary a bit with the ebb and flow of nonmonetary forces, but the mean long-term interest rate would be effectively pinned down once the market knew what the central bank plans to do. It would be a good demonstration of the importance of transparency in a free market.

The major objection to this kind of policy change is that the "recovery" from the subprime mortgage crisis and economic slump of 2008 is so weak that the economy can't withstand any increase in interest rates. This general concern with economic weakness is what pushed the Federal Reserve into its near-zero interest-rate trap to begin with—followed by the Bank of England, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan.  All four central banks have fallen into similar traps and their economies remain sluggish.

What is at fault here is conventional macroeconomic theory. First, although reducing high interest rates to more moderate levels is stimulating for aggregate demand, going from moderate rates to near-zero rates has proved far less effective. Second, fine-tuning monetary policy to target a nonmonetary variable, such as the level of unemployment, has become an ill-advised fetish. What Milton Friedman taught us in his famous 1967 address to the American Economic Association, "The Role of Monetary Policy," is that central banks cannot (and should not) persistently target a nonmonetary objective—such as the level of unemployment, which is determined by too many other factors.

The most straightforward approach now is for the leading central banks—the Federal Reserve (perhaps with Ms. Yellen at the helm), the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank—to admit that they were wrong in driving interest rates too low in the pursuit of a nonmonetary objective such as the unemployment level.

They could then begin slowly increasing short-term interest rates in a coordinated way to some common, modest target level, such as the 2% suggested here. Coordination is crucial to minimize disruptions in exchange rates. Then our economic gang of four should, in a measured and transparent manner, phase out quantitative easing so that long-term interest rates once again can be determined by markets.

Mr. McKinnon, a professor at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Policy Research, is the author of "The Unloved Dollar Standard: From Bretton Woods to the Rise of China (Oxford University Press, 2013)

Obama Fails to "Get" Zimmerman

In a world where everything seems to be going wrong, and our society continues to unravel more every day (due mostly to the greed of the super rich and the foolishness of the left), it is a pleasant surprise when six courageous women apply the law and evaluate the evidence to reach a proper verdict.

 Despite the efforts of President Obama and Attorney General Holder (aided by the corrupt AG in Seminole County), and greatly aided by the disgraceful and deliberate misreporting by NBC, ABC and the Associated Press in particular, who doctored tapes and fabricated press reports, a tragic affair ended as well as it could.

 That the efforts by the hateful, professional race baiters, Al Sharpton (of Tawana Brawley fame) and Jesse Jackson did not result in a politically inspired conviction is another feather in the caps of these jurors.

 We can only sympathize with the loss suffered by Martin’s parents and quietly set aside their understandable efforts to support their son.

 Restatement of Key Facts:

1.   there had been a string of burglaries at Zimmerman’s complex

2.   at least some of these burglaries had been committed by black youths

3.   a neighborhood watch was established, and Z had volunteered

4.   he legally carried a Keltec, which has no safety, when he patrolled

5.   he encountered a black youth, followed him and called 911

6.   the black youth attacked Z, broke his nose with a punch, and put him on the ground

7.   while over him in an MMA hold, Martin repeatedly slammed Z’s head onto a concrete sidewalk, stunning him

8.   during the struggle, Z’s pistol and holster came into Martin’s view

9.   fearing for his life, Z pulled out the pistol and fired one shot into Martin’s chest, killing him

 There has been a suggestion that President Obama and AG Holder will attempt to bring a federal civil rights charge against Zimmerman; this will be as corrupt as their initial attempts.  Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.  I will never, for the rest of my life, forget the unbelievable and prejudicial statement Obama made at the outset – that if he had a son, he would look like Travon.

Pass the Internet Sales Tax

I guess I’m going to anger my regular readers even more today; they are starting to tune in to see what crazy idea I’ve come up with lately.  Today’s idea is that it is wrong to be able to buy stuff on the internet and not pay the appropriate sales tax to your home state.

 In saying this I am sure that this will decrease internet sales, and increase local sales of some items, as the combination of sales tax and shipping cost will turn some people off to some sales.  The problem is that most states need the revenue from lost sales tax in order to continue needed services without going bankrupt, and local retailers need the business.

 I can think of no legitimate reason why the present situation where most internet sales are tax free should continue, except personal selfishness.

 If the internet sales tax bill now before Congress passes into law, I’m sure it will reduce some of the purchases I normally make via the internet, especially with Amazon, but only marginally, as I will continue to give considerable  weight to the convenience and ease of internet purchases – and to the fact that some items I have bought I could find no other way.

Let’s hear it for the lemmings.

Stockton and You

I have asked my Congressman not to approve any bailouts for bankrupt cities.  You can use the banner on this blog at the ottom right to do the same.
Judge Approves Stockton, CA Bankruptcy

Rick Moran April 2, 2013 American Thinker

A federal judge gave permission for the city of Stockton, CA to begin bankruptcy proceedings, over the objections of bondholders in the city's pension system.

The bondholders believe that Stockton did not negotiate in good faith, preferring the bankruptcy route to the more painful and politically unpopular route of altering the pension system.

Reuters:

In a case being studied by other cash-strapped American cities including Detroit, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Christopher Klein's decision was a setback for bondholders and insurers who had resisted the California city's bankruptcy filing. Stockton is the largest U.S. city ever to file for bankruptcy.

The judge also signaled that the California Public Employees Retirement System's position in the case was not above review. Stockton, a city of 300,000, has so far not reduced pension payments to retired city workers, although it has eliminated retiree healthcare benefits.

"This does not mean there is not potentially a serious issue involving Calpers," Judge Klein said. "But at this point I do not know what that is." He added that there were "very complex and difficult questions of law that I can see out there on the horizon," relating to Calpers.

The decision on Stockton marks the start of a lengthy restructuring of the obligations that currently overwhelm its finances, which were crippled by the housing crisis and recession.

Investors in the $3.7 trillion municipal bond market are concerned that if Stockton is able to avoid paying bondholders in full without cutting pension payments, other cities will pursue a similar strategy as they struggle to cope with budget shortfalls.

Kenneth Naehu, head of fixed income at Bel Air Investment Advisors in Los Angeles, agreed that the case could cloud the issue of where bondholders stand in relation to retirees and pension funds in a municipal bankruptcy.

In a lengthy preamble to his ruling, Klein delivered a stinging rebuke to the so-called capital market creditors - mainly the insurers for bondholders who own hundreds of millions of dollars of Stockton debt - who had opposed the bankruptcy filing.

He rejected the arguments of bondholders and insurers that Stockton was not truly insolvent when it sought Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection last summer and that it had improperly failed to seek relief from its pension obligations.

Klein said capital market creditors had failed to negotiate in good faith in a pre-bankruptcy mediation, as required by law, and also criticized their refusal to pay part of the bill for mediation.

Bondholders and insurers in this, and other municipal bankruptcies to come, will almost certain have to endure a substantial haircut - just as their sovereign debt holder counterparts in Europe. By the time this all shakes out, borrowing money will get a lot harder, and a lot more expensive for cities and states.

 

 

This Is an American Secretary of State?

The only thing more incredible than Hillary Clinton’s outrageous incompetence as Secretary of State is the fact that traitor Kerry is slated to replace her. All through the Clinton years we witnessed the spectacle of her lies and schemes to protect her womanizing, sexually harassing and rapist husband from the consequences of his actions. (Remember Paula, Gennifer, Kathleen and Monica among others?) Four Americans including an American Ambassador are dead due to her nonfeasance and collusion in the lies about the video.

3 Incredibly Outrageous Evasions by Hillary Clinton About Benghazi

Nick Gillespie Jan. 24, 2013 Reason

During a long day of testifying before House and Senate panels, outgoing Secretary of State - and presumptive Democratic Party candidate for the presidency in 2016 - Hillary Clinton batted away contentious questions from Republicans like Ted Williams at a Little League game. She also soaked up extreme adulation from Democrats (including a a not-so-coded call to run for president by Sen. Barbara Boxer, who said, "You will be missed, but I for one hope for not too long").

The scene reminded me of nothing so much as Oliver North's appearance before a joint Congressional committee investigating Iran-Contra back in the 1980s. Not because of anything Clinton said but the way that she carried herself and the ease with which she wrapped herself in the flag and tragedy to obscure the simple fact that she wasn't going to answer anything. North famously showed up to testify in a military uniform that had nothing to do with his day job of subverting the U.S. Constitution from the basement of the Reagan White House. Clinton couldn't repeat that fashion statement but she was able to pound the table and choke up at all the right moments to evade serious discussion not simply of major screw-ups, but major screw-ups that will go unaccounted for.

Three major evasions from her appearances yesterday include:

1. "I take responsiblity."

From a Fox News report of the Senate hearing:

During the opening of the hearing, Clinton said she has "no higher priority" than the security of her department's staff, and that she is committed to making the department "safer, stronger and more secure."

"As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right," Clinton said, later choking up when describing how she greeted the families of the victims when the caskets were returned.

Taking responsibility is the classic dodge in Washington, where pols assume the mantle of leadership and them promptly do nothing to address the situation for which they are in hot water. What does it mean to take responsiblity for the absolute breakdown of security at a consulate where your ambassador gets murdered (along with three others)? Judging from Clinton's subsequent actions, nothing other than showing up when the dead are brought home. Worse still is Clinton's misting up over the tragedy. That makes her a little too much like the kid who kills his parents and then asks the court to take mercy on him because he's now an orphan.

2. "1.43 million cables come to my office."

ABC News reporting from the House hearings:

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, asked Clinton this afternoon why her office had not responded to a notification from Stevens about potential dangers in Libya.

"Congressman, that cable did not come to my attention," Clinton calmly told the House Foreign Affairs Committee hours after her Senate testimony this morning. "I'm not aware of anyone within my office, within the secretary's office having seen that cable."

She added that "1.43 million cables come to my office. They're all addressed to me."

Come on, already. The question is plainly not whether Clinton is reading every goddamned communication addressed to her but whether she's got the right people in charge of assessing risk and making sure resources are apportioned accordingly. Tragically, the answer was no, especially given the fact that State had cut security in Benghazi despite attacks prior to the deadly 9/11 one! This just ain't no way to run things.

3. "What difference at this point does it make?"

From a CBS News account of a confrontation between Secretary Clinton and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.):

“We were misled that there were supposedly protests and an assault spraying out of that and it was easily obtained that it was not the fact the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said.

“The fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton responded.

Clinton's statement may set a new standard for politically motivated evasions of basic truth and decency. Seriously: What difference does it make? Just for low-stakes starters, there's a guy in California who was put in jail basically because the Obama administration said his stupid, irrelevant video trailer for "The Innocence of Muslims" was to blame for anti-Americanism in Libya and beyond. President Obama went to the United Nations and bitch-slapped free expression in front of a global audience on the premise that "Innocence" was the cause of the attack on Benghazi. Our own U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, took to the talk shows to peddle a line that was either wilfully misleading or simply totally wrong (Rice was the admin's point person in early appearances about Benghazi partly because, as Clinton explained yesterday, she doesn't like doing Sunday morning shows!).

Contra Clinton, it makes a great deal of difference because understanding how this all happened is the first step to making sure it doesn't happen over and over and over again.

Congressional grillings of outgoing cabinet members are not the best forum to seek truth and justice and too many of the GOP inquisitors seem determined merely to score partisan points. Then again, the Obama adminstration, at least when it comes to Benghazi, hasn't done much to be the transparent change it says it wants in all areas of government. After a blistering Senate report on the situation found "systematic failures," essentially nothing happened (at least that we know about). Two minor staffers have been booted as a result of Clinton's taking of "responsibility."

Worse still: As Hillary Clinton leaves the high-stakes world of international intrigue, she's set to be replaced by John Kerry, who somehow manages to be an interventionist and supposedly informed by the nation's experience in Vietnam at the same time.

So things can - and likely will - only get worse.

And now comes Senator Kerry

 
At least Kerry has dropped the affected Boston Brahmin accent.

Obama Is Right, Part II

I shocked quite a few people last week when I wrote an article advocating some redistribution of wealth in this country because the concentration of income and wealth has become enormously unfair and widely misunderstood. I believe President Obama was re-elected mainly because he understood and articulated the need for reform, which has become urgent due to the tremendous loss of wealth (mostly by the lower 80%) caused by the housing crash.

I am disgusted with Obama that he made no attempt to explain this situation or work to correct it. He only used the anger of millions to batter Republicans who, like Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, kept stupidly saying, “no increase in taxes on the wealthy”.

We not only need to reduce spending and reform entitlements, we need to make our income tax system more progressive and also enact a steeply progressive estate tax system – both without the loopholes that very wealthy people use to escape taxes. See my post on this here.

The 99% mostly get it, though, even if most Republicans don’t (including me before I was challenged to do some research).

They “get” it even though they misunderstand the extent of the problem. Below is a quote from an exceptional report which I used for most of my data:

“A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth.

Even more striking, they did not come close on the amount of wealth held by the bottom 40% of the population. It's a number I haven't even mentioned so far, and it's shocking: the lowest two quintiles hold just 0.3% of the wealth in the United States. Most people in the survey guessed the figure to be between 8% and 10%, and two dozen academic economists got it wrong too, by guessing about 2% -- seven times too high. Those surveyed did have it about right for what the 20% in the middle have; it's at the top and the bottom that they don't have any idea of what's going on.

Americans from all walks of life were also united in their vision of what the "ideal" wealth distribution would be, which may come as an even bigger surprise than their shared misinformation on the actual wealth distribution. They said that the ideal wealth distribution would be one in which the top 20% owned between 30 and 40 percent of the privately held wealth, which is a far cry from the 85 percent that the top 20% actually own. They also said that the bottom 40% -- that's 120 million Americans -- should have between 25% and 30%, not the mere 8% to 10% they thought this group had, and far above the 0.3% they actually had.”

Another misconception that most people have is that “the very wealthy are already paying their fair share because our tax system is very progressive”. In fact our tax system has become much less progressive over the past few decades, and in fact the top 1% actually pays less in total taxes than the next lower grouping.

Source: Citizens for Tax Justice (2010a).
Left-Click to Enlarge

An argument that conservatives make that has some validity is that “raising income taxes on the job creators is self-defeating since they will be less motivated to invest and work to create more jobs”.

My response to this is threefold:

1. Federal income tax rates have decreased in recent years and are much less punitive of success than they once were.

2. I was a successful small businessman for many years. NOT ONCE DID I CONSIDER TAXES WHEN DECIDING ON NEW EQUIPMENT OR ON EXPANDING. THE EXISTENCE OF A MARKET AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PROFITS WERE WHAT MOTIVATED ME.

3. When I worked for a large corporation and analyzed investment opportunities, only when competing projects outnumbered available funds were income taxes considered in a present-value analysis of projects.  That was when corporate tax was 50%.

When income taxes became prohibitive, it is true that when they were lowered, an increase in economic activity and jobs immediately followed. This happened under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush 43. I can’t ever remember when the opposite was true; that is, when raising taxes reduced economic growth. That certainly didn’t happen during Clinton’s presidency, although other factors were also at work then. No-one wants to see a huge increase in income tax rates, but some upward adjustments are absolutely necessary.

I believe that most liberals believe what they do basically from guilt (if they are wealthy) or from hatred caused by envy of success (today’s Democrats are much different than the Truman-Kennedy school). However, once in a while they are right about something, and they tend to be more creative than we conservatives. Social Security was a liberal idea. Without it most of our seniors would be living in abject poverty. The right to bargain collectively was a liberal idea. Without it there would be no middle class. Don’t reject the idea of trying to even out the extremes of capitalism just because it is a liberal concept.

Ben Stein and the Middle East

Ben Stein, economist, actor, writer and philosopher, is one of my favorite people, who, without malice, calls it as he sees it.

Ben Stein's Diary

End Times

By Ben Stein on 9.14.12 American Spectator

There is that feeling in the air.

Thursday

Strange day.

I awakened to a text from a close friend who is a devout Christian and who was so angry at the elite media that she could not sleep. "I am so frikkin' sick of the media telling us that Islam is a 'religion of peace,'" she said. "Look, people make fun of Jesus all of the time and I mean ALL of the time and we don't kill them or harm them. But do anything at all that offends any Muslim and they start killing Christians and Jews -- and then Obama apologizes for it. How long can this go on? The times of Tribulation are at hand."

I got up, walked out on the deck and looked out at the perfect fall day over Lake Pendoreille. An absolutely perfect Fall day, blue skies, light breeze, just a slight chill in the air.

At breakfast, my wife suddenly said, "And then I beheld a red horse ridden by a man with a great sword...."

"What is that?" I asked her.

"It's Revelation," she said.

"I know, but where does that come from?"

"I just feel as if something big is about to happen," she said. Something feels like we're about to live in a totally changed world. It feels like end times. Why are we apologizing to the Muslims? They're killing and expelling their Christians and we don't say a word. End times. "

I nodded. There is that feeling in the air.

I got another text from my very devout Christian friend. "Don't tell me Obama isn't a Muslim," she said. "I don't care what he calls himself, he's a Muslim. That's why he's always apologizing to the Muslims."

I think she's bit off the mark here. If Obama says he's a Christian, he's a Christian.

I slept for a long time while listening to Mozart and the trains. Then I went to the mail box and got the latest news from the Obama/Biden campaign -- oops, meant to say, "The New York Times." Naturally, it was filled with rage against Mitt Romney There was very little vitriol against the killers in Libya, but plenty against Gov. Romney.

I sure hope that the people at the Romney campaign don't read The NY Times. It is just endless propaganda against Republicans. Nonstop. We Republicans should campaign on our own issues. Mr. Obama's idiot foreign policy is such an issue.

I went off to do my errands in Sandpoint. A visit to a super pleasant post office. A helpful clerk was patient with my terrible handwriting. Then a visit to the Alpine Shop to see my pal, Tim Farmin, who looked happy but told me my boat needed a new battery. Then, a visit to Ivano's to pick up some grub for tonight.

At Ivano's, I talked to a man who seethed with rage against Mr. Obama. He simply could not believe that Mr. Obama would make time to be among his Hollywood big shots but not make time to see Benjamin Netanyahu. "These are getting to be Biblical days," he said. "The final days."

A trip to the art framer, then to the drug store, then to the Safeway to buy a cake. The woman in the bakery told me that the days of tribulation and the dictatorship were upon us. She is looking to move to the mountains "to find refuge..."

"Be careful," I said. "That's what Vicki Weaver was looking for and it didn't work so well. Our refuge is in The Lord."

(I am up on Vicki Weaver because I am reading an astonishingly good book about the federal killings at Ruby Ridge called Ruby Ridge by a writer of unique talent by the name of Jess Walter. It is terrifying.)

Back to Ivano's to pick up my grub. Then back home to read the latest about the murder of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three of his staff.

Apparently word had been out for months that the most extreme of the anti-Qaddafi rebels were working with al Qaeda for 9/11. The State Department and the Defense Department had done nothing meaningful to protect the Ambassador. When the killers attacked the U.S. compound, they were heavily armed with anti-aircraft automatic cannon (a very deadly weapon) and RPG's. They were a recognizably violent group connected with al Qaeda.

It's amazing that Qaddafi kept saying that the people fighting against him were al Qaeda and we kept helping them -- and sure enough, they turned out to be al Qaeda. And Qaddafi, who had become our friend -- although a cruel and vile man -- was killed by the rebels so now Libya is in large measure in the hands of al Qaeda.

Same with Egypt. Mubarak was no one's idea of a great guy, but he was our pal. He kept the peace with Israel. He suppressed the terrorists. So, naturally, we stabbed him in the back. Now, we have worked to create an "Arab Spring" that has given us a fantastically more anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-al Qaeda Middle East.

But incredibly, Mr. Obama considers this an achievement. An achievement? To help al Qaeda and its pals, the Muslim Brotherhood, take power in the most populous Arab state? To help al Qaeda take over in oil rich Libya? What are they talking about?

I hope Mr. Romney will not let himself get pushed around by the Obama smear machine. I see that at a rally today in Virginia, his speech was derailed by a lone Obama heckler asking, "Why are you politicizing Libya?" That apparently rattled Gov. Romney badly.

The answer, should it come up again, is, "Because this is a democracy. We debate big points of foreign and domestic policy, especially during election campaigns. The failure of the administration to stand up to Muslim thugs is a big issue. Apologizing to terrorists is a big issue. The failure to protect our diplomats is a big issue. The failure to stand up for free speech is a huge issue. We are supposed to debate those things. If you don't like that, move back to Iran or wherever you came from."

Meanwhile, time for Mr. Romney to go back to attack mode. Why did the State Department not protect our Ambassador in Benghazi? Why isn't Mrs. Clinton resigning over this? Why isn't Secretary of Defense Panetta apologizing and resigning? There was a colossal failure here. The President is accountable. Why isn't he taking some responsibility here?

The Obama smear machine is making much of the supposed time line of this week. That supposedly the worst attacks came after Mr. Romney criticized The State Department for apologizing to the Muslims for an anti-Muslim film. But of course, they are missing the point totally and on purpose.

Why should we have been apologizing as a nation to Muslims for one person making a cartoon? We didn't apologize to the Russians when people in the USA made anti-Communist remarks. We didn't apologize to Hitler when people in America made anti-Nazi remarks. Why do the Muslims get this special apology treatment? What's up with that? We respect all religions, but we are not going to apologize to anyone as a people for what one guy does in his garage.

What is with Mr. Obama's special deference to the terrorists? I am well aware that he's done a darned fine job using drones to kill them and God bless him for it. But then why apologize to groups of people we feel are so terrible that we kill some of them without a trial or a declaration of war?

Let's get it straight, once again: We live by the first amendment and the Constitution. Our people have freedom of speech. Even the nutty ones. We do not apologize for our Constitution.

Well, enough of that. It is time for a quiet dinner listening to the lake and the trains. For now, it is paradise. The time of tribulation has not yet come for us all, and God bless that brave Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, who was murdered and had his body dragged through the streets by people we put in power. God help us when Judgment Day comes.

Baseball’s Elephant in the Room

At virtually every baseball game you see, two or three bats shatter, and the barrel of the bat, now shaped like a spear, flies out into the infield or into the stands. This has been going on for several years and dates to the time when maple bats replaced ash bats. As sure as you are reading this, someone, a player, a coach or a fan is going to be killed, and major league baseball will have a disaster on its hands – a disaster that easily could be foreseen and avoided.

"The problem with most wood is that strength is proportional to weight, so if you want a really strong wood, you can do that, but you end up getting an increase in weight," Smith explained. "And if you want a really light wood, you can do that, but you pay for it because your strength goes down. So there's this kind of optimum balance."

In the 1990s, maple started to make the rounds as an alternative. It was appealing because it was stronger (which is better for hitting longer distances) and less prone to flaking than ash, so players didn't go through bats as quickly. Most players still stuck to their ash bats, though — that is, until Barry Bonds got the single-season home run record in 2001, using a maple bat.

Now, just a few years later, maple is no longer on the fringe.

"For 50 years, northern white ash was the wood. Today half of the bats in the major leagues are made out of maple. So it was a very dramatic shift," Smith told LiveScience.

This problem and this possibility is nothing new. The following story was published in 2008:

Baseball at breaking point over maple bats

Yahoo News May 8, 2008

Someone’s going to die at a baseball stadium soon.

Might be a player. Could be an umpire. Possibly even a fan.

It almost was a coach.

The scar on Don Long’s left cheek still puffs around the edges, fresh enough that it looks like a misplaced zipper instead of the mark of someone who lived too hard.

Like every scar, this one has a story, and it involves a piece of shattered wood, about two pounds heavy, that tomahawked 30 feet before slicing through his face.

Nate McLouth thought he just missed the sweet spot of the bat. It was April 15, the eighth inning, and the Pittsburgh Pirates were getting pummeled at Dodger Stadium.

Long, the Pirates’ hitting coach, milled about the dugout until he heard McLouth hammer Esteban Loaiza’s 0-2 pitch. Long looked up and tracked the ball down the right-field line. He had no idea baseball’s greatest weapon was headed right at him, and that had he been positioned an inch to the left or right, he might not be here to talk about it.

About two or three times a game. players swinging bats made of maple wood end up with kindling in their hands while the barrel – blunt and thick on one end, splintered and sharp on the other – flies every which direction. Pitchers and middle infielders stand in the greatest line of fire and do their best acrobat imitations to avoid the remnants. On occasion, the shard will land in the stands and harm a fan. And sometimes, as it did in the case of Long, it will wind up in the dugout.

“Didn’t see it at all,” Long said. “It just hit me. I backed up. I saw the blood coming out on the card I keep and on my shoes.”

The Pirates’ training staff rushed Long into the clubhouse to stop the bleeding. The bat sliced through the muscle in his cheek, catching nerves in its wake. A piece broke off and lodged under his skin. A doctor needed to remove the stray wood before he could sew 10 stitches.

When McLouth ended up on second base, he wondered why so many people were scurrying around the dugout. He ran to first with three inches of wood in his hands. He couldn’t find the other 30 or so, when it occurred to him: the ruckus was over his bat, the maple that was barely seen in baseball before 2001, when Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs using one. Now, about 50 percent of players use maple.

“They’re great,” McLouth said, “except for that.”

The incidents keep happening, and following Mike Coolbaugh’s death last season when a batted ball struck him in the neck while he was coaching first base in a minor league game, neither Major League Baseball nor the MLB Players Association can afford to wait for another tragedy when it could take preventative measures. Were officials from either party to meet with Long and see his face, they would understand the issue must be resolved immediately.

“When I blow my nose out of this side,” Long said, “I have to look in the mirror and make sure nothing’s hanging there because I can’t really feel what’s happening.

“Could’ve been a lot worse. Could’ve hit me in the eye.”

Long tried to smile. The right side of his mouth perked up. The left side didn’t move.

In 2005, alarmed by the increasing number of broken bats, baseball gave $109,000 to a man named Jim Sherwood and asked him to compare maple bats with the ash ones that used to be the norm. Sherwood runs the Baseball Research Center at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, and the conclusion of the study did not jibe with the hundreds of players who swear maple leads to better performance.

“We found that the batted-ball speeds were essentially the same for the two woods,” Sherwood said. “Maple has no advantage in getting a longer hit over an ash bat.”

The study also found something evident to anyone watching baseball: Ash bats crack while maple bats snap.

Even so, something about the maple bats caused a frenzy. Sam Holman, who started the Original Maple Bat company out of Canada to give players an alternative to the softer ash, supplied Bonds with his first maple in 1999. Word spread, and soon Sam Bats, as they’re called, showed up across baseball. Chuck Schupp, the director of professional sales at Hillerich & Bradsby, the parent company for Louisville Slugger, saw the abundance of Sam Bats in clubhouses and urged his company to join the maple fray. More than 20 bat makers now are licensed to sell maple bats for about $65 a pop, compared to $45 for ash bats, and the demand isn’t lessening.

“I feel like they’re harder,” McLouth said. “Whether or not that’s scientifically true, I’m not sure. But psychologically, I feel like they are.”

Players love their bats irrationally. Ichiro Suzuki keeps his in a silver case.

Kosuke Fukudome weighs his to the gram. Jeff Cirillo slept with his. Some talk to them, kiss them, massage them. Anything to keep them happy.

So when in 2006 MLB broached the issue of maple bats during the collective-bargaining negotiations, it did not go well. The union wasn’t receptive to a unilateral ban and didn’t budge at the thought of at least imposing specifications to lessen the likelihood of breakage.

MLB scoffed at putting nets in front of the seats closest to the field, as the NHL did after a stray puck struck and killed 13-year-old Brittanie Cecil. The discussions went nowhere quickly, and it ended with them agreeing to table the issue until a later date. Both sides spent the next year focusing on the Mitchell Report, and only after the Long incident did they revisit it.

“We have provisions in the agreement,” union leader Don Fehr said Thursday by phone. “There will be a committee that will be put together and meet on it. We’ll look at it in good faith.”

Said Rob Manfred, MLB’s lead labor counsel, in a statement through a spokesman: “Baseball is aware of the bat issue. We have done scientific research in the area. We brought the issue to the bargaining table in 2006 and we are embarking on a detailed consideration of the issue with the union in the context of the Safety and Health Advisory Committee.”

When that happens, the thickening of the bat handle seems the likeliest compromise. Sherwood said the study showed that as the size of the handle increases, the potential for broken bats decreases. Players might object to thicker handles because they add weight, and every 10th of an ounce counts.

An outright ban is unlikely to muster union support, and it would be a logistical nightmare: Schupp said Hillerich & Bradsby would need at least 18 months to fill the orders of ash bats for all their clients.

Though, as one union source noted, after long struggles the players agreed to add earflaps onto helmets and ban amphetamines. If MLB is insistent enough, and perhaps willing to sacrifice something in return, the players might agree to forgo maple.
“I do not anticipate players will jump up and down and say, ‘You can take our bats away right away,’ ” the union source said. “If that’s backlash, I do expect some, yeah. Players may say, ‘Aren’t there other things you can do first?’ ”

Yes, though sources said MLB, while not sold on an outright ban, will push for one. The day after Long was hit, officials received video of the McLouth at-bat from multiple angles. One particularly gruesome shot came from a field-level camera pointed toward the dugout.

That afternoon, MLB officials contacted the union to set up a meeting to discuss maple bats.

All last season, Jorge Posada encouraged New York Yankees teammate Doug Mientkiewicz to switch from maple to ash. Mientkiewicz was tired of his bats breaking.

“They blow up constantly,” said Mientkiewicz, a first baseman now with the Pirates.
He had seen his bats shatter and heard stories, like the one where Eric Byrnes, angry after a bad at-bat, slammed his maple into the ground and saw its shrapnel hit catcher Miguel Olivo in the head.

Outspoken voices are beginning to emerge. Pirates manager John Russell and Tampa Bay Rays manager Joe Maddon have called them “dangerous,” and Mientkiewicz said it was “amazing” that one hasn’t struck and injured a player.

“It’s going to take somebody getting severely hurt to think about a change,” Mientkiewicz said. “Anybody who thinks I’m overreacting should go look at our hitting coach’s face. It was spooky. It was really spooky.”

Doctors predict the nerves in Long’s face will regenerate and he’ll be able to smile again. He’s not calling for an outright ban on maple, either, because he understands how particular and superstitious players can be.

Look at McLouth. A 26-year-old who hadn’t finished a season with more than 329 at-bats, he ranks fourth in the National League in slugging percentage and is on target to make his first All-Star appearance.

No one would blame him for not changing his underwear, let alone the tool he uses to get his hits.

“I’m thinking about maybe trying ash again,” said McLouth, sitting in the clubhouse at Nationals Park last week, holding his maple bat, flexing his wrists, taking quarter swings. “I mean, just thinking about it. Because I swear, ever since I broke the bat that day in Dodger Stadium, it seems like, as a team, we’ve broken three or four bats a day.”

That afternoon, against the Nationals, on the third pitch of the game, McLouth’s bat split. The bat boy ran out to retrieve the refuse, returned from the dugout with a new one and handed it to McLouth, who walked back to home plate with his weapon of choice.