The Right View of Economics

For John, BLUF:  Economic Freedom pays off.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I believe this chart, from the Blog of Daniel J Mitchell, and his post "The Right Kind of Class Warfare: Workers vs. Looters", shows the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

In the diagram below we have, on the left, the Democrat Party view on the problem and the enemy.  On the right is the Republican view of the problem and the enemy.

The thing that goes along with this is the fact that Capitalism works.

From the American Enterprise Institute we have "Don’t tell Bernie Sanders, but capitalism has made human life fantastically better.  Here’s how".  The author is Mr James Pethokoukis.

Here is how world GDP took off and grew.

For those who say, well, the population exploded, here is a per person look.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Suffolk University and Redistricting

For John, BLUF:  It is hacks, all the way down  Of course not my Rep and Senator, but all those others.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

This was a page one, top of the fold, article in today's Edition of The Boston Globe—"Suffolk president in standoff with trustees over job".  The reporter is Ms Laura Krantz.

I read through the article and turned to page 12 to continue reading and then I found out what is happening.  It is "hackorama".  My guess is that since former Attorney General and losing Gubernatorial Candidate Martha Coakley is looking for a job, one is being created for her by the defenestration of current Suffolk University President Margaret McKenna.

At the beginning of the article I cared.  Now I don't.

It is amazing to me that Democrats and their fellow travelers here in our Fair Commonwealth complain about the need for a more neutral redistricting, but yet allow, nay, encourage by their voting back in time and time again the same hacks, terrible gerrymandering here in Massachusetts.

Moving on, since there is little I can do except try to elect more Republicans to the General Court.

Regards  —  Cliff

Real Diversity

For John, BLUF:  The right committee is better than some genius.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The New York Times we have an interview with Law Professor Lani Guinier.  It coincides with the release of her new book, The Tyranny of the Meritocracy:  Democratizing Higher Education in America.

I admit to being a fan of Professor Guinier from before the time that newly elected President Bill Clinton dropped her like a hot potato after saying he would nominate her for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.  It was not an act of courage on Mr Clinton's part.  Ms Guinier was not a "quote queen", as suggested at the time.  What she was was a very innovative thinker in the area of eliminating segregation.  She was an optimistic person, a person with hope for the future.♠

At any rate, the Reporter is Tamar Lewinfed and the article is "Lani Guinier Redefines Diversity, Re-evaluates Merit".  This is a topic we talked about, from a different vector, a few days ago, at this blog post:  "American [Academic] Aristocracy".  There we looked at the spin The Economist was putting on what it saw as a new American elite class.

In looking at our meritocracy, Ms Guinier notes that:

The score on your SATs or other exams is a better predictor of your parents’ income and the car they drive than of your performance in college.

Ouch!  That doesn't speak well for our diagnostic tools.  And, as one would expect, there are consequences for this current approach.

The credentials of our testocracy legitimize a new elite, and give them an inflated sense of their worth.  They believe that they are entitled to power because they got it through their individual merit.  Our testocratic meritocracy has let those already at the top of the heap rule, and keep their power, without any sense of moral or political accountability.

The cynic in my wants to use the Bob Hope line, "You mean like Democrats."

But, the issue is more important

Diversity is not simply a matter of having people who look different sitting next to each other but learning in the same way.  What I’m trying to introduce into the conversation is the power of collaboration, of bringing together people who bring different kinds of skills to solving a problem.  That diversity can empower creative ways of learning.

Studies show that groups made up of the highest-performing individuals are not as good at solving complex multidimensional problems — like designing environmental policies, cracking codes or creating social welfare systems — as groups with a mix of skills, backgrounds and ways of thinking, even if the individuals in the group are not all high performers.  That’s important, since this world has a lot of complex problems we need to solve.

So, bringing a diversity of backgrounds makes some sense.  Perhaps there was some wisdom in the William F. Buckley, Jr. quip:

I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

What is the tag line Greg Page uses, "If everyone is thinking alike someone is not thinking."

And, I am reminded of an article in Linked In by retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Taylor V. Beattie, about learning leadership from a Nun.

Real diversity, not diversity by artificial separations.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Unlike our current Attorney General, who seems to be a person of making the Machine work for him.

Making Medical Care Better

For John, BLUF:  My medical care is excellent.  But not so for everyone.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The Instapundit, a couple of days ago:

OBAMACARE BLOG COMMENT OF THE DAY:

We shouldn’t forget that ObamaCare was written in the dead of night by Harry Reid’s office, voted on, unread, by the Senate hours later and sent to the House which passed it “as is” so it would not have to go back to the Senate where Scott Brown’s vote would have killed it.

Therefore, there was no internal consistency check.  There was no opportunity for clarifying amendments. There was no opportunity for anything Harry Reid did not think was appropriate.  That is why we keep finding these unintended consequences that Obama tries to paper over with Executive Orders.

That is why the idea of “fixing” ObamaCare is a very bad idea.  There are so many traps in the bill (as well as in the stacks of “rules”) that no one could untangle the mess.  This is just like a badly designed web site.  Best to start all over than try to add undocumented patch upon undocumented patch in a vain attempt to fix it.

If the Republicans get control of the Senate, they should identify what the minimum requirements of a health care system should be, and create a much simpler, easy to understand bill and send that to Obama.

I suppose that, in a flipside of Obama’s Executive Order strategy, they could just deem the bill to pass into law regardless of what Obama does.

My first step would be adding 80,000 physicians, physician assistants and nurse practitioners to the Public Health Service.  Some would be already trained and certified.  Others the PHS would send to school, maybe one or more PHS medical universities.  All of these trained medical professionals would be spread across the nation for their "payback tours".  They would provide medical care where it is thin on the ground, and also medical education for populations that think the medical answer is "wait until it is awful and then go to the emergency room."

Regards  —  Cliff

NB:  For those of you who think this is all Scott Brown's fault, you could also blame FBI Special Agent Mary Beth Kepner, who torpedoed the reelection of Senator Ted Stevens.  Or just blame Acting Senator Paul G Kirk, for not just saying no.

DC AG Close to Decision re NBC's DG

For John, BLUF:  The reason the David Gregory law violation is important is that we need fairness before the law, and not just for the little guy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The Washington Post we have an update on the David Gregory case.

A decision on whether to pursue criminal charges after an incident in which “Meet the Press” host David Gregory held what appeared to be a high-capacity ammunition magazine on national television could come by week’s end, the District’s attorney general said Wednesday.

This is not a trivial event:

Possessing a magazine capable of holding 10 or more rounds, even if it is empty, is a misdemeanor that can carry a sentence of up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Why is this of any interest at all?  Because we have the Vice President of the United States talking about the President taking Executive Action (whatever that means) and the Governor of the Great State of New York talking about confiscation of weapons from law abiding citizens.♠   In the mean time our own Lowell City Council can't engage in "breed discrimination" with regard to pit bulls.

I would think that putting Talk Show Host David Gregory, or someone on the "Meet the Press" staff in jail for even a weekend would be excessive.  That said, if we in the United States are going to make some examples, it wouldn't hurt for Mr Gregory and a couple of his staff to pony up some fine money.  Otherwise it is just a case of protecting favorites.  I would say hypocrisy, except I am a problem speller.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  What are the odds that Gov Cuomo's "confiscation" would spong up even a small percentage of weapons held by criminals?

Registering Welfare Recipients

Inside baseball, taxpayer funded, boondoggle, reported at Legal Insurrection.

Mentioned as exposing who was involved in this was Rob Eno.  Didn't he used to be a member of the LRCC?

I would like to be straight here.  I would rather lose an election than see legitimate voters not registered.  On the other hand, legitimate voters should show some interest in being registered.  Same on voting itself.  To paraphrase H L Mencken,

Progressivism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy just the way they are.♠

But, then, he also said:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

He was such a cynic.

It is not that a crime has been committed, but that the limits to which the campaign is willing to go may not exist.  I find that to usually be dangerous.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I am not as cynical as H L Mencken, quoted above, or John Steele Gordon, quoted at InstaPundit, who wrote recently:  "Implicit in all of these revelations, of course, is the firmest, if never directly expressed, belief of the Left:  That the average person is too stupid to run his own life, let alone make public policy decisions.  Those few, those happy few, that band of liberal intellectuals, must do that for them."  I give you What's The Matter With Kansas?

The Big Parking Ticket

There is a bit of a kurfuffle about Mr Chuck Carney and the punishment of the chap who stole $37,792 from our parking receipts.  Given that I pay into those meters I want to see every nickel (they don't take pennies) going to the City Coffers.

All that said, this is not a major case.  For example, there is no where near the scandal that is the way colleges and universities are allowed to run star chamber like hearings for students accused of crimes up to rape—the rights of the accused being violated left and right.  This is a case of taking money, and the perp promising to pay it back (and has already begun to do so).  And, he was fired.

So, we have a contract with a company for which this person works.  Does that contract allow us to stick our oar in the water with regard to how they discipline their employees?  If the secretary had been stealing petty cash and she was cashiered, would we see it the business of the city to interfere?  If we do stick our oar in the water do we violate the contract and lay ourselves open to being sued?  What do the lawyers say?

Now, I grant you that on his blog, Gerry Nutter suggested that there may have been some favoritism on the part of Mr Carney.  Maybe and maybe not.  Let us set this aside for a moment.

The plan, as I read it in the newspaper is to turn this over to the police.  What will that do for the taxpayer?  We will spend some amount for a jury trial if the perp now pleads innocent (and why shouldn't he?).  We convict him and put him away for two years at $60,000 pa, which is $120,000 plus the trial, paid for by us.  In the mean time the convicted perp might take this opportunity to straighten out his life, but maybe not.  Maybe he becomes a person who turns to a life of crime.  Even if he doesn't, do we think he will quickly get a job when he gets out?  I hope he has a family to help him out.

In some way this incident asks the larger question of if our system is working for us or against us?

If we had just let the company deal with it we would have gotten our money back, avoided additional costs as taxpayers and maybe even found a man who straightened out his life.  Then again, maybe he was destined for perdition.

It is just that I would have preferred avoiding the instant outrage and asking some questions.  I would have liked some "out of the box" thinking before throwing the book at the perp.

Regards  —  Cliff

Discrimination in US

The Instapundit has, for him, a longish discussion of race in the United States, and it's uses.

He notes that Mr George Zimmerman is 1/8th Black, but is seen as a "White" racist who killed a Black kid.  On the other hand, a Harvard Professor 1/32 Cherokee is considered a minority.  Law Professor Glenn Reynolds notes:

Hey, I’ve got double that amount of Cherokee ancestry.  If I’d known that was all it took to get a job at Harvard . . .

He is The Instapundit.

I probably don't care much as long as you are (1) consistent and (2) don't use the term Anglo around me, except in a combining form, e.g., Anglo-Arabian Oil Company.

Regards  —  Cliff

Planet Blago Comment

Over at Chicago Boyz we have a comment on the trial of former Governor Rob Blagojevich, by Blogger Shannon Love.

Some interesting questions.

And, via Instapundit we have this comment on US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who prosecuted the case.  The writer, Ms Jennifer Rubin, thinks Mr Fitzgerald should go.

Regards  —  Cliff

Planet Blago Collides with Pomona

In the news we have a Mr Xavier Alvarez, a board member of the Pomona, CA, water district.  It turns out that he once claimed to be a retired Marine who had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.♠♥  About five years ago the US Congress created the "Stolen Valor Act" to punish those who claim to have earned this or that decoration, but had not actually earned the decoration or perhaps hadn't even served at all.

Well, as one might expect with the Ninth Circuit rules, it invalidates this law based upon First Amendment considerations.  Granted, it is just a three judge panel and we may have the US Solicitor General appealing to the full Ninth Circuit (en banc as they say).

In my opinion someone who claims this or that decoration that he or she has not earned is someone who does not know how to cope with life as it is.  They are more to be pitied than condemned.  Thus, I find myself in agreement with the Ninth Circuit three member panel.  It is a strange feeling.

Which brings us to Planet Blago.♦  As the news tells us, he was convicted of only one count, lying to federal agents.  This is because of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, which makes it a crime to lie to federal agents.  In this article the author suggests that this includes the SEC, which is a QUANGO.

Remember Ms Martha Stewart?  Remember how she went to jail.  She hadn't committed a crime until she sat down with an agent of the Government, with her lawyer by her side and, allegedly told a fib.  And then she was tried, found guilty and sent to jail.

It is interesting that the fabled Federal Attorney Patrick J Fitzgerald lost on the 23 substantive charges.  The mind goes in two directions at this point.  First one asks, "How many different things did the Illinois Governor do?"  Probably not 23, but there are so many laws out there that the Federal Prosecutor was able to slice and dice the crime and go with a lot of charges.  This may be good for lawyers (on both sides), but offends my sense of fairness.  It calls to mind why we have much of the Bill of Rights—to protect us from the Government and overreaching Prosecutors.

The second question is why Mr Fitzgerald was not able to get a conviction on any of the 23 charges.  It could be that one of the jury members was in the tank for the Governor.  It could be that someone got to a juror and threatened or bribed that juror.  It could be that the Federal Case was just weak.  I feel no need to pick one of those.  But, after all the hype one is a little let down by the failure of the Government to prove its case.  The conviction for lying to a federal agent is very weak.

Back to the lying thing, as Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay used to say, "Never lie to Congress.  You don't have to blurt out the truth, but never lie."  Sound advice.

But, why is lying to a federal agent a crime?  When it is important don't we swear in the person and if they lie prosecute them for perjury?  If it is illegal to lie to a federal agent what need do we have for perjury?

I think we should drop both the Stolen Valor Act and Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  It is tough to keep up with the real title.  Wikipedia says it is officially the "Medal of Honor", but I recall that a while back the name was changed to include "Congressional" in the name, since that is how it was understood by the people.  Research is needed, but dinner is close, so this will have to hang fire.
♥  Note that version of the Medal of Honor shown in the news article is the Air Force Medal of Honor.  The Department of the Navy version looks more like this one.

♦  Planet Blago is a term of art from Shepherd Smith of Fox News.
♣  It is interesting to me that in the article in The Boston Globe the prosecutor is not named.  Everyone else is mentioned, except the prosecutor and the bailiff, well, and the person who swept up and emptied the trash cans.

Endorsements

I have been involved in endorsing candidates for City Council, so I don't begrudge anyone else doing the same.  Still, I found one quarter page advertisement♠ in today's Lowell Sun to be a bit unusual.  Apparently, so did the editor of The Sun, since Reporter Christopher Scott was assigned to write on it.

What was unusual was that the full Beacon Hill delegation, St Stephen and the Three Musketeers, signed on to endorse a single sitting City Councilor Alan Kazanjian.  Confirming my impression, Reporter Scott had quotes which showed that the delegation feels that Mr Kazanjian has been knocked around a little bit with "negative" press coverage.  The three Reps took the "innocent until proven guilty" approach.  The other approach is that of Curtis LeMay♥—"I cannot distinguish between the unfortunate and the incompetent and therefore will not try."

It is up to the voters.  They can agree with the delegation and vote for a hard charging City Councilor who is trying to get things done.  Or they can pass over a sitting City Councilor this time as he moves through a cloud of dust, kicked up by people who have worked for him outside of Government.

If you want to see a list of my endorsements for City Council, go here.

Tuesday will be very interesting.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The Sun reports the cost of the advertisement, which includes a full color photograph, at $2,600.  It was a nicely done advert.
♥  No, not that Curtis LeMay; the one from Ohio.

Behind the Sun's Headlines

Over at the Lowell Republican City Blog is a comment on the local news about Mr Ames being fired and the the arrival of the FBI.

The post does briefly mention the Federal One Audit Act and the Public Integrity Section of the US Department of Justice.

I thought it was a great post.

Regard  —  Cliff

Saving Plan E Government

Mimi, over at Left in Lowell has called me out on the issue of the City Council voting to cut City Manager Bernie Lynch's Assistant, Andy Sheehan.  She may not have meant to target me specifically in her blog post, "Leaders who do not Lead," but I took it as a challenge—especially considering that I have been thinking about this since the Gallagher / Donoghue OpEd in The Lowell Sun earlier this week.  That would be former Lowell Mayor Eileen Donoghue and former School Committee member Michael Gallagher.

Over at Dick Howe's blog we have a rundown on the applicable law.

Massachusetts General Laws chapter 43, section 107 prohibits a city councilor from taking part in any manner in the removal of an employee of the city from that employee’s job.  Violation of this statute is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of up to six months and a fine of up to $500.  Furthermore, immediately upon conviction of such a violation, a councilor would be removed from office and “shall never again be eligible for any office or any position, elective or otherwise, in the service of the city

Then the distinguished attorney goes on to say why the DA will walk away from this one.  At this point there are seven comments on the Blog Post.

The consensus from Dick Howe's Blog is that this has to be dealt with in November.  Unfortunately, the half-life of a political memory in the US is about 90 days and it is almost four months to the election.

But, still, I wonder.  If this violation of the principles of Plan E is allowed to stand, then what? Is this self-limiting or is it going to following the laws of life and evolve?  Of course, if we vote out the violators, we may have cauterized this thing, but maybe not.

Maybe this is something for Martha Coakley to look into. She is the Commonwealth's Attorney General. She found time to step on UMass Lowell's attempt to obtain student housing. Why can't she find time to do some intimidation of the Lowell City Council?  I postulate three reasons:

1. She doesn't think she has a case, or
2. This isn't about getting a step up on Marty Meehan, or
3. Notwithstanding the claims of this being a non-partisan form of government, this is all about Democrats taking care of Democrats.

I reject Option C, which leaves only the first two and I am going with Option B.

This episode reminds me of our School Superintendent going up against a certain member of the school committee, only in reverse.

The list of who voted to eliminate the funding is not presented directly in any place I looked.  And maybe that is a good thing.  One mistake is not a reason to vote someone out—we should vote on the "whole man" basis.  But, we should be paying attention to this issue.

In the interest of helping everyone know who did what, here is the list of those who voted to "cut the funding" for the position held by Andy Sheehan:

• Councilor Alan Kazanjian
• Councilor Mike Lenzi
• Councilor Rodney Elliott
• Councilor Rita Mercier
• Councilor Armand Mercier
• Mayor Edward "Bud" Caulfield

But, we do need to ask about what they have done since that vote to redeem themselves.

Regards  —  Cliff

Letter to the Editor

The editor of The Lowell Sun, that is.

This is Sunday's "Ups and Downs" editorial.

State officials can't continue dragging their feet on a strong ethics reform plan or Massachusetts voters may completely lose faith in state government, a feeling that could result in major changes come Election Day.

With last week's indictment of former House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi—the third time in a row that a speaker has been indicted on federal charges—Beacon Hill lawmakers are feeling pressure from residents to act on ethics reform. The reform proposals put forward last week by the House, Senate and governor do not go far enough.

Bay State residents often joke that state ethics is an oxymoron, but the joke has gone on too long. Massachusetts citizens are no longer laughing, and it's time for state lawmakers to change the status quo.

Massachusetts residents have enough problems without having to constantly worry that corrupt politicians are lining their pockets at the expense of struggling taxpayers.

The Sun has previously called for term limits for the speaker of the House and we do so again. People in powerful positions for long periods of time can far too easily succumb to arrogance and feel as though laws do not pertain to them. By limiting the speaker's reign, Massachusetts can strive to limit the abuse of that position.

The Sun missed the boat. Nothing is going to happen unless (a) there is a major depression and the whole Democratic Party goes down for the count or (b) one of the three Muskateers is found in the famous Governor Edwin Edwards' proposed pickle on one of his runs for election.

To change who runs Beacon Hill will require a "Trinity" of factors:

• The People—That would be our residents here in Lowell who will have to have the willingness to turn their backs on the incumbents, but also willing to write checks and gather signatures and hold signs for insurgents (see below, Lamb).
• The Press—All the Media; The Lowell Sun, WCAP, The Boston Globe, etc, willing to not only denounce corruption but to denounce individual Representatives by name for not voting for a corruption free operations, and moreover, going out and finding potential candidates and promoting them.
• The Lamb—That would be the sacrificial lamb willing to run for office against overwhelming odds.

Regards  —  Cliff

Coincidences in DC

In the past I have mentioned the Congressman from my home town, Representative John Murtha, from Johnstown, PA (D-12th District).  Saturday The New York Times reported that a relative, Colonel Brian Murtha, a Marine helicopter pilot, has been assigned by Headquarters Marine Corps to its legislative liaison team.

Representative John P. Murtha, chairman of the House military spending subcommittee and a decorated former Marine, has long acted as a protective Uncle Jack to the Marine Corps.

Now the corps has named one of his nephews, Col. Brian Murtha, to the office charged with advocating for its interests on Capitol Hill, where Representative Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, helps write the military budget.  In relocating to be near the Pentagon, Colonel Murtha has even moved into a unit in the same condominium building where his influential uncle lives in Arlington, Va.

Well, recently the Representative has acted as a cranky Uncle Jack and some Marines are not happy about his characterization of some Marine actions in Iraq, but moving right along.

I suspect this was not a plot on the part of the Marine Corps to get special favors.  Each of the Services has a Legislative Liaison Branch on Capitol Hill.  They do things like arrange for trips to military bases and provide information to staffers upon request and help shepherd General or Flag Officers who have to go to Capitol Hill to brief.  However, this may have been a miscalculation on the part of the Marine Corps, but it shouldn't reflect on Colonel Brian Murtha.  I suspect he is a Marine doing his duty, hoping for at least one more shot at commanding Marines in the field before he retires.

I missed this, so a hat tip to my brother John.

Regards  —  Cliff

Bob's Your Uncle

One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that it explains a lot of things that otherwise pass me by.  I lived a year in the UK and never understood "Bob's Your Uncle."  Perhaps it was the place I was assigned, where things were not obvious and no one was suggesting they were.  Then, last night, watching an episode of "Dangerous Davies," I heard the expression again and immediately recognized it and wondered what it really meant.

Thus to Wikipedia, where it is laid out in all its historical context.

Bob's your uncle is a commonly-used expression known mainly in Britain, Ireland and Commonwealth countries.  It is often used immediately following a set of simple instructions and carries roughly the same meaning as the phrase "and there you have it"; for example, "Simply put a piece of ham between two slices of bread, and Bob's your uncle."

But, where did it come from? Is it another one of those expressions that was potty humor and then became acceptable? Wikipedia to the rescue, and a fascinating story it is:

It's a catch phrase dating back to 1887, when British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury decided to appoint a certain Arthur Balfour to the prestigious and sensitive post of Chief Secretary for Ireland. Not lost on the British public was the fact that Lord Salisbury just happened to be better known to Arthur Balfour as "Uncle Bob."  In the resulting furor over what was seen as an act of blatant nepotism, "Bob's your uncle" became a popular sarcastic comment applied to any situation where the outcome was preordained by favoritism.  As the scandal faded in public memory, the phrase lost its edge and became just a synonym for "no problem."

Kad Barma will like this.  Arthur Balfour is the man who gave us the Balfour Declaration.

I think we should consider adopting this expression here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (I can't just say Commonwealth, as I was born in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and have two sons, and families, living in the Commonwealth of Virginia).

Just as Arthur Balfour's appointment to Chief Secretary for Ireland was all about nepotism and helping the favored move along, so it is on Beacon Hill, inherited from our British ancestors.  Bob's your uncle.

Regards  --  Cliff