perfidy

The reckless tax cuts of Kennedy and Reagan certainly shifted enormous burdens to us, the next generation. No, wait, what they did was allow the economy to grow faster, so that we could afford to pay for all the reckless services instituted by Johnson, Carter and others. What would be a burden for our children would be to create more programs that blow through taxpayer money like something that blows through money really, really fast. Because with rare exceptions, those programs never go away, even if it turns out that they weren't that great an idea in the first place. Like farm subsidies. Lowering taxes is the only way to prevent the government from hoovering up the whole economy. I think a better legacy for our children (because everything must be for the childen) would be to leave them a world where they could have a job and keep more than half the money they earn from it.

Ps, I think Krugman's slogan is a great idea. We should use it.

Having as your target well paid educators seems a little off. Shouldn't we be trying to get compentant educators? In any event, increasing the quality of our educators is a laudable goal. However, education does not cure stupidity. At best, it ameliorates ignorance. Call me elitist, but the vast majority of people not merely in this country but around the world are not geniuses. Half the world is below average (well, below median) intelligence, by definition; and most of the rest are hovering close to the fat part of the bell curve. There is a limited pool of people who can fully benefit from a great education. It should be offered to all, of course, but it isn't going to help everyone. But even an ideal educational system would not stop bad reporting, lying, and stupid people making bad judgements on inaccurate data.

No matter what their intelligence or education levels, every American has the liberty to choose to think what they want. I may think its stupid, but hey, that's what freedom is.

If you are quoting scare quotes, I have no need to be angry with you, Mike - it only increases my distaste for Krugman.

Check it out: Via geekpress, I see that somebody has created a program which will allow computer users to set up ad hoc one-on-one or small encrypted networks. Cool! Apparently it makes the powers that be verrrrry angry, as it could push file sharing "even further underground." Seeing as how all files are not illegally traded music files, and I can think of a million legitimate uses for such a tool, said powers can take a flier at the proverbial rolling donut. I think this is great, handy, and very dangerous. 

Best part: the program is called "Waste". He's a Pynchon fan! 

[moreover] If you haven't read "The Crying of Lot 49," it's time you do. 
 

Thomas Friedman of the NYT (yeah, I know, I know) has an interesting perspective on the tax cuts here. Here's a little textbite:

"That is, when the president says he wants yet another round of reckless 'tax cuts,' which will shift huge burdens to our children, Democrats should simply refer to them as 'service cuts,' because that is the only way these tax cuts will be paid for - by cuts in services. Indeed, the Democrats' bumper sticker in 2004 should be: 'Read my lips,
no new services. Thank you, President Bush.'"

There are scare quotes within that particular quotation. Deal with it.

As to the NYT having a reporter who made things up, and a lot of the made up information was of course inaccurate, I saw some goofball on MSNBC last night complaining that Iraq is full of Buddhists and no one complains, but everybody complains about America being full of Christians.

Yah-huh. See? This is why we should have well-paid educators. America might be full of Christians, but my complaint is that America is full of stupid people, some of whom make things up and report inaccurately in various media formats. Well paid, competent, dedicated educators mean less stupidity, resulting in less making stuff up and inaccurate reporting. It also means less people will believe the made-up inaccuracies.

As to Friedman's editorial, well, it's a matter of opinion.

Despite the unmedicated ravings of one commenter, I think any objective observer would conclude that I did not take advantage of the weekend absence of both my compatriots.

International treaties that have been given the thumbs up by the senate have the force of law - they are not part of the constitution, any more than a regular statute is part of the constitution. A simple senate vote could pull us out of the Geneva convention (not that we should.) There is some debate on how treaties should be interpreted, and that is a matter for the supreme court - but there is no question that a treaty can not invalidate part of the constitution itself. The ICC treaty would violate the fourth, among others. No treaty could remove the right to bear arms. 

International laws of war, with the exception of the Geneva convention, are rather amorphous. And the Geneva convention deals largely with issues of POWs and the like. There are no treaties, just precedents, and arguments.

The general militia is not the first line of defense. The Constitution provides for an Army and a Navy. If some foreign power can fight their way through that, (hard to believe) *then they'd have to deal with the general population, half of whom own guns. Would you want to attempt to occupy a nation where half the people own guns and don't like you? Even in hellholes like Somalia and Afghanistan, gun ownership is not that prevalent. The general militia is the last line of defense, just as it was in colonial times. (Though more often called into action then.) It is the last line of defense against foriegn invasion, and against domestic tyranny. Of course, the first lines of defense are free press, free speech, elections, democratic institutions, the constitutional amendment process, and the general habits of living in a free soceity.

It was only a matter of time:

An agent of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) used threats of RAVE Act prosecutions to intimidate the owners of a Billings, Montana, venue into a canceling a combined benefit for the Montana chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and Students for Sensible Drug Policy last week.
The RAVE Act, now known officially as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, championed by Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), was ostensibly aimed at so-called raves, the large electronic music concerts often associated with open drug use, but was so broadly written that opponents argued it could be applied against any event or venue where owners or organizers did not take sufficiently repressive steps to prevent drug use. Opposition to the bill stalled it in the Senate last year, but this year Biden stealthily inserted it into the enormously popular Amber Alert Bill, which passed last month and was signed into law by President Bush.

While the Billings event was advertised as a benefit concert for two local groups interested in drug law reform -- not as a drug-taking orgy -- it still attracted the attention of the DEA. On May 30, the day the event was set to take place, a Billings-based DEA agent showed up at the Eagle Lodge, which had booked the concert. Waving a copy of the RAVE Act in one hand, the agent warned that the lodge could face a fine of $250,000 if someone smoked a joint during the benefit, according to Eagle Lodge manager Kelly, who asked that her last name not be used.

What? The RAVE Act? Used as a bludgeon to chill legitimate political speech? Noooooo...

This outrageous abomination will be with us until some promoter with the stones and resources to actually get hit with a RAVE suit takes it all the way to the supremes. When it happens, I hope it's some pre-law hippie with a flair for public spectacle and an ear for media spin. That would be sweet. In other news, Senator Biden remains an a-hole.

Go pick Dad up from the airport. Why couldn't he have flown into National? I don't want to haul my ass out to Dullas in rush hour.