Conservative Donnybrook

I saw this story on one of the news channels the other day and thought of LTG. We have had a number of sparring bouts over the role of parents versus the role the of the State. This story is interesting because the State is recognizing the rights of the parent (and every right carries with it a corresponding duty) to provide for his child’s education. Unfortunately for Mr. Gegner, he was found in dereliction of his duty to educate his daughter when she failed the mathematics section of her General Education Development exam. Mr. Gegner was charged with “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” after the court had ordered him to see that his daughter passed the exam. She had a previous history of truancy.

If, as LTG likes to point out, a child’s education is entirely within the purview of the parents, isn’t this an appropriate ruling? With the right, comes the responsibility. Of course, the flipside is: If the onus were on the State to educate the child, would then the delinquency of this minor fall upon her public school teachers? As tempting as it is for me to endorse that outcome, I find both results absurd. After all, the world needs ditch diggers too.

Share This

The old saying is: “Yeah, but what does that have to do with the price of bananas?”

Well, when it comes to oil, a lot. OPEC’s president says oil could hit $200 per barrel. The problem, of course, is that the price of everything which is shipped (which is pretty much everything other than online services) is affected by the price of oil. I recently reported on a trucker revolt in downtown Indy. Those revolts have been spreading throughout the country. When trucking companies are hit with high oil prices, does anyone think they absorb the cost? Of course, they don’t. That cost gets priced into the goods we buy.

Last year, we hit $100 per barrel for oil and, at that time, the price of unleaded gasoline was nearly $3 per gallon. When (note I did not say if) the price of oil hits $200 per barrel, gas prices will likely be $6 per gallon. I drive a fuel efficient import (made in Marysville, Ohio before anyone gets all kooky and talking about how they bought a Ford, which was built in either Canada or Mexico, tells how I should support American cars) and the other day my 12 gallon tank cost me over $40 to fill up, with $50 bills not far off. Those sorts of bills used to be reserved for the SUV driving populace. Forty dollars used to be my entire budget for gasoline for an entire month. Consider this: semi trucks typically have 300 (some have 325) gallon tanks.  At $4.16 for a gallon of diesel, which is a decent price right now, it would cost the average trucker nearly $1,250.00 to fill ‘er up.

I used to work at the fuel desk at a truck stop (third shift - drank tons of coffee), and it was a gigantic sale when someone spent $300 to fuel their truck. Now that would get them about two truck stops down the road. I understand their angst and realize that if nothing is done, we’ll soon feel their pain.

Diverting grain to be used to create fuel is not the answer. First, it is extremely expensive to accomplish - more than to drill for oil, or buy from the Middle East. And, second, it drives up the cost of almost every food item, which of course impacts poor people, who spend more as a percentage of their income on food, disproportionately.

Surprisingly, Barack Obama, who seems to be clueless whenever he begins to talk about actual policies as opposed to grand ideas like change, is somehow opposed to relieving the consumer from the burden of government taxes on fuel. Hillary, at least, gets it. McCain has been out front on this issue. But even McCain’s plan is a stopgap measure. First, a hiatus on the gas tax would eventually impact our roads, which the tragedy in Minneapolis teaches us are in a deplorable state. But, second, that sort of relief, while welcome, is temporary. The real problem is that demand has far outstripped supply and OPEC refuses to pump more oil.

Continue Reading »

Share This

No I’m not talking about Iraq.  Since the morning of Saturday April 19 (yesterday), thirty two people have been shot, six of whom have passed on.  This has been the most violent weekend the City of Chicago has seen in some time.  The Chicago Police attribute most if not all of this violence to gang warfare.  In a pressure cooker that was already ready to explode after the shootings at Northern Illinois University, this violence will only go to further fan the flames of increased gun control in Illinois.

As recently as last week Chicago public school students as well as gun control advocates decended on Springfield to plead with state lawmakers to pass stricter gun laws.  With Democrats in control of the executive and legislative branches here I have no doubt that their crys will be heard.  This is the kind of knee-jerk, some might say reactionary, answer that all liberals have come up with in the face of gun violence.  Limit the ability of individuals to purchase firearms legally.  They ignore one huge problem with their proposed solution, it will have no effect on the violence.  I find it hard to believe that the gang members who have been terrorizing the Southwest Side of Chicago went to a gun shop, presented a vailed FOID card (firearm owners identification card), waited the designated waiting period, and purchased their gun.  Instead, I would think they bought in on the street sans a serial number.  Enacting stricter gun laws will have no effect on the bad guys getting guns.  Bad guys will find bad ways to get guns.

If anything the state should permit concealed weapon permits to be issued in Illinois.  Citizens could then legally possess weapons and the bad guys will never know what hit them.

Incidentaly, since yesterday morning Chicago has been by far more deadly than Iraq.

Share This

Maybe they should bring back Ahmadinejad and ask him about this.

Share This

The modern reality of telecommunications is that a phone call which originates in Poland and terminates in Indonesia may very well pass through switches in the United States. The special intelligence court which is in charge of authorizing domestic wiretaps ruled last year that communications which were routed through these U.S. switches were domestic communications and subject to the warrant requirements set out in FISA regardless of where they originated or terminated. In response, Congress quickly authorized the attorney general to initiate wiretaps where the government reasonably believed that at least one of the parties was outside of the United States and that the target of the wiretap was not the domestic party. This was called the Protect America Act and it expired on February 17, 2008. Congress has failed to renew this act.

George W. Bush has been stamping his feet, blustering and pleading for Congress to renew the act and threatening to veto anything less than a permanent reauthorization of the act. The question though is whether the act is truly necessary. Victor Comras frames the question pretty well in his post on the counterterrorism blog:

Few pieces of legislation before Congress carry such gravity and importance when it comes to the twin goals of protecting our national security and preserving our civil liberties. Such matters should be considered with gravity and thorough deliberation. And there is much in this act which deserves further deliberation. Many of its current provisions were adopted previously under an atmosphere of high tension and great pressure from the White House. The only pressure now is that President Bush threatens to veto any further temporary extension of the current act. A temporary extension would certainly have kept in place sufficient authority to keep tabs on the potential terrorists within our midst as Congress worked through the act thoroughly.

Why is it troublesome to obtain a warrant if the government wants to listen to somebody’s phone calls? If they are foreigners, such a warrant will be only a matter of asking. If the person is within the United States, there must be probable cause to believe they are involved in terrorist activity. But, this standard is appropriate. Persons in the United States are by right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

To allow the government to tap a person’s phone simply because he is making an international call would be to amend the Constitution by legislation or by executive fiat. If he is calling a person who is suspected of terrorist activities, it is no hardship for the government to have obtained a warrant allowing calls to this person (including the call originating in the U.S.) to be monitored. Likewise, if the person in the United States is a suspected terrorist, a warrant is obtainable. If neither are suspected of any wrongdoing, then the government has no business eavesdropping on their conversation.

My short answer is: If the special intelligence court is relatively lenient in its standard for suspicion, there is no need to renew the Protect America Act.

Share This

With the coldest winter many places have seen in years, the global warming thing doesn’t seem to be working out. Maybe you can lead the charge against the mini ice age that’s rolling in?

Share This

Why is this still an issue? President Bush has invoked his executive privilege which covers both Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers. Although the privilege is not absolute (see U.S. v. Nixon) but rather qualified, a showing must be made that the material sought is essential to the justice of the case. The reasons for the termination of eight at-will United State’s Attorneys hardly qualifies as essential to the justice of the case. Rather, the reasons for termination are advice given to the President by his advisers in much the same way he is advised on how to combat terrorism. Will Congress want to discuss our strategies for combating terrorism on the floor of the House?

This whole situation should never have occurred if Republican leadership would have reminded Speaker Pelosi and her cronies that a) United State’s Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and therefore can be fired for any reason (even their politics) and b) President Clinton terminated 93 United State’s Attorneys when he took office in 1992. There is no wrongdoing here and thus no story, only another Congressional witch hunt.

By the by, kudos to the House Republicans for walking out when the Democrats refused to vote on renewing FISA. National security is far more important than the U.S. Attorney firings.

Share This

Patrick Deneen on the upcoming free money checks from Uncle Sam:

… Each working American will therefore receive a check ranging from a few hundred to over a thousand dollars that will be money that we borrow from our foreign creditors. The very reason that the economy is tanking is due to bad borrowing and lending practices. Accordingly, we propose to stimulate the economy with a big vibrator made out of more debt, in addition to cheaper money courtesy of the Fed. If the hole you dug seems to be getting darker, then the logical thing is to look for light by digging deeper. This is going to be one messy climax.

He continues:

I hope these past few days will be recalled the next time we hear our conservatives singing the mantra of “the free market.” The market should be free and unfettered, … unless that market is in danger of failing to produce growth. The moment the markets begin to teeter into “bear” territory, it’s our Wall Street gurus who gnash teeth and pull on hair demanding that the Fed lower rates and the politicians print money.  That we are now subsidizing profligacy and fraud, and allowing its practitioners to escape any unpleasantness associated with their bad behavior, is a sign that it’s not the free market that they defend, but growth at any price.

All right, Deneen. The United States is headed towards fiscal ruin and deep recession. But on the other hand, the more inflation, the easier it is to pay off my student loans. Silver linings, people!

Share This

I’ve been reading a fantastic book by science writer Gary Taubes called Good Calories, Bad Calories. I intend to write up a review and have it posted here in the next week or two. But I have also just come across this NYMag article by Taubes from back in September entitled “The Scientist and the Stairmaster: Why most of us believe that exercise makes us thinner—and why we’re wrong.” The article covers a little bit of the ground he goes over in the book as well. Highly recommended!

Share This

Sorry Mr. Gore, but it doesn’t look like it. Snow fell on Baghdad today for the first time in almost 70 years.

Share This

Pat Buchanan was interviewed by Diana West about his latest book on C-SPAN’s After Words.

The MP3 is here, the video here.

Share This

Three cheers for the resurgence of common sense. Bill found it in the Supreme Court’s desision and brought the Pope’s recent message to our attention. Here is a lovely article (HT: New Oxford Review online edition) from the Daily Mail. Note the trademark sensibility and insouciance: “Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken.”

Kudos as well go to the Wonder from Down Under, Cardinal Pell: “In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius. ‘The industrial-military complex up on Mars can’t be blamed for that,’ he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced.”

It’s as I’ve said for a long time, folks: environmentalism (as with any “ism”) ought to be guardedly approached. It’s a cult, and it’s a business. The “broad concensus of scientists” emerging is the broad concensus of foundation-funded academics who want to stay on the gravy train and those who dare not rock the boat for fear of being ostracized into non-published oblivion. That’s a conspiracy, fellas. 

Share This

Buckley seems to be coming out for increased restrictions on smoking:

Stick me in a confessional and ask the question: Sir, if you had the authority, would you forbid smoking in America? You’d get a solemn and contrite, Yes. Solemn because I would be violating my secular commitment to the free marketplace. Contrite, because my relative indifference to tobacco poison for so many years puts me in something of the position of the Zyklon B defendants after World War II.

Ugh. Jacob Sullum has some good comments over at Hit & Run.

Share This

We are now racking up, as a nation, $1 million per minute in debt. Let me write that out for you: $1,000,000 per minute; $16, 667 per second; $60,000,000 per hour;  $1,440,000,000 per day (that’s in the billions folks!). Staggering, I know. And yet, we persist in thinking that a national drug plan is a good idea. Even Republicans (link requires a subscription to National Review, which really, you ought to have anyway) according to Ramesh Ponnuru.

Ramesh makes the point that Americans generally believe that they believe in smaller government when asked, but mention a specific program and you get the whole, “well, I’m not sure about that program” routine. The facts speak for themselves. Democrats own the organ of spending (Congress), spending shoots up. Republicans take over the organ of spending (on a program of fiscal restraint ironically enough), spending shoots up. Unfortunately, folks, we’ve run out of parties unless the Libertarians ever gain traction. The moral of this story is unlimber your wallets, because the ride could get bumpy from here on out.

Share This

We’ve had a bit of discussion here and there about what civil citizenship entails and requires, and we’ve lobbed some grenades and thrown up chaff in the bombast. Read this passage from a Roman citizen from Tarsus who appealed his case all the way to Caesar. Bear in mind how that turned out for him. Also remember the words our Lord spoke about the centurion whom the elders of Israel recommended to Jesus, and his words to our Lord.

Share This

A friend of mine sent me a link to this video the other day. In light recent comments on the absence of the National Anthem before the Monday Night Football game I’d love to see what some of out commentors have to say about what Rick Monday did here. As far as I’m concerned we still need a flag burning amendment.

Share This

Anyone who watched last night’s Monday Night Football game will know that the weather was a major factor in the game. In fact, the game had to be delayed for a brief period due to lightening strikes in Pittsburgh. Due to this delay, and in an effort to keep on schedule with the nationally televised broadcast, the decision was made to skip the National Anthem before the game. Call me old fashion but I like my sports games to start with the National Anthem. I think it serves as a reminder that many soldiers have gone before us, and still do (see Iraq and Afghanistan), so that we are able to spend our Sundays watching pro football among other things. All too often people take for granted the sacrifices made by our military personnel so we are able to watch sports or engage in political debate when we want. I’ll wait and see if any veterans groups get on this.

Share This

posted by George Washington:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor - and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be – That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks – for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation – for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war –for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed – for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. Continue Reading »

Share This

Enough is enough. Mike Huckabee says energy independence is crucial. Ron Paul makes more sense to me. Especially in light of the points David Henderson makes in the article “The Myth Of The Oil Weapon” in the latest American Conservative magazine (I hope it will be available in the online archive next week, but you should be subscribing to the thing anyway. Go get it and read it, already.) about their dependence on us. I am convinced the unfortunate and backward price-controls of the Nixon and Carter administrations are the root cause of so much of the oil problems we still face, not any “OPEC embargo.” We’re still being led to believe we’re captives. We’re not.

Update:   

Here are some interesting numbers.

Share This

Bloomberg.com: Currencie: Srkozy apparently recognizes the risk to French exporters to America that a weak dollar poses to French industry. As the dollar sinks, exports to the United States become more expensive and domestic goods become more inexpensive to American consumers. Sarkozy is trumpeting, then, a Franco-centric economic policy in saying that a dollar which continues to sink may trigger a trade war. What he means is that France may be forced to raise tariffs against American goods to protect the home market.

This blogger agrees with Sarkozy. One should always watch out for the home market, protect it from unfair competition. The simple fact that the dollar has sunk versus the Euro has triggered Sarkozy’s nationalism and fears that France will be less able to sell their products in the American market - the greatest market on earth. Why don’t we get it?

Share This