A Foreign Office minister sent Libyan officials detailed legal advice on how to use Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s cancer diagnosis to ensure he was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds.One of my classmates at college was on the plane.
The Duke of York is also said to have played a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging the terrorist’s release.
The Libyans closely followed the advice which led to the controversial release of Megrahi – who was convicted of the murder of 270 passengers on Pan Am Flight 103 – within months of the Foreign Office’s secret intervention.
The disclosure seriously undermines British Government claims that is was not complicit in the release of al-Megrahi, and that the decision to free the convicted terrorist was taken by the Scottish Executive alone.
Pan Am 103
Anyone surprised?
Non sequitur
From the debate in Wisconsin to require a photo ID for voting:
He added it is easy to commit voter fraud, while difficult for poll workers, law enforcement and prosecutors to identify fraudulent votes.In other words: not having to show ID means it's hard to tell if people are committing voter fraud, but we know they're not, so no big deal! (The person making the statement does thing an ID requirement is a good idea, just not really necessary.)
However, studies from Van Hollen’s office about past votes have found low percentages of voter fraud. In the 2004 presidential election, only 18 out of 3 million votes were fraudulent.
Maybe a kitchen table would be safer
The grand jury report said that one look at the place would have detected the problems, but the Pennsylvania Department of Health hadn’t inspected the place since 1993. Here’s the grand jury report, in surprisingly strong language:One of the big arguments for legalized abortion has always been to prevent women from having to get abortions in kitchens and in unsafe environments...The Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.
Party power
A great quote that underpins the shifting bases of the Democrats and Republicans:
The Republicans used to represent the corporate establishment and businesses, but as more and more decisions are being made at the government, not company, level, those businesses have migrated toward the party of government: the Democrats. The Democrats, in turn, love the nice symbiosis between corporate and government power. They especially love to get the money that flows from businesses towards their party, and the nice way that the elite among the party can easily slip between government and corporate jobs.
As long as the above statement is true, Democrats are the party of business and of the rich.
Steve: You are spot-on. Crony capitalsim marches on.
[I]t’s true that rich individuals can do a lot more to rig government policy in their favor than can poor individuals. The straightforward implication is that the more power the government has to pick winners and losers, the more power rich people will have relative to poor people. - Will Wilkinson
The Republicans used to represent the corporate establishment and businesses, but as more and more decisions are being made at the government, not company, level, those businesses have migrated toward the party of government: the Democrats. The Democrats, in turn, love the nice symbiosis between corporate and government power. They especially love to get the money that flows from businesses towards their party, and the nice way that the elite among the party can easily slip between government and corporate jobs.
As long as the above statement is true, Democrats are the party of business and of the rich.
Steve: You are spot-on. Crony capitalsim marches on.
Uh huh.
Representitive James Clyburn (D-SC):
Clyburn complained that "we've had some incidents where TSA authorities think that congresspeople should be treated like everybody else"
First moves
Here's what the Republican Congress should do right off the bat:
1) Pass a clean health care repeal bill. Sure, it will die in the Senate, but so what.
2) Pass a friend-of-the-court resolution backing the states that are suing to fight Obamacare, with details of where the legislators believe the law is unconstitutional. Don't leave it for the states and the courts--get a dog in the legal hunt.
3) Pass a bill removing the waivers from health care bill. The waivers are corruption waiting to happen--or not waiting at all. It leaves the administration with the power to choose to help political allies and thrash opponents. Pass it while saying that everyone should be treated equally under the law, regardless of the skill of their lobbyists. Would the Senate be so quick to reject that? I'm not so sure.
4) Pass a corporate tax bill along the same grounds: remove all loopholes and special tax breaks. Every company should be treated equally by the government. Better yet, start the flat-tax movement at the corporate level. Make the corporate taxes a simple one-page form with a nice flat rate--and make the rate in-line with other developed countries, or lower. Imagine all of the money that would flow away from accountants and tax lawyers to research, development, expansion, marketing, etc. Even without cutting taxes, it would unleash a big chunk of money that businesses currently waste complying with the tax laws. Secondly, it would be great to sell to the public: you want to diminish the power of lobbyists in Washington? then take away much of what they are lobbying for. Much of corporate lobbying goes into the tax code, the rest into regulations.
5) Pass a bill to kill grants and government money currently flowing to companies--yes, even those that are pursuing "green" projects. Again, it is ripe for corruption, as the government gets to choose winners and losers, and the side with the most-connected lobbyists wins! It would be easy to sell to the public too, as an end to real corporate welfare.
6) Completely kill farm subsidies. Again, most of the subsidies go to corporate farms. We should stress efficiency over some quaint and outdated view of the family farmer getting up every morning to milk the cows by hand and reap his hay with a scythe. Agriculture is big business. It shouldn't be subsidized--that goes double for ethanol.
7) Defund, or refuse to fund this coming year the NEA, NEH, CPB, and a host of other alphabet agencies that have no business existing when the whole of their budgets are basically borrowed from China. This country shouldn't be funding the arts when we can't pay to keep the lights on.
8) Pass a hiring freeze on the federal government. No new employees--we have plenty of bureaucrats already. Let workers shift from one job to another, one agency to another, but no new total hires.
9) Pass a law requiring massive fines for any employer found employing illegal aliens. An employer can avoid the fines by simply showing that they have cleared the employee through eVerify. The fines should be great enough to threaten the existence of the company.
10) Pass a repeal of the stupid bills that have made it into law lately, such as light bulb bans, or the water cut-off in California's central valley.
Then, next month...
1) Pass a clean health care repeal bill. Sure, it will die in the Senate, but so what.
2) Pass a friend-of-the-court resolution backing the states that are suing to fight Obamacare, with details of where the legislators believe the law is unconstitutional. Don't leave it for the states and the courts--get a dog in the legal hunt.
3) Pass a bill removing the waivers from health care bill. The waivers are corruption waiting to happen--or not waiting at all. It leaves the administration with the power to choose to help political allies and thrash opponents. Pass it while saying that everyone should be treated equally under the law, regardless of the skill of their lobbyists. Would the Senate be so quick to reject that? I'm not so sure.
4) Pass a corporate tax bill along the same grounds: remove all loopholes and special tax breaks. Every company should be treated equally by the government. Better yet, start the flat-tax movement at the corporate level. Make the corporate taxes a simple one-page form with a nice flat rate--and make the rate in-line with other developed countries, or lower. Imagine all of the money that would flow away from accountants and tax lawyers to research, development, expansion, marketing, etc. Even without cutting taxes, it would unleash a big chunk of money that businesses currently waste complying with the tax laws. Secondly, it would be great to sell to the public: you want to diminish the power of lobbyists in Washington? then take away much of what they are lobbying for. Much of corporate lobbying goes into the tax code, the rest into regulations.
5) Pass a bill to kill grants and government money currently flowing to companies--yes, even those that are pursuing "green" projects. Again, it is ripe for corruption, as the government gets to choose winners and losers, and the side with the most-connected lobbyists wins! It would be easy to sell to the public too, as an end to real corporate welfare.
6) Completely kill farm subsidies. Again, most of the subsidies go to corporate farms. We should stress efficiency over some quaint and outdated view of the family farmer getting up every morning to milk the cows by hand and reap his hay with a scythe. Agriculture is big business. It shouldn't be subsidized--that goes double for ethanol.
7) Defund, or refuse to fund this coming year the NEA, NEH, CPB, and a host of other alphabet agencies that have no business existing when the whole of their budgets are basically borrowed from China. This country shouldn't be funding the arts when we can't pay to keep the lights on.
8) Pass a hiring freeze on the federal government. No new employees--we have plenty of bureaucrats already. Let workers shift from one job to another, one agency to another, but no new total hires.
9) Pass a law requiring massive fines for any employer found employing illegal aliens. An employer can avoid the fines by simply showing that they have cleared the employee through eVerify. The fines should be great enough to threaten the existence of the company.
10) Pass a repeal of the stupid bills that have made it into law lately, such as light bulb bans, or the water cut-off in California's central valley.
Then, next month...
Snow Today
It's cold here in Tennessee, and we've got a bit of snow on the ground. Our daughter really enjoyed playing in it.
Math inequality
This is about twice as long as it needed to be, but it's worth watching:
From Mark Perry at Carpe Diem, why do boys outscore girls on the math SAT?
From Mark Perry at Carpe Diem, why do boys outscore girls on the math SAT?
Frisking Diplomats
Indian diplomats have gotten their saris in a bunch over having been frisked by the TSA.
Boo freakin' hoo.
You think that because you are a diplomat, or a US Senator, or a member of some other self-proclaimed elite, that you should not have to go through the TSA process the rest of us have to? I call bullsh*t. If I have to go through it, then everyone else should have to as well. It's called "equality under the law."
Ann says: But diplomatic immunity is as helpful to us overseas as it is to visitors here. Do we want to do away with it, knowing that if we do, we will lose it for ourselves in other countries? What percentage of our necessary spying takes place under the cover of diplomatic immunity? The world is a safer place when we know what is going on in other countries. I'm not ready to throw all that away, just so that everyone has to go through the same foolish security-theater at airports.
Steve: Yes, I think diplomatic immunity should be abandoned. I would bet our gains from it overseas are greatly exceeded by our losses due to it at home.
"On December 4, Indian ambassador to the United States Meera Shankar was selected by security officials at a Mississippi airport for a pat-down search, despite reportedly notifying officials of her diplomatic status."
...
"We have taken it up with the U.S. authorities and the matter is at that stage," External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna said on Monday, referring to Puri, a Sikh.
Sikh men keep their hair covered at all times with a turban, which is not allowed to be touched in public.
Boo freakin' hoo.
You think that because you are a diplomat, or a US Senator, or a member of some other self-proclaimed elite, that you should not have to go through the TSA process the rest of us have to? I call bullsh*t. If I have to go through it, then everyone else should have to as well. It's called "equality under the law."
Ann says: But diplomatic immunity is as helpful to us overseas as it is to visitors here. Do we want to do away with it, knowing that if we do, we will lose it for ourselves in other countries? What percentage of our necessary spying takes place under the cover of diplomatic immunity? The world is a safer place when we know what is going on in other countries. I'm not ready to throw all that away, just so that everyone has to go through the same foolish security-theater at airports.
Steve: Yes, I think diplomatic immunity should be abandoned. I would bet our gains from it overseas are greatly exceeded by our losses due to it at home.
Obama the Mythbuster
President Obama will be on Mythbusters this evening. He will be asking the show's hosts to once again investigate the possibility of "Archimedes' Death Ray." This is the legend that Archimedes was able to destroy ships at sea by having soldiers reflect enough sunlight off their shields to set the ships on fire. The Mythbusters have investigated this twice before, and each time it was "busted."
Really, it's preposterous, unless by "ships at sea" you mean ships a hundred feet from shore, sitting motionless in absolutely still water, and if by "shields" you mean parabolic mirrors. I found the whole process of testing this myth pretty boring. Both times. The myths that I think work best for testing are the ones that have some degree of believability from the start. I wasn't buying this one.
On the other hand, part of me thinks that they must have come up with some contrived way to make this work, or they wouldn't bother testing it a third time. I doubt President Obama came to them with this problem. They probably already had a plan to retest it and suggested it to him.
I think having the President on the show is a fun idea. It might get kids interested in science. I just wish they would have chosen a better myth.
Archimedes was a genius. I am awestruck by some of the mathematics he was able to do over two thousand years ago. With his towering achievements, it would be a shame to associate him mainly with this mythical "Death Ray."
Update: Busted again.
Really, it's preposterous, unless by "ships at sea" you mean ships a hundred feet from shore, sitting motionless in absolutely still water, and if by "shields" you mean parabolic mirrors. I found the whole process of testing this myth pretty boring. Both times. The myths that I think work best for testing are the ones that have some degree of believability from the start. I wasn't buying this one.
On the other hand, part of me thinks that they must have come up with some contrived way to make this work, or they wouldn't bother testing it a third time. I doubt President Obama came to them with this problem. They probably already had a plan to retest it and suggested it to him.
I think having the President on the show is a fun idea. It might get kids interested in science. I just wish they would have chosen a better myth.
Archimedes was a genius. I am awestruck by some of the mathematics he was able to do over two thousand years ago. With his towering achievements, it would be a shame to associate him mainly with this mythical "Death Ray."
Update: Busted again.
Acceptance
George Will:
Yes. Duh! How hard is this to understand?? How many more such essays are conservative and libertarian pundits going to write? Blah blah blah "10th Amendment!!" blah blah blah "Founders' Intent!!" blah blah blah "Federalism!!" It's like a bunch of people sitting around a burnt-out light bulb endlessly talking about how illuminating and warm it was. It's burnt out!
Perhaps I'm being too harsh. Go on quoting Marbury vs Madison, George. I'll go on living 200 years later, in what is often referred to as "the real world."
Has the U.S. Supreme Court construed the commerce clause so permissively that Congress has seized, by increments, a sweeping police power that enables it to do virtually anything it wants?
Yes. Duh! How hard is this to understand?? How many more such essays are conservative and libertarian pundits going to write? Blah blah blah "10th Amendment!!" blah blah blah "Founders' Intent!!" blah blah blah "Federalism!!" It's like a bunch of people sitting around a burnt-out light bulb endlessly talking about how illuminating and warm it was. It's burnt out!
Perhaps I'm being too harsh. Go on quoting Marbury vs Madison, George. I'll go on living 200 years later, in what is often referred to as "the real world."
Politicians and the debt
Everyone always comments that the debt rose sharply under Republican presidents and declined under Democrats...basically just Clinton. And, it's true. Here's the graph.
But no one points out that in Washington, it takes three to tango. Here's the same data, matched to control of the Senate:
And here it is matched to the House of Representatives:
One note on how I colored the bars. I figured if a politician gets elected in 2010, he takes office at the start of 2011, but the first budget that he can pass is for the 2012 year. So that's how I colored the bars, and that's why it might look a little off. I didn't just go by election year. Otherwise, Republicans would get assigned our current year, even when all of Washington was firmly in the hands of Democrats, and I figured there was also a lag between taking office and actually starting to change things. For example, with this method, Bush gets blamed for Tarp I. Otherwise, it would have all fallen under Obama.
But no one points out that in Washington, it takes three to tango. Here's the same data, matched to control of the Senate:
And here it is matched to the House of Representatives:
One note on how I colored the bars. I figured if a politician gets elected in 2010, he takes office at the start of 2011, but the first budget that he can pass is for the 2012 year. So that's how I colored the bars, and that's why it might look a little off. I didn't just go by election year. Otherwise, Republicans would get assigned our current year, even when all of Washington was firmly in the hands of Democrats, and I figured there was also a lag between taking office and actually starting to change things. For example, with this method, Bush gets blamed for Tarp I. Otherwise, it would have all fallen under Obama.
Warren Buffet's Interest
It's well-known that Warren Buffet is in favor of the estate tax. He is a favorite of the pro-tax pundits out there. They paint him as a humanitarian, willing to give up more of his wealth for the good of the people. However, he has another interest in the matter. A comment posted here:
Warren Buffet owns six life insurance comapanies. Yeesh. Like I wasn't cynical enough already.
You can read a pdf report of the life insurance lobby's efforts to re-institute high estate taxes here.
I used to work IT in the Hartford Insurance arena. One day an agent sold a Life insurance policy worth 50 million dollars to a 75 year old man. The client paid a single premium of about 53 million and his son was the sole benficiary.
Why would anyone do this? because Insurance benefits are not taxed like a ‘death tax’
Warren Buffet owns six life insurance comapanies. Yeesh. Like I wasn't cynical enough already.
You can read a pdf report of the life insurance lobby's efforts to re-institute high estate taxes here.
Comments Sections
Typically, I find the comments sections of blogs to be pretty depressing. Once in a while though, I am pleasantly surprised. Here, someone at The Corner posts an article praising the new airport security measures and the people who implement them. Commenters rightly give him what-for.
On the other end of the political spectrum, in this article at Huffington Post, a doctor warns of the horrible dangers of mixing alchohol with caffiene. "Combining alcohol and caffeine is -- in one word -- crazy. Don't do it! It has an excellent chance of hurting you, and a fairly good chance of killing you." Yes, that's right. Rum and Coke, Kaluha and Cream, Irish Coffee... cocktails of death!! His readers let him have it.
In both cases, the comments are pretty satisfying.
On the other end of the political spectrum, in this article at Huffington Post, a doctor warns of the horrible dangers of mixing alchohol with caffiene. "Combining alcohol and caffeine is -- in one word -- crazy. Don't do it! It has an excellent chance of hurting you, and a fairly good chance of killing you." Yes, that's right. Rum and Coke, Kaluha and Cream, Irish Coffee... cocktails of death!! His readers let him have it.
In both cases, the comments are pretty satisfying.
Tuition and Fees (II)
Doing some more math...if you put the 4-year cost of a Carleton education, $224,600, into investments, and only got back 3% a year, that would give you an annual benefit of $6,700 per year. In addition, instead of wasting four years paying others, you could easily make $20,000/year at a low-end job. That's $80,000 in your pocket, instead of $224k going out--a swing of over $300,000.
Of course, the $224k number doesn't take into account interest on loans. According to this loan calculator, assuming that Carleton's tuition will be 5% higher next year ($54,715), and an incoming freshman borrowed that entire amount, they will have to pay back $67,920 just for their first year--24% more than the initial loan of $55k. Carrying out the calculations at 24% overall loan interest, and a 5% tuition increase each year, that comes to approximately: $292,700 (Grinnell comes to $265,500).
So would a student whose family saved for college and could cover the cost be better off pocketing the cash?
Would a student who had to borrow $300,000 for a high-end diploma be better off getting a job instead?
Is the piece of paper from Carleton, Grinnell, or another high-end college worth $300,000?
Of course, the $224k number doesn't take into account interest on loans. According to this loan calculator, assuming that Carleton's tuition will be 5% higher next year ($54,715), and an incoming freshman borrowed that entire amount, they will have to pay back $67,920 just for their first year--24% more than the initial loan of $55k. Carrying out the calculations at 24% overall loan interest, and a 5% tuition increase each year, that comes to approximately: $292,700 (Grinnell comes to $265,500).
So would a student whose family saved for college and could cover the cost be better off pocketing the cash?
Would a student who had to borrow $300,000 for a high-end diploma be better off getting a job instead?
Is the piece of paper from Carleton, Grinnell, or another high-end college worth $300,000?
Tuition and Fees
Tuition and fees at Carleton College, my alma mater
Academic Tuition Fees 2010-2011
Tuition: $41,076
Student Activity Fee: $228
Room: $5,676
20 Meal Plan (full board): $5,130
Total Due: $52,110
Absurd. If anyone asked for advice, I'd advise them to go elsewhere. Carleton is a fine school, but it's not worth $52000/year. A state school like Minnesota or Wisconsin would be about 1/3rd of that. I couldn't begin to justify the additional expense of going private.
Ann says: There are only three reasons to go private these days: 1) to get the name on the diploma, 2) choosing a network of friends, 3) being able to graduate in four years instead of 5-6. None of those are worth the$172,500 $224,600 (my math was wrong) Carleton or other high-end privates will cost to get through. (That's assuming 4 years at 5% tuition growth per year--when I was in school, the average increase was 8%.) Grinnell's 4-year cost at 5% growth per year is currently: $203,700.
If a student really has their heart set on a private, they should do a 2-year AB, then transfer in. Even that isn't worth it--especially if you have a soft major. And if you want to do a hard major like math, science, or engineering, you're better off with the larger facilities and opportunities of a state school anyway.
I come down on the side that young adults should walk away from school for a few years to decide what they want to do with their lives. Spending time being aimless at college, and spending a fortune doing it, really doesn't make any sense. You should only go to college these days if you have a real, concrete goal that requires a specific degree. (As long as you don't want to be yet another lawyer!)
Academic Tuition Fees 2010-2011
Tuition: $41,076
Student Activity Fee: $228
Room: $5,676
20 Meal Plan (full board): $5,130
Total Due: $52,110
Absurd. If anyone asked for advice, I'd advise them to go elsewhere. Carleton is a fine school, but it's not worth $52000/year. A state school like Minnesota or Wisconsin would be about 1/3rd of that. I couldn't begin to justify the additional expense of going private.
Ann says: There are only three reasons to go private these days: 1) to get the name on the diploma, 2) choosing a network of friends, 3) being able to graduate in four years instead of 5-6. None of those are worth the
If a student really has their heart set on a private, they should do a 2-year AB, then transfer in. Even that isn't worth it--especially if you have a soft major. And if you want to do a hard major like math, science, or engineering, you're better off with the larger facilities and opportunities of a state school anyway.
I come down on the side that young adults should walk away from school for a few years to decide what they want to do with their lives. Spending time being aimless at college, and spending a fortune doing it, really doesn't make any sense. You should only go to college these days if you have a real, concrete goal that requires a specific degree. (As long as you don't want to be yet another lawyer!)
