Cantankerous Gentlemen

The Many Faces of ACORN

noreply@blogger.com (Cantankerous Gentleman) — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:51:00 +0000

Matthew Vadum does yeoman's work unraveling the hydra-like organization ACORN, which has gotten so much ink over the last two months, regarding its unusual voter registration history. This is a very in depth look. It is the first time, I have ever heard the level of reporting on the extent of the tax dollars its affiliated groups, receives from Uncle Sam and also has owed him, in unpaid back taxes time time to time, to the point of filed "tax liens." Geez, what is it about activists that love high taxes, that don't even have organization to pay their own taxes in a timely manner?

Its Your Serve Mr. Walls.....

noreply@blogger.com (Cantankerous Gentleman) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:30:00 +0000

I had to share this really intersting post which is the latest volley in the recent tiff between HuffPost's Seth Walls and Newsbusters.org Seton Motley over Obama's ACORN days.

Great research Mr. Vadum.

Huffington Post and ACORN Tag-Team Cover Up of Obama’s ACORN Days

You’ve got to expect obfuscation from professional obfuscators. Not surprisingly, the spin doctors at the Huffington Post microscopically lawyered my post Media Matters-style to attempt to get away from the fact that Project Vote is a vital
part of left-wing ACORN’s empire of vote fraud and political agitation. (And incidentally, for 30 years ACORN has been laying the groundwork for the subprime mortgage meltdown.)

And as I write this post, news is circulating that police in Las Vegas, Nevada, raided the local ACORN office. Authorities allege that ACORN canvassers "falsified forms
with bogus names, fake addresses or famous personalities." The Las Vegas
Review-Journal reports "that most members of the Dallas Cowboys appeared to be registering in Nevada to vote in November's general election." And in Ohio, ACORN admits voter fraud is just part of doing business.

Meanwhile, the HuffPost denies that Project Vote is now and has for years been the voter mobilization arm of ACORN. But now that ACORN is getting bad press by the
bushel, HuffPost writer Seth Colter Walls argues that when Barack Obama ran Project Vote in 1992 it wasn’t technically a part of ACORN. (Background: Walls’s original post criticizing Seton Motley of the Media Research Center is here;
Motley’s post in response is here; and my post in response to Walls’s original post is here.)

In the immortal words of Tommy Flanagan, Jon Lovitz’s pathological liar character from “Saturday Night Live”: Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Walls produces statements from the Obama campaign and Obama supporters at the ostensibly nonpartisan Project Vote who –surprise, surprise— proffer an invented claim that Project Vote and ACORN didn’t become closely aligned until 1994, which is after they say Obama left Project Vote. Of course there is no credible evidence we’re aware of that substantiates the claim. The HuffPost hasn’t provided any.

Walls’s article is meant to serve as a distraction from the fact that Obama has long been directly involved with ACORN. And unlike the HuffPost, we have proof.

An article by Toni Foulkes of ACORN dispels all doubt. In the article, “Case Study: Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign,” which appeared in Social Policy magazine in 2004, Foulkes makes it abundantly clear that ACORN and Project Vote were partners in the voter registration drive.
The blog Sweetness & Light has reprinted the text of the article. In a discussion of the primary race in March 2004, Foulkes writes:
Obama started building the base years before. For instance, ACORN noticed him when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project. He was a very good organizer. When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois’ refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act, also known as motor voter. Allied only with the state of Mississippi, Illinois had been refusing to allow mass-based voter registration according to the new law. Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them).
Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus, it was natural for many of us to
be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed
bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old
friends. And along about early March, we started to see that the African-American community had made its move: when Sen. Obama’s name was mentioned at our Southside Summit meeting with 700 people in attendance from three southside communities, the crowd went crazy. With about a week to go efore the election, it was very clear how the African-American community would vote. But would they vote in high enough numbers?
It seemed to us that what Obama needed in the March primary was what we always work to deliver anyway: increased turnout in our ACORN communities. ACORN is active on the south and west sides of Chicago, in the south suburbs and on the east side of Springfield, the state capital. Most of the turf where we organize in is African American, with a growing Latino presence in Chicago’s Little Village and the suburbs.

So Obama was right there in the thick of things, organizing for ACORN/Project Vote, representing ACORN in court at its specific invitation and leading ACORN training seminars.

It's worth noting that groups on the extreme left, such as ACORN's Project Vote, often have many tentacles. That’s the way they organize themselves. They often have overlapping memberships and interlocking directorates. They align themselves in strategic coalitions all the time. Sometimes they have formal mergers and
sometimes they have strategic partnerships. This is their modus operandi.

Interestingly, Foulkes’s article can no longer be accessed online. The website for Social Policy now denies access to that specific article while apparently allowing access to all other articles.

Look at the teaser for the article on the Social Policy website (visit there yourself by clicking here -- free subscription required for access to archives):

The titles of articles that are available are highlighted in a brownish color. The
title of the Foulkes article, however, appears in black letters indicating that access has been denied.

Guess who’s behind Social Policy magazine? Something called The Institute for Social Justice. The website indicates the address of the magazine is 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70117. Here is a screen grab of the address from the website:
Guess who else lives in Elysian Fields? ACORN.

Go to Sweetness & Light blog and scroll down to the Form 990s (tax returns for nonprofits) and you will see that both ACORN and Project Vote report the same address, 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70117.

There is also more evidence of the close relationship between Project Vote and ACORN in 1992.

We did find this item on Nexis from The Hotline dated October 8, 1992. The short article is called “VOTER REGISTRATION: PROJECT VOTE! TARGETS URBAN SWING AREAS.” It begins:

Sandy Newman, exec. dir of Project VOTE!, a national non-partisan, non-profit voter participation organization which targets African-American communities, announced that registration efforts have added "over a half million" new voters to the rolls --
"most of them in swing presidential states with close Senate races," including IL, PA, MI, OH, NY, CA, MD and CT.

It indicates that in New York City in October 1992 Project Vote was either part of or closely aligned with ACORN. The exact wording of the relevant paragraph is:

NY: In NYC, Project VOTE! with ACORN and the NY Public Interest Research Group, added more than 90,000 voters (Project VOTE! release, 10/5).
A recent article by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Tribune (Oct. 6) also lumps ACORN and Project Vote circa 1992 together: In 1992, Barack Obama worked for Project Vote for about seven months; now Project Vote and ACORN--a coalition of community organizations serving low income families--just wrapped up a voter registration drive targeting battleground states Obama needs to win the White
House.

Though officially non-partisan, the focus of the ACORN/Project Vote voter drive was on groups leaning Democratic in the presidential contest: African American, young, Latino and low income earners.

Maybe Sweet didn’t get the memo from the HuffPost.

GREEN ALERT: Hidden Carbon Tax Provision in Paulson’s Bailout 2.0

noreply@blogger.com (Cantankerous Gentleman) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:27:00 +0000

Why is the mainstream media ignoring what might be the most earth-shattering provisions in Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s Bailout Package Version 2.0?

If you look at page 180 of the 451-page monster bailout bill that easily passed the Senate yesterday (PDF here), you will see that it includes at Section 116 language about the tax treatment of “industrial source carbon dioxide.” It also provides, at Section 117, for a “carbon audit of the tax code.”

What could a provision about the tax treatment of “industrial source carbon dioxide” and another provision about doing a “carbon audit” of the tax code possibly have to do with restoring confidence in Wall Street’s troubled credit markets?

The answer: NOTHING.

This appears to be an attempt by global warming fanatics to lay the foundation for an economy-killing carbon tax just like the “cap-and-tax” system that is now destroying European industry.

If you think the Mother of All Bailouts is bad, just wait till you see the carbon tax. Get ready to reduce your standard of living drastically.

It really shouldn’t be a surprise that these non-germane provisions are included in legislation that is supposed to save all of us from economic Armageddon.

After all, Henry Paulson is a confirmed environmentalist and global warming true-believer who abused his power at Goldman Sachs. While Paulson headed Goldman Sachs he simultaneously headed the Nature Conservancy and his wife was a former Conservancy board member. (See “In Goldman Sachs We Trust: How the Left’s Favorite Bank Influences Public Policy,” by Fred Lucas, Foundation Watch, October 2008.)

Henry Paulson presided over Goldman Sachs’s donation of 680,000 acres of land it owned in Tierra del Fuego, Chile to the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society.

One of the trustees of the Wildlife Conservation Society was H. Merritt Paulson, the son of Henry Paulson.

As green critic Paul Driessen observed, at no time did anyone “assess the vast area’s potential value for timber, oil or metals, so that locals and [Goldman Sachs] shareholders would at least know the true cost of the giveaway.”

And the media tells Americans to trust Henry Paulson to do the right thing when doling out taxpayer dollars to his former colleagues on Wall Street?

The media needs to start asking hard questions.

(Hat tip to Paul Chesser, of Center for Climate Strategies Watch, as posted at AmSpecBlog)

(cross-posted)

Education in America Project

noreply@blogger.com (Cantankerous Gentleman) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:16:00 +0000

A good friend of mine has embarked on a unique journey across America's school systems (all fifty states.) I owe him a plug. Please enjoy his intro video and get updates from Education in America starting in early September after Labor Day. (Stay tuned more updates to come.)

Obama as Teen Idol

noreply@blogger.com (Lord Vadum) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:17:00 +0000

Below is a higher resolution version of this teen fanzine parody I created that was originally posted at NewsBusters. There is no question that the media is infatuated with Barack Obama.
-Matthew Vadum

Racial Separatism in the Aloha State

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Thu, 08 May 2008 12:26:00 +0000

In this month's Capital Research Center Foundation Watch, Phil Brand, the Gentleman and myself write about the corruption of the mega-rich Bishop Estate in Hawaii and their support for the racial separatism embodied in the Akaka Bill. Here's a taste:

The Akaka bill sets a dangerous precedent. Could ethnic activists in the American Southwest argue that they deserve tribal status? What about ethnic Cajun or Creole peoples in Louisiana, who trace their roots in the Mississippi Delta to the exodus from French Nova Scotia before the Louisiana Purchase? The federal government has a constitutional duty to protect the individual equality of all Americans on the basis of their citizenship. It should not balkanize neighbors on the basis of their race or ethnic heritage.

And few additional blogs commenting about the Hawaii-Akaka problem. The article goes in depth about the racial prejudice exercised by the Bishop Estate (the major source of funding for the Kamehameha Schools that limit admission to Native Hawaiians only) and their efforts to preserve and expand their ethnic fiefdom. Read it all.

Apologies

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:06:00 +0000

I know I am disappointing the 5 readers I have, but finals require my undivided attention so I can actually, ya' know, graduate. Blogging will resemble in a couple of weeks.

The Queen of Pork

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:35:00 +0000

Alright, my day of procrastinating will close with this story by Matt Taibbi in the next Rolling Stone on Hillary's shameless earmarking:

Hillary's $1.5 million gift to Calvin Butts came from three of her earmarks in the fiscal year 2008. She had a lot of them. In fact, between 2002 and 2006, Clinton secured more than $2.2 billion in earmarks, many of them attached to defense-spending bills, where she has unusual influence as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Hillary succeeded in securing twenty-six earmarks to the 2008 defense bill worth a total of $148 million — a number that dwarfed that of any Democrat except committee chairman Carl Levin. Barack Obama, by contrast, had only one request attached to the defense bill.

Not that Obama or McCain are saints either:

Hillary isn't alone among the candidates in selling us down the river for a few campaign contributions. Unlike Clinton, who has only disclosed the pork she actually succeeded in doling out, Barack Obama has supplied reporters with a list of every earmark he requested. But the list only served to highlight Obama's own pork, including $8 million for a "High Explosive Air Burst Technology Program" that would have been overseen by General Dynamics. Obama's Illinois finance chairman, James Crown, not only sits on the board of General Dynamics, he and his wife are both Obama bundlers who have raised more than $200,000 for Obama's campaign. Obama was also alone among the remaining candidates last year in using his leadership PAC to hand out money to politicians whose support he sought in his presidential run.
McCain, meanwhile, has run a finger-wagging, holier-than-thou campaign. He insists he doesn't request any earmarks, even though he has: In 2003, he doled out $14.3 million to Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. He also insists that he is "the only one the special interests don't give any money to," even though he has lapped the field when it comes to surrounding himself with lobbyists. Public Citizen, the nonprofit watchdog group, has identified sixty-six current or former lobbyists who are either major fundraisers or bundlers for McCain, a number that far exceeds either Clinton or Obama.

Taibbi does yeoman's work pointing out the ridiculous return for profit donors get with earmarks:

The thing that's really vile about earmarks is how cheaply we all get sold out. Two million of your taxpayer bucks in exchange for a $5,000 donation? Greenlighting a billion-dollar Pentagon boondoggle for a couple of free flights? Hey, if you're going to sell us out, at least fucking bargain. But it's not their money, and they never do.

As they say read it all.

Paging James Carville

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:32:00 +0000

This WaPo story about a county commissioner in rural PA facing blowback for supporting Obama was interesting (h/t Jason Zengerle at the Plank):

But Bonk wanted nothing of that question. "I don't know how you could make this kind of mistake," he continued. "Why did you break away? Lackawanna County is Clinton country. You slapped all of us in the face. You should have supported the hometown girl."

I'll say it: Judas! Seriously though, this tribalism needs to stop. It is ruining both parties when people are being goaded into choosing their representatives on identity politics (race, gender, religion) in the face of reason and judgment.

Moreover, as loathe as I am to call RACISM!11!!!, there is a racial bias in how the media is describing what the candidates need to do. Obama absolutely needs to make inroads in the white working class demographic or he will lose. Yet it is assumed that Clinton will carry the black vote fait accompli. In fact it is very easy for the argument against Obama to be made against Clinton, yet I have NEVER heard anyone on the cable nets make it; everyone just assumes the black vote will loyally fall in lien without being wooed, unlike the poor whites. It is why people are already emphasizing Indiana over North Carolina, since Indiana has a higher population of "real Americans" (sidenote: I am also tired of media elites putting poor uneducated whites on a pedestal as "real Americans" and giving them the keys to the nominating process, when the same thing would NEVER happen with any other ethnic group. Little known fact: EVERY VOTE COUNTS THE SAME AMOUNT).

Okay rant over. God I am ready for the primaries to be finished.

Millenial Individualism

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:06:00 +0000

This NYT book review of Hais and Winograd's Millennial Makeover is somewhat aggravating. This passage, which Andrew quoted, in particular stands out:

In placing a heavy value on the opinion of friends and peers, the authors of this book suggest, Millennials are inclined to favor conclusions reached by decentralized decision making, and multilateral rather than unilateral policy making. Their proclivity for sharing their lives with thousands of others through MySpace and Facebook also makes them “the generation least perturbed by any potential restrictions on civil rights or invasions of privacy that might have occurred in fighting the war on terrorism.” As a more socially tolerant and less divisive Millennial generation becomes a larger part of the electorate, Mr. Winograd and Mr. Hais predict, “the power of social issues to drive our political debate will wane”: wedge issues will lose their effectiveness, and ideological divisions will give way to an emphasis on “successful governmental activism.” “Majorities,” they argue, “will coalesce around ideas that involve the entire group in the solution and downplay the right of individuals to opt out of the process.”

It is worth noting that Hais and Winograd are both Democratic operative, so it should come as no surprise their conclusions are favorable to the presently constituted Demcratic party. Yet, I feel like their characterizations of the Millenials (of which I am part of the gray area between Gen X and the Millenials depending on where you define the line between them) is slightly off.

I agree that there is a civic emphasis in this generation, spawned by the internet technology that makes organizing far simpler than at any time previous. But, I think they downplay the individualism that marks a good portion of Millenials (at least from my perspective). Particularly, I believe they make a fundamental mistake in how they view social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace. They seem to see them as social communities, where people can be a part of something greater, whereas from my experience Facebook (and one's profile) is an intensely personal and individual expression of one's self.

That misreading of online social networking causes them to understate the role of the individual in Millenial culture. Part of it may be the typical youthful rebellion of the communitarian ethos of modern suburbia and the doting parents shipping them off to the next game or practice or concert. It may also be the atomization of culture has allowed for far greater niche interests and personalities that makes group indentification harder to pin down. That in turn breeds greater tolerance and acceptance of divergent views and identities, to levels a non-Millenial may not grasp.

As such, the idea that these attitudes will lead to greater communitarianism just seems wrong. There might be a greater appeal to more broadly acceptable policies and rhetoric (as can be seen in Obama's conciliatory language to conservatives and libertarians), but I think there is a real respect and understanding on the value of the individual within social networks like Facebook or MySpace that Hais and Winograd seem to downplay in favor of social community aspects.

Like That, But MUCH Better

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:00:00 +0000

Pace my god-blogging yesterday, here is a MUCH more intellectual give-and-take on religion and reason (h/t Dayo Olopade at the Plank). Sample:

The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to
these questions, and hence the mysteries of life. But, oddly, the more we use
science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and
cannot explain. In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's
uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or
religion, is dangerous.

Read it all.

Net Neutrality: Regulation for Regulation's Sake

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:53:00 +0000

In non-primary news, the FCC determined that it doesn't need new regulatory power over the internet:

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin said Tuesday there's no need for new regulation of the Internet, saying his agency has all the authority it needs to prevent discrimination by Internet service providers.

That's a relief. Net neutrality is one of those things, like olestra, that may sound appealing in theory, but in practice is simply a bad idea prone to worse execution.

"The idea of your site succeeding or failing based upon whether or not you paid the telecom companies enough to carry your material or allow quick access is appalling," [Justine Bateman] told the committee.

Yes, because we need to listen to what Mallory Keaton says. The fact is net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. There is rarely service interruptions, which usually result from heavily trafficked sites. The real reason for this onerous regulatory regime is summed up thus:

"The only thing bigger than corporations in this country is the government," he said. "So we think we have to make clear to legislators that we need somebody making sure that that pipe is neutral."

Bigger government for bigger government's sake. Heaven forbid we let private citizens order their own lives and exercise their speech rights in accord with their own preferences.

Fish, Barrell, Gun, You get the Idea

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:05:00 +0000

I am in a particularly cranky mood this morning, so when I read grade-A bullflop like Bill Kristol praising Hillary Clinton (truly, a time traveler from the 90s would have a hard time figuring out what the hell happened to put the Clintons, Limbaugh Kristol ,and Scaife on the same page), I retch just a little bit, then break out the fisking pen:

Hillary Clinton’s convincing Pennsylvania victory is the third consecutive back-to-the-wall big-state win she’s managed (following on Ohio and Texas seven weeks ago).

Technically, Obama won Texas on delegates, but since when have little things like facts ever deterred Kristol or the cable networks (if I had a nickle for everytime I heard someone say Hillary won Texas I could start putting a dent in my college loans).

In all, about 16 million people have voted for her so far in this nominating contest. That’s the most votes any presidential candidate has ever gotten in any primary cycle of either party.

Except Obama has MORE VOTES, unless you include Michigan which even Terry McAuliffe has backed off of. Not to mention RCP sez even including Michigan, Hillary has only 15 million votes; someone get Bill a better fact checker. This reminds me of the lame Kerry spin after 2004 that he had won the most votes ever by a Democrat in a national election.... except for the guy he was running against.

Her campaign organization and strategists have been inferior to Obama’s--but she’s gotten more total votes than he (counting Michigan and Florida--the voters there are people too!).

Next thing you know Bill will be hosting a fundraiser for her; in fact I was sort of surprised there was no link for donations. Oh yeah, and:

So a tip of the hat to Hillary. Fight on!

Again, this race feels more like Alice in Wonderland everyday.

UPDATE: Brendan Loy shows why Kristol's argument and Hillary's claim she has more votes than any other candidate are complete bullshit:

However, there is no debate about this. There is no possible counterargument. It is completely and utterly indefensible for Hillary Clinton to make a blanket claim that "more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate" while literally ignoring duly held elections in four whole states!! And, similarly, it is totally dishonest for her to advance a "popular vote" legitimacy argument that depends on her Soviet-style "victory" of 328,309 to zero in Michigan.

Mildly Depressed

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:52:00 +0000

After another episode of the Romero-esque "Night of the Undead Clintons," and the media subsequently carrying the Clinton water (what is with MSNBC parroting their fundraising calls? Would Kronkite ever do that?), I am depressed at the continued specter of another Clinton presidency, the continued dynasticism and the demographics as destiny nature of American politics. So to make myself happier, here is Big Daddy Drew of KSK on the though process of most of western PA yesterday:

Den again, that little blackie can’t bowl! I don’t trust no one dat can’t roll. If you’re gonna come to Picksberg, you better be ready to bowl. Dat guy on dat 9/11 plane was. He said, “Let’s roll,” den came right here to Pennsylvania. Dis is where folks wanna bowl. That Yomama guy sure did bowl like a fairy. And I can’t vote for a fairy. Black is okay. But a black fairy? Dat’s like, tree strikes. Get aht tahwn, jagoff!
...
Plus dis white guy [Hillary] likes to shoot guns. And I like to shoot guns, too! We got so much in common like dat! Not like dat Harvard guy. Plus, I kept asking dis guy what he was gonna do for me. Was he gonna help cut out a larger doorway in my house? Was he gonna lower all those taxes I pay? I paid, like, $15 last year! Bull shit! Was he gonna widen da highways so I can swerve all over da road like I love to do? Was he gonna nuke da crazy out dem towelheads?

And he said yes, he would! Dat’s good stuff.

Liberal Faith or the Social Compact

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:14:00 +0000

I largely agree with Larison's and Poulos' critiques of Kagan's arguments in favor of liberal inteventionism. As they both point, his argument essentially is structured around ideological feelings on the superiority of ones principles to the detriment of international norms and the laws of nations (think of a secular crusades).

I will dissent mildly from James' critiques of the formulation of Kagan's "liberal faith" as a purely liberal construct. Kagan posits:

[o]nly the liberal creed grants the right–the belief that all men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights that must not be abridged by governments; that governments derive their power and legitimacy only from the consent of the governed and have a duty to protect their citizens’ right to life, liberty, and property.

James seems to feel that this is a purely liberal belief that can be deabted. Yet, I feel like these are the organizing principles not only of the American republic but of the Western enlightenment as well. It is a mistake to claim those beliefs as liberal in the modern sense since they are classically liberal. Hume and Locke certainly described them in their works, and we would be doing them a disservice to place them in the liberal imperialist camp with Kagan.

How one acts on those beliefs is another matter. As last week's John Adams episode showed in the conflict between Hamilton and Adams over the expansion of the republic, one can belief in American exceptionalism based on those principles and still not want to prosecute war to the four corners of the earth. Those classical liberal ideals prioritize the individual over the govenrment and demands respect for rules in order to maintain that balance.

Of course, if those ideals are purely liberal, I would love to hear what competing conservative ideals James or Daniel would posit in their stead.

PA Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:53:00 +0000

Since I do live in the City of Brotherly Love and have been subjected to 6 weeks of Obama-Clinton ads (BTW, if we really want to torture detainees, just make them watch vapid campaign ads on loop, Clockwork Orange-style), I feel obligated to make a prediction.

I was leaning towards the double digit win Clinton needs to drag this thing out longer. But after the massive rally last Friday, I think Obama may have enough strength in Philadelphia and the suburbs to pull the margin to within five, which may be enough to finish her off. Keep in mind that the Friday rally was occurring simultaneous with the opening game of the Phillies-Mets series last weekend (with Hamels and Santana facing off). That game was sold out with over 45,000 in attendance, so for Obama to pull the nearly 40,000 that descended on Independence Plaza is a real sign of strength.

Tuesday Morning God Blogging

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:32:00 +0000

Derbyshire speaking truth to power at the Corner:

Of course religious belief is relativistic. Religious people say it is! Suppose I line up a Christian, a Moslem, and a Hindu, and ask: "You guys all promote a different set of 'fundamental truths.' How can I figure out who's right and who's wrong? What external test can I apply? What can any of you point to in the beliefs of the others that doesn't square with observable facts about the world, or about human life?" What will they say? After a lot of babbling and pointing, it will boil down to: "You gotta have faith. You have to feel the truth within yourself." In other words, it's an interior, subjective experience. What's more relative than that? There is no objective test one can apply to confirm or falsify statements like "Jesus was the Son of God," or "Mohammed was the Messenger of God," or "Vishnu has four arms." You just gotta believe. How is that not relative?

Given that the Corner was basically US Weekly for Catholics while the Pope was in town, this went over like a fart in church (ha! puns!):

Derbyshire knows zilch about Catholicism or Vatican II, has not carefully read anything the pope has said about relativism, and is not interested in doing any of the intellectual work required to remedy his ignorance. His posts make these points pretty clear. You can't have a good-faith conversation with him on these topics, so don't try.

Yes, no need to debate religion versus reason; Derb simply doesn't know what he is talking about. If he did, of course he wouldn't dare equate Catholicism or Christianity in general to such heathen religions as Hinduism and Islam. The thing is Derb is largely right:

Careful enquiry, classification, and measurement; comparison with the inquiries of others; discussion and publication; test against observation and experiment; that is how we learn truths about the world. There isn't another way. The truths of religion are revealed … to individuals … as interior, subjective experiences … with different individuals receiving and interpreting thm differently. That's relative.

As he says, "Boy, how I love the Enlightenment!" Derb's thoughts largely track my own, as does Ramesh's response to my own born-again relatives.

I consider myself agnostic since, as Derb explains, it is literally impossible to reason out the correctness or wrongness of any particular religion. Taken as a whole (minus the burning bushes, hexapedal gods, and ascendant prophets), there is much that religion shares in common in philosophy which weighs in favor of giving them some creedance in those areas of common agreement. For example, most religions share the same basic 10 Commandment rules against murder and stealing and such, as well as some form of the Golden Rule.

This position is counter to those who reason against religion and come out thinking there is no god. While religion cannot prove the existence of a God (regardless of what St. Anslem said), science cannot disprove the existence of god (regardless of what the anti-Darwinists contend), only fail to verify. And for that reason, I will stick to my conservative belief in a god, but reserve to right to pick one.

The Market Can't Do What?

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:16:00 +0000

So Yglesias looks at this interview with McCain's environmental policy guy and what does he see? A blind spot for greener transportation policy, Matt's favorite hobbyhorse:

On climate, it seems to me that aside from a curious devotion to nuclear power, McCain's big blind spot has to do with transportation issues. It's true that we shouldn't underestimate the power of American consumers and businesspeople to adopt to an environment where a carbon cap puts a price on emissions. But the free market can't do things like provide commuter rail lines and subways or denser living patterns to help people adapt. The market is already adapting to rising gas prices and increased congestion by enhancing the relative value of homes in walkable neighborhoods or near transit. It's adapting by making those places more expensive. Along with capping carbon emissions, we need to increase the supply of places like that, so as to put them within reach of a reasonable number of people. That requires government action -- much of the necessary action is actually deregulatory action, but it's action nonetheless -- and not just the "cap and forget about it" philosophy.

Setting aside why Matt thinks enthusiasm for nuclear power is curious, it is ridiculous to think that the market "can't" provide commuter rail or subways. Transportation reform usually includes advocates for toll roads, and libertarians have consistently pushed for greater privatization of highways. It isn't their fault that the government prefers to control the avenues of commerce, regardless of cost. Furthermore, as Matt points out, the market is providing denser living patterns, and the public response is strong, hence the rising prices in urban markets. Now, Matt is right that if you want the market to exert a greater force over planning and transportation the answer is deregulation, but his logic in this post is terrible. First, he is claiming the market can't provide for his preferred policies, then he says that the answer is further deregulation to allow the market to fail.... thus justifying more direct government action?

In favor of Pseudo-Pseduonymity

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 03:15:00 +0000

So Christmas Ape of personal fave Kissing Suzy Kolber decides to reveal himself this week. Response from his employer, the Washington Post? The Axe. The reaction? Predictable.

While the Post's reasons for canning Ape were patently ludicrous, it reaffirms my decision to at least have a pseudonym. While I have revealed myself from time to time (and no not in that way), it is important to have some thin barrier between my online and real world personnas. And if employers continue show such disdain for otherwise productive online presences (its not like Ape or I are playing Second Life or anything), I will cling to my flimsy pseudonym like Rustbelt industrial workers do to their guns. (too soon?)

Means Testing and Equity Problems

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:41:00 +0000

Interesting debate over means testing and liberal opposition. Kathy G points to incentive concerns:

[M]eans tests can create perverse economic incentives. Whenever there are means tests, some people are inevitably going to work less or stop working altogether, so that their income does not disqualify them for the benefit. Again, that's not terribly efficient, and it's morally problematic as well.

Of course universal entitlement programs create their own incentive problems: if the government takes over responsibility for retirement planning or healthcare decisions, there is no incentive for individuals to take any responsibility for those decisions either. At least paring entitlement programs to whose who don't have the means to take responsibility will force those that do to assert themselves more. Further, if the government is on the hook for everyone's welfare, there is no incentive to save nor for charities to operate.

On equity she continues:

The biggest problem with means tests, though, is that they make the relevant programs a lot more politically vulnerable. A program or service that is for the poor only quickly becomes stigmatized, and once it becomes stigmatized, it's easy to cut funding or end the program altogether. . . . As the saying goes, a program for the poor is a poor program.

In some senses, this is correct; a program where not everyone gets the goodies is more vulnerable. Because people will demand more accountability from said program instead of simply gobbling up government largesse without thinking. And if the goal of the entitlement programs is truly to help those in need (and not, as one of her commenters seems to argue to get everyone dependent on government services in the pursuit of "national strength and prosperity"), then we should be demanding lean and efficient programs specifically targeted to those in need of such services (similar to private charities), and not hugely wasteful universal programs.

Josh Patashnik makes an obvious point regarding equity concerns:

It's not as though a welfare state suddenly becomes immune to political challenge by being universal--you still have to get people to agree in perpetuity to marginal rates of taxation in excess of 50 percent. That's hard to do, and for good reason! So it's worth at least looking into the possibility of making some sort of grand political bargain that cements into place benefits for people who need them (which, in the case of Medicare and Social Security, is certainly not limited just to the indigent), while stanching the flow of red ink from Washington by cutting back somewhat on benefits for people who are doing well enough already.

If TNR is this open to means testing, maybe all is not lost.

The End of Gotcha Politics?

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:53:00 +0000

Robert Reich, former Clinton Labor Secretary, intends to endorse Obama; yawn. The reasons for that endorsement, however, are far more interesting:

We have three terrible traditions that we’ve developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn’t possibly believe and doesn’t possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I’ve seen growing in Hillary’s campaign. And I’ve come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can’t in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president.

(h/t to John Cole) To me, as a libertarian, that is biggest promise of an Obama primary win (or eventual general win, though it is possible McCain would return to some of his straight talk ways if Obama is leading that charge). I am tired of the gotcha politics that prioritizes flag pins and tangential associations to Weathermen. I am tired of 'with us or with the terrorists' patriotism, and smearing people who you have honest disagreements with. This factionalism is what the Founders' warned against and feared, and it is what dominates politics today.

I believe in the strength of the ideas of limited government and liberty, and want to win on those principles, not on the basis of fear that the other candidate is a secret Muslim spy. Win or lose straight up and honorably. To do otherwise is simply a justification of seeking power for its own ends. And yes I am still voting for McCain, but I will hold his feet to the fire if necessary.

The Owner of the Seattle Super Sonic-ahs No Longer Celebrates Hanukkah.

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:59:00 +0000

I have been meaning to blog about the deathmatch between the City of Seattle and the State of Washington with Clay Bennett, David Stern and the NBA over the fate of the Seattle SuperSonics (one of THE best names in all of professional sports). What started as a pretty grim situation where an out-of-state owner comes in, "attempts" to negotiate a new publicly financed arena for a year, then starts the machinery up to move the team (to Oklahoma City? Really?) has turned into a bitter legal fight over full performance of the lease (which would require the team to stay in Seattle another two years), complete with emails proving the obvious (that said out-of-town owners never really wanted to stay in the first place). Further complicating things is the fact that Stern seems to be buddy-buddy with Bennett (even inducting him into the Oklahoma Sports Hall of Fame (?!)) and appears perfectly willing to trade the 14th largest market in the country for the 45th.

This week, the former owner (Starbucks honcho Howard Schultz) filed suit to try and get the team back under a theory that Bennett failed to make a good faith effort to keep the team in Seattle in accordance with side letter to the contract of sale. Today the NBA owners are expected to approve the move, pending resolution of the various suits this summer. And now Bennett's attorneys are claiming the city's suit to enforce the lease is just an effort to get Bennett to sell (duh). Please read ESPN's most excellent TrueHoop blog for comprehensive reporting (or better yet go to Save Our Sonics, SonicsCentral or SuperSonicsSoul who have all been following since day one).

I have a lot of varied and conflicting thoughts on this.

First, it is always sad to see a team move, even the Vancouver/Memphis Grizzlies. Growing up in Maryland, hating on the Irsay family for stealing the Colts was as natural as crabcakes. Even though I was 4 at the time, it was indoctrinated into me; I couldn't bear to watch the Irsay scion lift the Lombardi trophy two years ago, that was how deep the antipathy ran. Even when the Browns moved to Baltimore in the mid-90s, I was happy to have a team again, but felt hypocritical about how it happened (at least the history, colors and name of the Browns stayed in Cleveland, more on that later). I was also a big fan of the Charlotte Hornets, before George Shinn euthanized a great NBA market; once they moved I became a free agent, eventually joining the Agent Zero bandwagon in time for the 2004 playoffs. So I understand what Seattle fans are feeling, it sucks.
Second, Bennett is completely within his rights to try and move his team. Look, the NBA would never expand into OKC, so his only option was to steal someone else's team. Sure he has played his hand like the weasel he appears to be, but given the Al Davis precedent (where he sued the NFL for the right to move to LA and not only won but got the 9th Circuit to nearly declare the league in violation of anti-trust law), there is really nothing the league can do but rubberstamp and offer condolences to the Seattle and the hope of an expansion team. So while it sucks for Seattle, teams moving has always happened and likely always will happen.
Third, while the team can move, I don't see any reason why the city can't try and take hold of the civic instution that is the name, colors and history. Afterall, for a team like the Sonics who have been in Seattle for 40+ years and have won the city's only championship, they ARE part of the city's story. As calloused as it sounds, this situation seems tailor made for eminent domain proceedings to retain the Sonics name, colors and history. Thankfully Bennett seems to be willing to ditch them if it gets him to the Dust Bowl faster.
Fourth, good for Seattle and Washington for standing up against the pro-sports public financing shake-down. They dropped a billion dollars on the Seahawks (owned by Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen) and the Mariners (owned by Nintendo) digs in the late 1990s after renovating KeyArena earlier in the decade. Given the economy, the governments said enough is enough. While I am not categorically opposed to public funding of arenas and stadiums because they can spur growth (as DC has shown), it is good to see governments stand up against such huge spending outlays for people who can usually afford to build on their own if they desire. Just look at the A's proposed privately-funded stadium in Fremont and the recently announced billion dollar stadium plan in LA to lure an NFL team.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, though I would guess the good basketball fans of Seattle will not be watching Kevin Durant for the long run.

UPDATE: The NBA owners approved the move 28-2, with Portland's Paul Allen (also the Seahawks owner) and Dallas' Mark Cuban (who had previously committed to voting against the move) voting against. The move is pending resolution of litigation.

Musings on Shackin' Up

noreply@blogger.com (Cantankerous Gentleman) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:33:00 +0000

Earlier my old friend the Crank gave us his two cents regarding the budding institution known as "shacking up." However, I will go out on a limb and for argument sake and state that "shacking up" is a relatively conservative response for the gen X and gen Y generations who often have lived and grown up through the scaring personal realities of "no-fault divorce" as the norm and not an exception.

I do not wish to fully open the massive can of worms about the positives and negatives that have come from this change in our domestic contract today, but merely suggest that the younger generations are more cautious to sign on the dotted line for the holy union. Living through ugly parental and even grand-parental divorce, has made younger people more likely to be cold realists, than sappy hopeless romantics. But you can't really blame them for adapting to this reality, nor is it fair to make this into some argument against civil marriage Sir, Crank.

I think "shacking up" is a relatively benign financially conservative and stable bridge between the prolonged HBO induced (Sex in the City/ Entourage) adolescent multi-partner "dating around" world and the land of settled, married, and with kids.

But those are just the Gentleman's musings of the day.

The Fraudulent Frauds Fraudulently Using the Trademarked FraudBusters*

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:45:00 +0000

On NewsBusters, the Cantankerous Gentleman and I have a post up about the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Big Labor and their new venture, FraudBusters. *(It has come to my attention via fax, that BISC was issued a cease in disist letter on March 27th, for their unauthorized use of Kessler International trademark for the use of "Fraudbusters.")

Key Graf:

The AFL-CIO and UFCWU’s actions in Colorado should thus come as no surprise; they are working straight out of the BISC/"FraudBusters" playbook. First, work with sympathetic elected officials to thwart the popular will, and then try to create confusion among voters by filing left-wing initiatives with appealing-sounding names, and when all else fails, head to court to disenfranchise legitimate petitioners.

Read it all.

UPDATE: No pun intended, but it appears BISC fraudulently used the trademarked "Fraudbusters,*" for there website which makes this story that much more amusing. We like Kessler are still awaiting the term being fully excised from their project website.

Shacking Up

noreply@blogger.com (Civilized Crank) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:11:00 +0000

In a shockingly intelligent post (as opposed to this), K-Lo laments, via papal decree, couples living together out of wedlock. Interestingly she doesn't offer a solution to people viewing "the sacramental bond of marriage seem[ing] scarcely distinguishable from a civil bond, or even a purely informal and open-ended arrangement to live with another person." Given NR's and K-Lo's institutional enthusiasm for anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments and other governmental efforts to strengthen (read: impose) traditional marriage, you can easily guess what that would be.

Yet doesn't it make more sense to swing the other way? If people truly fail to see the difference between civil and religious marriage (and the aforementioned traditional marriage cheerleaders certainly don't seem to see a difference), isn't the answer to do away with civil marriage? That solution would prioritize the religious, traditional marriage without the imposition of those particularly religious connotations that folks like K-Lo approve, but also lead others to choose the shacking up option.

Maybe it is my elitism showing, or my radical libertarianism, but the answer to a problem of conflating public and private institutions isn't greater expansion of the public institution congruent with the private, but the pruning of the public institution to allow the private to flourish.