KN@PPSTER

The nuclear option

2009-07-10T06:23:00.004-05:00

My Friday column at the Center for a Stateless Society. Teaser:

Not only does the existence of nuclear weapons not constitute an argument against the stateless society, precisely the opposite is true: Only states or state-privileged organizations are likely to command the resources to build nukes, or to have any motive to do so. Only states or those attacking states have any incentive to use nukes as instruments of warfare.

"Private nukes" are not, and never have been, a serious threat except to the extent that the existence of the state makes them one. However, I can envision a scenario in which "private nukes" might contribute to the peaceful establishment of stateless societies ...

Election 2012: Adjust!

2009-07-10T05:13:00.002-05:00

Based in part on some Rasmussen numbers (hat tip -- David Weigel), some significant adjustments to the odds:

- I've taken Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty down from 5% to 1%. As any number of analysists have pointed out -- I think it was Dick Morris talking about Hillary Clinton who first caught my eye with it -- "unfavorables" are at least as important as "favorables" in evaluating a candidate, and a candidate with unfavorables in the 35% or higher range might as well pack it in. Pawlenty's unfavorables are at 34%, his favorables are only at 38% ... and this is before he's really moved into the fight, and a year after the GOP's national convention was held in his state, giving him a chance to showcase himself. I don't see him going anywhere but down from those numbers, and I expect to take him completely off the board soon.

- Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, gets a 5% boost, up to 25%. I was surprised to see his favorable ratings at 65 ... I'd anticipated more in the 50 range. I also expected his unfavorables to be right up against that 35 "doomed, doomed" number, but he came in six points under at 29. He's aggressively promoting himself, and it's working.

- I was surprised to not see Bobby Jindal or Fred Thompson in the Rasmussen field. As much buzz as Jindal's had, I think it was a mistake to exclude him and I haven't adjusted his number. Apparently I over-estimated Thompson's continuing cachet; I've taken him down to 15%, but still think he may throw in and do well.

- I'm now thinking that I got a little prematurely and impulsively bullish on Jeb Bush. Rasmussen didn't bother to include him, and the other McCain usually serves as a pretty good mood barometer for the GOP's Feral Confederate Chihuahua faction. Downgraded from 15% to 10%.

- As has been pointed out, I was probably unfair to Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney by starting them at zero. I still don't think either of them will be viable candidates for the GOP's nomination come 2012, but the numbers say I'm wrong, at least for now. I've redistributed the left-over percentages to them, 5% and 4% respectively, by way of acknowledging that they seem, at least for the moment, to have a shot.

- The Rasmussen numbers confirm my contention that Mike Huckabee is the guy to beat. He has the highest favorable ratings (78%) and the lowest unfavorable ratings (17%) in the field. He's keeping his mug on TV and his voice on radio, and seldom a day goes by that I don't see email promo stuff from him -- stuff which I assume goes to a VERY large list. He stays at 35%, but with a definite bullet.

A lot can change in three years, but as of right now my guess is that we'll end up seeing a Huckabee/Gingrich faceoff for the GOP's 2012 nomination. Huckabee will play it populist and "outside the Beltway;" Gingrich will trot out the latest version of his highbrow/wonky take on Reaganism.

Helmet, shmelmet

2009-07-09T17:57:00.003-05:00

Dondero reports that Missouri governor Jay Nixon has vetoed legislation to repeal the state's motorcycle helmet law.

Maybe we can get an override. I haven't analyzed the House vote yet, but the vote to pass this wasn't even close in the Senate: 23-6, with support from a majority of Democrats and all but one Republican. My state senator, one of the five Democrats who voted against the bill, has already received a strongly worded constituent message from me urging her to come to Jesus and support an override if one is attempted.

Columbia Tribute publisher and editor Henry J. Waters III, writing on the matter, calls himelf "a determined smallish-government quasi-libertarian," but then says:

Given the fact the world remains imperfect and mandates for seat belts and helmets are relatively so benign, we’re better off with the mandates.

I disagree. The fact that the world is imperfect is precisely what makes these mandates so malignant.

In an imperfect world, one-size-fits-all "solutions" dreamed up by politicians are likely to have unforeseen and unintended consequences, not all of them necessarily good. One of the bad consequences -- although I'm not sure it's unintended -- of benign-sounding mandates like this one is that letting politicians make these kinds of decisions for us encourages us to, well, let politicians make these kinds of decisions for us.

We propose to move immediately upon your works

2009-07-09T15:44:00.004-05:00

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats -- HL Mencken

For 22 years, anarchists in the Libertarian Party generally resisted that temptation, choosing instead to adhere to the Dallas Accord.

The accord was an instrument meant to encourage détente between anarchist and minarchist libertarians, and it came down to this: The anarchists would not insist that the LP's platform and official communications advocate abolition of the state, and the minarchists would not insist that the LP's platform and official communications advocate retention of the state. The idea was that this would allow for a "big tent" in which anyone who supported less government (a little less, a lot less, none at all) would feel welcome.

In 2006, the minarchists breached the Dallas Accord, and in 2008 they bulldozed right over what was left of it. The LP is now officially on record as approving of the existence of the state.

Throughout this period, we LP anarchists have generally limited ourselves to attempting to re-establish the Dallas Accord. We haven't insisted that the LP become an anarchist party, we've merely worked to get back to the "big tent" concept.

That hasn't worked. The accord itself never really worked, either, and it's time to be honest about why: The minarchist faction continually violated the spirit of the thing.

Every time the LP failed, the minarchists screamed that it was those anarchists' fault, that if there hadn't been someone over in a corner somewhere advocating for legal heroin or private ownership of nuclear weapons, Ed Clark would have been elected president and Andre Marrou would have become Speaker of the House for sure.

Every time the platform came up for re-consideration, the minarchists would try to smuggle pro-state material into it, and then bellyache that anyone who opposed that material was agitating for "anarchy next week" and scaring the Rotarian vote away from our Water Board candidate in East Armpit, New Jersey.

Ever since the inception of the Dallas Accord, the minarchists have been in control of the party and the anarchists have been their scapegoats for the failure of every doomed, silly attempt to trade the party's agenda away for a mess of nebulous "respectability." Their vision of a "big tent" has always been just big enough to accommodate anyone and everyone ... except the anarchists.

No more Dallas Accord? Okay, fine. It's not like the minarchists ever respected it anyway, so there's no loss in letting it slide into the dustbin of history where it belongs without further ado.

But!

This is a two-way street. The minarchists never kept the accord, and now they're completely free of the obligation to even pretend that their actions are bound by its constraints. The anarchists generally did honor its terms ... but now we're no longer bound to do so, either.

Time for an LP Anarchist Caucus! Apparently I'm not the only one who's been thinking along these lines, because here it is.

From my point of view, the LPAC's primary mission should be to link the Libertarian Party to anarchism as visibly as possible -- to actually do all the things that the minarchists have falsely accused us of doing for more than two decades now. We've done the time; might as well do the crime ... especially since one side effect will almost certainly be an improvement/increase in the practical, real-world results that the minarchists claim to care so much about.

Oscar Mayer had a way with bologna

2009-07-09T13:49:00.002-05:00

He's dead at 95.

Of all the random things I caterwaul while wandering around the house, the two Oscar Mayer jingles ("My baloney has a first name ..." and "I wish I were an Oscar Mayer Wiener ...") are my favorites. They really set the kids' teeth on edge in a way that only Chacarron surpasses, and I save that for when I want to startle them awake in a panic in the middle of the night.

Election 2012: Bush, upgraded

2009-07-08T14:05:00.006-05:00

Tucker Carlson interviews Jeb Bush, and Bush displays perfect pitch for a 2012 prospect dipping his toe in the 2009 waters.

In response to the "why not run?" bait:

Frankly I don't wake up each day assuming I'm the solution to life's problems. I think there will be emerging people who have a combination of great ideas, a great ability to communicate those ideas in a relevant way to people, and the ambition necessary to run. You need all three. I am content to be part of the larger effort that creates the fertile ground for those candidates to run.

Circumspect, not coquettish. Door's open a crack, but no wink, wink, nudge play.

This is good stuff, and it's candidate stuff:

- He postures the GOP as having a communication problem, not an ideological problem.

- He never lets the audience forget that he has eight years of experience in the executive saddle as governor of a large state.

- He reminds everyone that he's a Republican who can make bank with the growing Hispanic voter demographic.

- He gets some "regular guy" bumps in there, referring to the necessity of providing for his family's financial security and letting Carlson note that he drove himself to the interview. With his last name, that's something he has to work at -- his personal net worth upon leaving the governorship was reportedly "only" $1.3 million, down from a high of $2 million, but he comes from a monied family (Dad's net worth is in the $25 million range).

- When asked about GOP leaders, he name-checks Gingrich and Jindal, but pointedly ignores the three people most likely to be identified as 2012 contenders at the moment: Huckabee, Palin and Romney.

I wouldn't say he's running, but he's definitely not definitely not running. He's being mindful of what to say and what not to say, keeping his options open and building his cred with modest presentation instead of flash. In other words, good early strategy.

Over on the right you'll see my little "contenders" graphic again, this time with my percentage evaluations of each candidate's chance of securing the 2012 GOP nomination. In subsequent iterations, the numbers will shift as my opinion shifts.

[follow this topic at memeorandum]

WANT!

2009-07-08T02:56:00.007-05:00

Google is entering the OS market -- code available later this year, appearing on a new netbook near you next year. For obvious reasons, the news puts me in a state somewhat short of orgasm but definitely beyond mere arousal.

I've been keeping one lazy eye on development of the Crunchpad, a piece of on-the-way hardware.

The Crunchpad is a touchscreen machine -- light, thin and inexpensive (it's supposed to sell for less than $300). Its default is a "virtual" onscreen keyboard, but it will supposedly be able to accommodate the real thing via USB. That's a personal hard line for me -- I can live with no mouse if necessary and the virtual keyboard sounds nice for being out and about, but I'm gonna need physical keys for everyday home use. I type a lot.

Forget installing apps to a hard drive; the Crunchpad is designed for people whose computer activity is 100% web-focused. If you want apps, you'll have to find them in the cloud (and for the most part, they're there to find). I believe it has a small built-in flash drive for caching and data storage, a la a netbook. Originally, the idea was that it would boot directly into Firefox (and perhaps include Skype), running over a Linux kernel ... and that would be it.

Now things seem to have shifted: "This is a Linux based operating system and a Webkit based browser." Firefox uses the Gecko layout engine. Chrome uses Webkit. Do I hear wedding bells?

I've been looking to move into a new machine for awhile now, but not out of necessity: I'm able to do everything I really need to do on my "obsolete" machine. Running a very light OS (Puppy Linux) even lets me do it fast. I'm not sure I'll fall for the Crunchpad, but something like it sounds about right and I'm willing to wait for the right combination of low price, portability and an OS that doesn't hog all the machine's resources for no good reason.

Update, 07/08/09: Dvorak thinks that Google is bluffing and that the whole point is to discommode Microsoft. He thinks that Android will be the "real" Google OS. He bases this conjecture mainly on the fact that Google usually doesn't "announce early."

I think he's wrong. This isn't about kicking Windows 7 in the shins to hold some prospective market share for Android. It's about convincing people that the Era of the Everything + Kitchen Sink OS is over, that both Linux and "the cloud" are ready for prime time (hey, Google says so!), and that consumers should kick back for a few months, save their money instead of giving it to Bill Gates, and await Something Shiny Coming Real Soon Now For FREE FREE FREE. Remember, Google is talking about the new OS being available pre-loaded on new machines next year ... they're releasing the code into the wild later this year. "Early adopters" will hopefully be running it (and raving about it) by Christmas.

[follow this topic at memeorandum]

Give'em an inch, they'll take a mile

2009-07-08T02:21:00.005-05:00

Letting them march in Skokie is one thing. Letting them set public policy in Kirkwood is another thing entirely. I'm just sayin' ...

OK, feel free to cart me off to Godwin's Gaol now.

When the levee breaks

2009-07-07T15:49:00.005-05:00

The banks are getting nervous about taking IOUs from Sacramento.

Who can blame them? There's a ~~$24 billion~~ $26.3 billion chasm separating what California's politicians want to spend this year on one hand and the allowance California's taxpayers are willing to give them on the other.

Those politicians continue to handle the situation in typical politician style -- in other words, like one of those poorly behaved three-year-olds you see at the store. You know, the kid with a toy in each hand, writhing around on the floor and screaming bloody murder when mommy says he has to pick one and put the other back on the shelf.

Federal bailout? I don't friggin' think so.

Handing over $24 billion and one of those big rainbow lollipops to one state, no questions asked, isn't going to play well with the other 49 states. Dead on arrival in Congress because those other 49 states have Representatives and Senators, too.

Round-filed at the White House as well -- even if Obama is personally inclined to go all "unitary executive" on the matter, he knows damn well that if he bails out one state he'll have 49 other governors lined up outside the Oval Office carrying burlap sacks they'll expect him to fill with cash.

Besides, the federal government's own "budget gap" is in the trillions, and its IOUs aren't as attractive as they used to be either.

Yep, Arnold's definitely got his teat in a wringer on this one. He's probably kicking himself silly for getting himself into this whole Governator thing.

Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good, Bubba. Sooner or later -- and with this development it looks like "sooner" -- the politicians are going to have to either cut back on their spending addiction or else assert some kind of arbitrary "emergency power" to turn the people of California upside down and shake more change out of their pockets.

[follow this topic at memeorandum]

Palin (and Cleese x2) on Palin

2009-07-07T06:22:00.005-05:00

It's official -- I'm suffering from a horrible case of Palin fatigue. Andrew Sullivan isn't ready to let it go; he links to Radley Balko, which is cool; and all roads, of course, lead to memeorandum. The show must go on ... but I'm for re-runs.

Cleese on (Sarah) Palin as veep candidate and parrot, October 2008:

(Michael) Palin and Cleese on (Sarah) Palin's post-gubernatorial future as parrot [update: Metaphor, folks, metaphor! I'm referring to her political future, not wishing her dead ... pardon my paranoia, but it seemed wise to make that clear], December 1969:

Necessarily divisive

2009-07-06T18:04:00.004-05:00

Steve Gordon, quoting his own previous advice to "Tea Party" organizers:

If you are an event organizer or speaker, keep in mind that pretty much everyone will agree with your fiscally conservative message. The Second Amendment is probably pretty safe turf, but not necessary for the purpose of this coalition. Conservatives or libertarians wandering off into territory such as abortion, gay rights, immigration, medical marijuana, and the Iraq War will be creating unnecessarily divisive issues.

And from the same account, his evaluation of one of the events he attended on the 4th of July:

During the candidate speeches leading to the main event, one candidate (I couldn't hear him well due to the poor accoustics backstage) went off on a rant about our participation in the Iraq War. He was immediately facing a roped-off section of veterans, and I couldn't hear the end of his speech at all because of the boos he was receiving. To their credit, everyone else pretty much stayed on topic. Fortunately, there were plenty of Campaign for Liberty, Ron Paul, Libertarian Party and other folks there who were bright enough to focus on coalition building, as opposed to pressing issues destined to kill a team effort.

In other words, these events are political dry humps: The function of libertarians in the whole scheme is to help conservative Republicans achieve their daydream fantasy of pseudo-smaller-government orgasm without ever getting so fresh as to suggest that they should put out for real.

What, precisely, is such a "coalition" supposed to achieve? Libertarians have relentlessly stroked the conservative Republican ... er, ego ... for 45 years now, and what has it got us except used? For the love of God, Steve, get up off your knees and wipe that big white glob of "family values" off your face.

The Tea Parties were supposed to be a popular revolt against big government. In the space of a few months, they've become just another GOP astro-turf "revolt" against a few selected bits of big government that conservative Republicans dislike, and "hush, now" if anyone brings up the parts of big government -- marriage apartheid, the war on drugs, foreign military adventurism -- that they desperately want to save.

"Coalition," my ass. When are you going to realize that there is no "Republican" in "team?"

Election 2012: Early GOP Handicapping

2009-07-06T15:34:00.004-05:00

The 2012 GOP nomination field is already starting to come together in peoples' minds. Is it too early to start eyeballing the horses and making tentative predictions? I don't think it is.

The graphic to the right features eight faces that fit. No, they haven't declared, and some of them may not do so, but that doesn't mean they're not in contention. They've all got buzz to one degree or another as of right now; no one would be surprised to see any or all of them throw their hats in the ring.

I removed one face from the field before I even got the graphic together: Mississippi governor Haley Barbour's. He's apparently already on the stump, but IMO he's just got too much baggage to make it past the Iowa straw poll. I could be wrong. You may see him in future "field pics."

From the top:

Jeb Bush: He's the first Republican to ever manage election to a second term as governor of Florida. He's popular with conservatives. He's popular with Hispanic voters, and especially with the Cuban community. I don't think he'll run, though. Even four years of Obama is probably not going to be enough to give the Bush name a nice ring to the American ear again. It would be an uphill run, and the Bush boys seem to prefer that "sense of inevitability" in their campaigns.

Newt Gingrich: He futzed around with the idea of running in 2008 -- so much so that by Decision Time, everyone was tired of his futzing and the other candidates had left him behind. I think he's learned his lesson, I think he'll get in the 2012 race early and without reservations, and I think he'll do well. I don't think he'll win the nomination, but he's one of three candidates whom I believe might win it.

Mike Huckabee: This is the man to beat. You don't believe me, do you? Just you wait and see. He's got the executive experience (two terms as governor of Arkansas). He's got the populist chops. He gets "I told you so" credit for staying in longer and fighting John McCain harder than any other Republican in 2008. He's keeping his mug out front, but not so far out front as to get it slapped silly in the off-season. When he comes out ... well, like I said, just you wait and see.

Bobby Jindal: Maybe he'll run, maybe he won't. If he does, he'll be an early cull. Unfortunately, he probably won't have a shot at the VP slot, either, since the nominee will be a southern male and will be looking for a running mate from the north or west.

Sarah Palin: I won't be surprised if she runs. I will be surprised if she makes it past the first turn in the primaries as more than comic relief. Even if she manages to hold on to her weird "rock star" shininess for two more years (highly unlikely -- she passed out of "Las Vegas Comeback Special Elvis" territory some time ago and is headed for "Anyone Seen Big White Jumpsuit Elvis? I Think He's In The Bathroom ..." country at ludicrous speed), she'll be running against opponents who haven't resigned from public office twice without completing their terms, and who will be very keen to mention that at every opportunity. She's toast.

Tim Pawlenty: He's going to run. He's going to lose. But if he can avoid getting caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy or dropping the f-bomb in debate, he's got a good shot at the veep nomination. The top slot will go to a conservative southerner; a northern/midwest governor who tries to sell himself as "moderate" fills the bill out nicely.

Mitt Romney: Not a chance. I've already explained why.

Fred Thompson: My third "contender" pick -- but see "Gingrich, Newt" above and double the emphasis. If he wants in, he can't afford to dick around until late 2011 before saying so. He needs to announce early, and be out there throwing hands even earlier (like, say, yesterday). Otherwise, Huckabee and Gingrich will steal a march on him and his campaign will, once again, be over before it gets started.

Right now my money's on Huckabee ... but the campaigns won't be in full swing for two more years and a lot can change in two years. If "national security" issues move back to the forefront in a big way, Wonk Hawk from Hell Newt Gingrich or solid, comforting, "Reaganesque" Thompson may get an inside track.

Well, there you have it. That's the way I see it as of today. I'm sure that I'll see it differently as things progress, and that I'll say so ... but I don't memory hole my predictions when I get it wrong. If I've got it way wrong, well, this post will remain here for you to make fun of in perpetuity.

--

Photo Credits:

Jeb Bush -- Government of Florida, public domain
Newt Gingrich -- KyleCassidy, GNU Free Documentation License
Mike Huckabee -- David Ball, used with permission
Bobby Jindal -- Government, public domain
Sarah Palin -- J.delanoy, Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0
Tim Pawlenty -- Office of Governor Tim Pawlenty, used with permission
Mitt Romney -- Mitt Romney Media, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
Fred Thompson -- US Senate, public domain

Anarchy: But seriously, folks

2009-07-06T11:58:00.002-05:00

My latest at the Center for a Stateless Society. Teaser:

You there! Yeah, you, the one who just told me I'm not serious and that a stateless society couldn't possibly work -- turn on your television and take note of the next few political stories you see. For the sake of argument, I'm going to throw out some examples of what's likely coming through the tube at the moment:

In New York, the State Senate is deadlocked into two bodies of 31 senators each. Each body claims to be the real Senate and refuses to acknowledge the other. Each body is one short of a quorum to legally pass bills. Last week, a Senator from one faction wandered across the other faction's floor territory looking for a soda machine. The other faction declared the existence of a quorum and hurriedly passed 100 bills while he tried to hunt up his cold beverage. No dice -- the lower house of the legislature declined to recognize bills passed by the Cola Quorum.

In California, the state is issuing IOUs instead of checks to cover tax refunds, payments to vendors, etc. After the electorate rejected several tax increase proposals, the legislature deadlocked on a budget. The main activity on the floor of the legislature seems, at this point, to be referring to the public as "terrorists" for refusing to hand more of their earnings over to the politicians so that said politicians don't have to make "tough decisions," i.e. spend only within their extremely substantial means.

In South Carolina, the biggest political issue of the moment seems to be whether or not the governor should resign because he has a mistress in Argentina.

In Alaska, the governor has resigned. Why? Who knows? It appears to have something to do with dead fish and basketball and Jesus, but until her speech is re-released with English subtitles it's anybody's guess.

Now, two things:

First, get "serious." Go back over those stories above and then try to tell me, with a straight face, that the state "works." Admit it: 90% of what the state does looks like a deleted early pilot of "Different Strokes" -- same cast, only with Joan Crawford as the adoptive mother.

Sunday bloggish navel gazing

2009-07-05T16:52:00.004-05:00

So many writers have said it in so many ways that I can't remember from whom I first picked it up (I can remember when -- I was 12 -- just not from whom): If one wants to be a writer, one must write.

I took the maxim to heart immediately, starting with club notices for my local newspaper, and in the 30 years since I don't think I've ever gone more than a few weeks without buckling down to write "seriously." The last such period which comes to mind is December of 1990, when I was just too damn busy (Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, getting read for the Big Show in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; once we were over there, I got some writing done).

Writing is what I do. I write -- sometimes badly, I'm sure, but for the last ten years I've been able to call myself a professional writer with a straight face. When I'm not writing (under my own name, or under someone else's), I'm editing (my own work, or someone else's).

All of which is just a long, boring lead-in to the analogous rule: If one wants to be a blogger, one must blog. If one wants to be a successful blogger (as measured in any number of ways -- traffic, links, money, etc.), one must blog regularly and frequently.

I became neglectful of this rule, and as a result, traffic at KN@PPSTER fell by about 80%, and Technorati "authority" (a status measurement reflecting the number of recent links from other blogs) by about 75%, over the course of a year. Income fell, too, but since it wasn't a major income source even at its previous height, I can't offer exact statistics.

That doesn't work for me. I've decided to get born again hard on the blogging thing. That means blogging every day (at least two posts per weekday, at least one each weekend day) ... and if there's nothing in particular I care to blog about, I'll by God blog about blogging, just to cultivate the habit. Which is what I'm doing right now, hopefully with a helpful veneer of industry news in the "I am the Blogosphere, and You Can Too!" vein.

Three basic rules:

1) Blog -- every day.

2) Promote -- in every way.

3) Monetize -- as much as I can get away with.

That third rule leads me to a matter of actual current interest to at least one reader, "steven," who writes:

[I]s there anything you can do about that goddamn ad page that comes up when I click on your website? I don't mind having to click on "skip the ad" to get back to you, but several times now I get stuck on that page with no way to get back except to log all the way off the internet and get back on (which I always do because I like your site). It's just a royal pain in the ass.

I'd love to be able to accommodate that request, steven, but Rule #3 says I can't just knock off those particular ads.

Here's the thing: In recent correspondence with a blogger whose traffic numbers were better than mine (that's changing, fast, now that I'm back to regular blogging), he mentioned his AdBrite revenues. They were all out of whack with mine, even allowing for the difference in traffic. I'm talking a full order of magnitude here -- mid-single-digits for me, low-triple-digits for him. The difference between his implementation of AdBrite and mine? He runs those funky "interstitial" ads.

We're looking at a potential revenue difference here of $90 or more per month. That's big money to me, and if I can grab it without burning my own house down, I'm going to.

I hope you'll stick with me, steven. I've sent AdBrite a note about the problem, and if there's anything I can do to fix it, I will. In the meantime, you might consider following KN@PPSTER via RSS -- Feedburner offers several options (My Yahoo!, Bloglines, etc.), and a supportive user has also syndicated it via LiveJournal. I hate sending readers off-site, but that's the only alternative I can think of to removing the ads, which I'm unwilling, for the moment, to do.

All right, then. Weekend blogging quota met. Take that, Anthony Trollope.

Attn: Thomas Van Flein

2009-07-04T22:42:00.004-05:00

Re:

Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein on Saturday warned legal action may be taken against bloggers and publications that reprint what he calls fraudulent claims.

"To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as 'fact' that Governor Palin resigned because she is 'under federal investigation' for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation," Van Flein said in a statement.

Short Response:

Blow me.

Long Response:

Bring it on. You've got no case, and unless you slept through class on the day they taught law in law school, you're well aware that you've got no case. Wanna put that to the test? I'm your huckleberry. If you file your baseless, groundless, frivolous complaint in the US District Court for Eastern Missouri, I might be persuaded to waive diversity of jurisdiction issues so we can move straight to the real scrap. Need an address or other information for service purposes? No problem -- feel free to contact me via comments on this blog or by email at the address listed in my profile and I'll hook you right up.

Video Response:

Addendum, 07/05:

Memeorandum's tracking a couple of different threads related to Palin's Tantrum Of Threatened Litigiousness: Here and here.

What's behind Sarah Palin's resignation?

2009-07-04T03:09:00.004-05:00

I'm still going with my first blush reaction: "Best guess: Palin, or a close family member, just got very bad medical or legal news."

Here's video of yesterday's lakeside train wreck:

The event was obviously thrown together on short notice. Her speech was rambling and at times barely even coherent, indicating lack of preparation. She thanked her husband for flying in the night before to stand with her, and it's a reasonable supposition, based on the way this thing rolled out, that her decision to resign was made after he arrived -- made, in other words, under some kind of perceived pressure, without taking time to pre-spin it and set things up for a smooth announcement.

Rumor Has It: According to Brad Friedman, citing Shannyn Moore and hat-tipped to, three guesses but you'll only need one, memeorandum, I may have been spot-on with the "bad legal news" guess.

If these guys are right, there's an ongoing investigation -- possibly about to bear fruit in the form of indictments -- into who paid for the materials used in the Palins' house, with strong suggestions that those materials may have been "donated" as a bribe-in-kind by a subcontractor who made out on then-mayor Sarah Palin's white elephant: A budget-busting ice rink and sports center for Wasilla.

In other words, the kind of shenanigans politicians pull all the time, and that Democrat politicians usually slick their way right through without substantial damage. Sounds plausible. Whether or not it's true, I guess time will tell.

The conspiracy theorist in me keeps coming back to the fact that the GOP seems to be in serial implosion mode at the moment, and wondering if there's not some external reason for that. Could Republican politicians be getting little notes: "I've got your FBI file. Out yourself or I'll out you. xoxo, Barry?"

Pressto Change-o

2009-07-04T02:37:00.003-05:00

My latest at the Center for a Stateless Society:

I'm shocked -- shocked -- to learn that the White House plants questions at press conferences, that the Washington Post flirts with openly selling "access" to lobbyists, and that the ABC television network shills for President Barack Obama's health care scheme.

Now that I've got the fake shock out of the way, let's get to the real shock: I'm shocked that anyone finds any of this (other than perhaps the fact that the most visible recent planted question was planted with an Internet-based publication, the Huffington Post) shocking.

There are reasons the "mainstream media" are called the "mainstream media," and those reasons shouldn’t be difficult to figure out.

Hehe ... he said "dickweed!"

2009-07-03T15:36:00.004-05:00

You know, Dennis Kneale does look like Beaker. And I disagree with his conclusion that the recession is over. But I do maybe sympathize with him a little about the whole buzz-crush temperament of the blogosphere. Not too much, but a little.

Anonymity? Screw that. That's "Knapp," with two pees. The z is silent.

(h/t -- Andrew Tuttle)

Palin, bailin'

2009-07-03T15:07:00.003-05:00

Not only will Sarah Palin not seek a second term as governor of Alaska, she's resigning the office, effective later this month (hat tip, as is so often the case, goes to memeorandum).

I've already seen some speculation to the effect that she's "freeing herself up for a long presidential campaign," but c'mon -- that just doesn't make any sense. "I bailed three quarters of the way through my only term as a governor" isn't good presidential stump speech material. She might be contemplating a Senate campaign next year, but that wouldn't be much better. Quitting a job isn't the way to get promoted.

Nor does it strike me as likely that she's breaking under recent rounds of criticism/attack. Love her or loathe her, she just isn't the type to wither under that kind of fire.

Best guess: Palin, or a close family member, just got very bad medical or legal news. I could be wrong -- or to put it a different way, she could be stupid -- but it's the only thing that makes much sense.

Krugman, you ignorant slut

2009-07-03T13:55:00.003-05:00

Sez Paul Krugman:

All of this is depressingly familiar to anyone who has studied economic policy in the 1930s.

Why yes, Paul, yes it is. Or at least it should be. Seeing as how you're a Nobel laureate in economics and are spouting off on the subject, you're presumptively of those people. So what's up with the howler that follows?

Once again a Democratic president has pushed through job-creation policies that will mitigate the slump but aren't aggressive enough to produce a full recovery. Once again much of the stimulus at the federal level is being undone by budget retrenchment at the state and local level.

(h/t -- Memeorandum)

Hello, McFly? It wasn't that FDR's "job-creation policies" weren't "aggressive enough." Those policies extended the Depression for a good five years and it eventually ended in spite of, and not in any way because of, them.

Furthermore, the real kickoff to that Depression probably wasn't the 1929 stock market crash so much as the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which you yourself are pushing a direct analog to.

My grandma worshiped FDR, too. Matter of fact I'm pretty sure she thought he sat at the right hand of Jesus in heaven. But she didn't run around trying to pass herself off as an economist.

It's the economy (of scale), stupid!

2009-07-03T10:36:00.006-05:00

Megan McArdle:

I find it hard to believe that none of the liberal commentators breathlessly celebrating Wal-Mart's "capitulation" on national health care have even entertained the most parsimonious explanation: that Wal-Mart is in favor of this because it raises the barriers to entry in the retail market, and hammers Wal-Mart's competition.

You can say that again, sister!

I find it hard to believe that none of the liberal commentators breathlessly celebrating Wal-Mart's "capitulation" on national health care have even entertained the most parsimonious explanation: that Wal-Mart is in favor of this because it raises the barriers to entry in the retail market, and hammers Wal-Mart's competition.

(h/t -- Little Miss Attila)

Not rocket science, folks.

First, Wal-Mart is legendary for manipulating hours so as to keep most of its employees below the threshold for most benefits. The company will likely only be on board with a "national health care" plan so long as that plan maintains a distinction between "full-time" and and "part-time" employees which allows it to avoid most of the burden of the mandate entirely.

Secondly, to the extent that it does fall under the mandate, Wal-Mart is the biggest employer on Earth. It will get the best group rate on the planet, or it will "self-insure" to the bare minimum requirement of the mandate.

Every company has to pass its operating costs on to the consumer as part of the price of the product. Wal-Mart is positioned to keep the increase in operating costs represented by ObamaCare to a minimum. Its prices will go up, but they won't go up as dramatically as other stores' prices will. It will retain, perhaps even enhance, its competitive advantage on price.

Startups generally are not big enough at birth to maintain the kind of "human resources management" overhead required to either administer all these mandates or shuffle operations around to avoid them. ObamaCare is like putting up a big "DON'T BOTHER -- JUST BUY WAL-MART STOCK INSTEAD" sign in the path of would-be new entrants into the retail business sector.

Wal-Mart is playing this masterfully: Cutting the legs from beneath its existing competitors, aborting its would-be competitors in the womb ... and getting cookies and milk for "corporate social responsibility" in the process!

Nothing new under the sun, of course -- from anti-trust to utilities to you name it, "big business" has always been the moving force behind the "progressive" initiatives supposedly intended to bring it to its knees. Big Government and Big Business are symbiotes.

Serendipitous Fourth of Julyery!

2009-07-03T09:36:00.003-05:00

I've committed myself, for the moment, to a minimum of two blog posts per day, every weekday (I'll cut myself some slack on weekends). That commitment is already bearing fruit in terms of traffic, incoming links, etc., which was the whole point of making it. Sacrificing a goat to Glenn Reynolds wasn't enough; if I want the blog to succeed, I have to actually write regularly.

Of course, nobody said it would be easy. Some days the stuff practically writes itself, other days not so much. Some days I feel like I'm serving up prime rib; other days, the best that can be said is that it's hot and there's plenty of it.

So anyway, this morning I found myself Googling a phrase to explain the work ethic involved ("Six days shalt thou work and do all thou art able; the seventh the same, and pound on the cable") and lucked out. I knew I'd read that phrase in a Heinlein essay, and I was pretty sure I remembered which one. Not only had I remembered right, but it's available online.

That essay -- "The Pragmatics of Patriotism" -- is primo Fourth of July discussion fodder:

As one drives through the bushveldt of East Africa it is easy to spot herds of baboons grazing on the ground. But not by looking at the ground. Instead you look up and spot the lookout, an adult male posted on a limb of a tree where he has a clear view all around him -- which is why you can spot him; he has to be where he can see a leopard in time to give the alarm. On the ground a leopard can catch a baboon ... but if a baboon is warned in time to reach the trees, he can out-climb a leopard. The lookout is a young male assigned to that duty and there he will stay, until the bull of the herd sends up another male to relieve him. Keep your eye on that baboon; we'll be back to him.

Today, in the United States, it is popular among self-styled 'intellectuals' to sneer at patriotism. They seem to think that it is axiomatic that any civilized man is a pacifist, and they treat the military profession with contempt. 'Warmongers' -- 'Imperialists' -- 'Hired killers in uniform' -- you have all heard such sneers and you will hear them again. One of their favorite quotations is: 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.' What they never mention is that the man who made that sneering remark was a fat, gluttonous slob who was pursued all his life by a pathological fear of death.

I propose to prove that that baboon on watch is morally superior to that fat poltroon who made that wisecrack.

Rubs a bit rough against knee-jerk hyper-individualism, doesn't it? As well it should -- it originated as a speech to the Brigade of Midshipmen at the US Naval Academy, not exactly an institution of distinction in the "be yourself, let it all hang out" catalog.

Still, I think there's a hard shining core of truth in it, especially if you can untangle that core from the nation-state references.

Well, there you have it: Heinlein quote + controversial assertion = blog post.

What's good for the goose ...

2009-07-02T11:11:00.003-05:00

Sez the Lost Angeles Times:

With budget negotiators at a loggerheads and California government facing a cash crisis, the state controller's office will start printing IOUs this afternoon for the first time in 17 years.

The presses are set to start at 2 p.m., churning out 28,742 IOUs worth $53.3 million that will be dispatched mostly to residents throughout the state still awaiting their income-tax refunds.

At the very least, if an employee brings one of these "Governator Owes You" notes to work, the employer should cease state income tax withholding for that employee, cut a full paycheck until the amount is covered, and send Sacramento the IOU in lieu of withholding receipts.

Another option would be for those owed tax refunds to get together, pool their IOUs, and sell them for a portion of face value to, say, Peter Milano or Frank "Skinny" Velotta. A few broken legs ("I fell down the stairs -- really, I did!") in the Senate and an unexplained disappearance or two in the Assembly would probably clear the matter right up.

Full-scale tax revolt would be better, though. Imagine if next week, instead of checks and wire transfers from California employers representing all that state income tax withholding, Sacramento got a boatload of notices: "When you get your act together, let us know; at that point we'll re-evaluate your credit rating and consider sending you money again. Maybe."

Sanford and sunk

2009-07-02T08:09:00.004-05:00

I didn't and don't care where South Carolina governor Mark Sanford was or ~~what~~ who he was doing over that "lost weekend," but he seems pretty insistent on making sure everyone knows the details. How long before we get to the Argentinian lady's diaphragm size?

He's even branching out into additional confessions. I'm not sure if he's trying to unburden a very guilty conscience or just yanking everyone's chain, but either way it's starting to creep me out. Didn't care where you were or ~~what~~ who you were doing, dude. Don't need to know where you stuck that thing.

And then there's this:

Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment and, on conviction, shall be severally punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. -- South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 16-15-60

Actionable with respect to Mark Sanford in a legal sense? Probably not, although I guess that depends on whether or not any of his ... adventures ... took place within the borders of South Carolina (if so, he'll probably blurt that out in Technicolor/THX before the week's over).

His own party's had enough (h/t memeorandum), though, and who can blame them? It's one thing for the state's chief executive to discretely dip his wick in legally unsanctioned wax. It's another thing for him to get caught. And it's yet a third thing for him to prance from newspaper office to TV studio to press conference detailing the ways, shapes, manners and and forms of said wick-dipping. [Oh dear God ... he's got a book deal]

Time for Sanford to take his proclivities and attendant obsession with displaying them back to the private sector.

Ba Da Bing!

2009-07-01T20:11:00.003-05:00

I'm a fairly compulsive stat watcher. Just today, I finally saw what I believe to be probably KN@PPSTER's first three hits from Bing. Don't know if that means they only just now got around to crawling the blog or what, but new sources of traffic are, of course, always welcome.

Breaking Google's grip on search is obviously a daunting task. Heck, even with a search engine of my very own, I forget and default to Google 99% of the time. I've tried Bing a few times and will keep an eye on it. Wolfram Alpha is also pretty neat.