Wow… for a nominee to the Supreme Court, you would figure that ability to communicate ideas effectively would be a strong suit, but for Sotomayor it might be harder than most.

First – let’s give her some benefit of the doubt.  If someone followed any one of us around all day long asking questions, recording the answers, checking those answers against speeches and legal papers written in the last decade… well, let’s just say most of us are not consistent enough thinkers to handle this level of scrutiny.

Having said that, I still found one part of the recent political maneuvering interesting.  During some questioning in reference to the 2nd Amendment, Ms. Sotomayor said something funny (here):

The judge also stressed that she understood “how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans” and said some of her friends are gun owners and hunters.

It’s probably my sense of humor more than anything else, but anytime someone states to me, “But some of my best friends are X” it usually means they don’t really like X all that much.

& when a SCOTUS nominee does so – then it’s just pure gold.

On the serious side, for those who think the second amendment is as sacrosancct as the first amendment, this wasn’t the only disconcerting thing (even if amusing) that was said.  She went on to add that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to the 2nd as it does to the rest of them.

During the exchange, which bounced back and forth for a few minutes, Sotomayor said: “Well, the government can remedy a social problem that it is identifying or a difficulty it’s identifying (as long as the law) reasonably seeks to achieve that result. In the end, it can’t be arbitrary and capricious.” (In other words, many anti-gun laws enacted by states might end up being perfectly constitutional, as long as they weren’t “arbitrary and capricious.”)

Of course the real gist of this statement will depend upon how she and others will judge the phrase “arbitrary and capricious”, but it seems on the face of it she seems to believe less highly in the 2nd amendment than the 1st.

Always wondered how some people could argue that the 1st amendment is the most important amendment , but the 2nd amendment was written by old guys who had no idea what things would look like today.

Either way you happen believe, most of what is going on is nothing more than political posturing of each side.  One is attempting to increase her credibility, the other side attempting to decrease her credibility, all the while both knowing it’s unlikely to change the eventual outcome.

So from that point of view – might as well pick out little quotes here and there and laugh.  It’s more rational than worrying about the future.

Every time I hear about Amtrak receiving more money from the federal government, I’m  reminded of a Simpson episode where due to a fine the rich Mr. Burns paid for polluting the local water ways, they gathered at a town hall meeting to decide what to do with all that money.

While making the decision, the typical slick snake oil salesman, Lyle Lanley comes in and sells Springfield their very own solar powered monorail.  The quote I remember clearly is when the Lyle started his sales pitch with this gem:

Y’know, a town with money is like a mule with a spinning wheel. No one knows how he got it and danged if he knows how to use it!

& while it’s obvious to most people that we don’t have extra money to blow, we continue to spend like drunken sailors on the continuous budget drains like Amtrak.

In order to not be out done by Bush’s massive increase in Amtrak funding (here), Obama included billions (here) in the economic stimulus package.

Meanwhile, since President Nixon created Amtrak, its history is overflowing with budget deficits, mismanagement, and continuing a decreased percentage of passenger miles demonstrates thoroughly that this experiment has failed. Wiki has a great article on the history of Amtrak which helps explain various causes of rails decline.  Additionally, for the thoughtful environmentalist, Cato has a published report that generally more energy is used per passenger mile on rails than on other forms of transport (here).  Noting among other things:

Far from protecting the environment, most rail transit lines use more energy per passenger mile, and many generate more greenhouse gases, than the average passenger automobile. Rail transit provides no guarantee that a city will save energy or meet greenhouse gas targets.

Among those many others reasons why the Utopian vision of mass rails should go away, a glaring reason is the density of most of the American population.

While mass transit seems to work well in fairly dense areas, they do not work well in less dense areas.  Other forms of transportation, such as car and airline are valued more highly than train.  From a 2002 Cato article describing how Amtrak should be treated they noted:

To put this point in context, in 2000 Americans made only 22.5 million trips by Amtrak compared to 665 million on commercial airlines.

I’m just extremely happy the Buggy Whip Corporation of America isn’t still around.  I’d hate to see all the political money thrown its way in an attempt to save it.

It’s quite an exciting time to live for those people who love to see barriers broken.  We’ve come a long ways from the 50′s segregation to the first African-American President and likely to be the first Hispanic female Supreme Court Justice.

Of course if those were the only firsts, we’d be doing just fine, but there are others to list:

First time in American History where the budget will include a 1 to 2 trillion dollar deficit (here):

WASHINGTON — The federal deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time ever and could grow to nearly $2 trillion by this fall, intensifying fears about higher inflation rates, inflation and the strength of the dollar.

The deficit has been widened by the huge sum the government has spent to ease the recession, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues. The cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also is a major factor.

(that I’m aware of) The first time in history we will waste tax payer money, during a recession, to investigate a non-existent program (here – emphasis added is mine):

WASHINGTON – Congressional demands for an investigation grew on Monday over new disclosures that a secret CIA program to capture or kill al-Qaida leaders was concealed from Congress for eight years, perhaps at the behest of former vice President Dick Cheney.

The program, which never got off the ground and remains shrouded in mystery, was designed to target leaders of the terrorism network at close range, rather than with air strikes that risked civilian casualties, government officials with knowledge of the operation said Monday.

& finally, the brand new era of the czars (here) with names such as:

1. Infotech Czar
2. Faith Based Czar
3. Cybersecurity Czar
4. Compensation Czar

In  a time fraught with issues such as nuclear proliferation (there is a czar for that as well) from Iran & NK, a declining economy (new unemployment figure 9.5%), continuing wars, we might be looking into the future with an undeserved pride in our decision making abilities.

Getting back to the basics of what made our country able to stand as the the superpower it does today would be a better use of our time than hiring more czars to control more of our economy.

We seem to be moving fairly quickly from a society that was known for fierce independence.  A society known for arrogance, but revolutionary innovations which have increased the standard of living for millions. A society that truly stood as a beacon of freedom in a world where the majority live in crippling dictatorships.

We moved from a society that would rather ask their neighbors for help, but instead they now ask the government (or call a lawyer).  A society that wanted to live free, to a society that believes it’s ok to take by force money from your neighbors so long as most people feel they are spending it incorrectly.

Maybe instead of attempting to fix everything, as if the current decision makers have more of the truth than did previous generations, we should instead follow the doctors’ calling:  First, do no harm.

This isn’t to say changes aren’t needed, but the last time some sales guy told me I had very little time to make a decision, I laughed and walked away. & that was a for some piece of electronics I didn’t really need.  It even took me three months to buy a new car.

If we truly want to make effective changes that will really impact others’ lives in a  positive way, prudence and open skepticism of our government is warranted.

Of course yelling fire in a crowded theater makes for better tv debates and news reports, but it’s possible prudence is the virtue we should be heeding at this time.

Before the last stimulus bill, the Obama administration trotted out how dire and desperate things are and would be without the all powerful government.  According to their reports, unemployment rates without the money would hit 10%, while with spending would not go above 8% (here).

By the government’s own standards and the new unemployment numbers of 9.5%, they have failed. But like true politicians, facts are just numbers that haven’t yet been spun.

With trillions of dollars in “stimulus” already spent on pet projects, buying up failed companies,  green jobs, and anything else the government can think of, the only thing they are now positive of is that it wasn’t enough.

Through Mr. Obama’s remarks after the G8 summit (here):

“While our markets are improving, too many people are still struggling,” Obama said at a press conference in L’Aquila, Italy after a summit of the Group of Eight nations. “Full recovery is still a ways off.”

and senior administration officials putting our feelers (here):

Senior administration officials think further stimulus might eventually be needed but they do not want to have this fight now. Both the economics and the politics call for postponing a decision to late this year or early in 2010.

& of course, the sage Warren Buffet’s self-serving advice (here):

As folks in Washington and the rest of the country grumble about the depressed job market and underwhelming consumer spending reports, the calls for a second stimulus continue.

“I think that a second one may well be called for,” Warren Buffett , the widely respected investor, said Thursday morning on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

It appears we’re on a path to spend more money we don’t have.  Effectively, the government is acting just like the poor investors and home buyers did – buying a lot of stuff for too much money, which is completely borrowed.

As Cato notes:

Investors understand that increased government spending diverts valuable resources away from the private sector and ends up imposing even more demoralizing taxes on labor and capital.

A major study of 18 large economies by Alberto Alesina of Harvard and three colleagues appeared in the 2002 American Economic Review. This paper, “Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investment” found that the surest way to make economies boom can be through deep cuts in government spending–the exact opposite of the “fiscal stimulus” snake oil.

Like the problems of social security, medicare, and medicaid though, we’re simply going to borrow all of this money and kick the major problems down the road for whatever generation will suffer from our mistakes.  They will pay the higher taxes for lower benefits all because we can’t control our spending.

So for those playing the home game – the solution to alcoholism is to drink, just as the solution to a spending binge is more spending.

Take a dash of holy water here, sprinkle a little public policy there and voila!  Socialism.

Through the Vatican pulpit, the Pope is now giving out political advice based on Marx’s idea of collectivism.  In a letter from the Pope (here), it begins with:

Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity.

Finally gets to this:

From the social point of view, systems of protection and welfare, already present in many countries in Paul VI’s day, are finding it hard and could find it even harder in the future to pursue their goals of true social justice in today’s profoundly changed environment. The global market has stimulated first and foremost, on the part of rich countries, a search for areas in which to outsource production at low cost with a view to reducing the prices of many goods, increasing purchasing power and thus accelerating the rate of development in terms of greater availability of consumer goods for the domestic market. Consequently, the market has prompted new forms of competition between States as they seek to attract foreign businesses to set up production centres, by means of a variety of instruments, including favourable fiscal regimes and deregulation of the labour market. These processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive advantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights and for the solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social State. Systems of social security can lose the capacity to carry out their task, both in emerging countries and in those that were among the earliest to develop, as well as in poor countries. Here budgetary policies, with cuts in social spending often made under pressure from international financial institutions, can leave citizens powerless in the face of old and new risks; such powerlessness is increased by the lack of effective protection on the part of workers’ associations. Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions.

So in the fine tradition of charities everywhere, the Pope seems to believe it to incumbent on governments to promote social spending, at the expense of others of course, and work towards ensuring workers’ unions.  I realize he wasn’t directly discussing the US, but the unions are part of the reason GM went under, therefore part of the reason there is less money to spend on social programs and more need for them in Detroit.

The Democrats of course believe the Pope’s pleas of economic justice falls directly in line with President Obama’s policies (here):

…The Pope “has provided a road map for how we can move ahead to accomplish economic justice,” said Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut. She is a Catholic member of the House Democratic leadership who has a 100 percent rating from the Washington-based Americans for Democratic Action, which describes itself as the “nation’s oldest independent liberal political organization.”

DeLauro and Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts yesterday opened a campaign of Catholic Democrats called “Pope Greets Hope” to draw a link between Church doctrine and Obama’s policy agenda. Obama will discuss the pontiff’s economic message with the Pope today, said White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs…

It’s not really a large shock that the Catholic Church’s very teachings, lean towards, or even completely agree, with the philosophy that is socialism, I think the news here is having Democrats openly agree with socialistic policies without even a hint that their country doesn’t want any part of it.

Here, here, & here -  Americans do not want more spending or larger government, but when your ideas are righteous and going only to promote the new utopia, little things like citizens’ opinions, many failed attempts for this perfection in history, facts, or really anything else.

As much as liberals like the chastise the religious right as being too dogmatic and anti-science, they surely do believe in the miracle of policies that have been shown to fail time and time again.

Since the Cap & Trade bill is getting hammered from quite a few angles throughout the halls of Congress, recent news has started pushing the much fated plan for Health Care.

They do this, by first admitting the need to increase the insured, the move to hyping the number of uninsured individuals, and finally discuss plans on how to insure them.

For serious thought – Cato and others have noted that the system itself is creating our current problems and by expanding the current system, we will only expand those problems(here):

A free-market approach would move away from employer-provided insurance and increase competition among both insurers and health providers.

Going further of course, they try to give some reasons the system operates as it does:

There are two key components to any free-market healthcare reform. First, we need to move away from a system dominated by employer-provided health insurance and instead make health insurance personal and portable, controlled by the individual rather than government or an employer.

Employment-based insurance hides much of the true cost of healthcare to consumers, thereby encouraging overconsumption. It also limits consumer choice, because employers get the final say in what type of insurance a worker will receive. It means that people who don’t receive insurance through work are put at a significant and costly disadvantage. And, of course, it means that if you lose your job, you are likely to end up uninsured.

Changing from employer-provided to individually purchased insurance requires changing the tax treatment of health insurance. The current system excludes the value of employer-provided insurance from a worker’s taxable income. However, a worker purchasing health insurance on his own must do so with after-tax dollars. This provides a significant financial reward for those who have employer-provided insurance. That should be reversed….

Not to be locked out, John Stossel just wrote a piece over at Reason giving the reader very colorful examples of how the current insurance system has actually done more harm to having efficient and cost effective medical care than any other piece of legislation on health care (here)

…Insurance, whether private or a government Ponzi scheme like Medicare, means third parties pay the bills. When someone else pays, costs always go up.

Imagine if you had grocery insurance. You wouldn’t care how much food cost. Why shop around? If someone else were paying 80 percent, you’d buy the most expensive cuts of meat. Prices would skyrocket.

That’s what health insurance does to medical care. Patients rarely even ask what anything costs. Doctors often don’t know. Often nobody even gives a damn. Patients rarely ask, “Is that MRI really necessary? Is there a cheaper place?” We consume without thinking.

By contrast, in areas of medicine where most patients pay their own way, service gets better, while prices fall.

Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients shop around and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their business. They often give customers their cell-phone numbers. Service keeps increasing, but prices don’t. “In every other field of medicine, the price is going up faster than consumer prices in general,” says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. “But the price of Lasik surgery, on average, has gone down by 30 percent.”

And honestly, I encourage everyone to read what they can, because this is the very beginning.  Through an extensive societal system, we limit the number of doctors graduating each year.  We, by law, force doctors to do certain procedures lesser trained individuals might be able to do for my less money.  If you recall, 10 years ago, a fully registered nurse (RN) had to draw blood.  Now, it’s a 6 week course and they’re called phlebotomy techs.

So yes, Mr. Obama: I and millions think our health care is pretty good, but could use some changes.  We just don’t think the government has proven to be more inefficient in any endeavor when compared to a private company has in that same endeavor (excluding government allowed monopolies).

The only real question – is why are we looking for several trillion dollars, which will be pushed into all these different feel good remedies, most of which will show no measurable improvement?

And therein lies the selectorate theory, which basically reads that heads of states and other major players got to their positions of power through a winning coalition of others and those are the people they will be the first to covet.

As for those people that didn’t vote for Mr. Obama, and are therefore not in the winning coalition, well, they’ll get hurt.  It’s just too bad that my daughter someday will feel the pain from not being apart of that winning coalition, even though she was completely unable to vote.

On this 4th of July, during this particular time of constant change, I think it a good thing for us to look to one of our founding fathers, Thomas Paine.

During that first winter of the revolutionary war, December 1776, all seemed lost.  The General George Washington was losing every battle he engaged in, he was losing the command respect of his officers, he was losing the morale of his soldiers and many were leaving when terms of enlistment were up, others were simply deserting.  They had little food, little clothing, little training, and many challenges such as rampant dysentery.  This ragtag group was made up of mostly young men, 15, 16, 17 year olds fighting for this young country.

When the British soldiers first gazed upon this untrained, unkempt, young army, they laughed at the idea that these people thought they could win this war.

With the Declaration of Independence, signed just 5 months early, it looked as if it would go down in history as a treasonous action by those who will be punished once the war concludes with an easy British victory.  As Benjamin Franklin said, “We must all hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately.”

Thomas Paine, then a war correspondent, could see the state of the revolution waning and saw this as a pivotal time where failure could be near.  He must do something, so he went back home and started writing a new series of pamphlets he would hope would help garner support for this revolution towards freedom.  He titled the it The American Crisis.

Almost one full year earlier, he helped foment the seeds of the revolution through his pamphlet titled Common Sense.  Laying out a very powerful argument for Independence in January of 1776, he published it anonymously signing it only as “written by an Englishman”.

While Common Sense carried the colonies through the signing of the Declaration of Independence, so too would The American Crisis, help give strength to the revolution at one of its lowest points.

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER,” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

For anyone interested in the history of the American revolution and celebrating this Independence Day, would do well to look at Thomas Paine’s advice still today.

‘Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them. Britain has trembled like an ague at the report of a French fleet of flat-bottomed boats; and in the fourteenth [fifteenth] century the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc. Would that heaven might inspire some Jersey maid to spirit up her countrymen, and save her fair fellow sufferers from ravage and ravishment! Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before.

For it’s still true today; fear, panic, desperation, are all fleeting emotions, or at least should be, when the price that is being paid is laid at the altar of freedom.