On each Memorial Day, I try to research at least one individual act of courage to remind myself  about the nature of those we’ve lost.

This year, I read about a 19 year old, who sacrificed himself to save his fellow soldiers.  While on patrol in Iraq, their Humvee came under attack.   His job, manning the 50 cal machine gun on top of the vehicle is critical to their success.  This day however (whole thing here):

…While Private McGinnis was manning the M2 .50-caliber Machine Gun, a fragmentation grenade thrown by an insurgent fell through the gunner’s hatch into the vehicle. Reacting quickly, he yelled “grenade,” allowing all four members of his crew to prepare for the grenade’s blast.  Then, rather than leaping from the gunner’s hatch to safety, Private McGinnis made the courageous decision to protect his crew. In a selfless act of bravery, in which he was mortally wounded, Private McGinnis covered the live grenade, pinning it between his body and the vehicle and absorbing most of the explosion. Private McGinnis’ gallant action directly saved four men from certain serious injury or death….

Born on June 14th, 1987, Private First Class Ross A. McGinnis lost his life to save others on December 4th 2006, in a place very far from home, because we asked him to go.

There are those that would say this doesn’t matter all that much since we shouldn’t be in Iraq in the first place.  There are others who would argue strongly that even if you disagree, soldiers like this one are protecting our lives and our freedoms.

For me, not all wars are about saving our freedoms.  Not every use of the military…. well, even most uses of the military, does not qualify as “protecting” Americans.  Like all countries throughout history, our military is a foreign policy tool that we don’t like to use.

For me…. it’s not about protecting me or protecting our freedoms, it’s a simple as this:  our country, through our elected representatives, asked this child to go to war.  He went.

Yeah, that’s enough for me.

Over @ Columbia Journalism Review, Greg Marx, has written a piece to let us all know that the 1994 political movement led by Newt Gingrich, the Contract with America, didn’t really do anything (read whole thing here).  The problem is, they have no real evidence to back up their claim and the evidence they use is either pure speculation or actually can be used as evidence to the contrary.

As a side note – I wish both the Republicans and the Democrats get new leadership which actively seeks to expand real freedoms and that would include replacing Mr. Gingrich.  My goal here is not to defend Mr. Gingrich, but to highlight suspect journalism.

My reply (with some minor edits):

Using Media Matters for proof puts your entire publication at risk. They are well known as being a highly partisan outfit and the research you pointed to in order to prove your point is no different.

The basic question being asked is: Did the contract with America affect the 1994 election?

Those people, like Media Matters, who wish to devalue Mr. Gingrich’s contribution point to one basic fact: only 30% of the voters knew. One thing they point to talks about exit polls, which does lend some credence to their argument, but everything else they point to lends absolutely no credible evidence to their answer.

Simply put, if 30% of the voters are aware of some political push, you’ve done something quite difficult. Most voters don’t know anything about politics, they only know about the most recent dust-up. Most voters in 2008 still thought Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress.

Most voters don’t study things like Contract with America, or any of the other things non-profit groups might ask a candidate to sign, like tax groups asking for signatures against raising taxes. Most voters have no idea how many promises their candidates made and to whom they were made.

This does not mean that those who did know where not affected. & when elections have been very close historically, it seems odd you’d make the claim that 30% of the voting public knowing about a completely political movement meant nothing.

Maybe back out of the politics of it and think of it as a product sale. Republicans and Democrats are selling a product – themselves. Neither group knows exactly which advertisements, which communication strategies, and which campaign pushes help their vote totals, but they know they all help.

As the axiom is marketing goes: “I know 1/2 the money I spend on marketing works, I just don’t know which 1/2″

Lastly, even though you have no idea which 1/2 is working, if any CEO could get 30% of their potential client base to know specifics about an organizational push…. just wow. They’d live and die a very, very wealthy person and be sought out by every book writer and researcher to figure out just how that was possible.

For Columbia & Media Matters though – it’s just overblown.

As you might have noticed, I’ve stayed away from writing about the Arizona immigration bill.  I’ve done so because I have little understanding on what it means to live close to a border where millions of immigrants cross illegally each year.  I don’t know the pain experienced by this massive influx, nor do I really know what has and hasn’t been tried to resolve those pains.

Lastly, I’m honestly not in the habit of arguing against a specific state law, unless it’s clearly anti-freedom.  For instance, when an idiotic Senator proposes a complete ban on a specific crib because of 32 infant deaths since 2000 – I rightfully call her out (here).   Meaning that generally speaking, I don’t see the Arizona law as anything immoral or anti-freedom and my lack of real world understanding has kept me out of this debate.

That was until I learned, thanks to the unprecedented outpouring from world leaders, that this Arizona thing…. well, apparently it has far reaching consequences.

To start with – I think this is the very first time an American president has come out so strongly against a state law based solely on premonition (here via Raw Story).  According to our new pre-crime way of thinking, this law has got to be stopped by any means necessary, because as President Obama states:

I think the Arizona law has the potential of being applied in a discriminatory fashion. Now, after it was initially passed, the Arizona legislature amended it and said that this should not be carried out in a discriminatory way. But I think a fair reading of the language of the statute indicates that it gives the possibility of individuals who are deemed suspicious of being illegal immigrants from being harassed or arrested. And the judgments that are going to be made in applying this law are troublesome….

To translate, this roughly means – “it (the law) might be used for discriminatory purposes, therefore it’s wrong”.    Which would be a very valid argument for a law which say…. kept blacks out of school, but for a law only meant and written to enforce the current immigration laws, he’s basically trying to block a state law because it might be abused.

Additionally, the legal system itself is and has been open for discriminatory abuse by those in appropriate positions who are willing to use their authority towards discriminatory ends.  You see, where there are so many laws on the books that necessitate selective enforcement, then you automatically end up leaving the selection process to those on the ground.

To clarify:  I don’t believe law enforcement professionals are racists or tend to abuse their power en mass & I don’t believe this AZ law will necessarily be used in such a way.  My only point is when every single car on the highway is driving at least 10 miles per hour over the speed limit, those with the power to enforce the law can do so selectively.  This by its very nature allows for discriminatory practices.

It would be interesting to hear  President Obama make such a case, but that’s not the main thrust of his argument.  His argument is guilty until proven innocent.

Lastly, Mr. Obama, don’t we have other things to worry about?  Like two active conflicts?  Continuing terror threats at home?  Economic & health care “crises”?

But what really has me perplexed is the president from our southern neighbor, Mexico.  Apparently, the Arizona law is so horribly wrong, he had to take lots of time, to address international press both here @ a home and to address Congress as part of an active & aggressive PR campaign against the AZ law (here via The Arizona Republic):

WASHINGTON – Mexican President Felipe Calderón harshly criticized a new Arizona immigration law in an address to Congress on Thursday, saying it “ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree.”…

Now to be fair I agree with that quoted portion; which is our current immigration policy stance by default, ignores the reality on the ground.  With all due disrespect to Mr. Calderón however, I don’t think he gets the reality either.

He is, not only a world leader (very tenuous use), but specifically the leader of Mexico.  A country with a higher murder rate than some active war zones have deaths.  A country whose police force and justice system is either completely corrupt or completely unable to deal with organized crime.  A country whose citizenry, run as fast as possible, by any means possible to the closest possible safe haven, even knowing they will actively face many additional hardships through their actions.   A quick skim through reports (here via Stratfor or here via the Economist) will give you ample reason why this is so.

Yet, Mr.  Calderón’s worries are about an AZ law and our freedom to arm ourselves:

…his request that Congress do something about the availability of high-powered weapons along the border….

Maybe he’s completely unaware that it is illegal in the US to buy the weapons many organized criminals use in Mexico such as hand grenades, rocket propelled grenades, and automatic weapons.

Irregardless of Mr.  Calderón’s understanding of US gun laws, the citizens of Mexico would be better served if their leader spent time repairing his country, instead of  throwing boulders from a glass house.

Given the current urgent competing priorities for both countries, combined with both presidents having a laser like focus on this issue, I think there really remains one question:

What is their (Obama, Calderon, etc) fear?

One of the more frustrating things I find when engaging others in political discussions, is that some people seemingly have either an unwillingness or inability to contemplate how too much of a good thing can still be bad.

I say frustrating, because it’s intuitive to understand this.  As Paracelsus was quoted saying centuries ago:

“Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy.”

But even without that thought, it seems as if examples are around us daily.  The easiest one to spot is the current tax code.  Looking at individual deductions, it’s easy to see why most exist.  Deductions for raising children or owning a home or small business tax cuts for those hiring or charitable deductions…..etc, etc, etc – They all seem innocuous by themselves.  Even if you disagree with some specifics, the arguments seem valid.

Yet you transition from this basic idea of rewarding people for certain actions through the tax code, to today and you end up with (here):

…the current tax code is 60K pages of government sponsored corruption where the normal citizen or even the IRS agent has little idea exactly what all 60K pages means together, but special interests, nonprofits, businesses, and others all work to make the code a little better for themselves. (Freedomworks – Top Ten Reasons to Scrape the Code here)….

The criminal & regulatory codes are no better.  Their infinite complexity and shear volume, promotes the same corrupt, rent seeking behavior (ever wonder why health care reform is 1600 pages?).

This complexity inherent in all these laws and regulations creates not only rent seeking behavior, but also makes it easier for those in power who wish to abuse others through the system to be able to do so.  You see, once the system has become so complex, then even the average citizen runs the very real risk of unintentionally being on the other side of the law.  When enough people are on the other side of the law, then you get selective enforcement.

But when you’re a Senator and there are potential political points to score…. the trees are just too pretty to worry about that whole forest thingy, so you add more to it by introducing legislation to ban a specific crib because of 32 infant deaths since 2000.

Even on the merits, this law isn’t needed as the 32 deaths weren’t all by the same failure in the drop-down crib (via government’s own report) and no one has yet made any claim that the design itself is the reason for the deaths:

…CPSC has also received reports of 20 other drop side incidents, 12 of which involved the drop side detaching in a corner of the crib. In two of these incidents, a child became entrapped. One child suffered bruising from the entrapment. There are five reports of children falling out of the cribs due to drop side detachment. One child suffered a broken arm as a result of the fall.

In addition, CPSC has received 8 reports of mattress support detachment in these cribs. Due to the space created by the detachment, three children became entrapped between the crib frame and the sagging mattress and four children crawled out of the crib. There was one report of cuts and bruises….

What they found was this was actually the products from one single manufacturer which  is now out of business.  The report goes further to note:

…Due to the fact that Generation 2 went out of business in 2005, CPSC has limited information about the cribs. Although CPSC does not know the total number of units distributed or the years of production, it is believed that there were more than 500,000 of these cribs sold to consumers…..

Which means, that even out of the number of products sold by this one company, the government doesn’t have any real information on such things as failure rates.  32 out of 500K is a small failure rate (assuming all failures can be attributed to product failure versus other causes like improper installation).  Combine that with the knowledge that these numbers are guesses and only include one single company, our Senator should think of herself as being on shaky ground.

The calculus for any potential opponents however is obvious:  lots of potential downside when being labeled as pro-infant death and very little upside as few people seem to care.

So for now, while the trees might know the forest exists and vice versa, until voters are able and willing to contemplate the difference, we will simply continue to lose sight of one in favor of the other.

Ah… Howard Dean once again proves that his sporadic brilliance and clarity on certain subjects will always be over shadowed by blind party loyalty.  Via Politico (here):

Howard Dean on Wednesday took the New York Times to task for running a “hatchet job” story on Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal misstating his service in Vietnam without acknowledging that the information came from a GOP campaign…

What do we know?  Mr. Blumenthal has deliberately stated publicly about those times when he served “in Vietnam” on a number of occasions.  We know it’s untrue, because he’s backed off and changed served in to served “during Vietnam”:

Blumenthal apologized for misstating his service “on occasion” during a press conference Tuesday.

But for Mr. Dean:

“Let’s be fair about this. This is a New York Times gotcha story planted by the opposition,” said Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “It was planned by the opposition. The New York Times did not acknowledge that in their front page article.”

Dean urged Connecticut voters to “listen to Blumenthal’s side” of the story before judging his candidacy.

Yep – kill the messenger, then use guilt by association, but ignore the simple truth that a man in a job which has a core component of deliberate communications deliberately misled people to believe he was something he wasn’t.

It’s sad really Mr. Blumenthal doesn’t think enough about his life – sad to think of his family having to deal with this humiliation as well.  Sad Mr. Dean still doesn’t get it.

Oil leaks into the Gulf of Mexico from the end of the pipe that was supposed to pump oil from the sea floor before the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded Photo: AP

The audacity of writers will never cease to amaze me and today is no exception.

In a piece at Salon.com, authored by Andrew Leonard, and titled Gulf oil spill gas price blackmail Mr. Leonard tries to make the case that the Obama Administration should:

Ignore critics of regulation who warn of rising pump prices. They are obsessed with the wrong bottom line.

Though his only reasoning seems to be that the opponents of new regulations only came to be after a major crisis. First, he starts with some of the current opposition statements:

The International Energy Agency is frightened, reports the Financial Times that “a knee-jerk reaction by regulators, banning new offshore licensing altogether,” in response to the Gulf oil spill, will end up increasing costs for the oil industry, and “therefore oil prices.”….

This helps us understand why he uses words like blackmail and frightened…. because these people are only looking at the bottom line.   From here, now that we understand these people are greedy and uncaring for anything other than money, he moves quickly into the timing of this opposition:

…it’s impressive to see how quickly the clamor advising the White House not to go overboard on offshore regulation has flared up. The parallels with the financial crisis are irresistible: A massive failure of markets and government oversight leads to a disaster, but before the wreckage has even been cleared away, we are told that regulatory overkill will be bad for business….

What he seemingly fails to grasp is, well, with all due respect to Mr. Leonard, he is failing to grasp the obvious – people generally don’t oppose or support regulations when they aren’t being proposed at all. So this argument about timing is completely irrelevant.

Logically, people, groups, communities, companies…. all of us have enough to worry about that we don’t usually worry about those things that aren’t happening.

It’s possible the author is unaware, but most of the pro-life movement didn’t really exist until 1973 as it wasn’t necessary prior to that. Maybe he finds this suspect as well?

But logic be damned, he uses this to springboard into the current investigation to explain why drastic changes in regulations are needed right now:

…But focusing only on the bottom line without taking into account the larger picture of what could go wrong — and what is going wrong — is exactly how we ended up with a giant Gulf oil slick in the first place….

Ironically, & potentially unwittingly, he then gives reasons why major regulation change should be avoided. By trying to conflate some idea of greed into this, but still keep the appearance of some factual stance, he states some of the issues clearly and properly notices that we don’t yet know what happened.

The main reason we don’t know – the only real people currently talking are those with a stake in not being blamed and there are 3 primary private actors and a multitude of government actors. Independent investigators will sort through all parties statements, responsibilities, duties, actions, and all the rest and hopefully come to some answer as to what really took place. Until then, any newly proposed regulation will be premature and wholly inconsistent with wise decision-making.

Additionally, he never refutes the words used by opponents, because he simply can’t. Economics shows us without emotion or emotion-filled words such as “blackmail” that regulations cost businesses money and those costs have to be borne out by the consumers.

The one interesting thing he noted was about the parallel to the financial market, but here he sees reverse of reality. The parallel Mr. Leonard should easily see is that we have a government bent on adding more and more power at the federal level attempting to use fear of another crisis to grab more power before even understanding why the crisis happened in the first place. Instead, of fearing this, he seems to be concerned only for some hypothetical lack of regulation, as if that has been the problem all along.

The reality is there. Going back historically, let’s say, going way, way back to… how about 6 months ago? When fear of another financial crisis was & is still being used to add regulations on entities such as pay-day loan companies, on investment vehicles such as derivatives, on compensation of employees, and many, many more things which had absolutely nothing to do with the current crisis, his concern for lack of regulation seems oddly misplaced.

After all, this is not only the same administration which is pushing for specious financial regulations, but they are also the same group which after years of railing against the Patriot Act, when the time came to do something, they did. They reauthorized its use to maintain their power.

Please note though – it’s not just this administration. Historically, governments seek to expand their power, they use crises to do so, and once those crises are mitigated, they keep the power they promised us was only necessary under the circumstances.

Whether a terrorist event, an economic crisis, or even an oil spill by greedy business people, allowing the government to take more and more powers before we even have an idea of what took place is the perfect move for those who want reduced freedoms.

As Hayek stated:

‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.

SCOTUS pick made….now here comes the fun.  From CBS, Obama stated, among other things:

“one of the nation’s foremost legal minds.”

a “trailblazing leader.”

“She has won accolades from observers across the ideological spectrum,” Mr. Obama said today, “not just for her intellect and record of achievement, but also for her temperament.”

For full disclosure, I’m a veteran of the United States Army, but it seems to me…. when Ms. Kagan, decided, as Dean of Harvard law school to ban military recruiters from campus due to “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy implemented, she did so knowing she was legally in the wrong.

To be fair, she did follow the law in that she only banned recruiters after some appeals courts stuck down the Solomon Amendment as unConstitutional, but I think the facts suggest she was knowingly following bad law because it suited her beliefs.

Now, as I frequently say, I’m no lawyer, but it seems the appeals courts which struck down the Solomon Amendment, did so without any real legal basis.  I can say this easily with confidence now as SCOTUS upheld the amendment unanimously, but even without hindsight it seemed unlikely the amendment was unConstitutional.

For over 90 years, the federal government, with lots of backing from SCOTUS, has pushed policies and even laws on recipients of federal money.  It began with a highway bill to the states, but again and again SCOTUS has stated firmly that if the federal government gives you money, they can take that money away if your group/entity/state does something with which they disagree.

I’m probably in the minority on this view, but when the Dean of Harvard Law School pushes a policy with which the United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected, she likely shouldn’t be on the court.  Think about it – her beliefs and legal reasoning was unanimously rejected by the exact same court makeup that she will be joining…

But this is only the beginning and we truly know very little so far.  I’m still inclined to keep an open mind as this is only one incident and I could see an argument about following school policy as valid, but for analysis sake.

At this time it doesn’t seem even a unanimous rejection of her ideas by SCOTUS will deny her entry into a life long position from which she can help shape the American legal system for years to come.

The likely scenario is that her opponents don’t find anything truly damaging, mainly due to her complete lack of experience (less than that of Harriet Miers), and politicians scared of being called hateful or mean, never question her with the ferocity intended.  Not because she’s a woman, but because our politicians are fearful and will only risk a “meanie” tag once a firm majority is already behind them.

The high school, which erupted over hurt feelings when some wore flag shirts to school on Cinco De Mayo, and then erupted further when an incompetent management structure got involved has apologized.

The statement given ignores any of the real issues.  Like all political statements, they even pretend something is true that they know isn’t.  Their school & their decisions, are anti-free speech and to pretend otherwise should be seen as the absurdity it is.  He then talks about being “proud” of the students for handling the media coverage…

You mean the ones’ who protested, to get media coverage?

…On Thursday, May 6, about 50 students, many carrying the Mexican flag, walked out of classes. The students told reporters that they thought it was disrespectful for the students to wear the American flag on their shirts while others were celebrating Cinco de Mayo….

First, what the hell were they protesting?  Maybe it’s just me, but if Joe Friday sticks by the facts it seems it went like this:

1. Some students wore American flag t-shirts on a Mexican holiday.
2. Some fragile students complained that they were “hurt” by this.
3. Incompetent management then forces the students to change or go home.

For all intents and purposes, it seems the idiots protesting won the fight.

But yesterday, according to the  statement…. “they (the students) wore purple and white for solidarity”…. so all is well I suppose.

Meanwhile, you still have children who were “taught” in this “teachable” moment that they should never, ever have to be disrespected.  I’m unsure where this belief about respect has come, but I believe it’s a dangerous and intolerant belief.  I seem to recall when respect was earned, not deserved, but I digress.

It seems logically obvious that true freedom is to allow things you won’t/don’t like.  Allowing freedom actually means  (please read carefully you spoiled little brats) people are going to do things you don’t really like and there’s absolutely nothing you can or should do about it.

Additionally, on the plethora of things you should be grown up enough to deal with in a free society, speech by way of t-shirts is the least intrusive and offensive thing I can think of.  Seriously, I have what some would call a pretty dark sense of humor, and the things I can think to wear if I were to purposefully wanted to disrupt Cinco De Mayo…. well, let’s just say while it make me laugh, my imagination can lead me to t-shirts which might actually be cause for a protest (assuming the school allowed it).

In a free country, not only do we not allow the cops to arrest people simply for demonstrating their beliefs, but we also respect freedom in general.  For instance, when some comedian or cartoonist creates something satirical, yet disparaging to the Catholic Church, no one demands protests, no one demands censorship, and no one ever demands death.

Sure, people rightfully offended might debate about it, write about it, might boycott products, but they don’t close schools to protest over being disrespected.  They prefer to get their respect through their actions towards helping others, not through mob scenes.

What’s also buried in here,  is that no one (especially the “Mexican” students) seems to understand the holiday has nothing to do with Mexican independence and its history is actually a shared American/Mexican holiday for a Mexican victory of one battle over the French.  It was a hard fought victory for 4000 barely-trained Mexicans over 8000 well-trained and well-equipped French.  So the holiday was never meant to be “celebrated” exactly, as it was meant to be more like a D-Day remembrance.   (Mexican Independence day is the 16th of September)

Indeed, to be really offensive students could’ve chosen to have worn French flag t-shirts, not American flag t-shirts.

Back to the history:  It was used in early American history, mid-1800s, by Mexicans & Americans in California to tick off the French.  Now, I’m all for doing anything that irritates the French, but that obviously died out over time.  The holiday, then became almost nonexistent.

However, with money to made…. over the past 30 years or so, corporations & a willing populace have changed everything.  The remembrance, which should come from such a bloody, yet surprising victory, was turned into a holiday to sell more Mexican food, beer, and flags;  just like St. Patrick’s day might have one time had something to do with St. Patrick, but now serves only as a reason to drink green beer and buy “Kiss me I’m Irish” stuff.

My point: that looking at this from each angle seems to show the American public should be angry at one thing only.  How high school kids, in a well-funded school system, in one of the richest states in one of the richest countries in the world are so… frustratingly ignorant of their ancestral history and know nothing about even about the basic idea of freedom itself.