Detailed Abstractions

Coward #1 cleric Anwar al-Awlaki - thinks people should die, so long as they’re easy targets and he gets others to do it (via Aol news here):

(July 12) — Molly Norris, the American cartoonist who started “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” has been placed on the hit list of radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki….

Coward(s) #2, NAACP is leveling charges of racism as a tool against those they simply disagree with (via CNN here):

The NAACP has passed a resolution that condemns what it feels is rampant racism in the Tea Party movement….

Coward(s) #3, France – scared of freedom (via BBC here):

France’s lower house of parliament has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public….

In other administration news, WSJ Online is reporting (here):

The federal government is launching an expansive program dubbed “Perfect Citizen” to detect cyber assaults on private companies and government agencies running such critical infrastructure as the electricity grid and nuclear-power plants, according to people familiar with the program….

As a concerned citizen, you might ask yourself… how will this work?

…The surveillance by the National Security Agency, the government’s chief eavesdropping agency, would rely on a set of sensors deployed in computer networks for critical infrastructure that would be triggered by unusual activity suggesting an impending cyber attack, though it wouldn’t persistently monitor the whole system, these people said….

& herein lies the problem…. the internet wasn’t designed to predict or prevent attacks, so the question becomes – how do they plan to do this?

Do they plan to redesign the internet?  Or do they plan to spy on all computers connected?  Combination of both?*

In this age of “transparency” I’m sure we can find out:

….Defense contractor Raytheon Corp. recently won a classified contract for the initial phase of the surveillance effort valued at up to $100 million, said a person familiar with the project.

An NSA spokeswoman said the agency had no information to provide on the program. A Raytheon spokesman declined to comment….

Ahhhh…. that clears it up.  The administration bent on transparency is implementing a secret program to monitor most internet activity without telling anyone what it is.

Please note: I do agree that say specific intrusion detection techniques and encryption would be left out of the public.

But for this administration, the transparent, no more Patriot Act administration, to task the world’s number one cyber-spy agency to secretly monitor internet activity of American citizens without telling those citizens exactly what it’s doing – well, whatever it is, it’s not transparent.

*side bar* To get an idea of cybersecurity threats, how difficult it is to detect without intruding on personal computers, and just an overall great article about a real life cyber-mystery, I highly recommend The Enemy Within published by The Atlantic:

When the Conficker computer “worm” was unleashed on the world in November 2008, cyber-security experts didn’t know what to make of it. It infiltrated millions of computers around the globe. It constantly checks in with its unknown creators. It uses an encryption code so sophisticated that only a very few people could have deployed it. For the first time ever, the cyber-security elites of the world have joined forces in a high-tech game of cops and robbers, trying to find Conficker’s creators and defeat them. The cops are failing. And now the worm lies there, waiting ……

The full article is well worth the time.

More bad news for Obama & the Democrats for 2010 elections.  Via The Atlantic here:

Chris Cillizza’s Morning Fix reports new data from Gallup showing that independents now favor a generic Republican candidate for Congress over a generic Democrat by 12 points….

& as is continually the case with this congress, more bad news for freedom.  Via The Hill here:

The 30-second campaign ad could become a thing of the past for third-party groups if the Democrats’ campaign finance legislation becomes law.

Media strategists argue the new disclosure requirements would eat into the majority of their ad time….

& while we’re talking about lack of freedom…. what might Kagan do about this “disclose” act?  Via Reason.com here:

As solicitor general of the United States, Elena Kagan argued in front of the Supreme Court that the federal government had the constitutional authority to ban certain political pamphlets. She also strongly implied that some political books, if they were partisan enough, could also be censored…..

Does is matter that she’s against free political speech?  Unlikely…. via Yahoo News here:

…Kagan’s performance in the Judiciary Committee drew praise from Democrats and compliments even from some critics, putting her on a path to confirmation by the full Senate sometime in July.

“She will be confirmed. I believe she will be confirmed,” said Republican Orrin Hatch, a member of the Judiciary Committee, predicting there would be at least some Republican support…..

& least we forgot, there’s still an oil spill…. which is being screwed up by the same government that is promising to “fix” healthcare….  Via The Heritage Foundation here, all kinds of people are offering help, but we’re still considering it:

In total, there have been 27 countries and 5 international organizations offering boom, dispersants, skimmers, vessels, bird rehabilitation equipment as well expertise. Along with the other important action items for the administration to undertake, accepting international assistance must be a more urgent priority. The Department of State has a chart that lists the equipment and expertise sitting on the sidelines with most of the status orders “under consideration.” Owners of the equipment have been rapid in their response to government queries but the equipment remains idle. It simply needs to be better….

Not to mention the economic killing impact the asinine moratorium is having:

Meanwhile, the Gulf continues to suffer. It’s not just government incompetence when it comes to the environmental cleanup; the administration’s policy decisions are making the economic harm much worse – especially the offshore drilling moratorium. Although the ban was only meant to affect those rigs operating in water 500 feet or deeper, it has led to a de facto ban on shallow water drilling….

Butler said that only one of his four drill rigs are operating; all four were drilling before the spill. Spartan has six contracts that would put his entire fleet back to work, but he can’t get going until the permits come through, he added. The week before last, Butler said he had to lay off 72 employees. Come Tuesday he’ll have to let another 140 go. “That’s 140 families, is how I look at it,” Butler said….

Not only incompetence in the clean-up, idiocy in quickly implemented, but poorly thought out regulations (DA post here), The Atlantic takes all this and poses an interesting moral question here:

In this video from Climate Desk partner Need to Know, Atlantic correspondent and oil expert Lisa Margonelli talks to Jon Meacham about halting drilling in the Gulf. She explains her view that Americans don’t have a right to drive cars and use gasoline unless we’re willing to drill for it in our own backyard….

For good news – research conducted on parents and children in reference to video games demonstrates that most parents actually don’t need government help.  Via The Technology Liberation Front (here):

• 93% of the time parents are present at the time games are purchased or rented
• 64% of parents believe games are a positive part of their children’s lives
• 86% of the time children receive their parents’ permission before purchasing or renting a game
• 48% of parents play computer and video games with their children at least weekly
• 97% of parents report always or sometimes monitoring the games their children play
• 76% of parents believe that the parental controls available in all new video game consoles are useful

It might be scary to those in government who are continuing to try to push more laws concerning how parents raise their children as it discounts the need for those laws, but for us normal folk – it gives us what we see everyday:

Once again, these findings illustrate that parents are parenting!

In a close, but what I believe is an ultimately correct decision, the Supreme Court upheld every citizens’ right to defend their homes (via Yahoo News here):

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US Supreme Court found Monday a Chicago handgun ban to be unconstitutional in a far-reaching ruling that makes it much harder for states and city governments to limit gun ownership.

In a major victory for gun rights activists, but a bitter blow for those seeking to maintain gun controls in the United States, Justice Samuel Alito said the constitution was clear on the right to bear arms for self-defense.

The 5-4 majority ruling extended to all cities and states the Supreme Court’s 2008 landmark affirmation that Americans have theconstitutional right – as enshrined in the Second Amendment – to own weapons, including handguns….

This is not only a landmark decision as it marks the first SCOTUS decision that wasn’t limited in scope to the municipality the lawsuit was brought against, but for those who believe in freedom – it’s another step forward in a world where we seem to be giving up more and more freedoms.

However, like any freedom, when people think you might use that freedom for things they don’t agree with, they don’t think it’s a freedom anymore. And like any other petty tyrant, Mayor Daley is just going to make other arrangements to ensure Chicago residents don’t enjoy this freedom for long (via CSMonitor here):

…Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said officials were already at work rewriting the city ordinance to adhere to the court ruling while protecting Chicago residents from gun violence….

I guess he forgot to finish his statement – “we want to protect residents from gun violence so long as they aren’t able to protect themselves”…

But either way – for now.  Chicago residents have the right they should have from birth – the right to defend themselves.

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.

DA has several posts on the reasons behind the economic collapse as well as financial reform itself.  &, as is usual, the government is using the “crisis” as a power grab.

@ MarketWatch (here):

…The comprehensive bill is an attempt fix holes in the regulatory system that helped lead to the Great Recession….

At this point, Republicans are blocking a Senate vote:

…Among the sticking points are provisions that would give regulators the authority to guarantee debts of large financial institutions, provisions that would give the Federal Reserve authority to lend money to banks in an emergency, and a proposal to deal with failing systemically important companies by setting up a “burial insurance” fund….

Now I’m no fan of the Republicans and understand full well some of their opposition is about politics and not the actual bill, but I’m pleased with this block. First, guaranteeing debts of larger financial institutions does the exact opposite of the administration’s consistently stated goal – end too big too fail. @ MarketWatch (here):

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The U.S. must pass legislation to reform the financial system , in particular to make sure that no bank operates on the assumption that it will be bailed out by taxpayers, Lawrence Summers, the director of the National Economic Council and President Barack Obama’s top economic adviser, said Sunday.

“We must end too big to fail,” he said on Face the Nation. “There is no one associated with the White House who believes “too big to fail” is acceptable, or that it’s acceptable for financial institutions to rely on a bailout.”…

@ Daily Finance (here):

Too big to fail? This isn’t a designation that the Obama administration wants to exist any more….

& the President himself via YouTube (here). Insuring potential debts for very large institutions which might fail, is insuring too big to fail continues.  In this particular case, the logic is obvious and inescapable.  If an institution becomes very large, then the government designates them as whatever, which in turn tells the investing public that that institution is backed by the federal government. This will not only give larger banks an advantage (would you rather invest in a business you know won’t be allowed to fail or one that you know will be allowed to fail?), making it more difficult for smaller banks to compete, but actually incents banks to become big enough to get the designation itself. But why stop there? @ MarketWatch (here):

…The legislation would set up a new agency to protect consumers from lending abuses. It would also give the government the authority to wind down big financial institutions, and expand oversight of the derivatives market….

Soooooo… the government, which continued to support Fannie and Freddie after being told by numerous groups the risk they posed, the government which regulated ratings agencies who gave triple-A bond ratings to MBSs, the government who’s economic predictions have failed again and again needs yet another agency from which to fail?  Maybe it’s just me, but I thought the justice system was supposed to protect consumers… But that’s simply not enough power either.  They also need more control over the derivatives market.  You know, the market which had nothing to do with the economic crisis.  They also plan to more heavily regulate pay-day loan companies.  Not sure what they had to do with the crisis either… I think Alan Reynolds @ Cato stated it very well (here):

The Obama administration thinks it has discovered the perfect formula to cram legislation through in a hurry:  Demonize some prominent firm within an industry you plan to redesign, and then pass a law that has nothing to do with the accusation against the demonized firm.  They did this with health insurance and now they’re trying it with finance.

However it’s said and whatever is said, this legislation will do the opposite of its theoretical intent.  It will not protect anyone, but  hurt all consumers.  By adding more and more layers of of regulations, the barriers to entry are increased for everyone, hurting competition, and raising prices for the end consumer.

• I think there is still a health care debate even though the bully pulpit isn’t wanting to increase attention to this, but writer Michael F. Cannon from the Cato Institute diligently continues to shed light on the issue.  As one of the best writers on the subject I recommend everything he has written or papers he has published on the subject.  For now, he has a three part series worth the time for anyone interested in learning more: Questions for Thoughtful Obama Care Supporters (Part I, Part II, Part III)

• It might not matter, the health care bill hated by all might be pushed through with various legal and procedural maneuvering.  here via Cato

• Interesting medical research showing correlation: As girth grows, risk of sudden cardiac death shrinks.  I question their use of BMI to identify normal/underweight as as 6’4” person can weight as little as 160 and still be normal (chart), but hopefully it will help them understand that stats are useful tools, but for things such as medicine…. due to the unique nature of us all, the future is individually built therapies, not government programs to change the BMI of an entire nation.

• John Stossel writing Reform Does Not Mean More Rules in response to Senator Chris Dodd’s proposed overhaul of financial regulation:

The New York Times headline says Dodd’s Bill “Adds Layers of Oversight”.

Just what we need: 1,336 pages of additional “layers.”  Senator Dodd is as ignorant as he is arrogant.

• Lending credence to Mr. Stossel’s position, How the Fed slept through Lehman via Rueters

• Cornell MBA student says bet against Warren Buffett (here via WSJ).  Not saying I agree, but I do agree with WSJ – always nice to see someone attempting to break conventional wisdom.