July 13, 2005
Some Wilson-Plame-Rove clarity
Posted by Jon Ham at 10:09 PM
Confused about the Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame-Karl Rove controversy? Let Ann Coulter spell it out for you. Too bad the mainstream press can't explain it with this clarity.
UPDATE: The life cycle of a scandal is explained by Raleigh blogger Betsy Newmark. (Hat tip to another N.C. blogger, Lorie Byrd at Polipundit.)
Aren't they the education association?
Posted by Jon Ham at 2:04 PM
Check out this agenda for the National Education Association's annual meeting and see how many education-related items you can find.
(via Michelle Malkin)
An apple is still an apple, right?
Posted by Jon Ham at 1:49 PM
We're all well aware of the PC craze that is slowly dying a silent
death. But, what we might not be aware of is how this death is
occurring. I think I have it figured out. It's asphyxiation caused by
the very obesity of the issue: PC by its very nature is
The PC movement attempts to destroy barriers in society by eliminating
"offensive" classifications. But the classifications, no matter what
diction is chosen, are still present. It's just natural to group all
sensations into packages of similarities, and this includes groups of
As the PC movement blossomed (or festered, rather), the craze extended
outwards, consuming any issue that attempted to divide. There was
gender, sexuality, and of course the every present race card. But, now
that many people are realizing that we can't escape classifications, no
matter how all-inclusive we try to be, the medical field may be showing
us that there really is something important about being different.
Despite the fact that there is evidence supporting the claim that there
are racially specific drugs,
people are still worried that by isolating one group, we may finally
let the PC craze die in peace. I can't wait to see people argue over
the divisiveness of race-based drugs.
Death and Taxes...
Posted by Jon Ham at 12:05 AM
In the Wall Street Journal today, the article States Move to Beef up Estate Taxes shows the increased activity by several states to push an inter-generational wealth redistribution program.
Additionally, today in the Washington Times, the article Study supports repealing estate tax permanently cites a new study by the American Family Business Institute (AFBI) that contradicts the Joint Committee on Taxation's findings on a revenue loss from the repeal of the federal estate tax.
Thanks again to the Foundation for Economic Education for their timely classic: The Death Tax Is Fair? It Just Ainít So!
Posted by Dr. Roy Cordato at 11:48 AM
Yesterday during his stint on Bill LuMaye's WPTF radio show, Fred Singer was challenged by an N.C. State professor--I'm not sure of what--about the issue of whether or not there was a consensus among scientists regarding global warming. The prof/caller argued that there was and that there was no legitimate dispute about whether human induced warming was occurring. The implication was that only a few cooks--like Singer--didn't by the alarmist line. This lead me to search for a quote that I once read from MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen, another "cook" like Singer--sorry there is no link.
"With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to
scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged
to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to
bother to understand it. You can simply go back to treating it
as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend
this belief except to claim that you are supported by all
scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics."
"Climate Alarm, Where Does it Come From"
2004 lecture given in Houston
Posted by George Leef at 10:34 AM
What with a nomination and confirmation fight (more like war, I'm sure) coming up, we'll probably hear a lot about "Originalism" versus the "Living Constitution."
Edward Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (and formerly one of Scalia's law clerks) here takes a jab at non-originalists that is simultaneously funny and serious.
"Good" per se
Posted by Hal Young at 10:07 AM
Christopher's quote of Bastiat's essay -- both the title and the concept introduced in the opening paragraphs -- is well applied. The second example ("The Disbanding of Troops") lines up with a comment from a Wake County Schools administrator:
"Wake County Public Schools is a growing school district and that is good news that we are growing."
Since the story dealt with overcrowding in the Wake County schools, long-term lack of funding for staff and faculty, proposals controversial to parents, and proposals vigorously opposed by students Ö explain to me again why growth in a publicly-funded and regulated activity, with all sorts of concomitant troubles, is per se a good thing? Particularly in the presence of several popular alternatives?
Re: it's all about me
Posted by Donna Martinez at 09:35 AM
Jon, in the article you linked in your blog, I saw that former President Clinton plans to focus on, among other things, povery and climate change in his "Clinton Global Initiative." (You gottta love that title. I can't wait to see the logo). I wonder if he will address the rich irony of the thinking by global warming alarmists, which was brought up yesterday by our luncheon guest, Dr. S. Fred Singer, a physicist and climate scientist. Dr. Singer noted on WPTF's "Bill LuMaye Show" that when people are lifted out of poverty, they consume more energy (cars, electricity, etc.) Since the global warming alarmists believe energy usage is the root of all evil and is causing a massive warming of the earth that will end in catastrophe, what's their answer to this conflict? Keep people in poverty?
Stossel on the open-mindedness of leftists
Posted by George Leef at 08:51 AM
Our friend John Stossel ruminates hereabout the open-mindedness of leftists. (They aren't, despite all the talk about "inclusiveness" and so on. Ideas that challenge theirs can just get lost!)
It's all about me
Posted by Jon Ham at 08:47 AM
Whenever I read a story about Bill Clinton I can be sure that
somewhere he will use the first person. Even if the issue is global
problems, it's always about Bill.
WaPo at it again
Posted by Jon Ham at 07:40 AM
Blogger Hugh Hewitt catches The Washington Post "cheerleading for an alternative reality."
Re: When's the Right Time?
Posted by George Leef at 07:26 AM
Donna makes a good point. In labor markets, it is necessary to pay people more to attract them to jobs that have high risks or unpleasant conditions. Since most people prefer pleasant, comfortable working conditions, there is a larger supply of such workers and pay tends to be lower, ceteris paribus.
I believe it was Isaac Stern (or maybe Artur Rubinstein) who once said that playing at Carnegie Hall was such a thrill, he'd pay for the chance.
So does it make sense for the UNC crowd to talk about the need to significantly increase compensation for the next president (Molly Broad makes $312,000 plus a fine house and car whose make I wish I knew) in order to attract the high caliber person they want? I think not. My hunch is that there are a lot of very competent people for whom the current compensation package plus the ability to introduce oneself at cocktail parties as "President of the University of North Carolina" would be ample reward.
What does not make sense is announcing ahead of time that the salary will go to at least $450 or $475K, figures that have been tossed around. If you were running a business and needed a new key management person, wouldn't you try to negotiate the lowest compensation package you could? The UNC search committee should be as careful with taxpayer money as executives are with stockholder money.
<< Last Entry