Advertisement

We love Dr. Boli.

AGW Proponents: Time to Listen

Some little time ago, a report came out that unquestionably proved Global Warming was a real thing, and that no reasonable person could remain a skeptic. Of course, a news reports claims that report is itself badly flawed, and that data reveal something quite different.

The Czar is not taking one side over the other on this, and most of you already know the Gormogon viewpoint: something is going on with the climate, but we are far from having enough data to understand what that something is—and that with the useless mocking from one side and cherry-picking from the other, we aren’t going to figure anything out.

No, rather, the Czar would like to comment a bit on the reaction to the original report. Anti-climate change folks reacted with total indifference, more than reasonably expecting something would be revealed about the integrity of the report. And they were right about that last point.

But the pro-climate change folks reacted with a strange form of indifference of their own—mocking, typically, but generally agreeing that the report doesn’t matter much because “the Deniers” were never going to accept reality anyway, with their Young-Earth Creationism and stupidity.

This is the wrong approach. The AGW crowd (or whatever they prefer to call themselves; it’s difficult even keeping up with that) refuse to listen to the group they patently dismiss as “Deniers.” This not makes them more close-minded than the Deniers, but it infuriates the Deniers more.

Because the Deniers have a powerful point.

This stubborn refusal to listen is typically dismissed along the lines of “If they have anything worthwhile to say, they can publish their own scientific papers, which we don’t see them doing.”

The Deniers say their argument isn’t based on the science, to which the pro-AGW folks high-five each other and say “You bet it ain’t.”

The Deniers primary argument is based on the politics. In response, the pro-AGW crowd throws up their collective hands and decries the politicization of what should be settled science.

“But this isn’t settled,” say the Deniers, and pro-AGW crowd challenges them to publish a refutation; the entire loop repeats.

The issue here is that the pro-AGW crowd thinks the more charts, bar graphs, polar bear photos, and spreadsheets it throws to the media, the stronger their argument gets. But they are missing the core objection Deniers have: you need to address the politics you created, because that is not based on science.

If you are a pro-AGW person, read up carefully. You might find that more so-called Deniers agree with you than not. Surprise.

The objection is not toward the premise, it is toward the lunacy of the conclusion. If the climate is changing, and if mankind is reponsible—both testable hypotheses, by the way—then what is all this about environmental regulation, capping and trading, and wealth transfers?

The pro-AGW crowd has no idea what the heck that’s about; that’s the whole politicization thing they want to avoid. Unfortunately, some members of the pro-AGW crowd—who inarguably stand a massive financial benefit from the politics—are the only ones offering up a suggestion as to what should be done. And that is what turns the Deniers off.

Who came up with the term Deniers? Al Gore: the same guy who stands to make immense fortunes from the adoption of the political view. And by labelling skeptics as Deniers, he effectively removes your need to debate the skeptics on matter of politics. After all, they will just Deny, Deny, Deny. And that gives you an intellectual cop-out to listening to the objections.

A thought. Provide a reasonable, low-cost solution to AGW that is:

1. Direct, specifically reducing or contributing to the reduction of temperature increases


2. Measurable, so that its progress can be measured without finger-pointing and claims of falsification


3. Time-Specific, so we can agree to a goal by a certain year or decade


4. Controlled, so that we can prevent temperature change running rampant the other way


5. Economically viable, so that it doesn’t cause millions to starve in hopes that it will save thousands from relocating due to ocean level rise


6. Non Market-Driven, so that a particular class of investors does not rake in profits caused by the creation of an arbitrary shares market

Okay, that just about wipes everything out. And that, you see, is a problem—because all of these elements are tests for a realistic solution.

Eliminate fossil fuels? A common reflex good for protest signs, but is neither time-specific no economically viable. Cap and trade CO₂ emissions? That’s indirect, non-time specific, and is very much market driven. Green technologies? That’s immeasurable, and uncontrollable.

The solution is not to throw more data at the skeptics: the solution is to provide a solution. So far, all of the existing assumptions fail this basic test. In other words, you can win the argument that temperatures are increasing, and you can win the argument whether or not mankind is responsible—but it all comes to nothing if you cannot answer “What is to be done?” in a realistic and specific way.

Like the Occupy protests, you have failed to provide a solution: and as such, solutions were provided by Others. And it is the intentions of the Others that paralyze the discussion.

It's the Season of the Witch!

Dr. J. would like to wish our readers, followers and especially our minions a Happy Halloween!


The Halloween Fairy (She's real, unlike that Great Pumpkin chap) made her annual visit to the J. household this morning leaving little treats for the lil resident and lil med student. After a street tailgate, tonight, the J.'s will be shaking down the neighbors for candy. We hope your family traditions are as fun and festive this fall evening!

Cain's Turn

All of a sudden, conservatives are supposed to be outraged that Herman Cain has been accused, in the past, of a settled matter of sexual harassment?

Oh, now it makes sense. See, the great thing about the Clinton presidency was that conservatives got all in a tither about the President fooling around on the job. Therefore, we should be equally condemning of Herman Cain—who, by the way, is in a statistical dead heat with Mitt Romney but is viewed by most as having tighter values than Mitt.

Unfortunately for the Left, they have elected to choose from their rapidly emptying bag of tricks the exact same methodology used to attack Clarence Thomas. And the Czar isn’t the only one who is suspicious of the similarity of attack methodology and, shall we say, skin color.

One hopes someone told Mr. Cain (and Mr. Romney, et al.) that things are going to get worse before they get better.

Father Hits a Homer

The pastor at GorT's church delivered an awesome homily today.  It's always odd to sermonize about attending Mass as the target audience is likely not there, unless you preach it at Christmas or Easter.  He opened by thanking us at Mass for attending today and then outlined three general reasons why people (Catholics) don't attend Mass:

1.  The Church, its leadership and its priests are corrupt, wrong, or otherwise not perfect and therefore why attend Mass as one shouldn't be listening to those types.

2.  The individual doesn't get anything out of Mass so why attend?

3.  The individual is good with themselves and doesn't feel that anyone should be telling them how to act and what to do.

Our pastor took each one in order and, in essence, debunked each one.  As I listened, I wondered how many in Mass actually got his subtle point.  You see, the Catholic Church is trying to work on its evangelization.  So why not arm those who attend Mass with the information to counter the prevalent arguments against  attending Mass?  Brilliant, in my opinion.

In summary, his responses were:

1.  Yes, that accusation is spot on and no one in the Church has ever advocated that it was perfect nor were/are priests perfect.  In fact, the Catholic Church openly acknowledges that it is, as a whole, a community of sinners aiming at being holy.  Holy is different than perfect.  To be perfect is to be without flaw (or sin, in this case) whereas being holy (as Father defined it during his homily) is to be on the path to God.

2.  You don't attend Mass to "get something" out of it.  You are at Mass to give.  And in giving, one receives.  Sure, the homily (unlike this one) might not grab you or hold your attention, but again, that's not why one attends Mass.  The individual has an orientation problem if his or her goal is to get something out of Mass rather than giving themselves to Mass.

3.  In his rebuttal to this point, I think Father teed up a shot at a popular liberal argument which I'll get to in a minute.  The Church is not telling people what to do or how to act.  Instead, the Church is providing guidance on how to be holy.  Remember - holy, not perfect.  The Church believes firmly and at its core that everyone has free will and must act accordingly.  We are doubly blessed here that we live in a free society in this country where we can choose to act in a Christian manner. 

So the logical extension to Father's third point is that the Church is not telling us to participate in wealth redistribution practices (or support such movements) because its the Christian thing to do.  Instead, the Church says that it is Christian to help feed, clothe and otherwise care for the poor.  There is a big difference and trying to subvert Christian and Catholic teachings by twisting them into a supportive argument for tax increases to support Medicare, Medicaid and other government-run welfare programs should be frowned upon.

Aside from the child throwing a tantrum for 10 minutes in the pew behind us with his parents not making a move for the back of the church, it was a wonderful Mass.

PS - to that family who consistently arrives 15 minutes late and leaves after receiving Communion, please close the doors rather than leave them propped open when you arrive.

Hollywood Am Stupid

Dearest Hollywood:

We understand you are contemplating increasing the time between a movie’s release on DVD or BluRay, and the time which Netflix and Redbox can stock the film for rental.

This is because you perceive more people would rather rent your films than buy them. As a result, sales of $40 discs are plummeting. Guess what? You are correct.

Increasing the length of time, you will find, will have no effect on this. Largely because the culprit is not Netflix or Redbox crowding out the home consumers, but because the vast majority of what you release is utter crap, and America doesn’t want to pay $40 to see a boy-band vampire picture.

There it is then. The truth.

Here are some other truths you cannot fathom. First, we understand you are at a loss to understand why 2D versions of movies tend to outsell 3D versions, which cost more per ticket. This is because most of your films are not worth watching in 2D, let alone 3D. And most 3D versions of films have one or two uncomfortable effects, and the rest is there to introduce migraines.

Another? We understand you are raising box office prices at theaters to make up for the loss of revenue, as people for some reason are no longer going to the movies. Maybe you should actually pay $70 to take a family to the movies, buy tickets, stock up on outrageous concession prices, and be given a miserable experience in an overly loud theater with an under-lumensed picture, 20 minutes or more of inane previews, and uncomfortable seating. Gosh, why would people stay home?

Well, not everyone is staying away: old-fashioned movies like Captain America seem to be out-selling ani-American screeds like The Hurt Locker, and rentals of Thor seems to be doing much better than the recently released Footloose. Guess why?

Ah, same reason: you are producing utter junk. You entire industry is based on finding a movie that turns even a modest profit, and then attempting to replicate the same formula with a weaker cast and shoddy writing. Guess what? The movie-going public—you know, the folks who pay your bill—are much smarter than you.

Let us look at last week.

Audiences could choose between Paranormal 3 (a freaking sequel that follows the same formula as used for the previous two—boring!), Footloose (a remake of a movie that didn’t need remaking), The Thing (a remake of a movie that didn’t need remaking), and The Three Musketeers (a movie that has nothing except its title in common with a classic work of literature, and that you somehow turned into a Pirates of the Caribbean-ripoff with ninja moves).

Now why would audiences consider staying home?

As always, the answer is a quick glance in the mirror. Hollywood was never industry populated by thinking people, but things have never been more intellectually bankrupt than they are today.

And so Redbox is raising their rental prices to $1.20. Fine. Because the Czar can treat his whole family to Real Steel for $1.20 in about five more months. God bless home entertainment.

Maybe the Czar is wrong. In which case, Hollywood, good luck with Jack and Jill. Looks like that will top Dolphin Tale for sure.

Shot Block

Borepatch is of course a never-ending source of delight.

And he does not disappoint with this:



This is actually the kind of stuff that the Цесаревич does with his Legos, so we know what we’re looking at here.

For Our German Readers

Herr Mann, mit Romney.

 

Eugene Robinson Misapprehends Free Market, Capitalism

Holy cow, Eugene Robinson's uninformed, ignorant screed in today's Washington Post has got 'Puter hotter than a fat guy in a sauna. Mr. Robinson is so gravely wrong on so many items, but 'Puter's going to limit himself to a few overall observation and close with a direct quote from Mr. Robinson's piece, as its inanity speaks for itself.

First, the overall critique. Mr. Robinson assumes facts not in evidence. Mr. Robinson leads with his conclusion. The "rich" have seen a greater income increase than the poor, and the only possible explanation is Republican redistributionist policy ("trickle up," if you will), bought and paid for by the corrupt "rich."

Here are a few of 'Puter's thoughts.

Mr. Robinson blames the income increase gap on Republican policy without any support for his position whatsoever. 'Puter calls this the "round up the usual suspects" argument, a favorite of Lefties. "The poor make less money than the rich, so it's got to be a nefarious Republican scheme. I don't have to show my work, because everyone I know thinks so." 'Puter didn't realize that Mr. Robinson was Pauline Kael's doppelganger.

Additionally, Mr. Robinson commits an unforced error, assuming that there is a fixed pool of money to be divided among everyone. That is simply not true. Generally, the rich earn more because they create new wealth (more pie, for Mr. Robinson and his cohort) and get all or a portion of what they create. Generally, the poor earn less because they are (1) unskilled, (2) uneducated, (3) unemployable or some combination thereof. This is not some nefarious Republican scheme. It's American capitalism and market forces. The rich earn more because the markets think they are worth more. The poor earn less because any contributions they can make to the market are inherently less valuable to the market.

Mr. Robinson's argument is that of the Occupy Wall Street morons: toss out capitalism because it doesn't value my skills properly. Au contraire, Lefties. 'Puter finds it far more plausible that the market, within a range, has accurately assessed your worth. The functionally illiterate are essentially worthless, except for brutal manual labor and crappy, dangerous jobs. Harvard educated Wymyn's Stydys majors who wrote their senior theses on "If Andrea Dworkin Visited The Tribes of The Kalahari, Boy Would She Be Pissed" are worthless because they spent years learning something that provides absolutely no value to others. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a luxury only the truly wealthy (see, e.g., the Kennedy family) can afford. The rest of us have to learn a useful skill, or join Occupy Wall Street to bitch about how life is unfair. Sorry, Mr. Robinson. The market has in all likelihood accurately assessed the value of the poor and the Occupy Wall Street folks, which is to repeat 'Puter's self. If you think otherwise, please show the valuable contributions the poor offer society.

Mr. Robinson's weak argument is yet another example of the Left's attempt to cram a moral judgment into law. Put more simply, you have enough money for yourself, so we're forcibly depriving you of some and giving it to the poor, who we deem worthy. These smug, self-satisfied, would-be thieves would blanch if 'Puter were to say we need legislation to outlaw abortion because it purposely destroys human life. It's the same argument, from the other side of the aisle. Liberals will piously tell you that it is always wrong to legislate morals. The unspoken modifying clause is "unless they're liberal morals." If you think 'Puter's wrong, prove it.

Mr. Robinson never once shows that the poorest quintile's 18% inflation-adjusted increase is insufficient for them to lead a livable life. If Mr. Robinson has proof, he should provide it. It seems to 'Puter that most of the bottom quintile likely have microwaves, cable television, housing, food and transportation. Sure, they likely live in crappy neighborhoods, but it's not the government's job to pay the poor unearned other people's money to lift them to a middle class standard of living. If the poor want that, they need to get some skills and get a job.

Next, the three exemplary paragraphs. Here is the dogma of the Left, as related by Mr. Robinson. The fundamental ignorance of economics, American history, the free market, capitalism, private property rights and the rule of law shines for all to see, yet the Left worships at its altar anyway.

Indeed, the CBO report says that even the poorest households saw at least a little income growth. Why is it any of their business that the high-earners in the top 1 percent saw astronomical income growth? Isn’t this just sour grapes?

No, for two reasons. First, the system is rigged. Wealthy individuals and corporations have disproportionate influence over public policy because of the often decisive role that money plays in elections. If the rich and powerful act in their self-interest, as conservative ideologues believe we all should do, then the rich and powerful’s share of income will continue to soar.

Second, and more broadly, the real issue is what kind of nation we want to be. Thomas Jefferson’s “All men are created equal” is properly understood as calling for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. But the more we become a nation of rich and poor, the less we can pretend to be offering the same opportunities to every American. As polarization increases, mobility declines. The whole point of the American Dream is that it is available to everyone, not just those who awaken from their slumbers on down-filled pillows and 800-thread-count sheets.

Mr. Robinson, the American Dream is available to all. But you have to take it. It's not a Republican plot preventing the poor from advancing. Sadly, it's themselves. As noted above, most poor folks are poor through their own faults. It's not 'Puter's job, or the government's job, to bestow the American Dream on anyone. Nor is it our job to pick winners and losers. Get up, man up and go get your own danged self a piece of the American Dream. All it takes are skills, knowledge and a work ethic.

The Left believes in government as handicapper, the correcter of any injustice or slight, no matter how small. Big government is the Left's god, and Mr. Robinson is worshipping it from the front pew.

Your Mandarin Gets A Proposition...

One of your Mandarin’s orbital satellites intercepted the follow message:

O Fearsome and Fashionable Mandarin,

I read Confucius's article about the informal Presidential preference poll. When I read that you had created the T.E.D. and were trying to sell it, it piqued my interest. You see, as Reno (and moreso Sparks) is a railroad town, and in fact there is a sizable switchyard in Sparks, there would be plenty of space to store such a wondrous machine.

Unfortunately, on either side of said switchyard there are overpasses (in Sparks) and the so-called "train trench" (in Reno), and I'm afraid a nine-story vehicle would not fit without causing some perhaps unintended destruction. I realize that officials would be loath to deal with the owner of such vehicle, but they would just end up raising everybody's taxes, and that does not strike me as the way to become popular.

Not to mention, I doubt even if I sold all my possessions would I be able to scrape together the asking price.

Your (as in all of you, damn those simplifiers who decided we no longer needed "thou" and its relatives) minion,
ScottO
@AgStateSense

Well ScottO@AgStateSense, if that is your real name, thanks for following us on Twitter. Now about the price of the Tracked Engine of Death (T.E.D.), if you are willing to purchase it today, my manager has said that he is willing to take $1,341.37 off the price and throw in a set of floor mats. This vehicle is a real steal – I should know since your Mandarin is the one that “borrowed” it from his nemesis.

So if you are willing to pull the trigger – see that’s a pun and that’s funny – the T.E.D. will be yours for the low price of $769.88.

Your Mandarin is pleased that you have an area that would provide a suitable home for T.E.D. where he can run and play all day. But your Mandarin just wants to examine the area from the Gormogon Orbital Observation Platform (G.O.O.P) to make sure that this isn’t like the “farm” that we had to send ‘Puter’s dog to.

In regards to your fears of not being popular with your neighbors you shouldn’t worry. Your Mandarin can assure you that it is better to have minions that fear you rather than friends. Trust your Mandarin, minions are less likely to have something to do on Saturday when you need help moving to your new apartment.

ScottO@AgStateSense, you will be receiving the contracts once we have our legal staff determine whether or not it is legal to sell you the T.E.D. Once your Mandarin is able to clear any legal obstacles that may exist – without resorting to disintegrations – and you have paid the shipping and handling costs of $2,876,589,499.99 and all applicable local, state, federal, global, and universal taxes the T.E.D. will be dropped off at your home.

I just hope that Dat Ho actually reads the instructions this time and drops it off at you home and not on it.

No Jack-sation without representation

For those of you in the know, Dr. J.'s spirit of choice is Jack Daniels Green Label. Dr. J. was introduced to this product back in his days at Ivy College, before the New Atlantis Flood. A scruffy bohemian chap named Noah, who lived in his residental college wrote one of those '... columns' in the school paper, like the ones Larry King would do (That Teri Garr is some little actress...I like cheese). He extolled the virtues of GL Jack which is only available for purchase south of the Mason-Dixon line. So, when Dr. J. came down to New Atlantis to interview for medical school, he picked up a flask and never looked back. It has less of the burn of regular Jack Daniels, and as a consequence a bit of a bolder flavor. Now Dr. J. is the lightweight so his cocktail of choice is a 'Green Label Jack and Coke and Coke' as some of the bartenders are a little heavy on the Jack when they make a 'Jack and Coke.' When ever possible, Dr. J. prefers it with either Mexican Coke, available in Mexican mercado's in New Atlantis, or Kosher Coke, available around Passover in New Atlantis Publix supermarkets because they contain cane sugar, and not high fructose corn syrup (which gives a bitter taste to the beverage). Yeah, Dr. J. is more anal retentive about his Jack and Coke than Puter is about how to make a Manhattan (2 cherries, right?).

Now Dr. J.'s favorite spirit is distilled in Lynchburg, which lies, ironically enough, in the dry Moore County of Tennessee. Dr. J. made note of this story, like many news stories, when he was packing lunches for the lil resident and med student.

You may of heard that the economy sucks. As a consequence the revenue coming into government coffers has declined. One gentleman, a Mr. Charles Rogers, of Moore County wants to stick it to 'Big Hooch' levying a $10 barrel tax on Jack Daniels's product. His argument, flawed as it hinges on the idea that Moore County is entitled to the tax, because Jack Daniels is the only game in town to tax at this point. He also favors mob rule, saying in the Tennessean, "I take the position that [state legislators] are our representatives and that they have a moral, if not legal obligation to represent the will of the people." Now Dr. J. doesn't need to remind you that our representatives are sent to represent our will within the framework of local, state, and federal law. If everyone wanted to take Dr. J.'s new convertible, that doesn't make it right for them to demand a law to be created with the sole purpose of confiscating it.  Now Jack Daniels is the biggest employer in town. They bring in tourism to town, and 60% of the cost of every bottle of Jack is already various and sundry taxes. So, while this barrel tax of $10 translates to less than 4¢ a bottle, it is simply immoral to target an individual or organization for a tax that punishes success. The increased costs have to go somewhere. It may mean layoffs, less charitable giving back to the community.

Besides, if Lynchburg bites the hand that feeds them, their departure could be far more deleterious for Moore County than not having the $10 barrel tax. If Dr. J. was in charge, and he isn't, he would recommend that they stop being a dry county. I'm sure opening a few nice restaurants with liquor licenses and some nice destination liquor shops would shore up that budget real quick.

That is, until they piss that money away as well...

Stuff Grownups Should Be Able To Agree On

'Puter was talking politics with a woman in his office yesterday. 'Puter can get away with that because he's upper management. At least, that's what 'Puter tells himself in his Walter Mitty-esque fantasy life.

This woman is that rarest of all birds. Aside from being well-read, funny and attractive (not moreso than Mrs. 'Puter, of course), she is a rational liberal. We got to discussing some of the more pressing (and divisive) national issues, and came to agreement not just on the issues, but on many solutions.

Here are a few of the issues/solutions we managed to agree on.

1. Energy. We agreed that there was currently insufficient energy produced in the United States. We both agreed that nuclear power is currently the best solution to the problem. ('Puter wanted increased drilling in ANWR and national preemptive rules permitting hydroofracturing, but she wasn't buying.). She liked nuclear power because it has no carbon footprint. 'Puter likes nuclear power because it weans us off foreign oil, not to mention that it's clean, cheap and efficient.

We also both agreed that the power grid needs to be totally rethought and rebuilt. This is good because it would create jobs, increase transmission efficiencies and permit hardening in the event of an EMP/cyber attack. Government funds/utility rate increases would be necessary to do this. We agreed that power line siting would be done at the federal, not state level, (1) because if interstate power transmission isn't interstate commerce, then nothing is and (2) because states have managed to prevent reasonable reworking of the grid for decades becaus of NIMBYism. (Full disclosure: 'Puter's house backs directly to high voltage interstate transmission lines, so shut up, NIMBYs.).

2. Social Security. We agreed it's broke (in both the operations and the money senses), and further that we weren't likely to see much, if anything, out of it. We're both under 45. Interestingly, 'Puter detected a trace of bitterness towards Boomers for screwing subsequent generations from his debate opponent.

We agreed that benefits must be means tested immediately for all non-retirees, with a phase in period for current retirees. We agree the retirement age should immediately be raised to 70 for everyone not currently retired, with no option for early retirement. We agreed that even with means testing, everyone should at a minimum get back what they paid in over time, plus a rate of return (probably lower than what is fair). If you're otherwise means tested out, when you get back what you'd paid in, plus the ROI, your payments stop, period. We agreed also that for means tested out folks, in the event your non-Social Security income fell to a now-qualifying level, you would be able to have your benefits adjusted to meet your new status (e.g., your portfolio 100% vested in wind power technology tanks, and you're bankrupt).

This should restore solvency over the short and long term.

3. Tax Reform. We agreed the tax system is broken and needs to be fixed. She insisted "the rich" pay "their fair share." 'Puter said fine. Here's how we're going to do it.

Take 2008 revenues as a baseline for setting rates. The sum of revenues based on the new rates must equal 2008 revenues as a starting point. For subsequent tax years, incomes dictate revenues.

Corporate income taxes will be discontinued altogether. Estate taxes will be discontinued altogether. The AMT would be discontinued altogether.

All income from whatever source derived (stock sales, capital gains, wages, lottery winnings, in kind payment) will be considered gross income. Each individual gets a generous personal exemption for himself and each dependent, which we set at $10,000. No deductions would be permitted. This includes charitable, green energy, housing, medical, etc. Certain deductions would be ended immediately, others would phase out over time (e.g., mortgage interest over 30 years, along with property taxes).

There would be two tax rates, whose income bands would be adjusted annually for inflation. Taking a wild-assed guess, we agreed that on income up to $500,000, a 15-20% rate would be appropriate. For income over $500,000, a 35-40% rate would be appropriate. You would still be able to file singly or jointly. Gay married people would be able to file jointly.

Everyone has a minimum tax liability in each year of $1.00, and return filing would be mandatory. If you are over 18, you must file and pay your $1.00 annually. If not, you may not receive any federal dollars or participate in any federal program.

That's it. Nothing else. This captures the "capital gains" wages of hedge fund traders and zeroes out Warren Buffet's investment income advantage. The "rich" pay more than the "middle class" (if $500,000 in income can be considered middle class). Everyone pays something. A family of four could earn up to $40,000 with only $1.00 in liability.

Corporations would be free to use their capital efficiently, without government interference. That is, they'd be figuring out how to make more money rather than figuring out how to keep what they'd earned from greedy beaureaucrats. They'd either return income to shareholders throgh dividends (taxed immediately) or invest it in operations (more jobs, more workers paying taxes). Stock prices should rise, because corporations would now have better cash flow, and if the funds were plowed into physical plant/equipment investment, it drives other jobs, resulting, in theory, in more taxable income to someone (e.g., plumbers, electricians, equipment manufacturers, etc.).

In theory, it would also encourage corporations to equity finance rather than debt finance. That is, because there is no deductability (i.e., tax advantage) to borrowing to fund operations as there are no more corporate taxes, corporations should become more neutral on debt versus equity considerations, aside from operating lines of credit for immediate needs. Further, because gains on stock would not be taxed until such time as the stock was sold, individuals would use stock as a method to appreciate capital in a non-taxable environment.

This model would certainly work for established corporations, and the traditional angel/venture capital/hedge fund/bank model is still available for startups and more volatile entities.

Nothing would alter the state tax systems. There would be no VAT, and no federal sales tax.

********

After discussing these topics, haggling over them and coming to conclusions neither of us liked, we wondered why Congress can't do the same. 'Puter knows it's because neither side wants to give the other side an advantage, or even worse be called a RINO/DINO by the punditry, but he hopes for better.

Feel free to chime in with your own thoughts, or respectfully point out why 'Puter's an absolute moron for his proposals. Don't call 'Puter's debate opponent a moron, though. She'll kick your butt.

After all, the clock's ticking, and we're not sure when the final horn will sound. Get in the game, Washington.

People Can Be Really Smart

The Los Angeles Times features a neat science story that, rara avis, gets its facts straight in a presentable manner. Nice work. The story reminds us that there is still much to be learned about the dwarf planet Eris, but that astronomers are nevertheless finding new information.

One item was glossed over sic:

With such small, far-off objects, astronomers wait for what's known as a stellar occultation, in which the object will cross over a star, essentially casting a shadow over the Earth. The amount of starlight blocked by the object allows scientists to calculate the object's size.

Witnessing this stellar occultation last year required being in the right place at exactly the right moment during the brief time window that Eris was scheduled to block the star.

There is nothing really wrong with this description of the process, but the Czar thought you might not appreciate how freaking clever this technique is.

All right. We can photograph Eris—although it looks little more than a dot of light—and can measure how fast it moves across the sky. Since there is a direct relationship between a planet’s orbital speed and its distance (another amazing story for another day), we can determine that Eris orbits about nine billion miles away from the sun, give or take.

So we wait for Eris to move in front of a star, which it did. This is called an occultation, and there is nothing odd or weird about it. The planet simply moves in front of a star; the star stays relatively fixed in the sky.

Like an eclipse, the planet blocks the star light. So astronomers watch the light of the star. When the light begins to dim, we know the planet is beginning to move in front of it. When the light is blocked, we know the planet is now completely in front of the star. And when the light returns to full brightness, the planet has moved away.

So what?

So this tells us a lot of things. First, we know the speed the planet moves through the sky, right? That means by measuring the time it took for the star to lose its brightness to when it returned, we can accurately determine the diameter of the planet: Eris is 1,445 miles in diameter—something we really didn’t know before.

Second, it confirms the distance of the planet to the sun. If we know how long it took, and we know its orbital speed, we can work out its distance at that point to the sun (remembering that planets orbit mostly in nearly perfect circles but not exactly perfect).

Third, we noticed that the light of the star winked out instantly, not gradually, and winked back on a few moments later. This tells us that, at the present time, Eris has no atmosphere. Planets with atmospheres (and from time to time, even Pluto has one) cause a star to fade out, not wink out.

So we learned three things, at least, from one simple coincidental event: Eris moving in front of a distant star and blocking its light.

This is very cool stuff.

Reporter vs. Genuinely Smart Person

DOWN GOES FRAZIER! DOWN GOES FRAZIER!

The Gormogon Primary

Down in the depths of the Gormogons’ archives (still waiting for Marie to graduate and come organize them—we’re trying to talk GorT out of Dewey Hexavigesimal), word has reached Confucius* that the mass of GOP voters are unexcited about their candidates. Given the nigh-cosmic acedia these guys inspire in him, he wasn’t surprised. He was, however, surprised at how widespread the phenomenon appears to be. William Kristol claims “81 Percent of GOP Primary Voters in Play.” Which this might well be another in Mr. Kristol’s well-documented attempts to lure more impressive candidates in, he’s citing a CBS/New York Times poll, which organizations can’t fairly be accused of wanting a higher-firepower Republican candidate in the race.

Given the supervisory role embedded in the Canon Gormogonicus** for the Volgi, Confucius thought he should poll the guys around the Castle and see if they had any candidates that they were backing strongly. Herewith the results.

Confucius.

Usually resides in the Slough of Despond, sees no reason to leave. All these 白痴 are clowns. Romney is the most presentable, but he’s a bloodless, unprincipled opportunist who’s never seen a large-scale, centralized solution he didn’t think he’d be awesome at running. Rumor has it that as a boy, he was flipping through the dictionary, saw the word tech·no·crat and said, “Gee whiz, sign me up!”

The Czar.

Has also not settled on a candidate. May be waiting for someone to advocate making him the Czar of Czars, i.e., the Czar Czar. Rumor has it he would also accept the position of Secretary of Flogging, Flaying, and Brute Decapitation.

’Puter.

Ghetto P is also formally uncommitted. Ironic, huh? He likes Cain best but doesn’t think he’s prepared. He foresees, sadly, a Romney/Cain ticket, “which might not suck too bad, particularly if Mitt sets Herman loose on Crazy-Assed Joe Biden. Oh, the VP debates would be things of beauty.” On the other hand, if Biden goes Full Wackjob, ’Puter might be tempted to vote for him out of Asylum Escapee-American solidarity.

The Mandarin.

Mandy is, provisionally, on the Cain Train, which he considers a horribly retrograde form of transportation, and wishes to convince the candidate that the he should consider the Cain Teleporter for efficiency or the Cain Tracked Engine of Death to impress his enemies. Of course, he’s been trying to sell the T.E.D. to armies since 2003. Nine-story tanks bristling with artillery with a maximum speed of 3 mph are apparently not in hot demand, but if you want one, e-mail him.

GorT.

GorT fancies cyclical models of history (and given his time-travelling ability, are you going to contradict him?) and believes we’re just at a nadir, in terms of leaders. That doesn’t explain the odd reticence to get into the race of those GOP candidates generally considered A-list before the election, but he may have a point. He, like ’Puter, considers Cain unprepared but the least-bad choice.

Dr. J.

Judging from this prescription-pad page shoved under Confucius’ door—and his ability to decipher scripts which have driven expert palæographers insane—it appears that Dr. J also remains uncommitted, “I am undecided. Every time I like someone they do something stupid. ℞ One Mandarin boot in the gut daily until sense presents.”

Dat Ho.

Despite his reluctance to express any opinion when the Czar or ’Puter is around, Confucius managed to elicit his opinion (by lifting ’Puter’s key to his cage and letting the kid have a baloney sandwich in the kitchen). He insisted that none of them had condemned the People’s Republic of Vietnam formally nor advocated knout control, so he wasn’t backing any of them.

Sleestak.

Oddly, he’s holding out for Chris Christie. Possibly because of the sibilants in his name. Who knows.

Inetef-Te-Henqet, our reanimated mummy butler, is only eligible to vote in Cook County, Illinois, so we didn’t bother asking him.

In conclusion, more than 81% of the Gormogons are uncommitted, approaching 100%, other than the Mandarin’s “If I had to vote today…” endorsement of Cain. So herewith does the Œc. Vol. certify:

THE FIELD UNDERWELMETH.

*For those who came in late: Confucius holds the office of Œcumenical Volgi for the Gormogons.

**Only public copy was an appendix to Vol. 5 of the Seven Cryptical Books of Hsan, none of which were known to survive the Yüan Dynasty. Sorry, kids. [DM @MBernadetteE: Tower 3, Floor 4, Shelf 6, Codices 4-11.]

Occupy Wall Street: Incompetents, Morons or Both?

Welcome to another Gormogon-a-riffic installment of You Make The Call.

According to Wikipedia, which, when dealing with know-nothing OWS chuckle-heads is an acceptable reference source, the filthy hippies illegally encamped in Zuccotti Park in Middle Ages squalor seem to hold one or two major unifying beliefs:

1. There is an unequal distribution of wealth in the United States that must be remedied.

2. Wall Street, and the federal bail-out thereof, is emblematic of unfairness inherent in the system.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the OWS pinheads' assumptions are correct. That being the case, 'Puter has the following question for the OWS crowd, their fellow travelers and their media enablers:

What's your proposed solution?

It's all fine and dandy to be an issue spotter. 'Puter knows the world loves issue spotters. They're the folks who state the obvious, but offer no constructive solution. Simply identifying flaws is easy. Proposing workable, real world solutions to solve the identified issues is difficult. 'Puter's got no respect for you if you bitch about something and don't offer a solution. The world's full of intractable problems, from poverty to religious conflict to opposite side parking. Offer up a plan or STFU.

On income equality, which 'Puter has dealt with extensively in other postings, what's the solution? 'Puter's heard the following, or variants thereof, from the imbecilic, infantile protestors:
a. A millionaire's tax

b. Wealth confiscation and redistribution.

c. Government "fairness" payments/debt forgiveness.

Sure, these are plans, though not official plans. But so too is cutting off your head to deal with a runny nose a plan. In each instance above, like in 'Puter's example, the proposals fail a basic test: they have horrendous negative impacts in the real world, significantly greater than the problem itself.

A millionaire's tax would do nothing more than drive productive citizens to work less, game the tax code, leave the United States altogether or some combination of all three. Experience in Connecticut and Maryland shows that when millionaires are taxed, in the year the tax takes effect, there are suddenly many fewer millionaires. This results in less revenue, and exacerbates an already poor situation. Millionaire's taxes are a proven failure. Let's not try something we know has failed and expect a different result. That's the definition of a liberal.

Governmental wealth confiscation and redistribution is literally communism. Go look it up. 'Puter'll wait while you figure out how to use the Google. There's also online dictionaries you can use to help you with the big words, OWS ninnies. Switching the United States to a communist society is a non-starter, except among tweed jacketed (or skirted) Ivy League faculties. And apparently now among the spoiled "Everyone Gets A Trophy" generation currently wallowing like animals on Wall Street. Too, like the millionaire's tax, communism is a proven failure. It didn't work in the Soviet Union, it's not working in China, and it's sure as Hell not going to work in the United States.

Government required debt forgiveness is simply wealth redistribution by another name. People forget (or don't know) that behind every bank loan, from your mortgage to mezzanine financing on enormous hotel projects, stand investors. Many of these investors are backed by shareholders, mutual funds and/or pensions. In screwing Whitey The Man out of his money, it's actually the little guy who gets left holding the bag. From the pensioner, to the 401k recipient, to workers in a publicly traded companies, if the government rewrites the debt rules mid-game, you're going to get screwed. Your pension will fall, you'll lose your job, credit will dry up. The government cannot forgive debt without paying the holders (which means increased taxes/debt financing). If it does, no one will be willing to lend to anyone.

On point two, the Wall Street bailout, 'Puter's heard no alternative from any of OWS' hirsute, hippie harridans. That's because there were only really two alternatives at the time: (1) do as Presidents GW Bush and Obama did and shovel money into Wall Street until the markets calmed or (2) do nothing, let the companies fail (and they would have) and take the very real risk that the credit markets seize altogether, causing the world's economies to grind to a devastating halt.

Both of these alternatives, to use legal terminology, sucked ass. Personally, 'Puter would have let the banks fail, but 'Puter acknowledges the downside risks were catastrophic in that course. Fortunately for 'Puter and for everyone else, 'Puter was not the decider.

To the OWS losers, your immaturity in thought and deed prove you to be a suppurating, parasitic cancer on the body politic. Your parents should rightly be ashamed of you. Your universities should rescind your degrees, for it is apparent that you lack the ability to think critically.

Hell, in a "fair" world, we'd bundle you all up and drop you all on an uninhabited island where you could set up your own society, free from the constraints put on you Society and The Man. 'Puter'd put TV cameras on the island so the productive folks remaining behind could watch as your workers' paradise quickly descends into Lord of the Flies territory. It'd be great fun.

Here's 'Puter's final conclusion on OWS. They are children. And like children, OWS flunkies cannot accurately size up a situation and respond appropriately. They are not serious, and in no manner can they be considered functioning adults. OWS protestors are a disease, attempting to destroy the system through childish, uninformed mob rule. OWS children are no better than the Wall Street titans they profess to loathe. Both seek to game the system for their own ends, no matter how many (metaphorical(?)) bodies they have to step over to do so.

Grown ups know it sucks that some people earn more than you do, particularly when the high-earners offer less benefit to society. In a perfect world, teachers, cops and firemen would be the highest paid people in the land. Also, everyone would have a fuzzy unicorn that crapped gold coins, 'Puter'd be beautiful and Dancing With The Stars would never have found airtime. But we don't live in a perfect world. Far from it, if you hadn't notice.

Grown ups also know that the alternatives OWS offers are far worse than our current situation, as we have discussed above. Sometimes, when all alternatives are examined, the correct answer is still a crappy result. Grown ups hate a crappy result just as much as the crybabies on Wall Street do, but where the crappy result is the best alternative, we accept it as the best we can do for now, we try to fix what we can going forward, and, as the Brits did during The Blitz, we keep calm and carry on.

Keep calm and carry on, grown ups. You're our only hope.

Mailbag: Doh! Edition

The Royal Mathematician writes in:

Baklava is a tasty honey-based pastry, Balaklava is the location of the battle of "Light Brigade" fame... 

--Dr. (KN)J, Royal Mathematician to the Gormogons, Afficionado of both Baklava and Balaklava

One is a Greek Pastry

The other is a (formerly Greek) Ukranian City


Dr. J. stands corrected! Thanks for the catch.

Happy St. Crispin's Day!

Happy St. Crispin's day to our readers.

The battles of Agincourt and Baklava Balaklava were fought this day.

A little lunch time inspiration from Henry V:



And from the Charge of the Light Brigade:

Incoming Message From Durandal

Clever reader JA writes in to say:

Re: the Marathon screen cap in a recent post. BEST. GAME. EVER.

Yeah, don’t we know it.

See kiddies, in the days before Halo, there was Marathon. Indeed, attentive players of the Halo franchise will see numerous references to Marathon throughout the games. Marathon, you see, was so cool that it sold millions of copies even though few people seem to have even heard of it.

The Mandarin, Volgi, and the Czar spent hours playing that game; one day, Volgi and your Czar spent four hours playing one single network level. We amassed over 1,200 corpses before we realized we needed to get dinner. Some Friday nights, Mandarin, Volgi, and the Czar would log serious time and totally tie up the network. We even created our own maps for it, some of which were quite fun.

GorT complained heavily about the lack of haptic four-dimensional interfacing, of course, and ‘Puter’s gaming highlight was to press the esc key until the computer beeped. Except he didn’t have a sound card, so we couldn’t hear anything.

Bluesun also writes in:

Dear Mr. Dread and Powerful Axe-Hacking Machine (figuratively, of course, wouldn't want to offend GorTechie) The Czar of Muscovy,

I found this display of the power of the Gormogons at the local Big Box Electronics Store of Doom quite frightening. I knew you all are diabolical in your plots, but an entire wall display of Hello Kitty? I shudder, shudder, at your power. All I ask is to be spared in the coming Hello Kitty Uprising/Apocalypse (and we thought zombies were bad!).

Your loyal reader, and occasional linker

-bluesun

Yes, well, here is the story.

The Hello Kitty concept originated with us in the late 1970s as a symbol of the mute horror each of you will experience when we completely finish consolidating our earthly powers and enslave you all. Note the lack of a mouth but her urgent need to scream.

Sadly, due to a major screw-up in our marketing department, the logo became popular with millions of Asian girls aged 5-10. This state of affairs is a love-hate thing for us, because while we still intend to employ the logos as symbols of our ferocious tyranny, they also are a massive cash cow for us in the merchandising arena.

Next time you see a Hello Kitty item, you know something evil dwells inside. And it cost twice what it should have.

GLOBAL WARMING DENIURZ IZ TEH RONG!!1!el!eve!1!nty!!1!

In today's Washington Post, columnist Eugene Robinson attempts to discredit those of us who are skeptical of the Left's religiously raputrous embrace of The Holy Mother Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

In his weak attempt, Mr. Robinson manages to increase his carbon footprint dramatically, through his creation and burning of numerous straw men.

Mr. Robinson's central claim is flawed in that he states all global warming skeptics hold the following position: there is no data supporting increased global temperatures. Well, Mr. Robinson, you've quite nicely framed the argument on terms you can win.

'Puter knows a fair number of global warming skeptics, and many of us "deniers" do not deny that the Earth is warming. What we deny is that there is any scientific certitude as to the cause of the warming, or that the warming is cause for great alarm and crippling "remedies." Lefties like Mr. Robinson believe in the absence of definitive, scientific proof that man is the sole (or major) cause of the Earth's increased temperature. They discount other equally plausible causes, such as solar cycles and increased cosmic radiation.

Anthropogenic global warming advocates such as Mr. Robinson mistake correlation for causation. Let's assume AGW advocate Mr. Robinson and his co-religionists are correct in that (1) the Earth is warming and that (2) carbon dioxide emissions have increased during this most recent warming. Where's the indisputable scientific proof of a link between the two independent phenomena?

You'll hear AGW jihadis claiming that because we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, because carbon dioxide emissions are increasing and because the Earth has warmed as carbon dioxide emissions have increased, therefore, increased manmade carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming. Q.E.D.

Here's a few questions/statements from 'Puter.

1. Correlation does not equal causation, and data is not the plural of anecdote. Get back to me with hard proof that removes all other potential variables.

2. The environment is a giant, complex, interrelated system. Your conclusions implies that you have managed to narrow down, out of the myraid inputs and variables, the cause of global warming to exactly one item: manmade carbobn dioxide emission. Please show your work. That is, show how you have, through use of the scientific method, eliminated all other possible causes of global warming, including but not limited to the aforementioned solar cycles and cosmic radiation.

3. Assume you are correct, and that in order to "save the Earth from a horrible, fiery inferno that will doubtlessly occur sometime in the next 30-5,000 years," we must eliminate all use of fossil fuels. Are you aware of the impact this will have on the American economy and standard of living? Are you aware that if you limit or eliminate carbon emissions in developing nations you are damning billions of people to continued poverty? Is the cure worse than the disease?

4. Please explain how your theory of AGW is any different than any other number of scientific certainties throughout the ages that turned out to be not just a little wrong, but horribly and monstrously wrong. See, e.g., parthenogenesis, geocentrism, etc.

In short, Mr. Robinson makes the category errors that so frustrate 'Puter, and probably most of the other Gormogons. AGW believers paint "deniers" as holding positions they do not. AGW believers refuse to countenance other plausible explanations for the Damoclean sword of impending AGW doom. AGW cultists refuse to look at the consequences, intended and unintended, of their proposed solutions. For these reasons, 'Puter has a difficult time taking them at all seriously.

AGW has become a Leftist religion for the unchurched liberals, with all the trappings and failings associated with any true religion, including irrational intolerance of questioning positions. It's sad that AGW's worshipful congregants can't see the trap into which they have fallen.

The Ties That Bind

Mandarin found this from our alma mater. Joy. Pure joy.

Occupy Jupiter!

Science News You Missed

And now, your science news roundup!



Once believed to be an ancient, surviving plant from millions of years ago, we sadly now realize that cycads only date back about 12 million years. They are descended from the same plants dinosaurs would have known, but sadly are not the same species.



Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy can help trace the geographic origins with about 95% accuracy. While this has no current commercial applications, the hope is that blood diamonds could be identified prior to sale.



Scientists on the International Space Station received a rude awakening Sunday morning when an insect-like alien race swarmed through the station as a prelude to a more massive invasion of Earth. Although communications were lost with the station for several hours, the on-board half-dozen crewmembers bravely repelled the threat using makeshift weapons and electrifying the hull with a car battery.

Army Cover-Up...

Your Mandarin was intrigued when he happened upon this story about a member of the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps program at Ravenwood High School in Brentwood Tennessee.

You can read the whole article yourself, but the summary is a female student, that happens to be Muslim is told that according to Army regulations she cannot wear her hijab while wearing her uniform on parade.

Of course the student’s family feels that she is being discriminated against and has teamed up with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to pressure the school district and the Department of Defense to reverse their uniform policy. According to CAIR, the current uniform policy effectively bars a Muslim student from participating in the class.

The student’s mother has also stated that she thinks it is un-American that anyone is not allowed to participate over religious beliefs.

Your Mandarin would like to point out a few things to this student, her family, and CAIR. First, the military is a voluntary organization with a distinct set of rules required for the efficiency and safety of our troops to be able to perform their duties. Second, at no time was this student told that she could not participate in the parade or the JROTC program because she was a Muslim, but rather because she was not adhering to the regulations addressing the proper wearing of the uniform.

There is no discrimination here, just another “victim group” looking for a special accommodation.

Where's Perry?

We have heard that, in addition to Governor Mitt Romney, Governor Rick Perry also faces a credibility problem. This is understandable.

First, you have the blank stares during debates...no matter if he was answering a question or someone else was. Not out of Huntsman-like boredom or Santorumesque disbelief that he has to share the stage with these losers, but—we dare say—out of some uncomprehension. Whether real or not, remember that perception equals reality in a campaign. And when he does answer, what follows is usually a disjointed response on a variety of topics that makes even seasoned listeners say “Huh?”

Second, you have the October 11 Las Vegas Debate, in which Anderson Cooper asked Governor Perry if he repudiates the anti-Mormon slap delivered by one of Perry’s religious acquaintances. Perry replied he already said he disagreed with it. But does he repudiate the statement? Perry shrugged and said he doesn’t know what more he could say. Hmm. Perhaps, “I thoroughly reject that statement and as such make it quite clear that I accept Mormonism as a welcome religion in the United States.” Or something. Anything. Maybe yes would work just as well.

Once again, Perry was asked if he believes President Obama is a citizen of the United States. Perry replied (a) he has no reason to think otherwise, (b) as far as he knows, the President has never seen Perry’s own birth certificate, (c) that Donald Trump is not convinced, and (d) Perry has no idea if the President has an American birth certificate and that it doesn’t matter.

Or he could have said yes. But Perry doesn’t like to answer questions with simple answers: we either see him say anything except yes, or provide a curious stagger down memory lane. Think about his answer about the age of the earth or the evidence of evolution: rather than speak his mind, he simply provided some verbal shrug. As a result, folks on the Left and Right are reinterpreting his answers to push whatever idea it is that benefits their side, rather than what reflects Perry’s side. Where the heck does he stand on some of these issues?

And, if he isn’t going to answer questions simply, why should we care? If Perry is looking to explain his descent in the polls, he might want to start right there.

The iPod turns 10...

Dr. J. is wondering when the Founding Gormos will be returning to the castle.

The Czar's mail is piling up. The machine that goes ping in Mandy's lab stopped going ping. We're out of yeti Food for Volgi's pet, and he is looking at Dat Ho and licking his lips. There are system updates waiting for GorT. For 'Puter, well, E.J. Dionne and Maureen Dowd have fading bruises in need of replacement...the doctor hopes you get back to town soon.

Regardless, there is a piece in Mac|Life about the iPod turning 10. Time flies. The newest iteration (the iPhone 4S) makes phone calls, talks back to you, has a touch screen, video camera, plays movies and games, just to name a few features.

It has come a long way baby...

It's been 235 years, get over it...

Dr. J. saw this quickie on the Drudge Report. It hails from BBC News, you know, that other news source in England, other than SkyNews. Dr. J. has a soft spot for the Murdochs. He drank beer (Coors Light, actually) in the same room as Jamie a couple of times when he was in college as we had common acquaintences. Nice chap, actually. Had no idea that he was Rupert's boy, but just a friend of a friend. But Dr. J. digresses...

So this item is actually fun, but the BBC takes it far too seriously. 

So there are these things called American Inns of Court. They sound like a fun club for lawyers. They get together once a month, they eat, talk shop. It's a hierarchical mentorship with an apprenticeship type model. There are Masters of the Bench, Barristers, Associates and Pupils. Doctors at New Atlantis Ivory Tower Medical Center do the same thing, but it's called morning rounds.

Anyway, the Temple American Inn of the Court in Philadelphia invited some British Lawyers to debate the legality of the Declaration of Independence. As a scholarly exercise it's fascinating to hear these folks discuss the legality our Declaration.

Read the article, because it's actually pretty interesting.

The Americans kept their case simple:

The Declaration is unquestionably "legal". Under basic principles of "Natural Law", government can only be by the consent of the people and there comes a point when allegiance is no longer required in face of tyranny.

In other words, the Americans lost faith in a tyrant and it was their right to say, adios.

The Brits, on the other hand tossed out some non-sequitirs:

Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to "natural law", an undefined concept, and to "self-evident truths", that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided.

Yeah, well, if Lincoln fought against secession it must be wrong? Right? Well, some of Dr. J.'s neighbor would beg to differ, besides it happened four score and 5 years after the Declaration. Besides, Lincoln's side won.

The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession. The main one - no taxation without representation - was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict.

Ah, so the Founding Fathers were no different than the Occupy Wall Street crowd, wanting to get free stuff from the government? Wrong. The grievances were legitimate, especially given that the British Army treated colonists like crap, quartering on private property whenever and where ever they pleased, and British Tax Policies stifled growth.

Regardless, the Crown was 3500 miles away, the colonists were fiercely independent types who grew apart from His Majesty and decided it was time to go. The Declaration was a response to being declared traitors by King George.

Ultimately, everyone decided it was legit, and went out for beer.

You see, it doesn't matter whether the Declaration was legal, or not. American muskets made it legal, and for that reason, we have and treasure the Second Amendment.

Even Dr. J.'s Marxist social studies teacher from back in the day would back him up on that...

Biden in 2016?

From Real Clear Politics:

"I'll make up my mind on that later," Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview with CNN's Candy Crowley. "I'm in one of the, probably the best shape I've been in in my life" I'm doing pretty well. I'm enjoying what I'm doing, and as long as I do, I'm going to continue to do it," he said.

Vice President Biden, would be 74 when he would take office in 2016...but imagine, the 4-8 years of gaffetastic material we'd have to work with...if we survive 4 more years with One Term President™ Barack Hussein Obama.

Occupy Nerddom...

Found on teh interwebz:

Justice is served...

Right off the bat, this is not about the brutal demise of a brutal dictator in North Africa. Dr. J. can't get more gormotastic than The Czar on the subject, so he won't try.

The lil resident is learning about American monuments and symbols in social studies at the New Atlantis Jedi Academy. Among her projects were make a 3D map of the Washington Monument, reflecting pool and Lincoln Memorial, and to recognize and name several major landmarks and monuments across the U.S. All of this culminates in Monument Day where the kiddos dress up as a monument or symbol and have to present facts about their monument. The great thing about this project is that it reminds us of the values and ideas that our nation was founded on. Dr. J. wishes that there was more of this in our schools, because we spend far too much time learning why Bobby has two daddy's andy why our Founders are all evil slave owning devils, and not enough time on true civics. Even Dr. J.'s marxist 10th grade got us up to speed on the Constitution and our system of government better than what most kids are getting now. They parade through all of the classes at the academy for all the younglings and padawans to see.

There were some creative costumes, but the lil resident went as Lady Justice.

Now, after the founding of our nation, there was a Classical revival. In addition to Classical ideas and philosophy being brought into the political arena and public square, much of the architecture in D.C. and elsewhere transitioned away from Colonial brick structures, to tall white structures with columns, reminiscent of Greek or Roman architecture. In addition Classical styled art and iconography also came into the fore.

Lady Justice, was based on the Roman goddess of justice, Justitia, or her Greek counterpart, Dike. She has a sword in her right hand, scales in her left, and a blindfold. Now, the blindfold represents that justice should be blind. In other words, who you are, your station in life, race, religion, etc...should have no bearing on the case. Dr. J. and the lil resident talked about this aspect of justice because she had trouble understanding it.

Her difficulty understanding the concept is because it was so obvious to her that it should be thus. We discussed a couple of different scenarios, to help her understand that there are folks who feel that protected groups should get special treatment under the law. She easily grasped that a rich man should not get off easier than a poor man if both of them, say, were caught speeding. They should get the same penalty. Dr. J. then turned it around. He said, lets say a poor man robbed daddy, and was caught. We went to court and the judge said, Dr. J., there was only $85 in your wallet, and he needs it more than you do. He wants to feed his kids with it, so we're going to let him off. The lil resident understood that that was equally preposterous. We then got into hate crime legislation, and she agreed with Dr. J. that it doesn't matter if a white man kills a black man or another white man, the penalty should be equally severe. Indeed GWB in the James Byrd, Jr. murder case opined that his murderer was going to face the ultimate penalty for his crime, so adding 10 years for a hate crime on top of the death penalty seemed a little silly.

She and Dr. J. had an exausting discussion on the difference between treating people equally, or the same, and how that is different from being 'fair' a term fraught with peril.

The balance represents the two sides of the case. Basically each side presents their case and the scale will tip one way or another based on the merits of the case. Indeed, there are individuals currently in our justice system that feel that the narrative is so compelling that those scales should be tipped in one direction even before hearing the case.

She also wields a double edged sword that represents Reason and Justice and being double edged symbolizes that it can be wielded against the plaintiff or defendant as the case may be.

In addition to this being a great day and experience for the lil resident. It coincided with an NRO symposium on the 20th anniversary of Clarence Thomas joining the Supreme Court. His former clerks and colleagues give a wonderful perspective on this maligned and misunderstood justice.

A few highlights:

While race does not and should not influence Thomas’s decision making on the bench, it surely shapes his voice and the nation’s perception of his racial jurisprudence. Nowhere is that more apparent than in his 2003 dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which he famously begins by quoting Frederick Douglass: “The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. . . . Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us.” “Like Douglass,” Thomas adds, “I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators.- Curt Levy”

Unlike some of his fellow practitioners of judicial restraint who adhere strongly to stare decisis, he takes the Constitution as “the ultimate precedent”: If a prior decision is wrong, it should be fixed, and the sooner the better. He reminds us that the passage of 60 years after Plessy v. Ferguson did not render that precedent more worthy of respect. -Wendy Long

No one, of course, would deny that Justice Thomas has strong conservative views on constitutional law. He rejects much of affirmative action, believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, recognizes broad executive powers in wartime, and allows religious groups more participation in public life. But I have long thought that there is a deeper principle of political philosophy at work in Justice Thomas’s thought that goes beyond the close interpretation of disparate constitutional texts. What he brings to the Court as no other justice does is a characteristically American skepticism of social engineering promoted by elites — whether in the media, academia, or well-heeled lobbies in Washington — and a respect for individual self-reliance and individual choice. He writes not to be praised by professors or pundits, but for the American people. John Yoo

Dr. J. believes that the modern activist judges, perhaps originally because they were leading with the heart, rather than the head, wanted to make up for activist judges past sins (i.e. Dred Scott) by trying to be 'fair.' In so doing, they took off their blindfolds, disregarded their scales and wielded their swords against innocent parties. Fortunately, we have some judges, like Justice Thomas, who have kept their blindfolds on and their scales zeroed despite being pilloried for it in the press.

Mailbag - Republicandiatopenia Edition

Gentle Readers,

There was quite a bit of tweeting in reaction to Dr. J.'s thoughts on Herman Cain. But Operative JAB writes in from the doublewide:

Dear Mr. Dr. J.: I wouldn't waste a lot of time-time-time noodling on the finer points of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan. My crystal ball says he ain't agonna be the nominee of the GOP. It's not that he's not a nice enough man, but you do know where nice guys finish, right? No, it's more that he's just not up to the task. 

Did you happen to catch his comments to CNN's Piers Morgan? In mere moments, Cain went from no abortions/no exceptions to a position of not really feeling it's right to tell women what to do. And its not like he withered under fire some hard-bitten political reporter-- this guy interviews whoever is on the cover of the People magazine that I read at Betty's Beauty Barn when I'm getting my bouffant shellacked. All I'm saying is that if a man who is a Baptist minister cannot manage to hold one-and-only-one position on abortion under questioning from likes of Piers Morgan, how do you think he'll do with say...Vladimir Putin? 

Probably about as well as the current President? 

Well, that's not going to be quite good enough because at least Obama will have completed 4 years of on-the-job-training. 

So you plunked your vote for Mitt (with 2-T's) in 2008? It's interesting that you brought up the spectacle of watching "...candidate of destiny Hillary Clinton's campaign implode at the hands of that inexperienced guy whose last name rhymed with Osama...." I happen to think that Mitt (with 2-T's) has the potential to be the Hillary of 2012. As has been pointed out by many others, he's been running for years and years, yet he just cannot seal the deal. Now Rasmussen has a poll out showing Cain leading Romney 28 to 21 in IOWA. Romney can't hold off a guy who flubs a Piers Morgan interview and says that he could see himself as President doing a prisoner swap, freeing those we hold in Gitmo. Uh, right. Maybe it's Romneycare for some, abortion for others, but for me it is that quality he shares with John Kerry. No, not that perfectly coiffed hair. I mean that the only thing that you can say for sure about him is that he REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wants to be the President. 

There have been a string of truly minor things that I put forth for your consideration: 

1. A couple of weeks ago the Missus Romney made a comment on the campaign trail in SC: “If they don't pick Mitt that's their stupid mistake, not mine,” It's well and good to stand by your man, but that hints at a very unattractive quality in the Romney way of thinking. It might even be a sense of entitlement. 

2. Then in the Las Vegas debate, Mitt (with 2-T's) got himself just a little bit flustered, because the other kids were saying mean things about him. He reacted to Perry's attack angrily, then went so far as to reach over and put his hand on Perry's shoulder, which was plain weird-looking. Finally, he looked over at Anderson Cooper, and whined about the enforcement of rules. 

3. I didn't see the actual "Perry is soooo stupid" ad, since it was yanked soooooo quickly, but it must have been a doozy. What next, a "Perry's mother wears army boots" ad? As I said, totally minor things. But to me they add up in my Manhattan-addled brain. 

As the Czar pointed out in his post on the debate, the other candidates should be able to smell blood. If Mitt (with 2-T's), reacts to the coming attacks by: 

1. displaying a sense of inevitability or entitlement 

2. whining to debate moderators 

3. running on the "Perry is soooo stupid" theme ...well, my money is on another "candidate of destiny" biting the dust.

Yours from the Doublewide, JAB

Operative JAB, as Dr. J. mentioned earlier. Thinking through 9-9-9 out loud got teh interwebz a twitter. He really believes this is because the Republican base is so engaged in the 2012 race that they are looking at the candidates with a fine tooth comb and as a consequence they are pulling out all the nits. Frankly, candidate dissatisfaction that it isn't just MSM propaganda. The Republican base wishes they could create a golem from pieces of each of the candidates because each of them has a big negative associated with them that can be exploited by the D's come next November.

Again, Dr. J. has not made up his mind who he is voting for in the primary. He wishes for a Ryan/Bolton ticket but that is not going to happen, so he should quit talking about it and figure out who he is actually going to vote for. But, he will continue to think out loud because folks seem to enjoy that.