• 5Jul 09

  Day 40000

  I haven't heard the hysteria yet, but for some Windows applications tomorrow is Day 40000, meaning 40,000 days since January 1, 1900. I'm sure that you will get more caught up in the excitement once the significance of this chronological milestone catches on. "Party like it's July 6, 2009." And you would be partying a day too soon. For Windows is wrongly counting 1900 as a leap year. There was no February 29, 1900.

  • Posted Jul 5, 2009 4:45 pm PT
  • 3 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 21Feb 09

  Bipartisanship

  Caution: This entry to my blog is heavily political.

  ---------------------------------------------------

  I'm sure I overstate the point, but I have trouble thinking of any element of pubic debate that is more overrated than bipartisanship. Do bad ideas transform themselves into good ideas when wrapped in the cloak of bipartisanship? Do forces that act harmfully to the long run economy suddenly act benevolently just because both parties shake hands on the deal?

  Though the pro-abortion forces seduce every Republican public official, will the heart of a fetus cease to beat? Why else but for bipartisanship should a mother be able to demand public moneys to put her own child to death solely on the basis that her child's father committed the gruesome crime of rape? Do 8-month fetuses supernaturally become inviable outside the womb just because Democrats and Republicans agree they do? Elective abortion is simply bad public policy. And no amount bipartisan agreement to the contrary will turn bad public policy into good.

  Poorly run enterprises deserve to die. Chrysler should have been run off in the days of Lee Iacocca, and they deserve no better fate today. The capital tied up in bad management should be released, and made available to management more in tune with consumer demand. We'll never know how that would have played out. But we do know that the 1979 script has the auto industry coming back for seconds, just one generation later. And bipartisanship did nothing to make Chrysler a better manager of its goodwill. Bipartisanship debates endlessly the salaries and perquisites of companies operating on public funds. Bipartisanship demands that the Federal Government micromanage where corporations can hold their conventions. Let the government be silent, and let the consumer dictate what is prudent and what is obscene. Let the government fund only the enterprises they own – and let them bear the rewards and the penalties of their own decisions. If the majority party disagree with me, let them have the guts to overrule me to their own glory or peril. Calls for bipartisanship tell me that the majority wants someone to share the glory or the blame. And I'm guessing, the blame.

  One of the mysteries of the nineties is how the Democrats could control both houses of Congress and the White House during 1993-94, do nothing about the minimum wage, and then complain in 1995 that the Republicans weren't giving a minimum wage increase a fair hearing. Minimum wage legislation is the Federal Government demanding – without compensation – that someone else spend more money. In effect, it is the unconstitutional seizure of the assets required to pay the difference between the market wage, and what the government says the wage must be. But that aside, minimum wage shifts the burden of poverty from a population of low-paid workers, to a split population whereby a percentage of that population is a little better paid, and the remainder of that population is unemployed altogether. If I thought any part of that last statement were untrue, not only would I fully endorse minimum wage legislation, but I wouldn't settle for $5, $6, or $7 an hour. If I thought for a minute that there was no connection between the cost of labor and the demand for workers, then I would favor a minimum wage of $25, $50, maybe $100 an hour. And why should I not, if employers would hire the same amount of labor, even with an increase to the minimum wage? Yet unless the government is willing to seize the economy altogether, bipartisan agreement will do little to repeal the laws of supply and demand. And no amount of Republican consent to a minimum wage will cause me to want more quantities of anything as the price for my desired goods rises.

  The Democrats won the 2008 election; let them govern with or without Republican consent. Let every House vote pass 255-178; let every Senate vote pass 59-41. When I contribute to the election of a Republican, I never vote that he or she will work with the Democrats to cause a government-driven economy to incur less damage – I vote that he or she will embrace the foundation of a consumer-driven economy. I never vote that my representative will make the most out of understanding the root causes of why another country doesn't like us – I vote for someone who will prevent foreign attacks as we conduct our business as a sovereign, and take punitive measures when we are violated. And I never vote for someone whose goals include creating boundaries as the "living, breathing document" crowd seeks to make all law a matter of subjectivity and opinion – I vote for one who inherently understands that words have meaning, and that those words were selected to establish the law.

  I vote for people who have good ideas, not for those who would worship bipartisanship with words that make a bad idea seem good. The Democrats won, let them govern. And let the voters of 2010 decide whether they deserve a two-year extension.

  • Posted Feb 21, 2009 2:10 pm PT
  • 1 Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 30Nov 08

  University of Miami

  An interesting envelope appeared in yesterday's mail: an unsolicited recruitment letter from the University of Miami. It came addressed to my 14-year-old ninth-grade daughter. Let the college process begin!

  In fairness, Leslie does have an impressive resume. Her worst report card ever - in any grade - was the one with two B's. Upon being accepted to a Science and Technology High School program, she tested out of both Algebra 1 and Geometry, and now is a freshman taking Algebra II - and doing quite well. She has completed two of the four HSA exams, and has all the community service hours required in Maryland. But I still think that a college has more fertile ground to plow than 14-year-old ninth-grade girls.

  Leslie has a sister who graduated from 11th grade, and went straight to Syracuse University. At the time, she waived salutatory status to graduate. Two weeks ago, she found out that she passed the New York State Bar exam. Perhaps the University of Miami fears that Leslie will outdo her, and attempt a graduation from 10th grade. I can't imagine that they think that - when the time comes - a three-year-old form letter will have that great an impact on her college decision.

  Part of me thinks that the letter was illegal. You need to be careful today when you recruit 14-year-old girls for any activity. A political smear ad once accused an opponent of trying to interest his 13-year-old niece in philately. Stamp Collecting. I'll let professional pollsters judge how effective that campaign was. But the scary part is - it may have worked.

  Even in this tv.com forum, I get uncomfortable when a teenaged girl addresses me for any reason. It's not that I have evil intent; it's that I never know how any reply I offer will be interpreted. But I concede that colleges likely have the right to recruit underaged women. But 14??

  So congratulations to the Hurricanes for being the first. But to the second, third, fourth, etc..., Please pardon me if I choose not to wear out my letter opener on recruitment material that arrives prior to spring of her Junior year.

  • Posted Nov 30, 2008 11:29 am PT
  • 4 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »