Links and Minifeatures 2009 04 14 Tuesday

A word of explanation and apology: I have been sick as the proverbial dog since the night of Good Friday. I had been completely exhausted, and when I took a chill it hit me hard. The reprints this week weren't planned; I just haven't had any choice, being doped up on Theraflu and similar medications. I'm hoping it's starting to recede, if so I will try and do something new for tomorrow since I certainly can't go out looking at properties or much else that is constructive.

The below is mostly from before I got sick.

Spam level *declines*... to 97 percent of all email

The title says it all.

Fundamental Dishonesty

First, he strongly intimated that because only 1 percent of children were able to "escape" (and boy, that's some admission) from D.C.public schools through this program, it was not worth saving.

So, you may ask, why not allow the 1 percent to turn into 2 percent or 10 percent instead of scrapping the program? After all, only moments later, Duncan claimed that there was no magic reform bullet and that it would take a multitude of innovations to fix education

If you think that the Secretary of Education wasn't given marching orders on this subject by Obama, well, perhaps you need to wait until you're a little older before you vote.

Obama and the Reawakening of Corporatism

In 1970, General Motors was the largest and most profitable company in America. Today, of course, GM is neither. Instead, in 2009 America's largest company is Wal-Mart, which was still only a regional, privately-held retailer in 1970. Wal-Mart's rapid rise is not unique, however. Among the 100 largest firms today, a number--including FedEx, Microsoft, Cisco, and Home Depot--didn't even exist in 1970. So profoundly has the landscape changed that 80 percent of the Fortune 100 companies today are different from 1970.

Read it. Major corporations appreciate the moat Obama is building for them, protecting them from competition. They've already got the resources to deal with complex regulations, and control over the market (or enough of it) to raise prices to compensate. Who does this business environment disadvantage? The entrepreneurs who have been our major source of economic gains.

Victor Davis Hanson: The Politics of Blame

The Obama administration, remember, signed the Democratic-sponsored bill to authorize new bailouts for Wall Street firms and mega-bonuses for their executives. And during the Clinton administration, Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers - who both later made millions on Wall Street - succeeded in freeing investment banks from federal regulations that eventually led to their reckless gambling with trillions in sub-prime mortgage debt.

The quasi-government-run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage agencies - staffed with ex-Clinton administration cronies - were at Ground Zero of the financial meltdown. Liberals in Congress like Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank were among the largest recipients of Wall Street money. In the 2008 presidential campaign, most of the big investor money went to Democratic candidate Obama.

Billionaire investors like Warren Buffet and George Soros proved to be among Obama's staunchest supporters. Health and Human Services Cabinet-nominee Tom Daschle had to bow out because he skipped paying income taxes on free corporate limousine service. Democrats are clearly no longer the party of dirt farmers in bib overalls and sweaty dockworkers.

Is this starting to paint a coherent picture for you? There's a reason major, already established corporations make their campaign contributions to the Democrats, despite the Democrats being anti-business. These corporations can afford regulatory costs, they can afford lawyers, they can afford the campaign contributions for special favors. They will just raise prices to compensate. It's the new business that can't afford those. This effectively gives the established corporations a monopoly (or an effective monopoly) over the market.

Obama Has Been a Divider, Not a Uniter

But Obama was supposed to be the antidote to the poison of partisanship. During the presidential campaign, chief strategist David Axelrod told Brownstein, "If there's an enhanced Democratic majority, I think that he's going ... to urge a special sense of responsibility to try and forge coalitions around these answers, not because we won't be able to force our will in many cases, but because, ultimately, effective governance requires it in the long term."

That makes last week's votes on the budget resolutions a landmark of ineffective governance. Not a single Republican in the House or Senate supported the bill, largely because the Democratic majority forced its will. Republicans were flattened, not consulted. Democratic leaders talk of enacting controversial elements of the budget through the reconciliation process -- which would require 51 Senate votes, not the normal 60, for passage. Only in Washington would the word "reconciliation" refer to a form of partisan warfare.

Women's Rights as a Measure of Civilization

In a society where might makes right, where the rule of brute force has been thoroughly unleashed, women are always the first victims. Even the poorest and meanest man, the guy on the lowest rung who is oppressed by others above him who are bigger and stronger-even he can find one person he is still able to dominate and oppress: a woman, whether it is his mother, his wife, or his daughter. And he will oppress her-if the oppression of others by force is the accepted norm of the society he lives in. For examples, look to the Muslim world with its "honor" killings, arranged marriages, sexual segregation, and special restrictions on the travel and attire of women.

He can't resist throwing stones at the political right, but he does acknowledge that it's the right who has been the champion of women's rights of late.

N. Korea shows need for missile defense

But at least the Soviet Union was run by rational, clear-minded men. North Korea and Iran are in the grips of regimes controlled, in Pyongyang, by a paranoid egomaniac who starves his people and isolates his nation, and, in Tehran, by religious fanatics who harbor millennial, apocalyptical fantasies.

Yes, the possibility of a rogue state turning an atom bomb over to terrorists may be a greater threat than intercontinental ballistic missiles. But North Korea and Iran want rockets for a reason. Even if they didn't launch an ICBM, the mere capability and threat to do so would give these dictators enormous power -- unless they knew a defense system could knock down their warheads.

Let me ask you this: Suppose there were a missile headed for your city. Wouldn't you want a missile defense system operational, with at least a chance to prevent a trillion dollar disaster potentially killing millions?

The other alternative is to watch it hit and clean up afterwards. Yeah, we can nuke the perpetrator into radioactive glass, but that doesn't make the damage done to us any less.

That missile is going to happen - probably more than once. It's only a matter of time. The question is whether we will be ready when it does.

Game Theory Exposes PPIP As Fraudulent

Suppose someone is willing to fund your gambling problem, and lend you $80 at zero interest. Better still, if you lose the bet you don't have to pay him back. Under that scenario, the same gambler would pay $90 for the bet, giving him an even chance of winning or losing $10.