Philosophy Learn more about our
organization and the moral basis of capitalism.
Campaigns Find out about the
Center's many activism projects.
Media Center
News mentions, press releases and
speakers.
Feedback
Send us a comment or ask
a question--we want to hear from you!
Contribute This website and the
Center's advocacy programs are not free--we depend on you to support our
efforts. Invest in your freedom today! Donate once or set up a monthly
withdrawal plan--we accept all major cards.
Human Events, a conservative weekly, compiled a list of the “Ten Worst Federal Tax Laws.” The list was chosen by a prominent panel of judges, including Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, Stephen Moore of Club for Growth, and Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist. The estate tax (a.k.a. “death tax”) came in at #1, followed by double taxation of dividends, and the alternative minimum tax. There are no glaring omissions that I can see on the list, though I would have given at least an honorable mention to certain federal fines, such as the Hart-Scott-Rodino fee companies must pay as tribute to have their mergers approved by antitrust authorities.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 12:31 PM | link
| donate |
A matter of inches
Georgia’s efforts to create a new, Confederacy-free flag hit a snag:
Legislation that would clear the way for the new flag is up for a vote Tuesday. The bill does not list specific measurements for the flag, but it does define proportions for three stripes and a blue square that encompasses the state seal and 13 stars.
A historian says those proportions would throw the state flag out of proportion with the standard American flag by making Georgia's a foot longer.
Supporters are afraid to change the legislation because then it would have to return to the Georgia House with just two days left in the legislative session.
It amazes me this is still an issue. No state should be permitted to have the Confederate emblem in their flag, for the simple reason that the Confederacy was a rebellion against the United States government. That the rebellion was, in large measure, motivated by a desire to preserve slavery makes the moral issue that much clearer. Congress, in my judgment, possesses the authority to require the removal of the Confederate symbol from a state flag, pursuant to the federal power to suppress insurrections against the national government.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 12:24 PM | link
| donate |
It's not always about the children...
For all the unconstitutional laws passed in the name of “protecting the children,” some basic acts of child abuse continue to be legal, as evidence in this report from Pennsylvania:
A woman and her male partner - a psychologist who works with autistic children - do not belong on a state list of alleged and confirmed child abusers for punishing her 13-year-old son by paddling him with a plastic serving spoon, a state court ruled.
Even if the boy suffered bruises and had trouble sitting for a couple days, the injuries did not justify keeping the two on the list, a three-judge Commonwealth Court panel said Thursday.
Now, I question the wisdom of child abuser “lists” as a means of law enforcement, but that’s a secondary issue here. The question is whether paddling a child with a spoon constitutes abuse. There’s no question in my mind that it is. If you believe the initiation of force against others is immoral, then you cannot justify harming a child in such a cruel manner. The notion that this is “discipline” is irrational on its face. You do not teach someone good behavior by resorting to a wanton act of violence.
The Pennsylvania court concluded the paddling here was legal because there was “no malicious intent and no evidence of negligence by adults or severe injury to the boy.” None of these rationalizations justifies the paddling. Intentionally harming a child—or any human being for that matter—is malicious regardless of whether you consider the act to be disciplinary rather than punitive. As to negligence, a parent who resorts to paddling her own child, it seems to me, is simply taking a shortcut rather than taking the time to actually teach their child right from wrong. That certainly approaches the line of negligence. Finally, the severity of the injury should not be a determining factor for legal purposes. Is rape not a crime if the woman is not severely injured? Of course it’s not.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 12:18 PM | link
| donate |
Support our Troops. . .
. . .by paying them a salary worth their commitment, says Al Neuharth in an op-ed in yesterday's USA Today. I agree.
Compared to the money one can make in the civilian world, military pay is peanuts. The pay for a E-1 (Private, Airman, or Seaman Recruit) is $12,776 a year. With a little overtime, someone schlepping at minimum wage does better. Yet it's at the higher ranks where the real pay imbalance is revealed. A four-star general or admiral with over 26 years experience earns only $153,950 in basic pay. You can see the entire pay scale here.
Could anyone imagine paying the CEO of any corporation with 20,000+ employees such a salary, let alone a CEO who is at the top of his profession? And don't give me that line about how military members get food and housing as benefits. Have you ever eaten military chow? Or lived in a barracks? I did for five years as a marine. It ain't no treat.
The military profession demands the utmost from those who serve in its offices. It's time we as grateful citizens reward that commitment with appropriate pay. If it were my call, I'd raise military pay by 50%, and I'd do it in a heartbeat. We can take the money out of the billions of dollars the government wastes on things that don't contribute one iota to the national defense.
Junk like this just ticks me off.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 12:01 PM | link
| donate |
Friday, April 18, 2003 :::
Paging Donald Rumsfeld. Intemperate Diplomatic Gaffe Needed
Link. North Korean statement. The North Koreans are treating these as bilateral talks, and the Chinese probably are too. The North Koreans claim that they informed the US and "relevant countries" in March that they were doing this.
No talks while the North is building nuclear bombs.
::: posted by John Bragg
at 11:42 AM | link
| donate |
North Korea Is Manufacturing Nuclear Fuel
Link. Time for some sabre-rattling. The meeting in Beijing must be cancelled and no meetings held until the North freezes their program.
::: posted by John Bragg
at 11:14 AM | link
| donate |
Thursday, April 17, 2003 :::
Link. Saudi Defense Minister has filed a motion in the Saudi-9/11 case. (found via Instapundit.)
The old joke, that the Department of Defense exists to defend US interests and the Department of State to sacrifice them...read closely. Treasury and Justice are unhappy at the lack of Saudi cooperation. The best that can be said about State is that they're not moving to dismiss the lawsuit.
Moving down the list, er, Chart. Now, Mr. Khamenei, about that peaceful nuclear program you have, I have a feeling that Allah doesn't really want you to have that. In fact, I'm pretty confident that that nuclear program is going to be gone within a year. I'm pretty sure that Allah wills that. In fact, if the program doesn't go away, fire and destruction will rain from the skies upon it, destroying utterly that which offends and leaving that which is pure untouched. Just a thought.
::: posted by John Bragg
at 7:30 PM | link
| donate |
So that's why Syria moved to No. 1 on the charts. (What list? There is no list. I assure you, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Pakistan are not on any list. They are on a chart. That's completely different.)
::: posted by John Bragg
at 7:18 PM | link
| donate |
'All your base are belong to us. . .'
Something Awful has a moving tribute to the world's favorite ex-minister of information Mohammad Said al-Sahaf.
Hey, if it makes you laugh, you're advancing capitalism. ;-)
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 6:41 PM | link
| donate |
Cuban for America
Hollywood may continue to bellyache about the war, but the sports world is steipping up to the plate: Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has established the Fallen Patriot Fund to provide relief and support for families of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. Cuban himself will match the fist $1 million in contributions to the fund.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 12:44 PM | link
| donate |
Wednesday, April 16, 2003 :::
First in War, First in Peace...
District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams signed legislation yesterday moving the D.C. presidential primaries from May to the second Tuesday in January, for now making the nation’s capital host to the nation’s first primary.
This power play by D.C. will obviously anger New Hampshire, which jealously guards its position as the nation’s first primary state (Iowa actually chooses their delegates first, but they employ a closed caucus system, not an open primary election.) New Hampshire law, in fact, requires them to go first:
653:9 Presidential Primary Election. – The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a Tuesday selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose.
Now, D.C. sponsors argue that since the District is not a “state,” it need not officially disrupt New Hampshire’s position at the head of the pecking order. But New Hampshire law doesn’t see it that way. The statute’s definition section says that any election which selects delegates to a presidential nominating convention constitutes a “similar election” for purposes of Section 653:9. Therefore, New Hampshire is legally obligated to move their primary to the first Tuesday in January, marking the earliest start ever for the official nomination contest.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 1:50 PM | link
| donate |
Antitrust news
The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division has filed suit to block the acquisition of a unit of Bermis Co. by Finland-based UPM-Kymmene. DOJ officials are concerned the deal will lead to improper consolidation of the market for sticky labels. Yes, that’s right, sticky labels.
(This shouldn’t surprise me, given that last month a federal appeals court ruled 3M was unfairly monopolizing the market for generic tape. Adhesives have apparently become the Standard Oil of modern antitrust practice.)
This case is interesting because European Union antitrust regulators—normally a far more anal bunch than the DOJ—gave its blessing to the deal, finding the merged firms would pose no threat to the current sticky label leader, U.S.-based Avery Dennison. The DOJ, however, offers the bizarre claim that a Bermis-UPM merger might “facilitate coordination” with Avery and other U.S. competitors. In other words, the government is afraid sticky label producers will “coordinate” rather than “compete.” Oh, the sheer horror.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 1:49 PM | link
| donate |
The official tournament of capitalism
In a sad day for local golf fans in the D.C. area, Kemper Insurance yesterday ended their title sponsorship of the Kemper Open, the PGA Tour’s annual swing through Maryland’s Tournament Players Club at Avenel. The event itself will proceed on schedule this June as the “Capitol Open,” until a new sponsor can be found.
Personally, I’d love to rename the event the “Capitalism Open,” but I’m a few dollars shy of the estimated $6 million needed to secure the title sponsorship.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 1:48 PM | link
| donate |
Tuesday, April 15, 2003 :::
It's tax time--are you in compliance?
The Tax Foundation says odds are you are not, and yet it is costing you a fortune.
In 2002 individuals, businesses and non-profits will spend an estimated 5.8 billion hours complying with the federal income tax code (henceforth called “compliance costs”), with an estimated compliance cost of over $194 billion. This amounts to imposing a 20.4-cent tax compliance surcharge for every dollar the income tax system collects. By 2007, the compliance cost is estimated, conservatively, at $244.3 billion. However, this estimate does not take into account the recently enacted Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) of 2001. Taking EGTRRA into account shows that the compliance cost could soar as high as $350.2 billion by 2007.
It costs more than double to comply with the tax code than to liberate Iraq.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 3:57 PM | link
| donate |
Oh, and we've won!
The Washington Times front page headline this morning: "White House: 'We've won' " The New York Times: "Pentagon Asserts the Main Fighting Is Finished in Iraq."
To our supporters Commander Mike Pease, USN, Capt. Scott McDonald, USMC, and Sgt. Andy Van Fossen, USA, and all the men and women of the US Armed Forces, let me offer my sincerest gratitude for the courage, commitment and professionalism you displayed during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 6:36 AM | link
| donate |
'Axis of Evil' Countries Feeling the Heat
This AP report should be music to a lot of people's ears.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 6:18 AM | link
| donate |
NEW YORK—A brawny bouncer at a trendy East Village nightspot was stabbed to death yesterday after he confronted a man who lit up a cigarette in defiance of the city's tough new anti-smoking law, police said.
Dana (Shazam) Blake, 32, of Queens, was allegedly set upon by two Chinatown brothers after one of them refused to stop puffing inside Guernica on Avenue B, cops said.
"My brother lost his life because of this stupid smoking law," said the Rev. Tony Blake, who preaches against smoking and drinking at his Humble Way Church of God in Christ in Queens.
"This is not the end of the violence because of it," he added.
As despicable and unconstitutional as New York's smoking ban is, it did not cause Dana Blake's death. The man who irrationally choses violence in defying the law is responsible. Still, there may be a lesson for manipulative politicians like New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg (who rammed the smoking ban through): whenever you use the law to control individual behavior, there are always unintended consequences. No regulation ever perfectly accomplishes its goal.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 2:07 AM | link
| donate |
Beware the Ides of April
Today of course is Tax Day. Ever wonder why taxes come due on April 15, as opposed to, say, June 20? Here's the explanation:
Actually, Congress originally put tax day on the calendar. When the 16th Amendment, which allows Congress to institute the income tax, was adopted on Feb. 3, 1913, Congress chose March 1--one year and a few dozen days later--as the deadline for filing returns. Then, with the Revenue Act of 1918, Congress inexplicably moved the date forward to March 15. The next overhaul came in 1955, when buried between tax-code revisions was yet another date change, this time to April 15. According to an IRS spokesman, the move "spread out the peak workload," but there's another explanation. Turns out that as the income tax applied to more of the middle class, the government had to issue more refunds. "Pushing the deadline back gives the government more time to hold on to the money," says Ed McCaffery, a University of Southern California law professor and tax guru. Still, the IRS's rigidity works in your favor: By law, it must mail your refund within 45 days or pay you interest.
This isn't quite as entertaining as the explanation for Election Day—a story I'll tell some other time—but this explanation does make sense.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 1:26 AM | link
| donate |
Tar Heels Tarnished, Part Duex
I'm disappointed Roy Williams took the North Carolina job. As I explained in an earlier post, the conduct of the University of North Carolina—a government-funded institution—was disgraceful from the very beginning. Williams should have resisted UNC's pleas and stayed at Kansas, where he built his own program into a perennial championship contender. Kansas was Roy Williams' program, and he could be proud of the fact. Now, at North Carolina, he'll be viewed largely as the anointed heir of Dean Smith, who managed to help run his last two successors out of town. Forgive my bluntness, but Williams decision here was an act of emotional cowardice. Williams put the interests and values of Smith and the UNC powers ahead of his own self-interest.
This is not to say every coach who leaves one program for another is a coward or an intellectual traitor. Far from it. The point is, Williams had a better situation at Kansas then he's walking into at UNC, and he knew that. He chose to disregard this fact because of his emotionaol fealty to Dean Smith. In essence, Smith and UNC bullied Williams into taking the job now after Williams had rebuffed them three years ago. According to numerous reports, Smith and UNC basically played the guilt card on Williams, arguing that his decision three years ago forced the Tar Heels to hire an inferior coach—the unjustly fired Matt Doherty—thus setting the program back. Of course, none of this was Williams fault. He should feel no guilt for staying with the Kansas program he built. Yet Smith and UNC played Williams' emotions for all it was worth.
Consider the decision by UNC to fire Doherty the week of the Final Four, where Kansas was a participant. Rationally, UNC could have waited until after the Final Four was over. Instead, they chose to immediately put public pressure on Williams to consider the UNC job, at the same time he was leading his Kansas team into a national championship game. This was blatant manipulation, and Williams in fact recognized it as such. He admitted this, albeit implicitly, in his now-famous postgame interview with CBS' Bonnie Bernstein. When asked, in the immediate aftermath of losing the championship to Syracuse, if he would take the UNC job, Williams twice noted that the people asking those questions "weren't being very sensitive." Superficially, it sounded like he was criticizing the media for asking the question. But, I believe it was a criticism of UNC for firing Doherty when they did. Still, this makes Williams' conduct all the more cowardly: he knew he was being manipulated and he allowed it to succeed.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 1:17 AM | link
| donate |
With malice towards none...
In the aftermath of Martha Burk's defeat at Augusta, I feel the need to offer some charity. Not towards Burk, mind you, but towards some of her misguided defenders in the media. Specifically Christine Brennan of USA Today, whose initial writings on Augusta's all-male policy caught Burk's attention a year ago. In many pro-Augusta quarters, Brennan has been maligned as Burk's chief instigator. This strikes me as somehwat unfair, especially coming from certain individuals. One such individual is John Feinstein, a former colleague of Brennan's at the Washington Post, who put out this thinly-veiled attack in his weekly AOL sports column:
Burk has been wrong -- factually, philosophically and ethically -- so often since this fiasco began that she has actually managed to turn most neutral parties and even some who agree with her in principle against her. In fact, she has done the nearly impossible: turned the membership of Augusta National, one of the least sympathetic groups of people in America, into sympathetic figures in the eyes of many.
Most women in American -- and most reasonable men -- probably agree with the notion that there should be female members at Augusta National, if only because it would be a symbolic gesture, an acknowledgment because the club conducts a public event once a year it is different than other private clubs.
But almost no one sees the issue as the cause celebre that Burk, The New York Times and one self-promoting columnist at USA Today have attempted to turn it into.
Now, to be fair, there is more than one "self-promoting columnist" at USA Today. I can think of at least three. But in this context, Feinstein is clearly referring to Brennan, who he refers to later in his column as the "look-at-me columnist."
Frankly, this sort of name calling is unnecessary. And Feinstein shouldn't be throwing stones at glass houses. He's widely regarded—even among colleagues—as a sanctimonious know-it-all, the stereotypical sportswriter who considers himself a total cognitive authority on all things sport.
There's also the rank hypocrisy. After all, aren't most sports columnists self-promoting by nature? They're trying to sell themselves as personalities, not just writers. Many columnists also write books they seek to sell (Feinstein himself is one of the best book writers out there.) Some columnists even do television, also a self-promotion vehicle. So simply labeling Brennan "self-promoting" says nothing about the validity of her actions or her causes.
Columnists are not news reporters. They are expected to hold strong opinions with the intent of influencing people. In this vain, Brennan did nothing wrong in stating her views on Augusta's membership. No line was crossed there. Burk crossed the line when she resorted to threats and intimidation against Augusta and its corporate partners. To my knowledge, Brennan never participated in those kind of activities. Indeed, if one media reporter sticks out in my mind as violating ethical norms, it's Len Shapiro of the Washington Post, who routinely ignored facts inconvenient to his own anti-Augusta position. It was Shapiro who led a media lynching when Tiger Woods wouldn't morally condemn Augusta (thus demonstrating Woods lacked a "social conscience" in the eyes of Shapiro and colleague Michael Wilbon.)
Now, I've been critical of Brennan myself at times. Some of her arguments against Augusta were purely emotionalist and lacked substantial reasoning. But at the same time, I've always considered Brennan's criticism of Augusta to be well intentioned. She is clearly a golf fan and someone who views Augusta's policies as harmful to the club's image. Burk, on the other hand, is a manipulative figure who set out to destroy the Masters. I've never read any similar malicious intent in Brennan's writings on this subject. Thus, it's patently unfair for Feinstein to single her out for condemnation in this fiasco.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 12:46 AM | link
| donate |
Monday, April 14, 2003 :::
Why is SBC denying condoms to rural America?
The campus paper at George Washington University contains this disturbing report:
Voices For Choices will hold its second annual Safer Sex Party Tuesday night in the Thurston Hall Piano Lounge from 8:30 to 10: 30 p.m.
Students will have the opportunity to talk to local clinic representatives about safer sex and sexually transmitted infections. Free condoms, food and information will be available.
I'm not one to judge, but personally, I think it's wrong for a telecommunications lobbying group like Voices for Choices to be giving condoms to college students. I know the group is upset the FCC ruled against them in their recent dispute with the Baby Bells, but I fail to see how a "Safer Sex Party" is going to undo the government's decision.
Then again, this article may be referring to the Voices for Choices student group which is the GW chapter of Planned Parenthood...
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 10:39 PM | link
| donate |
Liberals triumph over other liberals!
Looks like the five-day work week will continue in Quebec. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation projects the Liberals have secured a majority in today's provincial elections. Goodbye secessionists, hello socialist status quo!
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 9:44 PM | link
| donate |
Hey, it worked for WorldCom
An immediate problem arising from the end of Saddam Hussein's regime is the issue of Iraq's foreign debt, currently estimated to be at least $60 billion, and in reality much more than that. Treasury Secretary John Snow is trying to gague support from key Iraqi creditors—such as, ahem, France—for forgiving at least some of the debt. However this issue is resolved, it will ultimately involve some political wrangling at the United Nations, not to mention intervention from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, all organizations that contributed to the international debt problem in the first place.
This may sound simplistic, but I have an idea. Let's just put Iraq before a U.S. Bankruptcy Court (perhaps the one in Delaware, which arguably has a better track record in reorganizing indebted corporations than any international institution.) After all, if we can bring Iraqi war criminals before U.S.-appointed military tribunals, there's no reason we can't use U.S. institutions to settle the debts of a deposed dictatorial regime.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 9:38 PM | link
| donate |
Vampire rights
Atheists are threatening to sue Ventura, California, unless city officials remove a "90-year-old, cross-shaped monument from a hilltop park overlooking the coastal town." The Washington Times reports atheists are suddenly apoplectic over the monument's religous meaning:
"Government establishing a Christian cross on government property treads on their rights and makes second-class citizens of non-Christians," said Charles Wilson, a federal employee from nearby Oxnard and one of three men threatening to sue the city over the cross.
He said the cross is a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.
Stan Kohls, a resident of nearby Somis and another of the men complaining about the cross, said the symbol represents a dangerous intrusion of religion into public life.
"All you have to do is look at Israel or Northern Ireland to see how destructive religion can be when it is brought out in public," said the semiretired special education teacher. "A society that is democratic must be secular as well."
This last statement struck me as odd. After all, secularism qua secularism does not guarantee democratic values. Just look at the Soviet Union, which was an atheist state. And it's also true that a belief in individual rights is ultimately compatible with altruist concepts of religion. But at the same time, a society can respect individual rights while maintaining religious components. The United States is in fact a prime example of this theory.
Furthermore, I disagree with the premise that enacting a cross on government property violates the "rights" of non-Christians. The Constitution only prohbits the establishment of religion, not the incidental endorsement of it. While a cross may be offensive to atheists, the city's decision to permit a cross on government property does not compel an atheist to conform to any particular belief. Unless you're a vampire, the cross's presence does violate anyone's right to life, liberty, or property.
Personally, I would not be terribly offended if I saw a cross on government property. Since I am an atheist, I invest the cross with no particular meaning, therefore the mere sight of one produces no negative reaction. Then again, unlike many atheists, I subscribe to a positive belief system rather than simply define myself by what I don't believe in. After all, I don't believe in communism, but I rarely describe myself to others as an "anti-communist."
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 9:27 PM | link
| donate |
Profiteering for Iraq
Among the themes of this weekend's antiwar protests was the call against "war profiteering," which the protesters define as any contract where a U.S. corporation agrees to rebuild-and-provide services for the new Iraqi administration. This, the protesters claim, is yet more evidence of American imperialism and the wretched excesses of capitalism.
But what exactly is the alternative? After all, the corporations are presumably hired because they have expertise and resources to accomplish various tasks, such as setting up a telecommunications network. Would the protesters prefer we leave the Iraqis without such a network, or that we hire some group that's not the best for the job? I suspect the reply would be "we should let the United Nations do it." But the UN is not a business, and it has no expertise in actually building infrastructure. At least not building one efficiently. The UN, like most of its member governments, is a parasitic entity that drains wealth generated by individuals and businesses. Having the UN lead the Iraqi rebuilding would simply make it more expensive and less efficient. But, hey, if preventing corporate profits is more important to you than helping rebuild Iraq, you're certainly entitled to that viewpoint...
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 3:07 PM | link
| donate |
He's won more lawsuits than Super Bowls
Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis is back in court today, this time blaming local government officials for his lack of attendance. Davis is trying to sue his way out of his lease at the Oakland Coliseum (which runs through 2010) on the grounds that the city "promised" him a full house for every home game. Unfortunately, the team's lackluster record in the 1990s made things difficult. Nevertheless, Davis feels that he's the victim.
This is hardly a new act for Davis. He left Oakland in the early 1980s for Los Angeles and—following an antitrust suit against the NFL—proceeded to run the team into stagnation at the massive Los Angeles Coliseum. When Davis couldn't secure a new taxpayer-financed stadium, Davis bolted back to Oakland for his current lease. On top of that, he sued the NFL again, claiming he still maintained "territorial rights" to Los Angeles, a claim which is still being litigated.
The only thing worse than a politician who throws tax dollars at sports owners are the owners who feel entitled to such funds. This is not "capitalism," but another form of wealth redistribution. And should Davis win—and he's seeking $1.2 billion in damages for "lost revenue"—the taxpayers will end up footing the entire bill.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 3:01 PM | link
| donate |
At least they didn't tear down any statues...
From the "let's be more like downtown Baghdad" department:
The smell of cigar smoke, burning plastic and pepper spray filled the air Saturday night as several hundred people rioted following Minnesota’s men’s hockey team’s 5-1 NCAA championship victory.
In an alcohol-fueled frenzy, rioters smashed windows, burned trash bins and toppled items throughout Dinkytown, Stadium Village and parts of the East Bank campus.
University officials were still assessing the damage when University President Robert Bruininks met with members of the news media Sunday afternoon.
“We don’t really have enough facts,” Bruininks said. “You can be assured that we’re going to turn over every stone to find the people responsible for this.”
The scary thing is, there were riots last year after Minnesota won the title. And some students aren't ashamed of this:
Mark McSherry, an economics senior, said the police presence made the damage worse.
“People burn stuff because the cops keep chasing us and they keep Macing us. We’re going break stuff until they quit chasing us,” he said.
McSherry said this year’s riots were worse because a lot of people, including incoming first-year students, saw riots on television last year and wanted to participate.
“Riots are some of the top three memorable college times of my life. When else do you see all these students come together to do one thing?” he asked.
On the plus side, university officials say they'll now consider a "zero tolerance" policy against future rioting. Hopefully the leaders of this riot won't have made it to exile in Syria by then...
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 2:53 PM | link
| donate |
Election Day
Quebec voters head to the polls today to select a new provincial legislature. The incumbent governing party, the secessionist Parti Quebecois (PQ), is facing a stiff challenge from the provincial Liberal Party, led by Jean Charest, formerly the head of Canada’s Conservative party (don’t ask.) Complicating maters further is a third-party effort led by the Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ).
The PQ won the past two elections on the strength of their major issue: secession from Canada and the formation of an independent Quebec. But with tough economic times throughout Quebec and Canada, that message is no longer first on the minds of most voters. Now it’s all about the economy. Ironically, the PQ solution to economic problems is the same as that of English-speaking Canada: more socialism.
Indeed, the PQ’s latest election gimmick is a real doozy: imposing a four-day work week. This means businesses would have to pay employees for a five-day work week, but employees would only have to work four of them. This is supposed to support families, I think.
Maybe it’s the PQ’s new plan to get out of Canada; make the province so economically unproductive, that the rest of the country will ask them to leave. Then again, this being Canada, the four-day work week may catch fire and go national.
Even if Charest’s Liberals can wrest power from the PQ (and the Libs reportedly have a six-point lead in the polls) things won’t change much economically. The Liberals will simply maintain the socialist status quo. Even the ADQ, nominally a “right wing” party, has spent most of the election campaign touting new spending proposals, such as “investing $2.2 billion in families,” whatever that means. On the other hand, the ADQ is touting a school voucher plan that’s annoyed the head of the province’s teacher’s union, who argued vouchers would “set aside social solidarity aside [while] talking about freedom of choice.” So maybe Quebec has some hope.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 2:47 PM | link
| donate |
The most loved professor in America. . .
. . . is not Nicholas De Genova, according to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. De Genova is the now infamous Columbia professor who wished for "a million Mogadishus," a reference to the 1993 battle in Somalia in which 18 U.S. soldiers were killed.
Savor this gem in the Chronicle's interview with De Genova:
Q. Your comment about wishing for "a million Mogadishus" has attracted the most attention. I read your letter in the "Columbia Daily Spectator," which gave some more context, but I have to confess I don't see how the context changes the meaning of that statement.
A. I was referring to what Mogadishu symbolizes politically. The U.S. invasion of Somalia was humiliated in an excruciating way by the Somali people. And Mogadishu was the premier symbol of that. What I was really emphasizing in the larger context of my comments was the question of Vietnam and that historical lesson. ... What I was intent to emphasize was that the importance of Vietnam is that it was a defeat for the U.S. war machine and a victory for the cause of human self-determination.
Communism as a form of self-determination? I'll say the same thing I said to George Washington University philosophy professor Peter Caws when I made the mistake of getting into a debate with him over communism as an undergraduate during his course "Left and Right in Political Philosophy"—it ain't self-determination when the secret police put a bullet in your cranium because you are unwilling to sacrifice your ability to someone else's need.
De Genova gets more credit than he deserves. All that he's done is taken the virulent hatred of America that dominates teaching in the humanities and striped it of its academic language. I wonder how many Ph.D.'s are earned by those saying exactly the same thing as De Genova, but only in the form of a dissertation.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 12:43 PM | link
| donate |
CNN's Access of Evil
Franklin Foer, the associate editor of The New Republic that questioned CNN's reporting integrity in Iraq last fall, slams the network in today's Wall Street Journal for Eason Jordan's admission that CNN hid details of Saddam's brutality
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 11:45 AM | link
| donate |
Sunday, April 13, 2003 :::
Martha Burk gets flamed in the Washington Post
The Washington Post has an hysterical article describing radical feminist Martha Burk's fizzled protest of Augusta National Golf Club yesterday. The article describes how Burk's small cadre suffered such indignities as having more press than protestors, being mocked by the "People Against Ridiculous Protests," who planted a sign and walked away, saying it would be "ridiculous" to stay, and being serenaded by an Elvis impersonator, who attempted to woo some of Burk's protestors. And when confronted with the failure of her protest, the article reports that Burk went into total Iraqi Information Minister mode, tossing out a conspiracy theory accusing the Heritage Foundation of buying up seats on her protest buses to reduce the turnout.
What a failure. Maybe if we're lucky, Syria will grant Burk asylum.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 7:23 AM | link
| donate |
What did they say and when did they say it
The Washington Times details the major media outlets that bungled their coverage of the war in Iraq with unduly pessimistic reports.
But why did so many media outlets get it wrong? When focused on grand strategy, the media coverage of the war was appallingly one-dimensional. For example, much debate was made out of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's push for a more technological, less manpower-intensive military, but little of that debate was useful. While Rumsfeld's critics were a dome a dozen, I recall hardly any interviews from those in favor of Rumsfeld's position outside of the administration. Now that Rumsfeld's team has delivered a smashing victory, one would expect a host of mea culpas? On this topic, I haven't seen one.
I think this a case of classic Red vs. Blue America. Blue thinks Red is stupid, and anything its does is intellectually suspect. After this appalling failure to get the story right, maybe Blue Americans ought to take the time to look at themselves.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 6:53 AM | link
| donate |
The success of the Center for
the Advancement of Capitalism is made possible thanks to
voluntary contributions by people like you. If you would like
to help support the Center's efforts, please make an
online contribution. We accept all major credit cards.
