Wiretap usage up 34% in 2010

According to the latest annual report from the federal judiciary, the number of wiretaps and intercepts approved in 2010 at state and federal levels increased 34% over 2009. That represents an increase of more than 800 wiretaps, and it surpasses the peak seen in 2007. Unsurprisingly, drug investigations account for almost all of the requests:

Here’s some more fun facts from the report:


Of all the applications for wiretap intercepts, 84 percent (2,675) cited illegal drugs as the most serious offense under investigation. The top three state wiretaps resulting in the most arrests were all narcotics related.
The average cost of a wiretap was $50,085, down 4 percent from 2009.
The average number of persons whose communications were intercepted rose from 113 per wiretap order in 2009 to 118 per wiretap order in 2010.
Only 26 percent of intercepted communications in 2010 were incriminating. Only one request for authorization was denied.
The top three states with approved wiretap applications were California, New York and New Jersey.

There isn’t any kidding about the top three states, either. California accounted for a third of all state requests (33%), with New York accounting for almost a quarter (24%) and New Jersey getting the bronze at 11%. These three states account for 68% of all state wiretap requests. New York and New Jersey have well-known problems with organized crime, but why is California — with a population just slightly larger than New York — surpassing both by such a large amount? Most likely, violent gang-related drug trafficking is the reason, but it’s a little mind-boggling to think that one in every three state-level wiretap requests comes from one single state. Californians might want to ask whether the police are going a little crazy with the intercepts in the Golden State.

Actually, everyone should ask that question, and not just of the police. In over 3100 wiretap requests, only one judge — one — bothered to deny a request from police, even though only 26% of intercepts provided any incriminating information in the end. I’m not philosophically opposed to wiretaps if actual probable cause exists for law enforcement to pursue them, but given that the average number of individuals who unknowingly lose their privacy per wiretap has risen to 118, and only 26% of those orders provide any kind of usable evidence, it sounds like a pretty bad trade in terms of privacy. Put those numbers together, and we end up with 278,900 citizens having their privacy invaded in vain in 2010. That’s roughly the population of St. Paul, Minnesota.

Clearly, we have a problem with the use of wiretaps — and the problem is getting worse. Here’s the chart from the report showing the growth of wiretap requests over the last twelve years, and note that this data does not include national-security wiretaps, which go through FISA courts:

Note that wiretaps have increased significantly at both levels — but look at the rapid growth of federal wiretaps over the last three years. The total for 2010 far exceeds the most active year of the Bush administration, which had been widely criticized for its use of wiretaps (with and without warrants) in national-security investigations. After 2004, which was only slightly above the 2000-2 level, federal wiretaps declined steadily — until 2009. The Obama administration has vastly expanded the use of intercepts in non-FISA applications.

As Glenn Reynolds says, they told me if I voted for John McCain, Big Brother would be snooping more and more — and they were right! The Obama administration needs to explain this vastly-expanded use of intercepts, especially given their success rate, and their motivation for aggressively pursuing wiretaps.

Read More

9:36 AM | 0 comments

Video: The Murder Circus

Steven Crowder dips his toes into the Casey Anthony post-mortem pool with this question: “When did one’s personal happiness become the ultimate value?” Maybe it’s just my age, but I’d say that the answer is … the 1970s. Remember the “Me Generation”? As Steven points out in his own inimitable manner, we haven’t left behind the laser focus on The Big Me, culturally speaking, since then. It wasn’t until the late 60s and 70s that we began, as a culture, celebrate those who went to go “find themselves” despite having left commitments like marriage and parenthood in their wake. Steven ties together unfit, selfish mothers like Casey Anthony, films like Eat Pray Love, and Anthony Weiner as cautionary tales on the decline towards amorality:


Speaking of films, has anyone but me noticed the recurrence in romantic comedies of leaving a bride or groom either literally at the altar or figuratively simply because of an infatuation with someone else? It’s the most puerile form of “finding one’s self” in films, where the protagonist doesn’t even have the excuse of being burdened by years of responsibility and disillusionment before seeking escape. From The Graduate to Serendipity and beyond, filmmakers have asked us to applaud the breaking of a covenant simply because the protagonist got turned on, although in The Graduate there was at least some symbolic value (moving from childhood to adulthood) to the conclusion.

I don’t necessarily believe that Casey Anthony is representative of millions of mothers, as Steven says, even if she didn’t kill her child. But there are certainly many who fit the bill of self-absorbed parents of both genders whose own focus is on their own happiness rather than on their own children. There are more politicians than just Anthony Weiner who use their positions of power more for pick-up lines and self-aggrandizement than spending their efforts on defending freedom and liberty. And perhaps we have had similar proportions of both throughout the ages and we’re simply discovering them more because of the greater efficiency of the media and the involved public. But it certainly seems that we’re seeing more of both, and that might be because we don’t demand that people adhere to standards of honor and decency — and that we’re celebrating traditional values much less than their opposite.

Speaking of films, has anyone but me noticed the recurrence in romantic comedies of leaving a bride or groom either literally at the altar or figuratively simply because of an infatuation with someone else? It’s the most puerile form of “finding one’s self” in films, where the protagonist doesn’t even have the excuse of being burdened by years of responsibility and disillusionment before seeking escape. From The Graduate to Serendipity and beyond, filmmakers have asked us to applaud the breaking of a covenant simply because the protagonist got turned on, although in The Graduate there was at least some symbolic value (moving from childhood to adulthood) to the conclusion.

I don’t necessarily believe that Casey Anthony is representative of millions of mothers, as Steven says, even if she didn’t kill her child. But there are certainly many who fit the bill of self-absorbed parents of both genders whose own focus is on their own happiness rather than on their own children. There are more politicians than just Anthony Weiner who use their positions of power more for pick-up lines and self-aggrandizement than spending their efforts on defending freedom and liberty. And perhaps we have had similar proportions of both throughout the ages and we’re simply discovering them more because of the greater efficiency of the media and the involved public. But it certainly seems that we’re seeing more of both, and that might be because we don’t demand that people adhere to standards of honor and decency — and that we’re celebrating traditional values much less than their opposite.

Speaking of films, has anyone but me noticed the recurrence in romantic comedies of leaving a bride or groom either literally at the altar or figuratively simply because of an infatuation with someone else? It’s the most puerile form of “finding one’s self” in films, where the protagonist doesn’t even have the excuse of being burdened by years of responsibility and disillusionment before seeking escape. From The Graduate to Serendipity and beyond, filmmakers have asked us to applaud the breaking of a covenant simply because the protagonist got turned on, although in The Graduate there was at least some symbolic value (moving from childhood to adulthood) to the conclusion.

I don’t necessarily believe that Casey Anthony is representative of millions of mothers, as Steven says, even if she didn’t kill her child. But there are certainly many who fit the bill of self-absorbed parents of both genders whose own focus is on their own happiness rather than on their own children. There are more politicians than just Anthony Weiner who use their positions of power more for pick-up lines and self-aggrandizement than spending their efforts on defending freedom and liberty. And perhaps we have had similar proportions of both throughout the ages and we’re simply discovering them more because of the greater efficiency of the media and the involved public. But it certainly seems that we’re seeing more of both, and that might be because we don’t demand that people adhere to standards of honor and decency — and that we’re celebrating traditional values much less than their opposite.

Speaking of films, has anyone but me noticed the recurrence in romantic comedies of leaving a bride or groom either literally at the altar or figuratively simply because of an infatuation with someone else? It’s the most puerile form of “finding one’s self” in films, where the protagonist doesn’t even have the excuse of being burdened by years of responsibility and disillusionment before seeking escape. From The Graduate to Serendipity and beyond, filmmakers have asked us to applaud the breaking of a covenant simply because the protagonist got turned on, although in The Graduate there was at least some symbolic value (moving from childhood to adulthood) to the conclusion.

I don’t necessarily believe that Casey Anthony is representative of millions of mothers, as Steven says, even if she didn’t kill her child. But there are certainly many who fit the bill of self-absorbed parents of both genders whose own focus is on their own happiness rather than on their own children. There are more politicians than just Anthony Weiner who use their positions of power more for pick-up lines and self-aggrandizement than spending their efforts on defending freedom and liberty. And perhaps we have had similar proportions of both throughout the ages and we’re simply discovering them more because of the greater efficiency of the media and the involved public. But it certainly seems that we’re seeing more of both, and that might be because we don’t demand that people adhere to standards of honor and decency — and that we’re celebrating traditional values much less than their opposite.

Read More

9:29 AM | 0 comments

Video: The Murder Circus

Steven Crowder dips his toes into the Casey Anthony post-mortem pool with this question: “When did one’s personal happiness become the ultimate value?” Maybe it’s just my age, but I’d say that the answer is … the 1970s. Remember the “Me Generation”? As Steven points out in his own inimitable manner, we haven’t left behind the laser focus on The Big Me, culturally speaking, since then. It wasn’t until the late 60s and 70s that we began, as a culture, celebrate those who went to go “find themselves” despite having left commitments like marriage and parenthood in their wake. Steven ties together unfit, selfish mothers like Casey Anthony, films like Eat Pray Love, and Anthony Weiner as cautionary tales on the decline towards amorality:


Speaking of films, has anyone but me noticed the recurrence in romantic comedies of leaving a bride or groom either literally at the altar or figuratively simply because of an infatuation with someone else? It’s the most puerile form of “finding one’s self” in films, where the protagonist doesn’t even have the excuse of being burdened by years of responsibility and disillusionment before seeking escape. From The Graduate to Serendipity and beyond, filmmakers have asked us to applaud the breaking of a covenant simply because the protagonist got turned on, although in The Graduate there was at least some symbolic value (moving from childhood to adulthood) to the conclusion.

I don’t necessarily believe that Casey Anthony is representative of millions of mothers, as Steven says, even if she didn’t kill her child. But there are certainly many who fit the bill of self-absorbed parents of both genders whose own focus is on their own happiness rather than on their own children. There are more politicians than just Anthony Weiner who use their positions of power more for pick-up lines and self-aggrandizement than spending their efforts on defending freedom and liberty. And perhaps we have had similar proportions of both throughout the ages and we’re simply discovering them more because of the greater efficiency of the media and the involved public. But it certainly seems that we’re seeing more of both, and that might be because we don’t demand that people adhere to standards of honor and decency — and that we’re celebrating traditional values much less than their opposite.

Speaking of films, has anyone but me noticed the recurrence in romantic comedies of leaving a bride or groom either literally at the altar or figuratively simply because of an infatuation with someone else? It’s the most puerile form of “finding one’s self” in films, where the protagonist doesn’t even have the excuse of being burdened by years of responsibility and disillusionment before seeking escape. From The Graduate to Serendipity and beyond, filmmakers have asked us to applaud the breaking of a covenant simply because the protagonist got turned on, although in The Graduate there was at least some symbolic value (moving from childhood to adulthood) to the conclusion.

I don’t necessarily believe that Casey Anthony is representative of millions of mothers, as Steven says, even if she didn’t kill her child. But there are certainly many who fit the bill of self-absorbed parents of both genders whose own focus is on their own happiness rather than on their own children. There are more politicians than just Anthony Weiner who use their positions of power more for pick-up lines and self-aggrandizement than spending their efforts on defending freedom and liberty. And perhaps we have had similar proportions of both throughout the ages and we’re simply discovering them more because of the greater efficiency of the media and the involved public. But it certainly seems that we’re seeing more of both, and that might be because we don’t demand that people adhere to standards of honor and decency — and that we’re celebrating traditional values much less than their opposite.

Speaking of films, has anyone but me noticed the recurrence in romantic comedies of leaving a bride or groom either literally at the altar or figuratively simply because of an infatuation with someone else? It’s the most puerile form of “finding one’s self” in films, where the protagonist doesn’t even have the excuse of being burdened by years of responsibility and disillusionment before seeking escape. From The Graduate to Serendipity and beyond, filmmakers have asked us to applaud the breaking of a covenant simply because the protagonist got turned on, although in The Graduate there was at least some symbolic value (moving from childhood to adulthood) to the conclusion.

I don’t necessarily believe that Casey Anthony is representative of millions of mothers, as Steven says, even if she didn’t kill her child. But there are certainly many who fit the bill of self-absorbed parents of both genders whose own focus is on their own happiness rather than on their own children. There are more politicians than just Anthony Weiner who use their positions of power more for pick-up lines and self-aggrandizement than spending their efforts on defending freedom and liberty. And perhaps we have had similar proportions of both throughout the ages and we’re simply discovering them more because of the greater efficiency of the media and the involved public. But it certainly seems that we’re seeing more of both, and that might be because we don’t demand that people adhere to standards of honor and decency — and that we’re celebrating traditional values much less than their opposite.

Speaking of films, has anyone but me noticed the recurrence in romantic comedies of leaving a bride or groom either literally at the altar or figuratively simply because of an infatuation with someone else? It’s the most puerile form of “finding one’s self” in films, where the protagonist doesn’t even have the excuse of being burdened by years of responsibility and disillusionment before seeking escape. From The Graduate to Serendipity and beyond, filmmakers have asked us to applaud the breaking of a covenant simply because the protagonist got turned on, although in The Graduate there was at least some symbolic value (moving from childhood to adulthood) to the conclusion.

I don’t necessarily believe that Casey Anthony is representative of millions of mothers, as Steven says, even if she didn’t kill her child. But there are certainly many who fit the bill of self-absorbed parents of both genders whose own focus is on their own happiness rather than on their own children. There are more politicians than just Anthony Weiner who use their positions of power more for pick-up lines and self-aggrandizement than spending their efforts on defending freedom and liberty. And perhaps we have had similar proportions of both throughout the ages and we’re simply discovering them more because of the greater efficiency of the media and the involved public. But it certainly seems that we’re seeing more of both, and that might be because we don’t demand that people adhere to standards of honor and decency — and that we’re celebrating traditional values much less than their opposite.

Read More

9:29 AM | 0 comments

What if they gave an anti-Israel protest and everyone booed?

That’s the question that haunts me as I watch from afar the planned “fly-in” of activists to Israel on 7 and 8 July.

Didn’t know about this one? You’re in broad company. This isn’t the deeply silly “flytilla” plan to get an airplane past the Israeli air force into Gaza. This is the (equally silly) plan of hundreds of activists to fly into Ben Gurion Airport, all at once, and demand to visit the “Palestinian” territories. The act of defiance here is being truthful about the activists’ purpose: instead of lying about their intentions, which they freely acknowledge is their usual practice, they intend to state plainly that they are there to go to “Palestine” and give political support to the “Palestinian cause.”


The purpose is to embarrass Israel by creating a “situation” at the airport and getting it all on video. Israeli authorities are understandably concerned about both the photo op and the potential disruption to the travel of innocent bystanders; they have beefed up security and distributed to the airlines a blacklist of activists who will be denied entry, in order to discourage their embarkation at the points of origin.

But while I don’t fault the Israelis for being prepared and doing what they can to defuse this, I think it’s the activists who are overreaching. It’s one thing to try to get a ragtag flotilla past the Israeli navy. That’s an exotic situation that most people inhabit only in their mental imaginings. It is abstract to them; they have no reference point for what it looks, sounds, and smells like to be on a yacht or ferry at sea; what the rules of the road are; what the expectations of the professionals are; what’s right and wrong, what’s smart and stupid.

But millions and millions of people know the drill with air travel. They know the host government at your arrival airport has the right to stop and question you; queues are set up everywhere you go to make sure that that happens. It’s not excessive, it’s standard. They also know that at any airport in the world, if you act up, you’re going to be detained and treated with suspicion and special handling. No one who has watched the carabinieri stand around – armed to the teeth – looking menacing and alert at Fiumicino in Rome would think twice about the security at Ben Gurion. Airport security can’t take a joke anywhere these days: JFK, Frankfurt, Madrid, Moscow, Singapore, Sydney, Honolulu, Bogota, Mexico City. No one’s airport security suffers fools gladly.

Equally important is the reality that creating disturbances makes travel miserable for innocent third parties. Whole airports can be closed down for hours merely because someone has been unintentionally stupid. When things like this happen to me, I don’t blame the authorities, and I don’t think most people do. If I were in the terminal at Ben Gurion, I would assume the same thing about security detaining a bunch of loud-mouth protesters that I would think about it if I saw it in an airport anywhere else: that the protesters were in the wrong, and security was just doing its job.

People’s tolerance for having their air travel messed with, by irrelevant third parties engaging in political shenanigans, is at an all-time low these days. Air travel is annoying enough as it is. Even if the fly-in protesters can pull off some kind of video moment at Ben Gurion, I think they have miscalculated the effect it will have. How many people do you know who would look at a group protesting host-nation policy in an airport and feel sympathy for them? I very rarely deploy this word, but I think it’s appropriate here. I’m pretty sure most witnesses, regardless of their political sympathies, would think the protesters were morons.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Read More

9:02 AM | 0 comments

What if they gave an anti-Israel protest and everyone booed?

That’s the question that haunts me as I watch from afar the planned “fly-in” of activists to Israel on 7 and 8 July.

Didn’t know about this one? You’re in broad company. This isn’t the deeply silly “flytilla” plan to get an airplane past the Israeli air force into Gaza. This is the (equally silly) plan of hundreds of activists to fly into Ben Gurion Airport, all at once, and demand to visit the “Palestinian” territories. The act of defiance here is being truthful about the activists’ purpose: instead of lying about their intentions, which they freely acknowledge is their usual practice, they intend to state plainly that they are there to go to “Palestine” and give political support to the “Palestinian cause.”


The purpose is to embarrass Israel by creating a “situation” at the airport and getting it all on video. Israeli authorities are understandably concerned about both the photo op and the potential disruption to the travel of innocent bystanders; they have beefed up security and distributed to the airlines a blacklist of activists who will be denied entry, in order to discourage their embarkation at the points of origin.

But while I don’t fault the Israelis for being prepared and doing what they can to defuse this, I think it’s the activists who are overreaching. It’s one thing to try to get a ragtag flotilla past the Israeli navy. That’s an exotic situation that most people inhabit only in their mental imaginings. It is abstract to them; they have no reference point for what it looks, sounds, and smells like to be on a yacht or ferry at sea; what the rules of the road are; what the expectations of the professionals are; what’s right and wrong, what’s smart and stupid.

But millions and millions of people know the drill with air travel. They know the host government at your arrival airport has the right to stop and question you; queues are set up everywhere you go to make sure that that happens. It’s not excessive, it’s standard. They also know that at any airport in the world, if you act up, you’re going to be detained and treated with suspicion and special handling. No one who has watched the carabinieri stand around – armed to the teeth – looking menacing and alert at Fiumicino in Rome would think twice about the security at Ben Gurion. Airport security can’t take a joke anywhere these days: JFK, Frankfurt, Madrid, Moscow, Singapore, Sydney, Honolulu, Bogota, Mexico City. No one’s airport security suffers fools gladly.

Equally important is the reality that creating disturbances makes travel miserable for innocent third parties. Whole airports can be closed down for hours merely because someone has been unintentionally stupid. When things like this happen to me, I don’t blame the authorities, and I don’t think most people do. If I were in the terminal at Ben Gurion, I would assume the same thing about security detaining a bunch of loud-mouth protesters that I would think about it if I saw it in an airport anywhere else: that the protesters were in the wrong, and security was just doing its job.

People’s tolerance for having their air travel messed with, by irrelevant third parties engaging in political shenanigans, is at an all-time low these days. Air travel is annoying enough as it is. Even if the fly-in protesters can pull off some kind of video moment at Ben Gurion, I think they have miscalculated the effect it will have. How many people do you know who would look at a group protesting host-nation policy in an airport and feel sympathy for them? I very rarely deploy this word, but I think it’s appropriate here. I’m pretty sure most witnesses, regardless of their political sympathies, would think the protesters were morons.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Read More

9:02 AM | 0 comments

Quotes of the day

“Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), a leading advocate of shrinking entitlement spending and the architect of the plan to privatize Medicare, spent Tuesday evening sipping $350 wine with two like-minded conservative economists at the swanky Capitol Hill eatery Bistro Bis…


“Susan Feinberg, an associate business professor at Rutgers, was at Bistro Bis celebrating her birthday with her husband that night. When she saw the label on the bottle of Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru Ryan’s table had ordered, she quickly looked it up on the wine list and saw that it sold for an eye-popping $350, the most expensive wine in the house along with one other with the same pricetag…

“She was outraged that Ryan was consuming hundreds of dollars in wine while Congress was in the midst of intense debates over whether to cut seniors’ safety net, and she didn’t know whether Ryan or his companions was going to pay for the wine and whether the two men were lobbyists. She snapped a few shots with her cell phone to record the wine purchase…

“When asked more directly whether he thought it was appropriate to be ordering $350 wine while pushing for cuts to benefits for seniors and the poor, Ryan conceded that it’s ‘stupid’ to pay that much for a bottle of wine and said he wouldn’t do so again.”

***
“Remember John Edwards’s $400 haircut? That turned out to be quite a problem for him. It looks like Paul Ryan is about have a similar problem on his hands. According to this astounding article (with pictures) at Talking Points Memo, Ryan — the leader of the tighten-your-belt, fiscal-austerity crowd — is in the habit of drinking $350-a-bottle wine, specifically Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru. In fact, Ryan enjoyed two bottles of this fancy Pinor Noir while dining the other night with a pair of conservative economists at Bistro Bis, the swanky Capitol Hill restaurant favored by lobbyists and other expense-account barons…

“If there’s any justice in the world, Ryan ought to get at least as much grief for this as Edwards got. And if I were President Obama’s adviser, I’d suggest that he add $350 wine to that line about Republicans defending corporate jets and hedge-fund fat cats.”

***
“This is the kind of story that the political media eats up, like the time John McCain couldn’t remember how many houses he owned while he was calling then-Sen. Barack Obama an elitist, or all of those eco-conscious celebrities who fly around on fossil fuel-guzzling private jets. Fair enough, Ryan was drinking some pretty expensive wine.

“However, Washington, DC is just an expensive place to eat, period. That’s why, unless I’m mooching off of a more well-heeled colleague, or there’s an open bar, you’ll always see me nursing a light beer and scarfing bar nuts. If I saw Paul Ryan, or any other legislator, at a place like Bistro Bis with an Amstel Light in hand, I’d probably sneer, ‘Poseur!’

“Be that as it may, I think we all have the right to eat dinner without being annoyed by some other patron of the same upscale restaurant (the federal minimum wage won’t even get you a plate of fries at Bistro Bis) who thinks we’re spending too much on dinner.”

***
“[TPM's Susan] Crabtree felt the need to go to DEFCON 1 for this outrage that a member of Congress and his two economist friends would buy expensive wine with their own money. She’s never, ever written horribly about Barack Obama using taxpayer money for fancy wine at State Dinners. She’s never written salaciously about the liquor bills on Nancy Pelosi’s government funded plane.

“But by God you get some failed Rutgers economist out on a birthday date with her husband at a hotel restaurant who gets all jealous that she’s not cool enough to hang out with Little Eddie Munster and his econ pals and . . . well . . . fire up the broom stick and quill pen, we’ve got a hot story and a little scandal on our hands. Rita Skeeter’s unavailable so lets get Susan Crabtree!

“If only Paul Ryan had used your tax dollars, Crabtree, instead of getting crabby, would have probably spent those 1,276 words of outraged jealousy extolling the virtues of government spending creating jobs for even lowly sommeliers.”

Read More

9:00 AM | 0 comments

Happy Independence Day

How will you celebrate our nation’s independence? We have a rather traditional day laid out for ourselves. We’ll start the day out with our city parade and a brunch with our extended Minnesota family. Later, I’ll do some grilling, and late in the evening, we will join friends to watch fireworks in St. Paul. In between, the First Mate and I will continue watching the miniseries John Adams, starring Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney as John and Abigail Adams. The story stretches from the Boston Massacre to Adams’ death on July 4, 1826, and presents a brilliant warts-and-all look at the man known as the Colossus of Independence in his day. The series includes this dramatization of the approval and publication of the Declaration of Independence, a stirring recitation:

Happy Independence Day
Share
posted at 8:00 am on July 4, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

How will you celebrate our nation’s independence? We have a rather traditional day laid out for ourselves. We’ll start the day out with our city parade and a brunch with our extended Minnesota family. Later, I’ll do some grilling, and late in the evening, we will join friends to watch fireworks in St. Paul. In between, the First Mate and I will continue watching the miniseries John Adams, starring Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney as John and Abigail Adams. The story stretches from the Boston Massacre to Adams’ death on July 4, 1826, and presents a brilliant warts-and-all look at the man known as the Colossus of Independence in his day. The series includes this dramatization of the approval and publication of the Declaration of Independence, a stirring recitation:

My wife and I have spent the last few summers watching documentaries and dramatic recountings of the American Revolution period. Last year, we discovered The Founding of America, a collection of History Channel presentations that are worth so much more than the modest sale price of the set. I reviewed it last year, and the price has dropped considerably since then, which makes it a steal. But if you can’t get your hands on either for today, the History International channel will play the miniseries The Revolution all day, which is one of the programs included in the set, and a fine way to get into the spirit.

However you celebrate our independence, have a happy and safe day with family and friends, and take a moment to remember the men who risked all for our freedom and liberty.

Update: HBO is showing John Adams today, apparently all of the episodes.
Happy Independence Day
Share
posted at 8:00 am on July 4, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

How will you celebrate our nation’s independence? We have a rather traditional day laid out for ourselves. We’ll start the day out with our city parade and a brunch with our extended Minnesota family. Later, I’ll do some grilling, and late in the evening, we will join friends to watch fireworks in St. Paul. In between, the First Mate and I will continue watching the miniseries John Adams, starring Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney as John and Abigail Adams. The story stretches from the Boston Massacre to Adams’ death on July 4, 1826, and presents a brilliant warts-and-all look at the man known as the Colossus of Independence in his day. The series includes this dramatization of the approval and publication of the Declaration of Independence, a stirring recitation:

My wife and I have spent the last few summers watching documentaries and dramatic recountings of the American Revolution period. Last year, we discovered The Founding of America, a collection of History Channel presentations that are worth so much more than the modest sale price of the set. I reviewed it last year, and the price has dropped considerably since then, which makes it a steal. But if you can’t get your hands on either for today, the History International channel will play the miniseries The Revolution all day, which is one of the programs included in the set, and a fine way to get into the spirit.

However you celebrate our independence, have a happy and safe day with family and friends, and take a moment to remember the men who risked all for our freedom and liberty.

Update: HBO is showing John Adams today, apparently all of the episodes.
Happy Independence Day
Share
posted at 8:00 am on July 4, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

How will you celebrate our nation’s independence? We have a rather traditional day laid out for ourselves. We’ll start the day out with our city parade and a brunch with our extended Minnesota family. Later, I’ll do some grilling, and late in the evening, we will join friends to watch fireworks in St. Paul. In between, the First Mate and I will continue watching the miniseries John Adams, starring Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney as John and Abigail Adams. The story stretches from the Boston Massacre to Adams’ death on July 4, 1826, and presents a brilliant warts-and-all look at the man known as the Colossus of Independence in his day. The series includes this dramatization of the approval and publication of the Declaration of Independence, a stirring recitation:

My wife and I have spent the last few summers watching documentaries and dramatic recountings of the American Revolution period. Last year, we discovered The Founding of America, a collection of History Channel presentations that are worth so much more than the modest sale price of the set. I reviewed it last year, and the price has dropped considerably since then, which makes it a steal. But if you can’t get your hands on either for today, the History International channel will play the miniseries The Revolution all day, which is one of the programs included in the set, and a fine way to get into the spirit.

However you celebrate our independence, have a happy and safe day with family and friends, and take a moment to remember the men who risked all for our freedom and liberty.

Update: HBO is showing John Adams today, apparently all of the episodes.

Read More

7:28 AM | 0 comments

Rubio: “America does not have a tradition of class warfare”

Senator Marco Rubio responded yesterday to President Obama’s angry, sullen press conference on Thursday by saying that “America does not have a tradition of class warfare.” That’s been true through most of our history, but unfortunately we have established that kind of tradition over the last forty to fifty years or so, a product of the rise of the New Left. Obama’s Hope and Change was all about class warfare, but he wasn’t the only one selling it; John Edwards’ “Two Americas” preceded and informed Obama’s populism in 2007, and Edwards teamed up with John Kerry to offer a similar kind of class-warfare argument in 2004.

Unfortunately, we do have a “tradition” of class warfare now, which is why we need Rubio and others like him to debunk it, as he does here (via Greg Hengler):



“It’s class warfare, and it’s the kind of language you would expect from a leader of a third-world country, not the President of the United States.”

Rubio goes on to emphasize that politicians don’t create jobs, but that’s not quite true. They create public-sector jobs, and quasi-public-sector jobs at private firms that rely entirely on public funding. Those are not sustainable jobs, and they burden taxpayers rather than boost the economy.

That’s the real lesson from the Obama stimulus plan that included an extension of those now-infamous corporate jet tax credits. We tried having Obama and his crew manage the economy through central planning and seizure of (future) capital. Did that create a boom economy? No. It created a nearly stillborn recovery that has limped along for two years and now looks as though it’s tipping back into recession. That isn’t a measure of how deep the initial recession was; it’s a measure of how badly the government has interfered with the free market’s natural ability to recover from setbacks by reallocating resources effectively and efficiently.

When central planning fails, the planners have to find scapegoats for the failure. After all, it can’t be the planners themselves, or the very mechanism of central planning; if the public concluded that it was either or both, the planners would be discredited for a generation. That’s why central planners like to play class-warfare games, in order to convince the public that failure is really the fault of some Other that has taken unfair advantage of them. That’s the real connection to third-world dictators and kleptocrats, and given the history of such attempts at misdirection over the last 100 years, perhaps we should be thankful that the Other this time is just corporate-jet owners.

“It’s class warfare, and it’s the kind of language you would expect from a leader of a third-world country, not the President of the United States.”

Rubio goes on to emphasize that politicians don’t create jobs, but that’s not quite true. They create public-sector jobs, and quasi-public-sector jobs at private firms that rely entirely on public funding. Those are not sustainable jobs, and they burden taxpayers rather than boost the economy.

That’s the real lesson from the Obama stimulus plan that included an extension of those now-infamous corporate jet tax credits. We tried having Obama and his crew manage the economy through central planning and seizure of (future) capital. Did that create a boom economy? No. It created a nearly stillborn recovery that has limped along for two years and now looks as though it’s tipping back into recession. That isn’t a measure of how deep the initial recession was; it’s a measure of how badly the government has interfered with the free market’s natural ability to recover from setbacks by reallocating resources effectively and efficiently.

When central planning fails, the planners have to find scapegoats for the failure. After all, it can’t be the planners themselves, or the very mechanism of central planning; if the public concluded that it was either or both, the planners would be discredited for a generation. That’s why central planners like to play class-warfare games, in order to convince the public that failure is really the fault of some Other that has taken unfair advantage of them. That’s the real connection to third-world dictators and kleptocrats, and given the history of such attempts at misdirection over the last 100 years, perhaps we should be thankful that the Other this time is just corporate-jet owners.
“It’s class warfare, and it’s the kind of language you would expect from a leader of a third-world country, not the President of the United States.”

Rubio goes on to emphasize that politicians don’t create jobs, but that’s not quite true. They create public-sector jobs, and quasi-public-sector jobs at private firms that rely entirely on public funding. Those are not sustainable jobs, and they burden taxpayers rather than boost the economy.

That’s the real lesson from the Obama stimulus plan that included an extension of those now-infamous corporate jet tax credits. We tried having Obama and his crew manage the economy through central planning and seizure of (future) capital. Did that create a boom economy? No. It created a nearly stillborn recovery that has limped along for two years and now looks as though it’s tipping back into recession. That isn’t a measure of how deep the initial recession was; it’s a measure of how badly the government has interfered with the free market’s natural ability to recover from setbacks by reallocating resources effectively and efficiently.

When central planning fails, the planners have to find scapegoats for the failure. After all, it can’t be the planners themselves, or the very mechanism of central planning; if the public concluded that it was either or both, the planners would be discredited for a generation. That’s why central planners like to play class-warfare games, in order to convince the public that failure is really the fault of some Other that has taken unfair advantage of them. That’s the real connection to third-world dictators and kleptocrats, and given the history of such attempts at misdirection over the last 100 years, perhaps we should be thankful that the Other this time is just corporate-jet owners.

Read More

4:23 AM | 0 comments

Did Logan Airport miss a chance at Atta?

It may be the most infamous mug shot in American history. Did security at Logan Airport miss a chance five months before the 9/11 attacks to have it at every airport checkpoint in the US? According to depositions taken in a lawsuit against the Boston airport and the state troopers that provided security, Atta had been spotted in May 2001 videotaping and photographing security procedures in the airport — and the troopers never stopped him:


Months before the horrific 9/11 attacks, lackadaisical state troopers specially assigned to protect Logan International Airport failed to act on tips that Middle Eastern men were casing security checkpoints armed with cameras, explosive new court documents allege.

One of the suspected terrorists whom troopers could have cornered was later identified as al- Qaeda 9/11 leader Mohammed Atta, according to lawyers for a Boston woman who is suing over the loss of her son. The lawyers took depositions from an airline employee and other witnesses.

Troopers were told the Middle Eastern men were “acting suspiciously” and videotaping airport security in May 2001, according to the filing in a New York court.

“When Mohammad Atta went through the security checkpoint after being reported to F Troop that he was photographing, videotaping and surveilling the checkpoints, Massport F Troop did nothing,” the documents state.

Massport offered a weak and ambiguous defense yesterday, stating that there is “no evidence” that Massport “breached any duty owed by the airport” to the plaintiff. That’s hardly the same thing as saying, “We followed up vigorously on every lead.” The Boston Herald quotes a retired FAA investigator that accuses the Massport F Troop of conduct “bordering on criminal negligence” for failing to react to the information apparently provided them by multiple sources.

Jammie Wearing Fool offers a better — and more plausible — defense:

Let’s think back a few months before September 11, 2001. What do you suppose would have been the reaction had Massachusetts State Police and/or the FBI had posted photos of suspicious-looking Muslim men at airports nationwide?

Why, the ACLU and the other usual suspects would have screamed about racial profiling.

Snark aside, I’m not sure that’s true. Before 9/11, few were complaining about racial profiling as relating to Muslims and airport security; the issue of racial profiling was mainly confined to local police and African-American men who have long complained about being detained for “driving while black.” The concern over profiling of Muslims erupted after the 9/11 attacks and continues to this day to such an extent that we’re stripping adult diapers off of 95-year-old women and groping toddlers to avoid the very appearance of profiling. In May 2001, I don’t think the Massport F Troop has that excuse, if these reports are true.

In a world of coulda-shoulda-woulda, this one takes the cake. Stopping Atta might not have stopped the entire 9/11 plot from going forward, but (again, if the testimony is accurate) it was an opportunity missed that could have saved 3,000 lives. This is also information that the 9/11 Commission missed in its report, which once again points out the incomplete nature of the panel’s work. How much more information might we learn from these private legal actions?

Read More

4:20 AM | 0 comments

Cain raises $2.4 million, Iowa staff resigns

Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain is a grassroots sensation on the 2012 presidential campaign trail. Now we know what that looks like as a dollar figure: Cain brought in $2.46 million in campaign contributions, a number the campaign tells TPM it expects to see rise to closer to $2.48 when all the final reporting is done.


“It’s not Mitt Romney money, it’s not [President] Obama money, but we’re excited,” spokesperson Ellen Carmichael told TPM late Friday night.

Cain, wealthy from his experience running Godfather’s as well as other successful business enterprises, has put in some of his own cash as “seed money” for the campaign, Carmichael said. But she said that the amount Cain has contributed pales in comparison to the $2 million or so former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman gave his own campaign, which reported just over $4 million in total fundraising today.

It’s not Romney money, and it’s not even Pawlenty money, who edged Huntsman in the fundraising sweepstakes (and Huntsman’s money was mainly his own anyway). However, for a true outsider running a campaign that hardly anyone took seriously seven weeks ago when Cain first announced, that’s a pretty impressive result. Cain’s campaign claims 27,000 online donors, and also says that most of the haul came from donations of $100 or less. The money will help Cain fund operations in early states, probably focusing on Iowa and South Carolina, the latter of which he has to win or come close to make a case for his ability to campaign effectively.

Unfortunately, Iowa is where the bad news originates:

Herman Cain’s Iowa Director, Tina Goff, told TheIowaRepublican.com that she has submitted her resignation and is no longer working for the campaign. In addition to Goff’s resignation, TheIowaRepublican.com can confirm that Kevin Hall has also left the campaign. Hall served as Cain’s Straw Poll coordinator. …

With just 43 days to the Iowa Straw Poll, Cain’s campaign here in Iowa and nationally seems to be unraveling. Cain lost his New Hampshire director, Matt Murphy, who was his only staffer in that state, earlier this week. Jim Zeiler, a Cain regional director who had been to Iowa and was helping with the campaign’s Straw Poll plans, has also left the campaign.

How seriously will Cain contest Iowa? He has an opening there, according to this past week’s Iowa Poll in the Des Moines Register. Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann ended up in a virtual tie for first place, 23/22 respectively, but Cain followed in third place with 10%. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul tied for fourth at 7%, followed by Tim Pawlenty in sixth place at 6% — a poor showing for Pawlenty, who needs a strong finish in Iowa. A third place finish in Iowa in the January caucuses, especially at the expense of Pawlenty and Gingrich, would give Cain some serious credibility heading into South Carolina.

Even with that strong result for Cain, however, Goff told The Iowa Republican than she didn’t believe Cain was serious about campaigning in the state, which is why she quit. Perhaps this is just a case of differing strategies, and it’s early enough to hire more staff and shift resources, especially with the unexpectedly strong second-quarter haul. With the Ames straw poll coming soon, though, Cain doesn’t have a lot of time in Iowa and will have to retrench quickly to maintain his momentum with caucus-goers.

Read More

4:01 AM | 0 comments

Ohio House Bans Abortion… in a heartbeat!

Is Ohio becoming the most pro-life state in the union?

According to this report it seems darned certain to be trying. Reuters reports that the ban goes into place once a fetal heartbeat is detectable.


Fetal heartbeats have been detected as early as five weeks into a pregnancy, though most are consistently screened for at six weeks. In essence this ban eliminates any partial birth abortions, and of course that Satanic practice that President Obama voted in favor of FOUR TIMES in his home state called “Born Alive Abortions.” (In essence infanticide caused by neglect. You know babies dying in soiled utility closets and all…)

Compare the pro-life environment (all stemming from Ohio’s legislature actions) as opposed to the Planned Parenthood issues of Indiana and it might just be the new mid-west capital and champion for the lives of unborn children.

Critics point out that the Ohio legislation doesn’t include exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother.

And why should they?

Is it the child’s fault that he/she was created out of such horrific circumstances?

The bottom line is always about the HUMANNESS of the child, which always seem to somehow go unnoticed. We’re pretty good at understanding or stressing the “rights of the mother.”

And that always leaves me scratching my head wondering, who does protect the most innocent and vulnerable amongst us?

And as a conservative it pains me to admit that in this instance, it appears to be, the government… in the state of Ohio at least.



I’m Kevin McCullough, and that’s how I “Binge Think.”

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Read More

3:58 AM | 0 comments

Last whimper from the Gaza flotilla?

The US and Canadian Boats to Gaza – M/V Audacity of Hope and M/V Tahrir, respectively – tried to make an unauthorized departureon 1 July from the Greek port they have been detained in (don’t miss Challah Hu Akbar’s coverage at the link). The Greek coast guard promptly intercepted them. This may be the final ride of the 2011 flotilla. Its prospects are certainly dimming: now that AOH and Tahrir have violated a directive from the Greek authorities, which had ordered them to remain in port pending the investigation of a complaint filed against them, the ships can be held there for as long as the Greeks see fit, and their crews might well be charged in court.


Positive as this outcome would be, it falls short of the leadership by which the Western nations should have shut down the flotilla in the first place. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, there was a point at which all of the ships participating in the 2011 flotilla were flagged by North American or European nations. (A Jordanian ship has since been announced, although there has been little information about it.)

Of all the nations on earth, it ought to be the nations of North America and Europe that prevent ships under their flags from being used in such a cause. If for no other reason (e.g., that Israel is a US ally and fellow Western democracy), our concern about order in the unforgiving environment of the seas should prompt us to exercise our prerogative as flag states. There exists no “right” to attempt to break a blockade under the flag of any nation; rather, the authority of a flag state to prevent such an attempt is absolute. The flag state may not always have the means to prevent such an action. But the US, Canada, and the nations of Europe certainly do. In our case, the only question is whether the authority will be used.

The nations of the 2011 flotilla have not used it. Instead, Israel has had to mount a campaign of lawsuits and sabotage to prevent the flotilla from getting underway. To date, Greece has been induced to hold at least six ships in port because of procedural complaints filed against them; two ships have been sabotaged (the second, the Irish ship M/V Saoirse, was reported on Wednesday); and the Israeli law center Shurat HaDin has filed a lawsuit in US federal court to prevent the M/V Audacity of Hope from participating in the flotilla. (Texas Governor Rick Perry wrote on Thursday to urge the Obama administration to intercept and/or prosecute the American flotilla participants, citing Title 18 Section 962 of the US Code.)

These creative efforts get an A+ for ingenuity and determination, but they should not have been necessary. Nor should the US or any of our allies be working through covert, undeclared pressure on Greece or Turkey to prevent the ships under our flags from departing their ports to mount the flotilla operation. We should state our purpose overtly as a matter of policy. Merely warning our citizens that this is a bad idea is insufficient; out governments should be denying them the ships.

We should do so especially because of the evidence of participation in the flotilla by Hamas and IHH. Dutch media have reported this week that all the embarked Dutch journalists have pulled out of the flotilla (here and here), in large part because of the presence of a Hamas leader. One of the chief organizers of the flotilla is Mohammed Sawalha, who has extensive Hamas connections.

But the participation of IHH members, widely reported in Turkish media, is in one way even more significant. It was IHH participants who attacked Israeli soldiers during the 2010 flotilla incident, and their presence this year lends special credence to the Israeli report earlier this week that flotilla participants from the terror groups were planning another attack on the IDF. In line with this purpose, one of the American flotilla planners has forthrightly announced that the flotilla is part of

… a larger strategy, to transform this conflict from one between Israel and the Palestinians, or Israel and the Arab world…to one between the rest of the world and Israel…

There can be no excuse for permitting Americans to involve the US flag in this. There is no “order” in the maritime environment without the exercise of authority by someone functioning, in essence, as a territorial sheriff. But the good news is that the enforcement of such order properly extends to preventing disorderly and escalatory acts by those operating under national flags. Individual governments are the highest authority, and in maritime terms, the US is chief among them. The Obama administration’s public passivity regarding the Americans in the flotilla and their US-flagged ship sends a significant and destructive signal about our posture on maritime order. It says we don’t care about it.

That is a dangerous signal to send in 2011, with China conducting aggressive naval operations in the Japanese islands, Iran operating submarines beyond the Arabian Sea, and US leadership ineffective against the Somali piracy problem. Maritime order doesn’t keep itself – but visibly enforcing it once can provide a lesson that lasts for decades.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “Contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Read More

6:48 AM | 0 comments

Here we go: Schumer says Dems are discussing whether WH can ignore the debt ceiling

Last week it was a theory being kicked around on left-wing websites, today it’s evidently the nuclear option in the White House’s arsenal of debt-ceiling weapons. Go figure.

Congress has raised the debt ceiling no fewer than 74 times in the past 50 years, but now, conveniently, it turns out the president’s inherent power under the Fourteenth Amendment may mean it was up to him all along. Again, go figure.


On a conference call with reporters Friday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) acknowledged that President Obama may not need Congressional authorization to avoid a default on the national debt. But he noted, too, that the Constitutional debate on this question isn’t ripe enough yet for Obama to take an end run around Congress, even if Republicans refuse to increase the national borrowing limit.

I asked Schumer, a lawyer, whether, in his view, the administration had the power to continue issuing new debt even if Congress fails to raise the debt limit. He acknowledged that the question’s been discussed, but said the White House probably shouldn’t go there just yet.

“It’s certainly worth exploring,” Schumer said. “I think it needs a little more exploration and study. It’s probably not right to pursue at this point and you wouldn’t want to go ahead and issue the debt and then have the courts reverse it.”

As I said last week when I wrote about this, I’m morbidly curious to see how the public would react if he pulled something radical in the name of staving off economic calamity. He’s already ringing the alarm bell by demanding a deal by July 22, ten days before we hit the ceiling on August 2, in order to avoid frightening international markets. Democratic messaging is ramping up too: Paul Krugman wrote a quintessentially Krugman-esque piece this morning about how those darned wingnuts want to wreck Obama’s presidency on the rocks of economic armageddon. Expect lots more of that after the holiday; given the public’s utter desperation to see the economy improve, the “sky is falling” approach to the debt ceiling is a way more effective line of argument for Democrats than mumbling about corporate jets. And in fact, the sky really might be falling. And yet, if he did pull something like declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, he’d be seizing control of the country’s apocalyptic debt problem for the purpose of running up more debt. I doubt it would even accomplish what he wanted it to accomplish: If the goal here is to reassure creditors that the U.S. will never default on its obligations in order to avert a market panic and skyrocketing interest rates, how exactly would a power grab involving an utterly novel constitutional theory achieve that? Does a bitter court battle, with the legality of payments issued on Obama’s unilateral order hanging in the balance, sound like a smart way to put investors at ease?

National Journal noted yesterday, seemingly without irony, that if the White House takes up this idea, it would fall to the Office of Legal Counsel to advise Obama on whether it’s constitutional or not. You may remember the OLC from the War Powers debate over Libya, where Obama broke with proper procedure and deliberately sidelined the Office because he knew that its director thought he was violating the WPA by not seeking congressional authorization. Gosh, I wonder what he’ll do this time if he gets the sense that they think the debt ceiling is a matter for the legislature, not the executive. Exit question: Spending cuts vs. tax hikes — what would Reagan do?

Read More

6:28 AM | 0 comments

How has that minimum-wage hike worked for teens?

Four years ago, Congress pushed the minimum wage up more than 40% in a three-step process that finished in 2009. How has that worked out for those most likely to find employment at that wage level — inexperienced teenagers? As the Wall Street Journal notes, the percentage of teens employed in this economy has fallen from 42% in 2001 to 24% today, and it’s worse among black and Hispanic teens:

Perhaps you’ve already noticed around the neighborhood, but this is a rotten summer for young Americans to find a job. The Department of Labor reported last week that a smaller share of 16-19 year-olds are working than at anytime since records began to be kept in 1948.

Only 24% of teens, one in four, have jobs, compared to 42% as recently as the summer of 2001. The nearby chart chronicles the teen employment percentage over time, including the notable plunge in the last decade. So instead of learning valuable job skills—getting out of bed before noon, showing up on time, being courteous to customers, operating a cash register or fork lift—millions of kids will spend the summer playing computer games or hanging out. …

But Congress has also contributed by passing one of the most ill-timed minimum wage increases in history. One of the first acts of the gone-but-not-forgotten Nancy Pelosi ascendancy was to raise the minimum wage in stages to $7.25 an hour in 2009 from $5.15 in 2007. Even liberals ought to understand that raising the cost of hiring the young and unskilled while employers are slashing payrolls is loopy economics.

Or maybe not. The Center for American Progress, often called the think tank for the Obama White House, recently recommended another increase to $8.25 an hour. Though the U.S. unemployment rate is 9.1%, the thinkers assert that a rising wage would “stimulate economic growth to the tune of 50,000 new jobs.” So if the government orders employers to pay more to hire workers when they’re already not hiring, they’ll somehow hire more workers. By this logic, if we raised the minimum wage to $25 an hour we’d have full employment.

The logic of minimum wage hikes (or the existence of it in the first place) is hard to discern anyway. Leaving aside the argument against a legal minimum, though, the effect of raising the level doesn’t end up delivering prosperity or more buying power. It drives up business costs with no commensurate increase in value, leading to either fewer employees or higher prices.

Either way, it erodes the buying power of those making the lowest wages while at the same time also eroding their bargaining value in the job market. After all, if a business has to hire someone at $2 more per hour, why not hire the more experienced applicant and avoid taking chances on the inexperienced? In a labor market in the shape as we have currently, no one needs to make the latter choice.

I explained the problem more than four years ago at Captain’s Quarters:

Arbitrarily raising the prices of services and goods in a marketplace causes inflation, not an increase in real value. They’re forcing consumers of labor to pay more for the same service, from which they will get no increased benefit — and that means that they will have to pass the costs along to the consumers of their goods and services, all through the distribution chain.

Whose money is getting given away? Yours and mine, and all 479,000 minimum-wage workers, that’s who. [I] can absorb the incremental loss of buying power, but the people at the bottom rungs cannot. If they’re lucky, all that will happen is that their buying power will remain the same as it was after a short period of adjustment. More likely, some of their jobs will get eliminated as businesses have to support the cost increase in some other fashion than price hikes.

And it’s not even the working poor that gets helped in the increase. The working poor may have started at minimum wage, but they move up as they progress in their jobs. It is an absolute fallacy to argue that minimum-wage workers have not gotten a raise since the last federal increase of the minimum wage; they get raises as they increase their value to their employer, not from Uncle Sam. Anyone who has worked at the minimum wage since 1997 is either switching jobs too often to get a raise or is not very productive. The people making minimum wage are by and large temporary workers and people who make most of their living through tips, the latter comprising three out of every five minimum-wage workers. It’s not an accurate reflection of their standard of living.

Two years ago, I noted that David Neumark accurately predicted the results of the 2007 legislation:

Based on their comprehensive reading of the evidence, Neumark and Wascher argue that minimum wages do not achieve the main goals set forth by their supporters. They reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers and tend to reduce their earnings; they are not an effective means of reducing poverty; and they appear to have adverse longer-term effects on wages and earnings, in part by reducing the acquisition of human capital. The authors argue that policymakers should instead look for other tools to raise the wages of low-skill workers and to provide poor families with an acceptable standard of living.

This policy has other, non-economic consequences. Thanks to the combination of government intervention and a poor economy (also the result of government intervention), we will have record numbers of teens without jobs this summer. That doesn’t bode well for local law enforcement as teen loiter instead of being involved in productive work. That will put more pressure on local and state government budgets at a time when they can hardly afford it.

Read More

6:08 AM | 0 comments

Reason TV’s Nanny of the Month is …

Ah, summer. Who doesn’t get nostalgic for their childhood this time of year? Spending days with friends in parks, playing baseball and riding bicycles (with the playing card in the spokes for the motorcycle sound!), and celebrating the fact that schoolwork was still a season away. Nothing evokes that kind of reminiscing like the old-fashioned lemonade stand, and … the city inspector?

Reason TV announces its Nanny of the Month, and this time, it’s almost literal:


This month’s lineup of busybodies includes two regulars: the FDA, which is slapping new, more graphic, possibly counterproductive, warning labels on cigarette packs and the goldfish grabbers on San Francisco’s Animal Control and Welfare Commission.

But top dishonors go to the sour bureaucrat who put the squeeze on a group of kids for running a lemonade stand. Sure they were raising money for a worthy cause (pediatric cancer research), but they were doing it without a permit, and that’s why they got slapped with a $500 fine.

Presenting Reason.tv’s Nanny of the Month for June 2011: Jennifer Hughes of Montgomery County, Maryland’s Department of Permitting Services!

Yes, because it’s never too early to teach children that they must seek permission from government for every little action, or else face penalties and sanctions! In this case, the state doesn’t even appear to be making a public-safety argument, but instead is simply demanding a permit fee from elementary-school children raising money for charity. (The public-safety argument would be bogus, anyway; no reasonable consumer would have the same expectations of hygiene for a kid’s lemonade stand as they would for a restaurant. Caveat emptor applies.)

On the other hand, we’re spending their money already at the federal level, and their children’s money, for that matter. Why shouldn’t state and local government shake kiddies down for permit fees, too?

Read More

6:05 AM | 0 comments

Sen. Jim DeMint’s Retirement Freedom Act would decouple SS and Medicare

Sen. Jim DeMint and 12 Republican colleagues yesterday introduced the Retirement Freedom Act, which would allow seniors to voluntarily opt out of Medicare while still collecting Social Security payments.

Apparently, thanks to rules issued by the Social Security Administration (rules issued without the benefit of public comment!), seniors’ Social Security benefits are presently handcuffed to Medicare Part A enrollment. That — even though the Social Security Act and Medicare Act both state that enrollment in the entitlement programs should be voluntary. The Retirement Freedom Act would restore the voluntary nature of enrollment in these two programs.

“American seniors should have the freedom to make their own choice about health care without Uncle Sam threatening to take away their Social Security checks,” DeMint said in a news release. “These two programs have been unnecessarily tied together by unaccountable bureaucrats without the consent of the people or their elected officials. Today, if a senior can afford private insurance and chooses to not accept Medicare, they are forced to give up their Social Security benefits. This is not right and it must change.”

In the short term, the Act will likely save taxpayer dollars. If just 1 percent of eligible seniors opted out, the RFA would immediately save Medicare $1.5 billion. But perhaps even more importantly, in the long-term, the Act will grant seniors more choice. As those seniors who can afford it opt out, incentives to provide private insurance will arise.

In light of the straits Medicare currently faces, the Act comes at a particularly appropriate time. According to the American Medical Association, about one in five physicians overall (17 percent) are restricting the amount of Medicare patients in their practice because their reimbursements rates keep getting cut. The number is even higher among primary care physicians, where nearly one-third (31 percent) restrict the number of Medicare patients they see. Seniors shouldn’t have to automatically enroll in such a struggling program just to be able to receive Social Security benefits.

At the same time, they should have the freedom to enroll, if they so choose. Importantly, the RFA preserves both freedoms. It allows seniors who have opted out of the program to opt back in without incurring a penalty.

The link between Social Security payouts and Medicare Part A enrollment has been challenged in court, as well. In Hall v. Sebelius, the plaintiffs argued the government has no right to withhold Social Security benefits on condition of Medicare enrollment. But the court essentially held Medicare is not merely an entitlement; it’s also a requirement. The RFA would rectify that ruling.

Read More

6:02 AM | 0 comments

Venezuelan army insists that Chavez is still in charge

When newspapers erroneously reported the death of arms manufacturer Alfred Nobel and issued venomous obituaries about him (it was his brother who had died), the inventor of dynamite spent the rest of his life attempting to change his legacy. He founded the Nobel Prize for peace, as well as for other endeavors, which have lasted for more than a century. With that in mind, what might be going through Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez’ mind as he reads the reaction to his announcement of having had surgery for cancer:


Markets have generally reacted positively to news of Chavez’s health problems, on the presumption they improve the chances of a more business-friendly government.

That sentiment continued on Friday with Venezuela’s benchmark 2027 bond up 2.0 points.

“Political vacuums are rarely to be encouraged, but this one could lead to a slowdown in public spending and could raise the likelihood of an opposition victory in the next elections, and thus a less confrontational governing style,” said Richard Segal, an emerging markets analyst at Jefferies in London.

It’s the political vacuum that the Venezuelan army wants to avoid. They took the rather notable step of insisting that everyone is behaving themselves in Venezuela to discourage a vacuum from developing, one that could implode the Chavez regime:

Army chief General Henry Rangel Silva said the military would guarantee constitutional order during Chavez’s absence for treatment in Cuba. The president, he said, would be home “soon” and was still in charge of Venezuela.

“We have seen our comandante thinner than usual but still standing. The truth is he is getting better, he’s fine,” Rangel told state television. “The country is calm.”

Reuters refers to Chavez as “normally vivacious,” an odd description for anyone who isn’t an entertainer (and usually a female), but the report uses it to note the pronounced lack of energy in Chavez’ statement. Fausta provides a partial translation and an observation based on her experience in watching Chavez:

“However, and in spite of the favorable general course, throughout the process of draining and healing, there appeared suspicion of the presence of other cellular formations that had not previously been detected. Therefore, a series of special tests was started immediately, cytochemical, cytopathologic, microbiologic, and pathologic, which confirmed the presence of an abscessed tumor with the presence of cancerous cells, which necessitated a second surgery.”

Note the labored, almost contrived, speech and elaborate syntax, along with the tense delivery, a big change from Chavez’s customary informal and very colloquial style.

It sounds as if the Chavez regime is very concerned about his ability to hold power. Chavez has not left Cuba yet, where surgery was performed, and has now announced that he will skip the bicentennial of Venezuela’s independence on July 5th. His absence will send a powerful message to Venezuelans who know that Chavez wouldn’t miss an opportunity for propagandizing unless his life depended on it. Silva’s assurances aside, Venezuelans may start thinking about what follows after Chavez — and they might start thinking that the post-Chavez era should start as soon as possible.

Update: Er, Chavez had surgery for cancer, not cancer for surgery, as I wrote originally. Yikes.

Read More

5:55 AM | 0 comments

The Ed Morrissey Show: Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson & the Week in Review!

Today, on the Ed Morrissey Show (3 pm ET), we’ll take a look at the past week with Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson of the Hugh Hewitt Show. Duane and I will talk through the Minnesota government shutdown, so be prepared for interruptions in government services … which will have no effect at all. We’ll also talk through the Obama presser, out the worst corporate-jet tax evader to assist the White House in its new efforts to find scapegoats for its deficit spending, and bring you up to date on the ATF scandal. All of this and more — and stay tuned for a preview of tonight’s Hugh Hewitt Show.


The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page — be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!

We’ll also cover the the case of Marizela Perez, who has been missing in the Seattle area for more three months. Marizela’s case has a connection here at Hot Air, as she is the cousin of the Boss Emeritus, Michelle Malkin. Michelle is trying to spread the word through Facebook and Q13Fox/KCPQ in Seattle. We want to encourage prayers for Marizela’s family, and also try to reach anyone in the area who knows where Marizela might be and ask them to contact the police.

The search has its own website now, Find Marizela, for the latest in the efforts to bring Marizela home. There is also a fund for the family to keep the search efforts going. Be sure to check there and at Michelle’s site for further developments, and keep the family in your prayers.

America’s Most Wanted is now on the case, too.

Michelle has an update from last month detailing the difficulties of working with the police on cases of missing adults. Be sure to read it all to understand what this family faces — and many other families as well.

Read More

5:51 AM | 0 comments

Construction falls in May, down 6.3% year-to-date

The Obama administration keeps claiming that we’re building up our recovery, but new construction data from Commerce shows we’re not building too much of anything these days. Construction spending in May dropped 0.6% overall from April, contributing to a year-to-date decline over 2010 of 6.3%. Spending in both public and private construction fell:


The U.S. Census Bureau of the Department of Commerce announced today that construction spending during May 2011 was estimated at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $753.5 billion, 0.6 percent (±1.6%)* below the revised April estimate of $757.9 billion. The May figure is 7.1 percent (±1.8%) below the May 2010 estimate of $811.2 billion.

During the first 5 months of this year, construction spending amounted to $285.1 billion, 6.3 percent (±1.4%) below the $304.4 billion for the same period in 2010.

PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION

Spending on private construction was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $477.2 billion, 0.4 percent (±1.4%)* below the revised April estimate of $479.3 billion. Residential construction was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $228.9 billion in May, 2.1 percent (±1.3%) below the revised April estimate of $233.8 billion. Nonresidential construction was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $248.3 billion in May, 1.2 percent (±1.4%)* above the revised April estimate of $245.4 billion.

PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION

In May, the estimated seasonally adjusted annual rate of public construction spending was $276.3 billion, 0.8 percent (±2.2%)* below the revised April estimate of $278.6 billion. Educational construction was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $68.6 billion, 2.3 percent (±3.0%)* below the revised April estimate of $70.2 billion. Highway construction was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $74.7 billion, 1.5 percent (±7.5%)* below the revised April estimate of $75.9 billion.

The drop in public construction was easily foreseen. The 2009 stimulus package essentially sped up existing public-sector construction jobs by incentivizing state and local governments through federal subsidies. These were the supposedly “shovel ready” jobs that Obama insisted would float the economy back to strength. With the subsidies gone and local and state governments struggling for cash, new public projects will not fill the gap. The effect will be similar to what was seen in the Cash for Clunkers program and the homebuyer tax incentives, which was to simply shift demand from future quarters to the present. That’s why it has dropped 9.3% over the past year, seasonally adjusted.

More worrisome is the lack of private construction. This indicates a lack of enthusiasm for investment in expansion and new enterprise. That is key to boosting job creation, and to see it drop 5.8% over the past year shows a lack of confidence in the economy that won’t be easily overcome.

Meanwhile, there are other mixed economic signals. First, the manufacturing sector rebounded slightly in June, according to one industry analysis:

The pace of growth in the manufacturing sector picked up for the first time in four months in June, a sign of optimism for the sputtering economy, according to an industry report released on Friday.

The Institute for Supply Management said its index of national factory activity rose to 55.3 from 53.5 the month before. The reading topped expectations for 51.8, according to a Reuters poll of economists.

A reading above 50 indicates expansion in the manufacturing sector, while a number below 50 means contraction. The report alleviated some fears over the strength of the recovery but analysts said it was not yet a clear sign that the recent weakness in growth was past.

It’s hardly a sharp step in either direction, but at least it went the correct direction for the first time in four months. Consumers, however, are not convinced, as Reuters reports:

Consumer sentiment worsened in June on jitters about the economic outlook and spending is likely to remain lackluster in the long-term, a survey released on Friday showed. ….

The final reading for the consumer sentiment index came in at 71.5, down from 74.3 the month before. It was a hair below the preliminary June figure of 71.8 and shy of the median forecast for 71.9 among economists polled by Reuters.

This time, Reuters doesn’t use the U word, and it doesn’t pull punches about the outlook for the next few months … and years:

While small spending gains can be expected in the second half of the year, the trend is more likely to vary between lackluster and zero than lackluster and robust over the next several years, the survey said.

“Resurgent spending is not on the horizon, nor is widespread retrenchment,” survey director Richard Curtin said in a statement. “Importantly, the consumer no longer has the financial wherewithal to power the economy into overdrive.”

And why is that? Because unemployment has been too high for too long. Until investors see reasons to start expanding and creating new ventures, that will continue to be the case. This is a snapshot look at stagnation.

Update: Weight of Glory links to ZeroHedge in the comments, which points out that the ISM increase comes with a familiar caveat: 1.1 points of the 1.8-point uptick came from increases in inventories, which means lower production in the future unless demand starts to increase significantly.

Read More

5:46 AM | 0 comments