.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

John Adams Blog

The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Wednesday, May 21, Resolved: Juan McCain

The John Adams Society

Marianne Stebbins, Chairman
David Schilling, Secretary
G. Larry Colson, Chief Whip
Mark Sanquist, Chancellor


May 2008


“Our legislation does account for people who are here illegally, it does have an employment verification system, and it weeds out those who shouldn't be here, and it gives others a chance to remain in this country. Look, this is a national security issue first and foremost. What we have done is come together with the President and the leaders of both parties, and sit down and figure out an approach to this problem. It is a serious national security problem. We need to act, and if someone else has a better idea, I'd love to have them give it to us.” - Senator John McCain



FEW ISSUES on the political landscape raise as much controversy as illegal immigration, particularly the waves of people entering from Mexico and other Central American countries. On one side, the argument is simple: those who are here illegally need to be deported. At the exact opposite end are those who say illegal immigrants just want a better life here and shouldn’t be denied that right just because of some arbitrary bureaucratic regulations. Elected officials, and those seeking office, carefully attempt to address the problems illegal immigration creates without appearing to be ‘anti-Hispanic’ and offending an ever growing group of voters.

Presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Senator John McCain is no exception. Rather than address the source of the problem, he attempts to cure the symptoms with more government and more regulation on business. His recent legislation proposal, thankfully shot down after a popular uprising, would have given amnesty to illegal aliens, and required companies to verify the citizenship of their employees – with heavy fines for those evil businesses that employ non-citizens. Given the recent technology debacle with the Bureau of the Census, one can safely be skeptical of the accuracy of a illegal alien tracking system developed by that same government.


ON THE OTHER HAND, one could view Senator McCain’s approach to the immigration mess as a more realistic way of dealing with a problem that has gone unchecked for too long. From a sheer numbers perspective, there aren’t enough INS agents, buses, trains, planes or ships to transport the estimated 14 million undocumented aliens back to their country of origin. And let us not forget about the burden that would be placed on the courts, as there surely exists a legion of lawyers who, for a government subsidized fee, will represent each alleged illegal immigrant. With Senator McCain’s ideas, we at least begin the process of putting the ‘undocumented’ population on a road towards tax paying and voting citizenship.

The Chairman, who believes that good fences make good neighbors, has called for a debate to settle the question:

Resolved: JUAN McCAIN


The Debate will be held on Wednesday May 21st, 2008 at the University Club, 420 Summit Avenue, in Saint Paul. The Chancellor will preside over drinks beginning at seven o'clock p.m. The debate will begin at half past seven. While there is no dress code for attendance, gentlemen who wish to speak must wear a tie; ladies should adhere to a similar sartorial standard. For those gentlemen who arrive tieless yet wish to speak, fret not: the Purveyor of Ties will keep on hand at least one of his quite remarkable ties for just such an eventuality. Questions about debate caucus procedures or about the John Adams Society itself may be directed to the Chairman at (952) 470-8090 or the Secretary at (952) 210-2448.


www.johnadamssociety.org

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Can we get a GOP IQ check over here, stat?

The LA Times today discusses the shambles of the Republican party and one InSane "solution."

McCain's approach -- tough on taxes, but receptive to immigrants and committed to easing global warming -- could help paint the GOP in new colors, more attractive to independent voters, Latinos and women. Some GOP leaders now say that by embracing McCain and his policy platform, Republicans would instantly "rebrand" and reinvigorate their party.


Good grief! Are they this obtuse? We've only won when we've been firm about small government principles. When we became more like the democrats, government expansionists, we lost. If we go out preaching on the issues of the Democrat party, we're going to turn out voters for the Democrats.

For the record, McCain voted AGAINST Bush's tax cuts. If someone can find ONE issue where I can agree with this guy, I may consider voting for him. We're clearly not going to approach anything close to Reagan's 80% rule, but can someone find me 5% to at least work with?

The GOP has thrown in the towel on conservatism and now is telling the electorate, "Ya know, the Democrats are right; government is the solution to any problem from education to global warming -- I mean cooling -- I mean . . . Anyways, facing foreclosure? No health insurance? We've got your government answer right here!"

Back to McCain and the LA Times article,

Like President Bush, McCain has split from the party base in backing more liberal immigration laws and criticizing conservatives for ethnically insensitive rhetoric.

As a result, McCain aides believe now that the Arizona senator has the potential to do well among Latino voters, perhaps winning more than the 40% that Bush did in 2004.


Good for him. He can go run on the Illegal Immigrant ticket. I understand they can all vote.

The GOP has lost its mind. I feel for the genuine conservatives who are trying to run for Congress or state seats. McCain, Bush and party leadership have screwed them for 2008. Will we still have a party in 2009?

Sunday, April 20, 2008

A Historical Day for Race Relations

The split between open wheel racing in the United States officially ended today with the final separate Indy Racing League (IRL) race at Twin-Ring Motegi and the final Champ Car World Series Race on the streets of Long Beach. Next week an integrated series will compete at the 1.5 mile ova at Kansas City, Kansas.

Since 1996 American open wheel racing has been split between the IRL and rival CART and later Champ Car factions. This better rivalry has badly damaged open wheel racing in North America. Both sides to the war maintained that their series was superior. This war was motived by deep cultural and philosophical divisions.

The IRL initially promoted what it called an All-American type of oval racing that would allow promising American drivers to graduate from USAC midget, sprint, and silver crown cars to Indy cars. The IRL attempted to hold down cost by employing a thick rule book of specifications cars must follow. Turbochargers were banned. Aerodynamic innovations by teams were banned. One result from trying to manage competition by prohibiting innovation is that the most advanced technology developed in rival open wheel series, CART and Formula One. Oval racing produces the closest competition and increases passing opportunities. The IRL has received much deserved praise for its development of SAFER barriers which reduce the force of impact with oval walls during crashes.

CART, which was later renamed as Champ Car prided itself on its turbochargers, development of traction control, variable manifold pressure (Push 2 Pass), and continuous innovation in engine development. CART had more foreign drivers. In fact for today's final Champ Car race only three of the drivers were Americans (Graham Rahal, Jimmy Vasser, and Alex Figge). CART and Champ Car focused on road racing. Relatively few races were held on ovals. Some road races were held on permanant road courses like Road America, Mid-Ohio, and Watkins Glen. Others were held on tempory street courses like Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in Montreal, Long Beach, and Burke Lakefront Airport in Cleveland.

Historically there were many great Midwestern American drivers in open wheel racing. Open wheel racing was the most popular and technologically advance form of motorsport in North America. The earliest Indy 500 races launched numerous technological innovations, like the first automotive rear-view mirror. NASCAR was a regional, Southern sport. Indy was synonymous with innovation and ever increasing speed. Historically NASCAR actually raced stock cars. Stock cars are cheap but obviously not on the cutting edge of technology. NASCAR engine builders continue to build the most innovative carburated 1950's normally aspirated V-8 engines in the world. But the contributions of NASCAR to technological progress are a joke. Today at your local car dealer you will find only fuel-injected engines.

The open wheel split helped NASCAR, which continued to offer unified stock car racing, explode in popularity. The decision by the Indianapolis Motor Speedway to hold a NASCAR stock car race beginning in 1994 coupled with the split lead many fans to follow NASCAR more and open wheel racing less. The greatest Midwestern American open wheel midget and sprint car drives, NASCAR champions Jeff Gordon, Tony Stewart, 2008 Daytona 500 winner Ryan Newman, and 2006 Indy 500 champion Sam Hornish are all racing in NASCAR and will miss this year's Indy 500. Even foreign-born Indy 500 champions, Dario Franchitti, Juan Pablo Montoya, and Jacques Villeneuve are over in NASCAR.

American Danica Patrick won the last IRL race at Motegi and Australian Will Power won the last Champ Car race in Long Beach, California. While there were two open wheel series this would have been a typical result. An American wins the IRL race, while a foreigner wins the Champ Car race. Now that the two series are merging Danica Patrick from Illinois, Graham Rahal from Ohio, and Ed Carpenter from Indiana will be the only Midwestern Americans in American open wheel racing. Formula One has not had an American champion since Mario Andretti. No Americans run at the front of the pack in Formula One.

How should we view the current state of racing today?

1. Which is preferable: vigorous technical competition under broad rules specifications that allow room for innovation or a specification series that tries to reduce racing advantages gained through research and development?

2. Should anti-lock braking, traction control, electronic stability assist be prohibited by racing rules?

3. Should U.S, immigration policies ban work visas for foreign racers? Can restrictive immigration policies protect American workers (slower race car drivers) from the "unfair" competition of fast drivers like Will Power, Scott Dixon, and Dan Wheldon? Or should the IRL just ban the evil Chavez sponsored, dangerous and slow Milka Duno. She is a human moving chicane.

4. Is IndyCar promoting wasteful big government through its Ethanol sponsorship and technical specifications requiring all competitors to use 100% ethanol? Champ Car used methanol.

5. Should sanctioning bodies make it possible for drivers to compete in several different types of races? Should the Indy 500 and NASCAR Coca-Cola 600 coordinate the timing of there races so drivers can compete in both races? Would this be collusion or an attempt to build better race relations?

6. Are we more unified as a nation now that NASCAR is winning the battle for motorsports fans? NASCAR appears to have the best American drivers from all over the nation. Will unification increase the popularity of open wheel racing throughout the nation or just in its historical midwestern base?

7. Will a future President Obama or perhaps a future President Gore ban auto racing as a sacrifice to their Earth Goddess?

Labels: , ,

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

As to 7) a federal ban on racing, ya, they could. This was why enumerated powers in the Constitution were a cool idea. You didn't get so much crap. But sure, you can have a federal Dept of Edu, ban certain lightbulbs and racing, and whatever suits the current Congress' fancy. If you're not going to complain about a nationalized police force, why would you complain about a little ban on racing?

9:44 PM, April 22, 2008  

Post a Comment

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Sick, Sick, Sick Hoax

Yale Art Student Claims She Used Blood Samples, Video of Self-Induced Abortions for Senior Project

Thursday, April 17, 2008

"A Yale student who claims she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" and then took drugs to induce miscarriages for her senior art project says she will showcase the stomach-turning display next week — complete with her own blood samples and videos from the terminated possible pregnancies.

The story of art major Aliza Shvarts' upcoming exhibit, which the Yale Daily News broke Thursday, has sparked widespread disgust and outrage.

"It’s clearly depraved. I think the poor woman has got some major mental problems," said National Right to Life Committee President Wanda Franz. "She’s a serial killer. This is just a horrible thought."

Critics on campus have said the display sounds like a shock-and-awe look at the highly sensitive issue of abortion and called it a sick stunt to get attention.

But Shvarts said the goal of the project is to encourage debate and discussion about the connection between art and the human body.

"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts, whose age was withheld, told Yale's newspaper. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

Shvarts' campus phone has been disconnected, and she did not respond to e-mailed requests for an interview. Yale University and the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America also did not return calls seeking comment. Shvarts told the school paper that her sperm donors, whom she declined to identify, were not paid for their participation but added that she did require them to be screened for STDs.

Sources: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513

Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

This is a hoax. Someone at The Corner (among others) caught it pretty early since it just ain't that easy to artificially inseminate yourself. Yale has come out with an official statement that this didn't happen.

So it's just art! It made us think!

(Well, yes, it made me think what a sorry, sorry state the art world is in.)

6:46 AM, April 18, 2008  
Blogger Jameson said...

It is revolting that a person would commit such a hoax.

5:16 PM, April 18, 2008  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I didn't get why the artificial insemination was necessary. Too many snickering comments come to mind that might not be appropriate for our conservative little corner of the blogosphere.

7:17 PM, April 19, 2008  

Post a Comment

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Debate Wednesday April 16:
Resolved: The Fed Has Screwed Up Again

By allowing persistent declines in the money supply and in the price level, the Federal Reserve of the late 1920s and 1930s greatly destabilized the U.S. economy and, through the workings of the gold standard, the economies of many other nations as well.” -Ben Bernanke



With the exception of perhaps Congress’s authority to tax, few institutions of the United States government can negatively affect the economy of our country more so than the Federal Reserve. Empowered to provide a safety net for the banking industry, this quasi-governmental organization interjects artificial controls on the price and availability of money. Consequently, as with any attempt to bypass pure market forces, the “Fed”, more often than not, creates problems rather than averts them. Since its inception in 1913, major declines in the US economy can, in some part, be attributed to policy decisions made by the Fed.


The Federal Reserve’s capability of altering economic conditions is so great that mere mumblings from the Fed Chairman, hinting that they may take some significant action, can send the stock market into a freefall. Anyone remember “irrational exuberance?” In recent years, policy decisions by the Fed to provide ‘cheap money’ has resulted in the current ‘mortgage meltdown’, and a dollar whose value is one of the lowest in history. Rather than biting the bullet and letting the market unravel this mess, the Fed continues to pump funds into the system. If that isn’t enough, they are now in the business of bailing out private investment firms whose financial shenanigans have decimated the pension funds from the Kansas City Teachers Union to small Norwegian villages.


On the other hand, in the post WWII era, the Fed’s control on the money faucet has kept the United States economy on a steady uphill path, albeit with a few bumps. Through its policy decisions and actions, the Fed has smoothed out the wild economic swings that historically lead to long term economic crisis. On recent events, the sub-prime mortgage debacle is nothing more than a good news story on private high-risk investments gone bad, which has been overplayed by the warm-hearted media because it deals with peoples’ homes. The ‘bail out’, as it is termed, of Bear-Sterns may be a stretch on the role of the Fed, but again, this action has prevented what could have been a domino effect on the major financial firms – which would have been a real crisis. And the falling value of the dollar only really affects those (i.e. the Chinese) who have gobs of greenbacks lying around. As an added benefit, a declining dollar makes American goods more affordable, which in turn creates jobs and lowers the trade deficit.


The Chairman, whose opinion of the Fed is exemplified by her collection of Krugerrands stashed under the mattress, has called for a debate to settle the question:


Resolved: The Fed has Screwed Up Again


The Debate will be held on Wednesday April 16th, 2008 at the University Club, 420 Summit Avenue, in Saint Paul. The Chancellor will preside over drinks beginning at seven o'clock p.m. The debate will begin at half past seven. While there is no dress code for attendance, gentlemen who wish to speak must wear a tie; ladies should adhere to a similar sartorial standard. For those gentlemen who arrive tieless yet wish to speak, fret not: the Purveyor of Ties will keep on hand at least one of his quite remarkable ties for just such an eventuality. Questions about debate caucus procedures or about the John Adams Society itself may be directed to the Chairman at (952) 470-8090 or the Secretary at (952) 210-2448.

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Long Live the Bubble Man


(and his helicoptor friend)

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Time to Listen to Ron Paul?

Yes, says Elizabeth MacDonald, Fox Business blogger in today's entry.

Time to listen to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the lone voice of reason in Congress today who’s got to feel like he’s shouting into a field of cotton with his repeated warnings about the dangers of a collapsing dollar, while the administration goes AWOL on the problem.

The dollar just hit a record intraday low against the euro on reports that consumer confidence levels have dropped to levels not seen since the post-Watergate era. It is down 7% year to date against the Chinese renminbi, it’s weaker than the Japanese yen and the Canadian loonie.


Maybe the rest of you aren't reading the same economic news that I am. Because Festivus will say that the Federal Reserve is just a conspiracy theory and that we're really spending Confidence-backed Audacity Notes (hoping for change). And Harsh will say this is just a cyclical downturn, an extended correction, not a recession, and certainly not what we used to call an inflationary depression.

Back to quoting Elizabeth quoting Ron Paul:

Congressman Paul rightfully warns us when he says the US government has “systematically undermined” the US dollar by expanding “the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress–while benefiting the special interests that influence government.”

In a room full of economists, I'm not one. But even this blonde can fathom that while you might get away with limitless spending in a short term, the credit card bill is going to come, and one day we'll be over our limit.

We are currently $53 trillion in debt, $400,000 per household, and it will cost $2-3 trillion more every year we fail to take action.

David Walker, USA Comptroller General before he suddenly resigned this month, has been beating this drum for a few years now, the situation becoming more dire as big spenders on both sides of the aisle continue to ignore him. According to Walker, "I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility."

(If you really want to get depressed, watch David Walker's interview with Glenn Beck.)

As Elizabeth (quoting Ron Paul) says, “Empires fail because they run out of money, or more accurately, run out of the ability to spend or inflate,” Congressman Paul warns. “We need to control spending, immediately, before it is too late.”

The dollar hitting another record low against the Euro yesterday was surely unrelated to the Fed printing new money to cover Bear Sterns loans and more new money to pay 1.2 million government employees in Iraq, right?

Eh, forget it. There are some scrap gold auctions closing on eBay, and I must bid.

Before I run off, it's not too late. You can still vote for Ron Paul, at least indirectly. We have a serious economic situation here, and he's the only presidential candidate insisting that we slash the budget and willing to say Bernanke's not wearing clothes. Bad image. You know what I mean.

03.27.08 UPDATE: U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says, "Without change, rising costs [of Social Security and Medicare obligations] will drive government spending to unprecedented levels, consume nearly all projected federal revenues, and threaten America's future prosperity."

Glenn Beck (column yesterday) adds,

Translation: Every single tax dollar that is sent to Washington will be used to pay for just these two programs.

That means no money is left for anything else. Nothing. No Department of Defense or Homeland Security, no Department of Energy, no Department of Justice, no Environmental Protection Agency . . .

Hurray! We might be able to get rid of garbage bureaucracies even without Ron Paul!

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

And more. I'm not looking for this stuff; it's everywhere.

Today, Yahoo Finance Market Watch

9 Reasons Your Taxes Are Going Up

No matter who's elected president, the debt party's over

Well, folks, the party's over. Campaign rhetoric won't hide America's excesses, denial, incompetence and arrogance much longer. No matter who's elected, taxes will increase to cover massive debts.

Yes, our five-year war was totally financed by borrowing. But unfortunately, "deficit spending gives the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed. They cannot. Americans will have to pay for the war at some point -- and when they do, they will be paying not the Bush markdown but the full price," the authors say.

11:37 AM, March 27, 2008  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

Scribbler,

Where are on God's green earth did you get this? "We are currently $53 trillion in debt, $400,000 per household, and it will cost $2-3 trillion more every year we fail to take action."

Huh? Total US government debt is $9.5 trillion, or about $31,000 per person. About half of that is held by the Federal Government itself in the form of the Social Security Trust Fund. IOU's to yourself aren't debt and so don't count. Nearly another trillion is held by the Federal Reserve. This is because the Fed gets money into the economy by buying Treasury securities. So unless you think they are going to shrink the money supply (by selling their Treasuries) these don't count either. So the Federal debt is really closer to $4 trillion, so were looking at maybe $15,000 per person.

That doesn't count as Federal debt implicit "obligations" to future Social Security recipients. But no estimate of these comes even close to the numbers you are talking about. (And any calculation of this would also have to take into account that we have "obligations" to the government as well, such as paying taxes on the money in our 401k's and IRA's when we withdraw).

So everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Does your number include mortgage debt? All private debt?

If so, I can't see how this is relevant. If I owe you $100,000, then I can see how you may think I'm in financial trouble, but I don't see how you can think WE (you and me together) are in financial trouble. Between the two of us, our total net worth is the same regardless of how much I owe you.

3:33 PM, March 28, 2008  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Google "$53 trillion obligations" and you'll come up with about 52,000 results.

Our obligations are debt. My mortgage payment, which doesn't have to be paid all at once, is an obligation and a debt. Medicare and Social Security ARE obligations. We owe that money.

You use the words "Social Security Trust Fund." LOL. You always were such a joker!

7:52 PM, March 28, 2008  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

Scribbler,

My point of the SS fund holding Treasuries was precisely that this didn't count. It was one arm of the govt owing the other.

So I googled your $53 trillion. That is one estimate of SS and Medicare "obligations" plus the current debt. These are an estimate of the present value of the cost of providing these benefits IF NO CHANGES ARE MADE TO THE PROGRAMS. But these obligations have been reduced in the past. (Taxing SS benefits is exactly the same as reducing the amount of untaxed benefits, and we did this in the 80's.) More fundamentally, these debt numbers are essentially meaningless in determining the fiscal health of the country.

That is, suppose the government simply announced tomorrow "guess what everyone. Social Security and Medicare are now abolished. No more Social Security taxes and no more Medicare taxes and no more payments to old people." Are we as a society any richer? Are we any poorer? Answer: Some of us are richer (the young), some are poorer (the old) but as a whole, we are even.

But how can that be when we now have $53 trillion less in obligations? It's because, after the change, we also have $53 trillion less in assets.

If you want to worry about the fact that the country is aging, go right ahead. That's a real worry and incompatible with everyone retiring earlier. But that has nothing to do with made up accounting numbers like $53 trillion.

10:15 PM, March 28, 2008  
Blogger Jameson said...

"Medicare and Social Security ARE obligations. We owe that money."

Legally Social Security and Medicare benefits in the future are political promises made by politicians. They are not money that the United State Government owes, unlike Treasury Securities.
Practically, Social Security and Medicare benefits are reduced or raised depending on the shifting political winds. The Social Security retirement age used to be 65, is 67 under current law for me, and will probably be a higher number in the future.

"But how can that be when we now have $53 trillion less in obligations? It's because, after the change, we also have $53 trillion less in assets."

The tragedy of Social Security and Medicare is that delivering trillions of dollars of benefits will cost our economy far more than the dollar amount of benefits paid. The FICA taxes discourage labor supply by placing an extra 15.3% tax wedge for most wage-earners on top of state and federal income taxes. This encourages employers and employees to inefficiently provide compensation in non-taxable forms. It encourages clever attorneys, like John Edwards, to use real resources to transform labor income into non-labor income for tax purposes to avoid the Medicare portion on FICA. FICA taxes discourage investments in education by greatly reducing the returns to education investment for most Americans.

If you want to you one estimate of the discounted present value of SS and Medicare promises as $43 trillion, that the real cost of providing that is probably a present value of roughly $68 trillion. That is computed by using the Browning and Browning Public Finance textbook estimates that the marginal cost of a dollar raised by income tax is about $1.58.

So ending all Social Security and Medicare promises and taxes might result in a efficiency gain of a little less than two years GDP ($25 trillion).
This is a really rough estimate, but I think I did get the order of magnitude right.

So if we reduce $43 trillion in the present value of federal transfers, we may save $68 trillion.

Why doesn't some conservative make estimates of the excess burden and compliance costs taxes part of the revenue forecasting process in D.C?

For a nice discussion of the bad effects of taxes read Marty Feldstein:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/13745.html

More is available on taxes and Social Security here: http://www.nber.org/feldstein/

12:03 AM, March 29, 2008  

Post a Comment