If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" –Will Rogers

Alexander Hamilton started the U.S. Treasury with nothing, and that was the closest the country ever came to breaking even. –Will Rogers

"Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always falls under loose fiscal policy." -- Sir Arthur Francis Tytler

08/31/2008: Sarah Palin is NOT a Libertarian, but she IS a libertarian-leaning Republican, and based on her actions while in office, perhaps even more so than (former Republican Congressman) Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential candidate. Her personal history and her policies as governor of Alaska demonstrate a belief in personal freedom, individual rights, and self-sufficiency. She is honest, forthright, and direct, qualities totally absent from Obama, Biden and both Clintons, all of whom lie, obfuscate and mislead every time they speak.

"She's the real deal -- very, very smart, accomplished, results-oriented, and a totally self-made woman who never set out to 'make it' so much as found herself compelled to fix what was wrong, change what needed changing, and hold people to account. Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton. And that's a [very] good thing." [Columnist Cheri Jacobus]

For the first time since Ronald Reagan, I may vote for a major party presidential candidate with complete confidence that the person who will be a heartbeat away from President McCain will be true to the principles upon which the United States of America was founded. Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and (especially) Benjamin Frankin would be proud!

08/31/2008: Little Known Facts about the Alaska Governor, culled from PalinFacts.com

• Sarah Palin is not affected by global warming, evolution or gravity.

• Sarah Palin eats moose. Preferably live.

• Sarah Palin is so HOT that God had to send a hurricane to cool America off.

• Sarah Palin wears glasses lest her uncontrollable optic blasts slaughter everyone.

• Queen Elizabeth II curtsied when she was introduced to Sarah Palin.

• Sarah Palin's enemies are automatically added to the Endangered Species List .

• When Sarah Palin attends ritual blood orgies, she always brings the most delicious ambrosia salad

• Sarah Palin was not flown to Ohio in charter jet - she ran there as part of her morning workout.

• Sarah Palin begins every day with a moment of silence for the political enemies buried in her yard.

• Sarah Palin uses French Canadians as bait to catch giant king salmon.

• Sarah Palin once bit the head off a live Osprey snatched from the air as it tried to fly off with a fish she caught.

• When Sarah Palin booked a flight to Europe, the French immediately surrendered.

• Sarah Palin's finishing move in the VP debate will be pulling Biden's still beating heart from his chest & taking a bite.

• Sarah Palin isn't allowed to wield the gavel at the convention because they're afraid she'll use it to kill liberals.

• Sarah Palin can read EBCDIC.

• Sarah Palin can divide by zero.

08/31/2008: Mullings, by Reed Galen: Senator John McCain's pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate was unexpected. Upon further reflection, however, McCain's choice isn't terribly surprising; ultimately he was going to choose someone [who] shares his core values. When seen through that prism, Governor Palin seems like an obvious choice. As a person who built her reputation on frugality, reducing government waste, and bucking her own party, she and John McCain are kindred spirits. [emphasis added] In addition, this type of decision is not one that should surprise anyone. Senator McCain has never been a conventional politician and certainly his candidacy this cycle has been anything but traditional. Why, then, would he choose a textbook running mate?

[Read the entire "Mullings" column]

Ultimately, campaigns are about Presidential candidates, not their running mates. But this year's selection process illuminates how both men made their decisions. Barack Obama's choice was one borne of fear: fear of being overshadowed by Hillary Clinton, fear of being painted as unready to be commander-in-chief, and fear, ironically, of being too-different. Decisions made in that context are rarely good ones. Senator McCain's choice of Governor Sarah Palin was borne of opportunity: the opportunity to change Washington, the opportunity to create a new political dynamic, and the opportunity to make history. Those opportunities sound down right Obaman.

08/31/2008: Changes in Politics by Thomas Sowell

One of the few political cliches that makes sense is that "In politics, overnight is a lifetime."

Less than a year ago, the big question was whether Rudolph Giuliani could beat Hillary Clinton in this year's presidential election. Less than two months ago, Barack Obama had a huge lead over John McCain in the polls. Less than a week ago, the smart money was saying that Mitt Romney would be McCain's choice for vice president.

We don't need Barack Obama to create "change." Things change in politics, in the economy, and elsewhere in American society, without waiting for a political messiah to lead us into the promised land.

Who would have thought that Obama's big speech at the Democratic convention would disappoint expectations, while McCain's speech electrified his audience when he announced his choice of Governor Sarah Palin for his running mate?

Some people were surprised that his choice was a woman. What is more surprising is that she is an articulate Republican. How many of those have you seen?

Despite the incessantly repeated mantra of "change," Barack Obama's politics is as old as the New Deal and he is behind the curve when it comes to today's economy.

Senator Obama's statement that "our economy is in turmoil" is standard stuff on the left and in the mainstream media, which has been dying to use the word "recession."

Not only has the economic slowdown failed to reach the definition of a recession, the most recent data show the U.S. economy growing at a rate exceeding 3 percent-- a rate that many European economies would die for, despite our being constantly urged to imitate those countries whose end results are not as good as ours.

Barack Obama's "change" is a recycling of the kinds of policies and rhetoric of the New Deal that prolonged the Great Depression of the 1930s far beyond the duration of any depression before or since.

These are the same kinds of liberal policies that led to double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates and rising unemployment during the Carter administration. These are "back to the future" changes to economic disasters that need repeating.

Make no mistake, the political rhetoric of FDR was great. For those who admire political rhetoric, as so many of Barack Obama's supporters seem to, FDR was tops. For those who go by actual results, FDR's track record was abysmal.

Although the Great Depression of the 1930s began under Herbert Hoover, unemployment during Hoover's last year in office was not as high as it became during each of the first five years under FDR.

During the eight years of FDR's first two terms as president, there were only two years in which unemployment was lower than it had been under Herbert Hoover-- and not by much.

World War II has been credited by some with getting the United States out of the Great Depression. What the war did was put an end to the New Deal, as national survival became the top priority and replaced FDR's anti-business and class warfare rhetoric.

Senator Obama's rhetoric today is the anti-business and class warfare rhetoric that worked so brilliantly in a political sense for FDR in the 1930s. But Obama is following an opposite course from FDR when it comes to recognizing threats to American national security.

Senator Obama has repeatedly tried to deal with national security threats with rhetoric. He tried to dismiss the threat of a nuclear Iran with because Iran is "a small nation"-- even though it is larger than Japan, which launched a devastating attack against the United States at Pearl Harbor.

FDR had the good sense to begin urging greater military preparedness in 1940, more than a year before the United States was attacked. He said, "If you wait until you see the whites of their eyes, you will never know what hit you."

Cutting the military budget and taking foreign policy problems to the United Nations are Obama's version of "change."

That is change that we dare not believe in. It is the audacity of hype.

08/30/2008: Patriot Post: “The most enthusiastic members of the Denver party believe that the country is finally, for the first time really, on their side. The nation’s and the party’s Left is both enlarged and inflamed. The shrewder ones, who are calling the shots, hope that the public will be sufficiently disaffected with the Republicans to tolerate or overlook their ideology. Thus the task before Obama and Biden this week is threefold. They must feign toughness on foreign policy and moderation on values. At the same time they must present their enthusiasm for bureaucracy as sympathy for the economic challenges of the middle class. They must persuade the country that they are not what they are: the most Left-wing ticket their party has run in 36 years. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time; 51 percent may be more feasible.” —National Review

“In selecting Sen. Joseph Biden as his running mate, Barack Obama gains some needed foreign policy expertise, but loses some credibility. If Washington is as bad as these two say it is, was Biden a contributor or an enabler during his six Senate terms? If 36 years in the Senate doesn’t make you an ‘insider’ and part of the problem, what does?” —Cal Thomas

“When Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, according to the 2007 vote scoring done by National Journal, picks the third-most-liberal senator, does that count as reaching across the aisle?” —Jonah Goldberg

“Joe Biden wasn’t even on Barack Obama’s short list until August 7, when Russia suddenly invaded the neighboring country of Georgia. That’s the word from key Democrats meeting here in Denver who say the Obama campaign’s need to shore up its foreign policy bona fides helped push the Delaware senator to the top of the pack. ‘We didn’t pick our nominee. Vladimir Putin did,’ is how one Democrat, who professes to be pleased with the Biden choice, put it.” —John Fund

“Just what changes the old Democratic order when you have Bill Clinton speaking one night and Hillary Clinton the next night? Is Mayor Daley, Obama’s strongest backer and the boss of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine, a symbol of change? You look at this... convention and you have to ask yourself, ‘Have I not seen this show before?”’ —Michael Reagan

“The hard-core left vowed to turn out 50,000 protesters for the Democratic National Convention this week. They pledged to ‘Re-create ‘68’ and cause the kind of tear-gas-infused revolutionary havoc that marked the DNC in Chicago four decades ago. Police prepared for the worst riots. Media from around the world anticipated the best pictures. But when rhetorical push came to real-life shove, the nostalgic, Marx-adoring organizers of Re-create ‘68 seem to have mustered no more than, oh, 68 bodies.” —Michelle Malkin

“[W]hat does one call a lawmaker who would condemn to death the child survivor of a botched abortion by permitting doctors to refuse that child, once born alive, potentially life-saving medical treatment and nutrition? A number of things come to mind. Mr. President isn’t one of them.” —Matt Barber

“You know why they call it birth control? Because it’s meant to stop a birth from happening nine months later. We know when life begins. Everyone who ever bought a pack of condom knows when life begins. To put it another way, with conception something begins. What do you think it is? A car? A 1948 Buick?” —Peggy Noonan

08/29/2008: An Editorial from The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (a Democrat newspaper)

Let’s suppose that a public official has something in his past that he would prefer remain there. Something that might make voters wonder whether the rhetoric of today is something that should be believed. Let’s suppose that someone got their hands on documents about the skeleton in the closet, and went on a popular radio show to talk about them.

And let’s suppose that instead of a civilized debate about what may have happened years ago, the public official ordered his legions to jam the radio station’s phone lines in an effort to make sure that whatever happened all those years ago remained hidden.

We suppose if that were to happen, then there would be some truth to whatever those allegations are.

And we suppose that’s why Barack Obama and company worked overtime last week to shut down Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center when he appeared on a Chicago radio program to talk about the connections between Obama and the terrorist William Ayers back in Obama’s neighborhood organizing days.

Ayers, don’t forget, was the terrorist who bombed, among other things, the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. He has said his only regret is that he “didn’t do more.” He lives in the same South Chicago neighborhood as the Obamas and Obama has said that they are nothing more than passing acquaintances.

But that’s not really the case. The two were fellow board members for the Woods Fund, an ultra-left wing organization that doles out money to other left-leaning groups. They also worked together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a group that Obama chaired.

The files from both organizations are held at the University of Illinois, where Ayers now teaches. Kurtz, after navigating many obstacles, got possession of those files last week. And they do, indeed show that Obama and Ayers were more than simply neighbors.

He scheduled an appearance on Milt Rosenberg’s radio program, “Extension 720,” to discuss what amounts to the records of Obama’s only executive experience.

The Obama campaign declined an invitation to appear on the program with Kurtz. The campaign’s preferred tactic instead was to tell supporters to tell Rosenberg to cancel Kurtz’s appearance. They called Kurtz a “smear-merchant” and “character assassin.”

What they did not do, though, was take issue with any of the connections between Obama and Ayers that the files document.

The incident says much about how Barack Obama operates and how he will operate as president.

08/25/2008: 35 Inconvenient Truths -- The Errors in Al Gore's Movie

08/25/2008: The Real 'Inconvenient Truth' -- Some facts about greenhouse and global warming from [JunkScience.com] [Global Warming is just another scam by the Political Class to run [ruin] our lives; ]

...Whether all the assumptions, tweaks and parameter adjustments really collectively add up to a realistic representation of the atmosphere is open to some conjecture (current climate models do not model "natural" climatic variation very well), but there is no evidence yet that they can predict the future with any greater certainty than a pack of Tarot cards.

08/25/2008: “[Barack] Obama represents the merger of two of the worst aspects of Democratic politics, ’60s radicalism and corrupt Chicago machine politics. With the addition of Slow Joe Biden to the ticket, Obama has added to his unsteady candidacy an epic amount of Beltway cluelessness and arrogance unsupported by anything except frequent flier miles and Delaware’s love for a chuckle-headed fellow with a big smile... I was worried that the Dems had pointed out to Obama that his serial gaffing had brought the campaign close to a break point and that he needed Hillary. I was worried he’d actually go find Anthony Zinni or Sam Nunn or someone of accomplishment and purposefulness in foreign affairs. [Jim] Webb would have been hell on the stump. [Tim] Kaine or [Evan] Bayh would have put different states into play. [Kathleen] Sebelius was a wild card. But Biden?... Put Biden’s obvious flaws aside and ask yourself how in the world Obama decided to go with Biden, and you’ll quickly realize that the Democratic nominee must have been impressed with Biden on the long campaign trail of 2007 and 2008—even though voters weren’t and even though Biden has no accomplishments of note after 36 years in the Senate. Biden talked a great game and dropped some very interesting place names—and this impressed Obama. Talking the talk has been the key to Obama’s success, and in Slow Joe he found an older, far better traveled but equally prolix gas bag... For Obama, it is all about politics and words, elections and poses. Slow Joe is the perfect running mate on a perfect ticket for a party betting on wind to solve the energy crisis.” —Hugh Hewitt

08/24/2008: Fred on Everything: Understanding the Military

The US military is the military of World War II, but with better technology. The Navy still consists of carriers surrounded by ships intended to protect the carriers. The heart of the army is still armored and infantry divisions with artillery and close-air support. The Air Force too. All are designed to fight enemies like themselves. However, there are no enemies like themselves, and WWII forces do not well fight the enemies they do have, such as ragtag dispersed guerrillas, because they are not intended to fight them.

...The US is phenomenally if discreetly militarized. The country is neither a democracy, nor a government of laws, nor of men, but an oligarchy of lobbies that press for whatever is of benefit to themselves, though not necessarily to the country. The underlying principle is that honey attracts flies. The federal government collects vast sums in taxes and the lobbies come to get it.

[Read the entire essay]

08/18/2008: 55 MPH Could Make a Comeback

"Though it lasted longer than disco and leisure suits, the national 55-miles-per-hour speed limit was another remnant of the 1970s that did not endure. Yet with high fuel costs reviving memories of the energy crisis of that decade, proposals to bring back the 'double nickel' or something like it are emerging, with backers saying federal speed limits could save fuel, money and perhaps lives." (USA Today, Monday)

They never learn.

August 1981: The Seen vs. The Unseen; A Modern Example By John Semmens

[Mr. Semmens is an economist for the Arizona Department of Transportation.]

Across the country, state after state is chafing under the imposition of the 55-mile-per- hour speed limit. Self-appointed critics of the wisdom of the American public shake their heads knowingly, remonstrating against this “typically shortsighted return to pre-crisis energy profligacy.” The Federal Highway Administration weighs in with its own threat to withhold Federal aid to those states not abiding by the 55-mph edict.

The intent, of course, is to force us to conserve precious resources. What isn’t realized is that the 55-mph speed limit does not conserve resources. A strictly enforced 55-mph speed limit would result in a substantial increase in the resources consumed in order to produce the same output of goods and services. Even more ironic, though, is that the original enactment of the reduced speed limit set in motion a chain of events which has led directly to the accelerated deterioration of the highway system.

It is a classic case of the seen vs. the unseen that was first portrayed by Frederic Bastiat in the early 19th century. On the surface, it is plain to see that vehicles driven at 55 mph will generally consume less fuel than vehicles driven at faster speeds. Less obvious is the fact that reducing the speed limit from 70 mph to 55 mph decreases efficiency through increased travel times of up to 25 per cent.

[Read the entire Article]

08/17/2008: 'Twilight' Sinks Its Teeth Into Feminism by Leonard Sax

Why do girls respond with rabid enthusiasm to books that communicate old-fashioned gender stereotypes? ... For more than three decades, political correctness has required that educators and parents pretend that gender doesn't really matter. The results of that policy are upon us: a growing cohort of young men who spend many hours each week playing video games and looking at pornography online, while their sisters and friends dream of gentle werewolves who are content to cuddle with them and dazzling vampires who will protect them from danger. In other words, ignoring gender differences is contributing to a growing gender divide.

08/15/2008: Dogbert's Philosophy: You're not me; therefore you're irrelevant.

08/15/2008: Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered. There's something rotten north of Denmark

Sorry ecomorons; the ice ain't melting...in either the Arctic iof Antarctic.

08/14/2008: "Silly Senator, Corn is for Food!"

Politicians are going crazy for ethanol, touting it as a cure-all that will reduce both pollution and our dependence on foreign oil. But a new Reason.tv video shows ethanol subsidies are costing taxpayers a massive $8 billion this year and that as much as 60 percent of the increase in world food prices can be blamed on biofuel subsidies. “Ethanol is bad for taxpayers, bad for the environment, and horrible for the world’s poor,” Nick Gillespie, editor of Reason.tv, declares in the video.

We are paying more for beef, milk, and eggs because the ethanol craze has increased demand for corn, driving up prices and diverting corn that used to go towards food products and feeding livestock. “We are in the midst of a world food crisis. Several million people are on the edge of starvation because we are turning food into fuel. The amount of corn that it takes to produce a 20 gallon tank of ethanol could feed one person for an entire year,” Reason magazine Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey says.

And those far-reaching environmental benefits that politicians promised? It turns out they were wrong. “Ethanol is much worse for the environment than gasoline,” states Bailey. “As some studies suggest, you put more energy into producing ethanol than you get out of it when you burn it.”

08/14/2008: Thomas L. Friedman (NY Times) is an idiot; his own words demonstrate this fact beyond all doubt. Consider the following:

"It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.

"Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile."

If "...the wind and solar industries depend on these credits..." then they are NOT "...competitive with coal, oil and natural gas." If these sources of energy are ever to be competitive, it will be through private development and NOT through government hand-outs.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web weighs in on Mr. Friedman nonsense:

Gas Heads to $19.84 a Gallon

"One of the biggest canards peddled by Big Oil is that, 'Sure, we'll need wind and solar energy, but it's just not cost effective yet.' They've been saying that for 30 years." So proclaims New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

Bizarrely, he tells us this right after informing us that the solar industry can't survive without subsidies:

In the solar industry today there is a rush to finish any project that would be up and running by Dec. 31--when the [tax] credits expire--and most everything beyond that is now on hold. Consider the Solana concentrated solar power plant, 70 miles southwest of Phoenix in McCain's home state. It is the biggest proposed concentrating solar energy project ever. The farsighted local utility is ready to buy its power.

But because of the Senate's refusal to extend the solar tax credits, "we cannot get our bank financing," said Fred Morse, a senior adviser for the American operations of Abengoa Solar, which is building the project. "Without the credits, the numbers don't work." Some 2,000 construction jobs are on hold.
Wait, it gets even better. Friedman fantasizes about a solution to the energy problem that "will take more than a Manhattan Project":

It will require a fundamental reshaping by government of the prices and regulations and research-and-development budgets that shape the energy market. Without taxing fossil fuels so they become more expensive and giving subsidies to renewable fuels so they become more competitive--and changing regulations so more people and companies have an interest in energy efficiency--we will not get innovation in clean power at the scale we need.
Such a massive exercise of government control over the economy is "cost effective" only in the sense that ignorance is strength and slavery is freedom.

08/14/2008: For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time By CHARLES MURRAY
Wall Street Journal: August 13, 2008; Page A17

Imagine that America had no system of post-secondary education, and you were a member of a task force assigned to create one from scratch. One of your colleagues submits this proposal:

First, we will set up a single goal to represent educational success, which will take four years to achieve no matter what is being taught. We will attach an economic reward to it that seldom has anything to do with what has been learned. We will urge large numbers of people who do not possess adequate ability to try to achieve the goal, wait until they have spent a lot of time and money, and then deny it to them. We will stigmatize everyone who doesn't meet the goal. We will call the goal a "BA."

You would conclude that your colleague was cruel, not to say insane. But that's the system we have in place.

Finding a better way should be easy. The BA acquired its current inflated status by accident. Advanced skills for people with brains really did get more valuable over the course of the 20th century, but the acquisition of those skills got conflated with the existing system of colleges, which had evolved the BA for completely different purposes.

Outside a handful of majors -- engineering and some of the sciences -- a bachelor's degree tells an employer nothing except that the applicant has a certain amount of intellectual ability and perseverance. Even a degree in a vocational major like business administration can mean anything from a solid base of knowledge to four years of barely remembered gut courses.

The solution is not better degrees, but no degrees. Young people entering the job market should have a known, trusted measure of their qualifications they can carry into job interviews. That measure should express what they know, not where they learned it or how long it took them. They need a certification, not a degree.

The model is the CPA exam that qualifies certified public accountants. The same test is used nationwide. It is thorough -- four sections, timed, totaling 14 hours. A passing score indicates authentic competence (the pass rate is below 50%). Actual scores are reported in addition to pass/fail, so that employers can assess where the applicant falls in the distribution of accounting competence. You may have learned accounting at an anonymous online university, but your CPA score gives you a way to show employers you're a stronger applicant than someone from an Ivy League school.

The merits of a CPA-like certification exam apply to any college major for which the BA is now used as a job qualification. To name just some of them: criminal justice, social work, public administration and the many separate majors under the headings of business, computer science and education. Such majors accounted for almost two-thirds of the bachelor's degrees conferred in 2005. For that matter, certification tests can be used for purely academic disciplines. Why not present graduate schools with certifications in microbiology or economics -- and who cares if the applicants passed the exam after studying in the local public library?

Certification tests need not undermine the incentives to get a traditional liberal-arts education. If professional and graduate schools want students who have acquired one, all they need do is require certification scores in the appropriate disciplines. Students facing such requirements are likely to get a much better liberal education than even our most elite schools require now.

Certification tests will not get rid of the problems associated with differences in intellectual ability: People with high intellectual ability will still have an edge. Graduates of prestigious colleges will still, on average, have higher certification scores than people who have taken online courses -- just because prestigious colleges attract intellectually talented applicants.

But that's irrelevant to the larger issue. Under a certification system, four years is not required, residence is not required, expensive tuitions are not required, and a degree is not required. Equal educational opportunity means, among other things, creating a society in which it's what you know that makes the difference. Substituting certifications for degrees would be a big step in that direction.

The incentives are right. Certification tests would provide all employers with valuable, trustworthy information about job applicants. They would benefit young people who cannot or do not want to attend a traditional four-year college. They would be welcomed by the growing post-secondary online educational industry, which cannot offer the halo effect of a BA from a traditional college, but can realistically promise their students good training for a certification test -- as good as they are likely to get at a traditional college, for a lot less money and in a lot less time.

Certification tests would disadvantage just one set of people: Students who have gotten into well-known traditional schools, but who are coasting through their years in college and would score poorly on a certification test. Disadvantaging them is an outcome devoutly to be wished.

No technical barriers stand in the way of evolving toward a system where certification tests would replace the BA. Hundreds of certification tests already exist, for everything from building code inspectors to advanced medical specialties. The problem is a shortage of tests that are nationally accepted, like the CPA exam.

But when so many of the players would benefit, a market opportunity exists. If a high-profile testing company such as the Educational Testing Service were to reach a strategic decision to create definitive certification tests, it could coordinate with major employers, professional groups and nontraditional universities to make its tests the gold standard. A handful of key decisions could produce a tipping effect. Imagine if Microsoft announced it would henceforth require scores on a certain battery of certification tests from all of its programming applicants. Scores on that battery would acquire instant credibility for programming job applicants throughout the industry.

An educational world based on certification tests would be a better place in many ways, but the overarching benefit is that the line between college and noncollege competencies would be blurred. Hardly any jobs would still have the BA as a requirement for a shot at being hired. Opportunities would be wider and fairer, and the stigma of not having a BA would diminish.

Most important in an increasingly class-riven America: The demonstration of competency in business administration or European history would, appropriately, take on similarities to the demonstration of competency in cooking or welding. Our obsession with the BA has created a two-tiered entry to adulthood, anointing some for admission to the club and labeling the rest as second-best.

Here's the reality: Everyone in every occupation starts as an apprentice. Those who are good enough become journeymen. The best become master craftsmen. This is as true of business executives and history professors as of chefs and welders. Getting rid of the BA and replacing it with evidence of competence -- treating post-secondary education as apprenticeships for everyone -- is one way to help us to recognize that common bond.

Mr. Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This essay is adapted from his forthcoming book, "Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality" (Crown Forum).

08/14/2008: Technical Change, Wage and Price Dispersion, and the Optimal Rate of Inflation

Abstract: This paper brings the elements of growth to the standard New Keynesian model to analyze the optimal rate of inflation. To our knowledge, this is the first theoretical attempt to consider the effects of growth in the determination of optimal monetary policies. With both elements of price and wage rigidities, inflation creates distortions due to wage and price dispersions and due to its effects on monopolistic mark-ups by price and wage setters. The choice of the optimal inflation rate balances these distortions at the margin. The paper first characterizes these tradeoffs in the steady-state version of the model and finds that, for a wide range of parameter values, the optimal rate of inflation is negative. When the monetary policy is committed to adjust nominal interest rates to ensure its objective of price stability, it might target a deflation rate. This is due to the fact that the mean of inflation is affected by shocks, and on average, this mean is approaching zero. The welfare analysis then reveals that real growth decreases the welfare cost of inflation.

08/11/2008: Subject: Is it the NBA or NFL??

• 36 have been accused of spousal abuse

• 7 have been arrested for fraud

• 19 have been accused of writing bad checks

• 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

• 3 have done time for assault

• 71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

• 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

• 8 have been arrested for shoplifting

• 21 currently are defendants in lawsuits, and

• 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Can you guess which organization this is? Is It NBA Or NFL?

Give up yet?

Neither, it's the 435 members of the United States Congress. The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

08/11/2008: [Yeah, W, look into his soul; Putin's still a KGB thug; dfo]

The War in Georgia Is a War for the West
By MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI, Wall Street Journal
August 11, 2008; Page A15

Tbilisi, Georgia

As I write, Russia is waging war on my country.

On Friday, hundreds of Russian tanks crossed into Georgian territory, and Russian air force jets bombed Georgian airports, bases, ports and public markets. Many are dead, many more wounded. This invasion, which echoes Afghanistan in 1979 and the Prague Spring of 1968, threatens to undermine the stability of the international security system.

Why this war? This is the question my people are asking. This war is not of Georgia's making, nor is it Georgia's choice.

The Kremlin designed this war. Earlier this year, Russia tried to provoke Georgia by effectively annexing another of our separatist territories, Abkhazia. When we responded with restraint, Moscow brought the fight to South Ossetia.

Ostensibly, this war is about an unresolved separatist conflict. Yet in reality, it is a war about the independence and the future of Georgia. And above all, it is a war over the kind of Europe our children will live in. Let us be frank: This conflict is about the future of freedom in Europe.

No country of the former Soviet Union has made more progress toward consolidating democracy, eradicating corruption and building an independent foreign policy than Georgia. This is precisely what Russia seeks to crush.

This conflict is therefore about our common trans-Atlantic values of liberty and democracy. It is about the right of small nations to live freely and determine their own future. It is about the great power struggles for influence of the 20th century, versus the path of integration and unity defined by the European Union of the 21st. Georgia has made its choice.

When my government was swept into power by a peaceful revolution in 2004, we inherited a dysfunctional state plagued by two unresolved conflicts dating to the early 1990s. I pledged to reunify my country -- not by the force of arms, but by making Georgia a pole of attraction. I wanted the people living in the conflict zones to share in the prosperous, democratic country that Georgia could -- and has -- become.

In a similar spirit, we sought friendly relations with Russia, which is and always will be Georgia's neighbor. We sought deep ties built on mutual respect for each other's independence and interests. While we heeded Russia's interests, we also made it clear that our independence and sovereignty were not negotiable. As such, we felt we could freely pursue the sovereign choice of the Georgian nation -- to seek deeper integration into European economic and security institutions.

We have worked hard to peacefully bring Abkhazia and South Ossetia back into the Georgian fold, on terms that would fully protect the rights and interests of the residents of these territories. For years, we have offered direct talks with the leaders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so that we could discuss our plan to grant them the broadest possible autonomy within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia.

But Russia, which effectively controls the separatists, responded to our efforts with a policy of outright annexation. While we appealed to residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with our vision of a common future, Moscow increasingly took control of the separatist regimes. The Kremlin even appointed Russian security officers to arm and administer the self-styled separatist governments.

Under any circumstances, Russia's meddling in our domestic affairs would have constituted a gross violation of international norms. But its actions were made more egregious by the fact that Russia, since the 1990s, has been entrusted with the responsibility of peacekeeping and mediating in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Rather than serve as honest broker, Russia became a direct party to the conflicts, and now an open aggressor.

As Europe expanded its security institutions to the Black Sea, my government appealed to the Western community of nations -- particularly European governments and institutions -- to play a leading role in resolving our separatist conflicts. The key to any resolution was to replace the outdated peacekeeping and negotiating structures created almost two decades ago, and dominated by Russia, with a genuine international effort.

But Europe kept its distance and, predictably, Russia escalated its provocations. Our friends in Europe counseled restraint, arguing that diplomacy would take its course. We followed their advice and took it one step further, by constantly proposing new ideas to resolve the conflicts. Just this past spring, we offered the separatist leaders sweeping autonomy, international guarantees and broad representation in our government.

Our offers of peace were rejected. Moscow sought war. In April, Russia began treating the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Russian provinces. Again, our friends in the West asked us to show restraint, and we did. But under the guise of peacekeeping, Russia sent paratroopers and heavy artillery into Abkhazia. Repeated provocations were designed to bring Georgia to the brink of war.

When this failed, the Kremlin turned its attention to South Ossetia, ordering its proxies there to escalate attacks on Georgian positions. My government answered with a unilateral cease-fire; the separatists began attacking civilians and Russian tanks pierced the Georgian border. We had no choice but to protect our civilians and restore our constitutional order. Moscow then used this as pretext for a full-scale military invasion of Georgia.

Over the past days, Russia has waged an all-out attack on Georgia. Its tanks have been pouring into South Ossetia. Its jets have bombed not only Georgian military bases, but also civilian and economic infrastructure, including demolishing the port of Poti on the Black Sea coast. Its Black Sea fleet is now massing on our shores and an attack is under way in Abkhazia.

What is at stake in this war?

Most obviously, the future of my country is at stake. The people of Georgia have spoken with a loud and clear voice: They see their future in Europe. Georgia is an ancient European nation, tied to Europe by culture, civilization and values. In January, three in four Georgians voted in a referendum to support membership in NATO. These aims are not negotiable; now, we are paying the price for our democratic ambitions.

Second, Russia's future is at stake. Can a Russia that wages aggressive war on its neighbors be a partner for Europe? It is clear that Russia's current leadership is bent on restoring a neocolonial form of control over the entire space once governed by Moscow.

If Georgia falls, this will also mean the fall of the West in the entire former Soviet Union and beyond. Leaders in neighboring states -- whether in Ukraine, in other Caucasian states or in Central Asia -- will have to consider whether the price of freedom and independence is indeed too high.

Mr. Saakashvili is president of Georgia.

08/10/2008: Isaac Hayes...Rest in Peace

08/06/2008: Paris Hilton makes more sense than either McCain or Obama

Back to Og's Blogs

Read Past Blogs

July 2008

June 2008

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008

February 2008

January 31, 2008 & Prior