What We Can Do

Subtitle: The Hope and Change the rest of us desire.

The purpose of this site is to document the events of the day. Few read it and fewer still take what is written here to heart. Mostly, it is cynical. It is the view of the world as one might view a train wreck before it happens, reporting on the screeching wheels and metal before the train hits the wall.

For just a moment I'm going to step out of the role as cynic and reporter of our demise and propose a few ideas that could turn this impending tragedy around, avoiding the train wreck. It isn't inevitable, but it is likely, given the direction we're heading. That direction needs to change.

The United States Constitution is an amazing document, both for its forward-thinking and its clarity. The few aberrations, including slavery and limited suffrage, were corrected by the sweat and blood of patriots, others were corrected peacefully. What we have left is a miracle -- a kind of road-map to preserving our treasured liberties.  It is only as useful as it is used and respected.

In some cases (the minutia I'll leave to another day) we screwed things up. For all the good intentions and lofty goals, prohibition was a bad idea, and it was later reversed. The Sixteenth Amendment was enacted to give Congress the ability to collect taxes on income (not wages), for the purposes of paying war debt. The balance of power between the States and the Federal government was severely harmed by the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, changing the election of Senators from state selection by the respective state legislature, to popular vote. It, too, was invented with the goal of correcting a perceived wrong, but it created far more trouble than it benefited us.

I fully expect that those Amendments will be eventually overturned, viewed through the lens of history as mistakes as great and obvious as prohibition proved to be. In some cases the Constitution is fine as it is today, but it has been interpreted to mean something other than it was intended to mean.  The Fourteenth Amendment, for example, was enacted to gaurantee that the Bill of Rights, the respect of individual rights, and the status of U.S. citizen were uniform throughout the states, not that all other laws between the states had to be uniform.

Whether those Amendments will be overturned (or the interpretations of others limited to their original intent) will happen in my lifetime or later is the question. The larger question is if we'll exist long enough to reverse them.

Those are important, but trivial compared to what remains intact, based on the Founders exquisite understanding of the purpose of government and how government can be prevented from becoming the tyrannical state.

The Founders made it quite clear that the Federal government had limited powers -- that it derived its powers from The People -- and that all the powers not specifically granted to the Federal government remained with The People (individually) or collectively, by the States. On the whole, the Constitution doesn't limit what the people or the Several States may do; on the contrary, the Constitution limits and articulates what the Federal government may do.  In all cases, however, the Founders made it quite clear that we retained the rights we temporarily delegated to the Federal government.  At any time we could rescind their authority, or grant it additional powers, but only through Constitutional Amendment (not, as far too many believe, by doing whatever they damn well please).

There was fear that the Federal government would attempt to trump State powers, but more concern that larger states would attempt to trample the smaller ones. There were "checks and balances" as well, dividing the Federal government into three branches: Legislature, Executive, and Justice.

Each branch had their specific role and authority. The legislature was empowered to make laws and to lay taxes for the express purpose of carrying out those laws and their duties, but what laws they could create was strictly limited to those articulated. The Executive, beyond its primary directive of foreign affairs and domestic security, was empowered to make sure that the laws enacted by Congress were carried out. Justice was the arbiter between the states, and was the last hope when justice could not be found elsewhere.

All of the above was carefully worded in the various Articles. Article I addresses the Congress. Article II describes the Executive role. Article III describes the role of the judiciary. The remaining Articles (IV through VIII) address specific matters, such as how the Constitution may be altered, how new states may be admitted into the union, etc.

After the initial draft was presented to the people for their review, individually and by their respective state governments, a great debate ensued. (Actually, many debates ensued.) The most important one were the debates between the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists." These are known as The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers. There can be no doubt of the Founders original intent when understood through those debates.

In Federalist 37, Madison framed the argument by describing the difficulties, goals, and the outcome of the Constitutional Convention:

The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands. Stability, on the contrary, requires that the hands in which power is lodged should continue for a length of time the same. A frequent change of men will result from a frequent return of elections; and a frequent change of measures from a frequent change of men: whilst energy in government requires not only a certain duration of power, but the execution of it by a single hand.

Heretofore I have described the authority granted by the people to the Federal government. More importantly, however, is the balance of power between the Federal government and the States. Madison also describes the difficulties of this in Federalist 37:

To the difficulties already mentioned may be added the interfering pretensions of the larger and smaller States. We cannot err in supposing that the former would contend for a participation in the government, fully proportioned to their superior wealth and importance; and that the latter would not be less tenacious of the equality at present enjoyed by them. We may well suppose that neither side would entirely yield to the other, and consequently that the struggle could be terminated only by compromise. It is extremely probable, also, that after the ratio of representation had been adjusted, this very compromise must have produced a fresh struggle between the same parties, to give such a turn to the organization of the government, and to the distribution of its powers, as would increase the importance of the branches, in forming which they had respectively obtained the greatest share of influence. There are features in the Constitution which warrant each of these suppositions; and as far as either of them is well founded, it shows that the convention must have been compelled to sacrifice theoretical propriety to the force of extraneous considerations.

In Federalist 44, Madison addresses some of the ant-Federalist criticisms. In the passage below, he addresses the powers granted to Congress and the concerns that Congress would, at some future date, enlarge or expand on their limited powers (as they have done today):

If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers.

In Federalist 45, Madison details the concerns of too much state power, but what was concerning them at the time was an attempt by a powerful state to invade/control another state, not the Federal government encroaching on all the states. For this reason, state powers were not specifically articulated, but some state sovereignty was limited. Reading it today, however, is almost laughable. The checks and balances against encroachment of state authority has happened so pervasively and extensively, that remarks about how the numbers of people employed at the state level providing a buttress against the "few" at the Federal level, makes it absolutely clear that we have allowed all power-balancing strategies to be entirely eliminated. Madison was certain that the people would raise the alarm, and go to the guns, to address encroaching Federal powers long before they got to the point where we are today.

In Federalist 46, Madison addresses the concerns that the usurpation of state autonomy (or individual autonomy) would get so bad as to destroy the spirit and the literal powers of the States:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Madison scoffed at the concerns, believing that the people would never stand for it, but all those fears have become our reality. We allowed all the worst-case scenarios to occur and that was something that Madison could never have fathomed.

So what do we do and what powers remain?

Before I address the best option, I'd like to address a concern: In many states the Second Amendment is in full force. For many of us, however, we wish to use that as a last resort, and attempt to restore the powers of the people and the respective States without resorting to war (or even some sort of agreed-upon, peaceful secession). The war option is far from being the only option, and surely the least desirable, when other options are still open to us.

There are a variety of suggestions to address the encroachment of Federal powers. Some have gone so far as to suggest we need to restate the limitions again, perhaps in new words, to make the point that the Constitution limits what the Federal government may do. This is the equivalent of applying bolds, asterisks, and underlines to what is already written. While I would not be opposed to these options, as I would support any and all peaceful attempts to address the problem, I do not think it is our best option.

The Constitution, in Amendments Ninth and Tenth, already state that the powers not specifically listed as granted to the Federal government remain with the states and/or the people. Saying it again is not going to change the status quo.  The Federal government is already ignoring what was written, so writing something else to be ignored is a futile gesture. We're past words. It is time for action.

The option that is open to us is state disobedience, but I use disobedience to better explain the idea rather than the word as a value judgement. It is the state-collective equivalent of civil disobedience. In truth, it is the Federal government that has been disobedient, by exercising powers they have not been granted. The only effective way to put meat into the limitations imposed on the Federal government is for the states to ignore actions, measures, and laws that are extra-constitutional. Only those actions, measures, initiatives, and laws that are specifically articulated in the Constitution as belonging to the Federal government will be respected by the several States, and by The People.

To this end, some state legislatures are passing "State Sovereignty" measures to restate their authority and limit Federal authority. These involve restatements of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which are:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

While we shouldn't ignore Congressional elections, it is more important now to pay attention to state elections, including the legislatures and the governor. It is time for governors (with agreement by the state legislatures) to refuse to abide by unconstitutional Federal encroachment. This includes:

• Refusing all TARP funds/invasions of Federal officers in local businesses.


• Refusing all Stimulus funding.


• Refusing all education funding and federal legislation regarding education (and all other unconstitutional government departments).


• Exercise the option to call out the National Guards to protect our borders if our Federal government continues to refuse to exercise their primary directive.

It is time for states to refuse to comply and also refuse the bribe money that comes with it, while protecting state citizens from unconstitutional taxes and penalties.

It is the responsibility of our state legislatures and our governors to exercise the authority we have granted to them. It is time we work locally to elect representatives who will restore the balance of power between the Federal and State governments and reject all invasions and encroachments of Federal authorities.

The following is the kind of speech that every governor of every state should deliver on the day he or she is sworn into office:

The People of this state have graciously elected me as their Governor, and I understand fully the responsibilities and authorities they have entrusted to me, as well as the limitations of that power within our state, and those entrusted to the Federal government. There are strict lines of delineation, between the counties and cities within our state; the powers granted to the local mayors and city/town councils; the unique relationships we have with neighboring states, and the authority we recognize as belonging to the Federal government.

The authority we have granted to the Federal government is strictly limited to those items articulated in the U.S. Constitution. The Federal government has the responsibility and authority to declare war, to provide for the common defense, to coin money, to regulate the seas, oceans and post roads, and to protect the products and arts by providing copyright and patent laws, and the judiciary may intervene on matters between us and other states. The Federal government has no other powers or authority. As part of my oath today I swore to uphold and protect not only our State Constitution, but the Federal Constitution. I take that oath seriously. Beginning today, I will issue an order which returns all funds received from the Federal government that goes beyond their authority. I reject all laws enacted by Congress that goes beyond their specifically limited authority. I will refuse, with force if necessary, the invasion of Federal officers, in whatever department or uniform, to exercise authority not specifically granted to them.

For too long states have remained passive, gradually morphing from free and sovereign states to lowly beggars, looking to the Federal government for hand-outs and to do the job that governors were intended to perform. That transition into a lowly beggar class ends now.

• If the Federal government does not perform its duty with respect to protecting our borders, I will call out our National Guard to do so.


• If the Federal government attempts to send agents to interfere with our peaceful commerce within our state, I will stop them at the border, with force, if necessary.


• If the Federal government attempts to arrest or in any way interfere with our citizens' refusal to pay taxes on anything other than their incomes (not wages) or taxes imposed equally among the states, but only for the percentage of Federal government budget that is Constitutional, I will issue orders to stop them. Our state officers, police, and National Guard will be called upon to intervene to protect our citizens from arrest or property seizure, if necessary.


• I will call upon neighboring and friendly states to assist us if necessary, and I will respond to calls for assistance from other states, if they should need our assitance.

It is time, finally, for the State governors to exercise the powers they have been granted, to protect thier citizens in their respective states from invasions of their liberty by the extra-Constutional acts of the Federal government, and for the Several States to refuse to abide by unjust and unconstitutional laws.

Today, the liberty and values established by the Founders will be restored in this state, and I hope many others.

That is what is necessary. That is the change of direction I introduced in my opening paragraphs to alter the course of the train to prevent the wreck. Although patience is required, anything else or short of that is a guarantee that our republican government will cease to exist.

Chances it will happen? Zero. But Americans love the underdog and this post is supposed to be my non-cynical view of the future. Despite the fact that I clearly and carefully stated that "going to the guns" was not an option, I suppose that my suggestions would classify me as a terrorist to some.  Oh, well.  So much for being optimistic.

Some of Us

In an interview with AG Eric Holder by Pierre Thomas, Jason Ryan, and Theresa Cook (ABC News, Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks Exclusively to ABC News, July 29, 2009), Holder is quoted:

"The American people would be surprised by the depth of the threat, but also reassured to see the assets that have been deployed around the world," Holder said, adding that the United States interacts closely with its foreign partners.

Some Americans may be surprised at the amount of threats posed by terrorist groups, but not all of us.  Some people chose to respond to the 9/11 attacks by burying their head in the sand, believing it was an isolated incident -- like some sort of fluke of nature.  They also viewed the lack of additional attacks as meaning that there weren't any attempts.

Nothing could be further from reality.

The reality is that there are groups within the larger banner of al Qaeda and outside of its central planning approach who want nothing more than to carry out another 9/11 attack (or something much, much worse).

"Guantanamo is a place that has served as a recruiting tool for those who want to do us harm," he said.

Holder declined to say how many detainees could face trial in the United States, but said U.S. attorney offices around the country have been reviewing the cases for possible prosecution in those districts.

The Democrats continue to treat terrorism as a criminal action rather than as an act of war.  "Facing trial" is for criminal actions. Detaining unlawful combatants is not a criminal justice action. Holding these people (or deciding to put them before a firing squad) is a military matter.

Suggesting that Guantanamo serves as a recruitment vehicle for terrorists is both a strawman and a distraction. Everything we do, from being prosperous to checking passports on inbound passengers could be viewed as a "recruiting tool." Easter egg rolls on the White House lawn could be seen as a recruiting tool as it demonstrates an association with Christianity. The point being, that everything we do as a people, including everything we do to combat terrorism can be used by propagandists to encourage the weak minded to become radicalized.

"The possibility exists that there could be people who are held in a preventative way under the laws of war," he said. "If that happens, we'd only do so by creating a system that had due process.

"I think that by closing Guantanamo, by prosecuting people, be it in Article III courts, or in military commissions, we will make the American people safer than they are now," Holder continued.

In the above, Holder is talking out of both sides of his mouth. If the military commissions are successful at prosecuting illegal combatants, the result will be the firing squad.  How, exactly, would that event appease terrorists?  Appeasing the terrorists would require that the men in detention are found not to be illegal combatants and released. That would prove that our military are bumbling idiots for picking up the wrong people (a characterization much favored by many on the Left) or they're dangerous terrorists who will be released on some sort of technicality. Neither scenario is good for our side.

The fate of an unlawful combatant is death.  There is no other outcome. They aren't given life sentences, as one might receive for murder, or put in some sort of work/release program. Illegal combatants are shot or hanged. Delaying that outcome with detention, as long as the detainees are useful to us, is the best way to protect us.

We're at war, even if the Left continues to try to treat this as a criminal problem, doing anything necessary to avoid a military entanglement. Criminals don't fly suicide missions with the purpose of terrorizing their enemies into submission. Military enemies do that, and it appears that terrorism is working on those on the Left. Submission is their middle name.

None of this is surprising to some of us. The Left has been spewing the criminal justice angle of this matter since the beginning.  The Left knows they can't win elections because of their track record on handling military matters. Republicans are perceived (rightly) as being the best people to have in charge in war time, so the Left worked really hard to distract the public from acknowledging that there is a war on! The media presented the battles as a lost cause and a political battle, not a literal one. They've campaigned that the Bush response was overreach... and now they're trying to tell us that terrorists really are something serious, and something to worry about... and how hard they work everyday to keep us safe.

He noted, however, that the Bush administration "left us an infrastructure that I think is very good," and that national security officials are constantly striving to put the country in a safer position.

Some of us know that, too.

The Bush Administration kept us safe, but they didn't find it necessary to whine about it or constantly toot their own horn for performing their primary directive, doing their job.  Perhaps that was Bush's failing -- he gave the American people too much credit -- perhaps the American people do need to be constantly reminded that there is a war going on, and there really are people out to get us.

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.

- George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, Washington, DC, September 20, 2001

Some people are surprised that terrorism continues to be a threat. Some aren't. Some people forget what was said and promised. Some of us remember.

We will not waiver, we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

H/t Drudge.

What Matters

Michael Barone (Washington Examiner, Obama has aura but doesn't know how to legislate, July 29, 2009) states the obvious:

In other words, he's [Obama] never done much work putting legislation together -- especially legislation that channels vast flows of money and affects the workings of parts of the economy that deeply affect people's lives. This lack of experience is starting to show. On the major legislation considered this year -- the stimulus, cap and trade, health care -- the Obama White House has done little or nothing to set down markers, to provide guidance, to establish boundaries and no-go areas.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. The country elected a neophyte to POTUS (which is why the Republicans shouldn't try to do the same--people will be crying for a Eisenhower/Reagan type Grandpa come 2016, and avoiding game-show-host-charisma style candidates--the party that puts Grandpa out there will win).  If this POTUS has taught us anything, it is that there is no room for learning on the job. Experience matters, in all things, even if it is the illusion of experience.

Petreus / Perry 2016.

---

Other contenders include (sorry to say that there are no other Governors besides Rick Perry with sufficient experience and wisdom):

• Kit Bond (Senator, SC)


• Tom Coburn (Senator, OK)


• Thad Cochran (Senator, MS)


• Mike Enzi, (Senator, WY)


• Roger Wicker (Senator, MS)


• Ralph Edward "Ed" Eberhart (4 Star General)


• Richard Myers (4 Star General)

Over

From Byron York (Washington Examiner, Obama, playing defense on the stimulus, July 29, 2009):

The speech seems a pretty clear indication that Republicans (and the polls) have put Obama on the defensive.

The polls have him running scared, as it should be.  Americans may have been temporarily fooled by his moderate campaign speak, but nakedness of this Emperor and his true tyrannical stripes are beginning to show.

'We' have Obama on the run and this is only the beginning of his demise. The honeymoon is officially over. The divorce proceedings are going to be ugly.

On Their Watch

Social Security and Medicare are underfunded by $40 trillion.  Saying that they are underfunded is a bit of a bait and switch, as these programs have never been funded. FICA deductions go into the General Fund, with all the other taxes collected by the Feds.

When Bush was campaigning for his second term he focused on Social Security reform, but Congress (now an obvious, not statistical Democrat majority) would have no part of it.  Aggravating blue collar workers and the AARP is political suicide, so Congress did nothing to reform Social Security.

Whether that was cowardice or strategic (to further weaken the economy to bolster a win in 2008) doesn't matter.  The reality is that the Boomers are gradually shifting from the contributing to the receiving line of the FICA deduction, and their mass will shift the FICA budget line from positive to negative as early as 2012.  No more will Democrats have the FICA excess to play around with, which is why they're advocating "health care reform" and infusing it with methods to ration existing entitlement programs, while shoring up the gravy train for other programs.

In the socialized medicine Bills there are plans to begin rationing Medicare (as health care "reform" has little or nothing to do with Medicare).  Someone is going to have to do it eventually.  I'm just glad that the Democrats will have to own it, but I'm certain that they'll figure out a way to blame the Republicans for it.

In in decade it won't matter and AARP and Social Security recipients will be thrown under a bus.  They have to be, as there won't be enough money to pay even a fraction of their total federal entitlement payments.  And rightly, as it is their fault: their generation did nothing to guarantee that the money would be there when they got to retirement age. It won't matter if it was ignorance or malice.  Reality is immune to cause.  It just is.  And "empty" is what the coffers will be.

Soylent Green is People!

Reading through the Twitter posts from Peter Fleckstein, posted by Savage (Little Green Footballs, Inside the Health Care Bill, aka HR3200, July 22, 2009), that's the thought that kept popping into my head:

PG 425: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life

Pg 425: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 17-19 Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

PG 425: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death!

PG 427: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends!

Pg 429: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 1-9 An “advance care planning consultant” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.

PG 429: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 10-12 “advance care consultation” may include an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

Pg 429: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 13-25 – The Government will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 11-15 The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.

(For people who don't understand the reference, Soylent Green was a film based on a dystopic novel [Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison] where government mandated that people submit themselves to be killed on their 65th birthday. Set in a future where pollution prevented crop growth, there were food shortages. It was determined that the government-issued green wafers given to the people as nourishment was made from the bodies of the elderly.)

There is a point, however, where arguing the details is counterproductive. The bottom line is that government, especially the Federal government, has no authority to "reform" health care. It should be rejected on principle, regardless of the details.

H/t comment by katablog.com (James Pethokoukis, Reuters Blogs, Why Obama might have just killed Obamacare, July 23, 2009)

Title Not Found

With regard to the Amazon/1984 stories: The ignorance of how databases work and what data-syncing is continues. This article and comments at Network World illustrate the ignorance.

Background: Kindle users were able to buy an ebook that was distributed without copyright authorization. As soon as Amazon was made aware of the problem, they removed the title (Orwell's 1984, to make the story interesting) from their catalog.

That's the back-story. What happened next should be a surprise only to people who don't understand how these things work, and I'm not referring to how ebooks are created or sold (or anything having to do with copyrights or license agreements).

A database is a collection of tables. Tables are a collection of records. Records are a collection of fields. Fields are made up of bits/characters.

(A record may be synonymous with a "transaction" but it isn't always.)

I'll start with a single table.

A database like Amazon's contains customers. Customers have certain characteristics, such as names, shipping and billing addresses, join dates, last purchase date, phone numbers, etc. Some of those characteristics will be stored in a "customer" table, some will be stored in subordinate tables, but they're only subordinate because we think of them that way. They're just tables. The relationships the tables have to each other (if any) is because of our understanding of how the data relates, not because computers/databases have any inherent understanding of these relationships.

The Amazon database also contains a "products" table. Those products make up their catalog. Products have characteristics of their own, such as supplier, unit of sale, weight, description, name, etc.

The "supplier" of an item will also be a record in a "supplier" table. That table will have the contact information for the supplier, their main contact address, as well as any other data elements Amazon might wish to maintain at that level.

Amazon will also have a price file (or a "price table") because all retailers do. They'll also have some sort of inventory tracking table (either maintained locally for the items they stock in their own warehouse or combined with a hook into the supplier's inventory system, if inventory is maintained by the supplier). In an operation like Amazon, inventory is all over the place, so a combination of methods is used.

Customer and supplier records are reasonably static. That doesn't mean that they don't ever change. They do change, because suppliers and new customers are always added, in addition to keeping them updated when suppliers and customers move. Transaction tables are constantly changing... that's why they're called "transactions."

When you log on to Amazon you sign in with your email address, but because email addresses can change, that isn't your customer number. (Some database designers are stupid enough to use an email address as a customer record number, but as I said, they're stupid.) It is a given that every customer has a customer record number and every supplier has a supplier record number. Each product in the Amazon catalog has a product number, too, which can be a single item, or a combination of items sold as part of a bundle. (Think of a computer that may be sold in a bundle that includes a laptop computer, a power cord, and instruction manuals--each having unique part numbers, but when combined create a unique product number.)

Let's say that my customer record number is C001. I'll keep it simple and we'll assume that I only have one billing and one shipping address (we know that Amazon customers can store dozens of each, but we'll ignore that).

I initiate an order for product P001.

A transaction table exists to create a relationship record of that order. That record says that customer C001 bought P001. Nothing in the transaction table knows what a P001 is, nor does the transaction table know that C001 is me. It is just linking the two together with other information to keep the transaction unique (such as assigning it a transaction number, the date the purchase was made, the date the transaction was created, etc.).

On the front end, Amazon displays a report of this transaction to me and sends it in the form of an order confirmation in email. That order confirmation will include the name of item I purchased because reports can be programmed to "look up" data from other tables and other databases. Since we have a product number (P001), we have the descriptive information for that item from the products table. Since we have a hook from products to suppliers, the report can also display details about the supplier, such as:

On 7/23/2009 you purchased Qty: 1, Item #: P001-Databases for Morons from "Technical Publishers."

If I purchased more than one item, it would list the additional items purchased.

The above might give the appearance that the transaction order contains the descriptive information, but it doesn't. It only contains record numbers and dates. A table that contains redundant data, such as a transaction table that contains anything but the record number of a product or customer is referred to as "denormalized." That redundancy is bad, not only because it uses more space in the database than it needs to, but because it can quickly create "out of balance" or "out of sync" situations (depending on the transaction type). When a customer changes their name, for example, their customer record is updated, and only that record. If the order table copied the customer name to the table when an order was created, it won't get notified/changed when the name change occurs (without redundant/unnecessary programming). So this stuff is kept simple, i.e., normalized.

On the backend, a bunch of things happen when a customer clicks "submit" on their order. Something equivalent to a packing slip or pull order is created for the items in Amazon's warehouse. For items not in Amazon's warehouse, the equivalent of a pull order is sent to the drop shipper/supplier. Once the item(s) are pulled from inventory, a transaction is created to reduce inventory for the quantity of items purchased. A shipper order number is created (with a vendor such as UPS or Fedex) once the package is boxed. Debits are processed against my credit card. At each stage of the order fulfillment process a status change is noted in the transaction record that triggers an update in an email sent to me:
1. Order acknowledgement
2. Order processing
3. Order filled/shipping order assigned

If there are any glitches, such as a delay in processing, a discovery that an out of stock conditions exists, etc., an exception will be generated.

When a system is first designed the developers try to trap as many exceptions as they can. When programming changes are required later, it usually has nothing to do with bugs in programming code, as those are caught and corrected early. It is generally because there are new exceptions (where human beings get involved in the process and make mistakes). It is also because there are new types of product offerings that didn't exist when the system was initially created.

Reprogramming is always more problematic than initial programming. This is because there are hundreds (sometimes thousands) of hooks into different tables, databases, and systems that need to be adjusted when changes are made in one place that have to be cascaded to other parts of the process. The programmer responsible for making the changes doesn't know what all those hooks are, and exceptions/mistakes occur when the system encounters a condition that wasn't adjusted.

One of the processes that retailers have to account for is removals from catalog. There are dozens of reasons why a retailer may wish to "de-list" a product. It could have been a limited run, special pricing, a supplier goes out of business, the supplier wasn't reliable, a new supplier had the item available at a better profit margin, etc. A one-size-fits-all method of handling this won't work, because there isn't a one-size-fits-all reason. That makes things even more complicated for a programmer, but that's why they make the big $$$.

If a supplier is determined to be unreliable, the supplier won't be used and that includes delisting all the products they sold. If an item is no longer made, the supplier is still used for other items, just not that item.

The point being that (regardless of why or how it is done) retailers are constantly changing their catalog offerings.

You can't delete records. Well, you can, technically, but you don't because that creates a "title not found" condition. If, for example, a supplier record is deleted from the supplier table, when I look through my order history at Amazon, the spot that was originally filled in with "Technical Publishers" will be blank (or filled in with the error message "title not found"). If a customer record is deleted, when Amazon attempts to reconcile their credits from the credit card companies, they won't be able to tie back to a specific customer. Because of this, records are not deleted. They're "closed." This can be as simple a step as changing a status flag from "O" ("Open") to "C" ("Closed").

If I asked Amazon to delete my account, they wouldn't actually delete it. They'd "close" it, because deleting it would create havoc throughout their system (as well as create havoc from an accounting standpoint, because all the history associated with my account would be lost, and that's a no-no from a bookkeeping/accounting standpoint).

Now some folks might get upset that their data isn't deleted, but that's just tough. Before computers came into the picture to track these things, companies kept ledgers of all this stuff. No one would have suggested that a company go through 15 years of ledgers and take scissors to their books of record. The fact that people don't make the logical leap from ledger to computer record is their stupid fault, not the fault of the retailer. Not only would a company not want to delete your record, in many cases (where book of record requirements exist) it could be unlawful to do so.

So Amazon got into the ebook business. Their systems were initially designed for the sale of tangible items. There was certainly a lot of reprogramming required to offer this new service. One of the main changes is that Amazon had to create a storage account, where all the items a customer has purchased can be stored. And this is where this (obviously) gets confusing for some people.

They didn't literally create a storage box for each customer, as we might buy a new physical hard-drive to store additional data. A literal storage device would mean that Amazon would store the same item over and over again, hundreds of times, in each customer's unique storage box. That would be redundant and unnecessary, and the physical storage requirements would be mind-boggling. What they created was a virtual (meaning, "not real") storage box, similar to an order transaction record. Amazon has one pointer to a copy of each electronic media they sell, each with a unique part number.  When customer A001 buys one, they create a transaction which is equivalent to an e-book storage table so it shows up in my storage box list. It is a virtual library of "my" stuff. The physical copy is stored in one location. The list of books in my storage box is an index (akin to a "link") to the file name and location of the item.

What I do not know for certain, but I would guess, is that Amazon doesn't have all the e-book files on their own servers. I would guess that they point to files on servers Amazon doesn't maintain themselves, as they have distributors who stock items for them (and I have some inside knowledge to validate my suspicion that they do this). What the record of each item would include would be the file name and the server location where it was stored. Whether the item was stored on Amazon's servers or on a supplier's server would be invisible to a customer, as customers are also unaware that their storage box is virtual, not literal.

A customer's Kindle is linked to their virtual storage box. When a customer buys a new item, a transaction is created that displays the item in the virtual storage box that, in turn, allows the item to be downloaded to the Kindle device. The customer can choose which items they want to have on their Kindle, up to the maximum storage of the device itself. This allows a customer to buy more items than the Kindle device can literally store, and can control which items are physically stored at any given time.

When a Kindle customer has their device radio on, the system will sync the list of items in their virtual storage with the list of items currently on the device. This is similar to doing a manual, physical inventory check every now and again.

To put this in perspective, let's say that you went to the library. You go to the card catalog. You find the book you want in the catalog and the Dewey Decimal system locator. You go to that section of the library but the book isn't there.

If you immediately assert that Ninjas broke into the library, knowing that you wanted to read that book, and took that book to a fire pit and burned it so you couldn't read it, might others think your conspiracy theory a bit daft (and you a bit scary), given that it could simply be that someone else had already checked the booked out of the library? The librarian could have put the book in the wrong place. The card for the book could have had the wrong identifier number typed on it. The library may have delisted the book, but forgot to take the card index out of the card file. Where human beings are involved mistakes will be made, most often, innocently. Yes, it could be that Ninjas did all that, but until we have evidence of that, Occam's Razor requires we go with the simplest and most common explanation first.

What happens when Amazon delists an e-book item because the supplier is found to have been in violation of copyright law, with respect to some or all of the titles they sell? Did Amazon Ninjas break into your house and purposely destroy an ebook or is some other, more reasonable explanation plausible?

Was the supplier record deleted or closed? Was the product number deleted, or closed, and what happens to the titles listed in the virtual storage on Amazon when that happens? Was the file deleted from Amazon's servers? Was the link to the supplier's server deleted from the e-book's record?

Regardless of the dozens of innocent technical glitches that could have caused this, the title was no longer available on Amazon's catalog; therefore, the item was no longer available in the Kindle virtual storage box. When a customer synced their device to their virtual storage, the item was no longer there. Amazon didn't, despite the protests of idiots everywhere, send Ninjas out to reach into each customer's Kindle and run some sort of delete/destroy routine. The item itself, or the link to the item or the item's server no longer existed, so it was no longer in the index of the Kindle device.

Amazon will have to reprogram their system so this doesn't happen again. They said that, and apologized for the glitch. They refunded the money for the items purchased.

Folks who think that Amazon virtually broke into their Kindle to delete files have no clue how databases work, what virtual storage boxes are, or what syncing means.

Amazon discovered what happens when you de-list an item, in a way that worked for tangible items, in a process that had not been programmed to handle it, and they're fixing it. Maybe Oswald did it, but until we have evidence of that, let's assume a programming glitch because those happen thousands and thousands of times every day: no conspiracy or grand-theft illusions required.

Please, if you do not understand the above, shut up. You're embarrassing yourself.

Peter Pan Syndrome

From Michael Goldfarb (The Weekly Standard Blogs, Obama Against the Odds, June 20, 2009):

According to Rozen, a very plugged-in lefty, says "the meeting did not go well," and she quotes one source saying that "It was the first time that President Obama as a senator, candidate, or president was not able to get almost anything or any movement using his personal power of persuasion." Obama asked the Saudis to make concessions to match the concessions he had demanded from the Israelis. But the Saudi King balked -- and "launched a tirade" that his underlings later apologized for. The New York Times has also reported that Obama was "frustrated" by his trip to Saudi Arabia and that he "failed to extract any meaningful gestures toward Israel to revive the peace process."

Mr. Goldfarb continues later with:

So Obama gets nowhere with the Saudis and squeezes the Israelis instead, hoping that in doing so he will, at some point, earn enough cred with the Arab street to allow Arab governments the "political space" to make real concessions to the peace process. But in the event, the Israelis are also thumbing their nose at the White House, publicly rejecting White House demands for a freeze on new construction in East Jerusalem. The White House has put both the Israelis and the Palestinians in an impossible position -- and even George Mitchell is "reported to want to leave his negotiator position at the end of 2009." It turns out that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not Northern Ireland.

It is not unusual for young people to think they can change the world. Their heads are full of ideas. Most of their ideas have been tried (and failed) in the past, but they do not know that. Their inexperience leads them to believe that the idea is all their own, and is something new.

There is nothing to do be done about it, really. Beating them into submission is not the solution either, as they also have not learned the humility and grace that comes with age. It is something that is learned gradually, if someone is capable of learning.

One of the many ways that this was dealt with in the past was for younger people to have very little say in important matters. Family fortunes were not passed to the next generation until the elders died, allowing their young and inexperienced heads to catch up and override their young and foolish hearts. Young adults who demonstrated that they were irresponsible could be disinherited (except the French and the Dutch, which explains a lot about their psychotic history), which served as a check of last resort.

Culturally speaking, Western society also ingrained in the young a requirement to respect one's elders/betters (often expressed in requirements to respect mother and father). This was not, despite 1960s era propaganda, a blind and unearned respect, but a deference to people who had more experience than you. Deference is too often thought of as subserviance today, when it is no such thing. Rather, it is patience.

One of the most common characteristics of the modern Left is this 1960s-holdover of lack of respect. If someone old says something, it must be wrong, they believe, just as an adolescent is sure that their parents are idiots. Even if it doesn't go to that extreme, it goes to another: that there are no failed ideas, just good ideas that weren't implemented properly.

It's the only way to explain the Left's incessant desire to babble on about the miracles of communism/socialism and implement it differently, despite all evidence that it is the dumbest idea a society can try (well, besides allowing wooden horses presented by enemies to be wheeled into the center of town).

I'm sure that many are aware of the common definition of insanity, where one repeats the same thing over and over, expecting a different outcome. In that sense, the modern Left is insane, but what temporarily excuses them from the definition (at least in their own minds) is that they are incapable of recognizing that they're repeating the same mistakes again and again because they keep insisting that there is no difference between a failed idea and a badly implemented good idea. They believe that if the outcome isn't as desired, it must be that the implementation was bad. What their swollen heads fail to grasp is that a good idea would have yielded some positive results, somewhere, if even by accident. Only a failed idea, a truly dreadful one, can be implemented repeatedly without any measurable good, but they can't see that.

You would think that the deaths of a hundred million people would be enough evidence that socialism and communism are bad things, but the Left is blinded to those realities. The not-as-disastrous-as-death consequences, such as defeatism and misery, are everywhere that socialism and communism has been tried, too.

The truth has to be that they just don't see it, or refuse to see it, still stuck with the puffed heads of their youthful ignorance and vigor to fix the world.

The world cannot be fixed, because, it isn't broken. Individual lives may be lifted. New medicines may be invented to cure some of the sick, clean water can be brought to villages to quench the thirsty, and better agriculture and transportation can sate the hungry, but the big things, war, pestilence, etc., are just as much a part of the human condition as are love and charity. They exist because we humans are a 3-dimensional lot, because we are not all the same and because perfection/peace is boring, when compared to the vane idea that we can make things better, have more, do more, and make a difference in the world. If we truly believed that the world was a wonderful place, then there wouldn't be anything for the youth to do. There would be nothing to fix, nothing to improve upon, no mountains left unclimbed or frontiers to open. Youth with no lofty ambition turn to war, and make it lofty (as the terrorists have done) if for no other reason than to relieve their boredom and their irrelevance. Admitting one's irrelevance is part of the definition of wisdom, and they don't have any.

None of this is terribly remarkable or unusual. Men have been doing all of it for all of recorded history--again and again, ad infinitum.

Most people grow up. They soon set aside childish things and childish thoughts and childishness is left to the youth, of which they are no longer among the membership. They get on with humble and productive lives, caring for their families, and living a decent life so their grandchildren will have a model by which to direct their own lives.

Some people, however, never grow up. They never recognize their own limitations, the limitations of others, or turn inward for peace and satisfaction; rather, they are stuck in a kind of purgatory of youth, akin to a Peter Pan Syndrome, refusing to grow up.

There are certainly other explanations for why Obama would believe that he would be able to make peace in the Middle East, where no one, in 10,000 years of history, was able to do so before.

So Obama requires more of the Jews than he does of anyone else, blames them when things do not go as he wants, or uses them as a scapegoat/pawn for his own failed ideas.... nope, nosiree, that's never happened before.

Obama must have some ideologue-equivalent of a Peter Pan syndrome... or he's just an idiot that another bunch of idiots decided to elect as the leader of the free world. The youth are mainly responsible, as they are for most stupid things society tries and fails to achieve. The only difference throughout history is the degree of stupid and deadly mistakes... and this one is a doozy.

And another thing (while I'm on the subject of repeated mistakes)... will someone (please) put a plaque at the entrance of every Jewish temple that reads:

The Left is Not Your Friend.
They will lie to you,
as they always have and always will.

License

The blogosphere is full of commentary on the Amazon deletion of books on the Kindle. I do not remember where I saw it, but someone had some excellent advice: Download all purchases to your computer, copy them to the Kindle via USB (managing the storage yourself), and leave the radio on the Kindle turned off.  That prevents syncing and all downloads stored on a computer are protected (and can be backed up).

That seems like a low tech, simple solution to a not-so-complex situation.

I really don't understand why there's been so much brouhaha over the deletion. The word "sync" is clearly misunderstood by many people.

There is also much confusion over the difference between buying a license to use versus the purchase of a tangible item.  Most of the grumbling about this seems to come from people who don't see any reason to own a book reading device, preferring the tactile experience of printed book. These are people who must not travel much (especially overseas), where it is difficult to carry a dozen or more books to enjoy on vacation. These non-travelers and technical-phobic are not the target market for a Kindle (or related device) so their commentary is superfluous.

Poor?

From The Associated Press (My Way News, My Way News - A look at the House Democrats' health bill, July 15, 2009):

SUBSIDIES: Individuals and families with annual income up to 400 percent of poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) would get sliding-scale subsidies to help them buy coverage. The subsidies would begin in 2013.

I assume that the $88,000 is adjusted gross income, not gross income.  If so, I'm poor and would get a subsidy.

I knew times were tough for us, but I had no idea we needed government handouts. As the post below indicates, refusing these handouts would come with a penalty.

Socialized Medicine Mandate

From Erica Werner (My Way News, House bill would make health care a right, July 15, 2009)

The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages, with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.

[Emphasis mine.]

An offer with a penalty is not an offer.  It is a mandate and a tax increase.

No one has a right to health care anymore than they have a right to food or clothing. They have to pay for it.

Imagine if the government decided that all rights were obligatory, as they are designing the socialized medicine plan.  That would mean that anyone who didn't buy a reasonably-priced gun would pay a penalty or anyone who didn't carry a gun would be fined.

Inherent in the definition of rights is the choice not to exercise it. You have a right to speak truth and petition your government, but no obligation to do so.  No one in their right mind would apply a penalty if you didn't write your representatives X number of times per month.

This isn't a right at all and framing it that way is pure propaganda.

Legacies that Matter

In a column by John McCormack (Weekly Standard, Thank You, America, July 13, 2009), we find an article by Jabr Al Jabouri, Al-Bayyna Al-Jadida [Baghdad], translated into English.

I'm not usually prone to spoilers, but Mr. Al Jabourbi's article ends with:

After six years of liberation, we now know who our friend is and who our foe is. We should not give a chance to those idiots who claim that Iraq is part of the Arab Nation. These idiots should understand that Iraq is part the federal, free and democratic world.

It would be daft to suggest that I agreed with everything President Bush did during his eight years in office, but I never doubted his incredible wisdom, nor wavered in my support, with respect to the "Bush Doctrine," especially when it applied to Iraq.

What happens in Iraq now will be up to the Iraqis themselves, but no one, and certainly not historians, will ever doubt that Iraqis were part of the free and democratic world.

In keeping with this blog's theme that there is nothing new under the sun, the situation in Iraq today reminds me of the interchange between Benjamin Franklin and Mrs. Powel at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787:

Mrs. Powel:
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

Benjamin Franklin:
"A republic, if you can keep it."

What the future holds for Iraq is uncertain, but what they have today is a freedom. The future doesn't diminish the significance of the past, nor the noble and courageous actions of President Bush and the military who gave Iraqis a chance to keep it.

Hmmm

Bill Kristol is generally right, so his recent article leaves me in a state of hmmm (Washington Post, PostPartisan - Does Sotomayor Matter Politically?, July 13, 2009):

Even the sturm und drang of the Bork hearings in 1987 and Thomas in 1991 had no clear effect on the politics of the day or the subsequent year’s elections. And there doesn’t look to be much prospect of much drama over Sotomayor. It’s possible, of course, that the Hispanic angle will be politically salient on behalf of Democrats -- though Republicans will be polite in their opposition, so I’m doubtful. It’s also possible, on the other hand, that the appearance of identity politics could hurt the Democrats -- though that seems to me to be unlikely too.

I can't help but think that Mr. Kristol and I differ on what "matters" means.

Republicans have long memories and democrats are not short on distortion, so I disagree with Mr. Kristol's analysis.  If Mr. Kristol thinks that these things don't matter because they don't cause people to run into the streets with torches and pitchforks, then he's correct.  If, however, Mr. Kristol thinks that people don't remember the importance of Supreme Court and the slender majority conservatives have with respect to important cases such as Heller, he'd be wrong.

The Court has been the battleground for decades and those of us who pay attention to politics know this.  It is fear that Republicans will stack the court to overturn Roe v Wade that keeps organizations like NOW and Planned Parenthood flush with donations, and Democratic candidates don't hesitate to pull out the "protect abortion" canard when they're trailing in the polls.  On the Right side, we remember Heller and we will remember how Sotomayor decided the case for the fireman denied advancement.

It may be other hot issues that pervade the nightly news during election season, and interest the talking heads, but the rest of us remember these things, and they influence our behavior greatly.

The Right Kind of Elitism

From Heather Mac Donald (Secular Right, Right-wing identity politics, July 10, 2009):

Hanson is absolutely right that liberals and the left should expose themselves to the perils of entrepreneurship. But their own blindness to the economic and social values that undergird American prosperity and stability is no excuse for conservative indifference to the values of achievement, learning, and eloquence that we should expect from our leaders.

This blog's purpose is to document the decline of America's contribution as the last stand of Western Civilization. In centuries future (if a civilized people emerge from the ashes), people will wonder what happened. The above is what happened.

It didn't happen over night. It took decades for the educational establishment to be taken over by socialists, fascists, and communists to indoctrinate the youth into believing a completely contrary definition of the word and principles of liberal. But it wasn't just the word that was redefined. It was the protection of the baton of Western Civilization:

• The moral duties and responsibilities of individuals and the importance of character, dignity and personal honor.


• The lessons of over 10,000 years of history.


• The difference between the role of society and the role of government.


• The importance of education to improve one's ability to use reason and to immediately recognize propaganda and failed ideas.

It is the last bullet that Dr. Mac Donald addressed most specifically in her post.

We hear a great deal about elitism, having to do with our elected representatives' desires to lord over us, to use their power to treat us all like children, ignoring the fact that they exist to serve us, not to control us. This definition of elitism (from Dictionary.com) is the first definition:

1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being ruled by an elite. It depends on how you define and what you include as "an elite."

Lumped into the elitist bath are the few remaining intellectuals who were educated in such a way as to provide society with wise advice and counsel. This is more akin to the second definition of elitism:

2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

The second definition involves belonging to a select group, but in America it isn't selection by birth; rather, it is selection based on merit, most commonly one of education, where there is a requirement to study and achieve in order to be invited into the club. It is a merit based club, not a birthright based club.

"The reward of esteem, respect and gratitude [is] due to those who devote their time and efforts to render the youths of every successive age fit governors for the next."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1810

All Americans are not required to do the heavy lifting with regard to understanding all of history's lessons (nor are all Americans capable of doing so), but because there has always existed a small, select group of intellectuals (synonymous with "Men of Letters") who would warn us if we were walking too closely to the edge of the slippery slope, we were protected. Our culture used to recognize and respect them for the benefits they provided to all of us. But all intellectuals, even those of the right kind, are being tarnished by those of the wrong kind, and are being relegated to the American equivalent of Siberia: irrelevance.

"The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1779

Far too many on the right side of politics have decided to paint all intellectuals with the broad brush of manipulators and indoctrinators, and impugning not just the purpose and character of all, but their importance. Education has always been the key to conservative success and the foundation of America's success.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1816

Educationally-based (i.e., learned) elitism has gotten a bad wrap. There is a good kind and bad kind. But there exists today an idea that one can be educated too much. We know that one can be indoctrinated instead of educated, but if we destroy the latter to reform the former, we will have accomplished what the Left has been desiring to do for decades: keep our people ignorant, and therefore unprotected, without the ability to recognize the signs of tyranny and what to do to address it.

It's wrong to suggest that a people who have learned only memes and bumper sticker slogans of liberty can defend it. An ignorant populist revolt ends up with a French style revolution where they decapitate everyone who they take a dislike to. If people are incapable of understanding all that liberty requires, the respect of order and law primarily, then they must have the ability to take advice and learn from others, in the old fashioned sense of respecting one's elders or betters. But, we have a movement in this country, a large movement, who believes that all educated people are power hungry and disrespectful of the common, ordinary man.

This type of movement has appeared many times and rather than educating their youth, they eat them. Without a firm commitment to understanding what has come before, we are doomed to repeat history's mistakes.

One of the mistakes that is woven throughout history is the concept of populism, but it is not the populism that appeals to the common man's moral nature or recognizes the rights of every person. When populism is perverted it appeals to man's selfish nature, where one man is pitted against another in a kind of class warfare. Rather than relying on principles or ideas that have been tested, populism offers what feels good rather than what is good, and what temporarily satisfies rather that what works long term. Populism placates. It delivers what people want to hear rather than the truth.

In many cases, populism relies on a scapegoat. With Germany it was the Jews and intellectuals. In Bolshevik Russia it was the aristocracy pitted against the poor or working class. In the Middle East (and elsewhere throughout the world today) it is the ignorant, radical Muslim pitted against moderates (or Western societies).

In nearly all of these scenarios, the "oppressed" are told how noble, special, important or brilliant they are and how they are "due" what others have, simply by existing. The "oppressed" are told they are entitled to the tangible and intangible property of others by birthright (not by hard work or fortitude). It is a kind of populist style of monarchy, i.e., the Divine Right of Everyone In Their Group, regardless of effort or achievement.

In American populism, the enemy of the oppressed common man is the educated, often demonstrated by how well one speaks; therefore, how well one doesn't speak is seen as a badge of honor.

Eloquence is only one demonstrative of a disciplined and educated mind, but the lack of it is often a clear indicator that both are missing. Some people, far too many, don't care about that, to the extreme of loathing it. It is a learned skill and the skill itself should have some recognized value, but it isn't everything.

Eloquence is something we should care about, but what is more important is erudition, for it will be our undoing if we devalue its importance.

Now many people confuse eloquence and erudition, and while sometimes these skills exist in the same person, they don't always. No one, for example, would doubt the erudition of Stephen Hawking, but his eloquence is demonstrated in his writing. Hawking's handicap prevents him from delivering a passionate speech. Similarly, George Bush was incapable of pronouncing the word nuclear, and was wanting with regard to his public speaking, but he was an educated man.

Thomas Jefferson, a man whose erudition is beyond dispute (and was also an eloquent writer), was a terrible speech maker. He had a high-pitched voice and was thought to have a small speech impediment. In Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan we had both erudition and eloquence.

Far too many have come to associate eloquence with the bad kind of elitism, acquiring the horrid trait of Britons in believing that anyone who speaks properly, and wasn't born into it, is putting on airs.

Americans have swallowed the populist appeals of nefarious politicians and are being bribed, as Romans were with bread and circuses, as Germans were with appeals of vanity, and Islamic fundamentalists are with 70 virgins or the promise of an Islamic Caliphate.

Americans who have come to believe that education isn't important, and that politicians who speak in simplistic tones to demonstrate that they are "one of us" are being duped, and will soon discover that they have chosen badly. Principles matter and one of the enduring principles is that an educated and disciplined mind is more valuable than a snake oil salesman's ability to con a crowd into buying their nonsense.

The trick is in recognizing the difference between eloquence and a con artist, but it requires education to recognize the difference, and if that is missing, it requires respect and trust of an educated elite.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

- H. L. Mencken

Preproduction of Blackhawk Down Sequel

From Mackenzie Eaglen (Heritage Foundation, Fixing the Fighter Gap Facing the U.S. Navy, Air Force, and Air National Guard, July 10, 2009):

The President's budget request continues the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program but would end production of the F-22A Raptor at 186 fighters while retiring 250 legacy fighters. These changes will result in what is essentially a deficit between the services' fighter aircraft inventories and their operational requirements based on emerging and possible air threats to U.S. security.

The Constitution is quite specific with regard to the President's responsibilities.  The primary (and some would say only) responsibility is the defense of the nation. Democrats have always raided the defense budget to pay for social entitlement programs.  Let's hope that a Republican gets into the White House in 2012, if for no other reason than to close this air defense gap before it becomes a hole so cavernous it will take decades to fill.

During the initial years of the war in Iraq, it was the Democrats who screamed about our military not having sufficient equipment to fight the war.  Yet it was Clinton who decided not to have old-fashioned equiment like armored tanks.  We see again that the Democrats have no hesitation to put the lives of our soldiers (and our battlefield success and defense of our nation) at risk.

Questions for Sonia Sotomayor

Deborah O'Malley and Robert Alt provide Key Questions for Sonia Sotomayor (Heritage Foundation, July 10, 2009).

We can hope they're asked, but more importantly that Americans listen to and react appropriately to the answers.

The Cap and Trade Experience

Ben Lieberman (Heritage Foundation, The European Experience with Cap and Trade, July 10, 2009) gave testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate. In his testimony we find all the data necessary to accurately describe any Cap and Trade proposal in the U.S. an unproductive waste of our time and money, with disastrous effect on our economy:

To the limited extent European nations have reduced emissions below business-as-usual levels, it has hurt their economies. Almost every Western European nation has had higher unemployment and energy costs than America, and a weaker overall economy, even as emissions were still rising. Far from seeing evidence of the bright new green economy some are now promising, we are seeing that cap and trade has contributed to the harm. For example, Spain has been cited repeatedly as the example of a successful clean energy economy and source of green jobs, but it is rarely mentioned that Spain currently has 18 percent unemployment.

RTWT.

Funny but Not

From Charles Krauthammer (Townhall.com, Plumage - But At a Price, July 10, 2009):

Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs. That a man of Obama's intelligence can believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension. There is not a shred of evidence that cuts by the great powers -- the INF treaty, START I, the Treaty of Moscow (2002) -- induced the curtailment of anyone's programs. Moammar Gaddafi gave up his nukes the week we pulled Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole. No treaty involved. The very notion that Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will suddenly abjure nukes because of yet another U.S.-Russian treaty is comical.

Just about everything Obama does is comical, and we'd be laughing about it, if the stakes (and costs) weren't so high.  Either Obama really is as dumb as he appears to be, or he thinks we are.

Giggle of the Day

The Giggle of the Day comes from the usually astute, but sometimes blinded Kevin Baker (The Smallest Minority, Quote of the Day, July 8, 2009) from a quote from John Taylor Gatto:

America struggled down the libertarian road of Locke...

Locke was a Libertarian as Obama is a Constitutional Constructionist.

Locke may have said a few things that were later picked up by libertarians (out of context), but to assert that Locke is in anyway "libertarian" requires that you disregard just about everything else he wrote, such as (from Second Treatise of Government):

Sect. 5. This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity.

Sect. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it.

Sec. 89.   Where-ever therefore any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit every one his executive power of the law of nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a political, or civil society.  And this is done, where-ever any number of men, in the state of nature, enter into society to make one people, one body politic, under one supreme government; or else when any one joins himself to, and incorporates with any government already made: for hereby he authorizes the society, or which is all one, the legislative thereof, to make laws for him, as the public good of the society shall require; to the execution whereof, his own assistance (as to his own decrees) is due.   And this puts men out of a state of nature into that of a common-wealth, by setting up a judge on earth, with authority to determine all the controversies, and redress the injuries that may happen to any member of the commonwealth; which judge is the legislative, or magistrates appointed by it.   And where-ever there are any number of men, however associated, that have no such decisive power to appeal to, there they are still in the state of nature.

Sec. 95.   MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.   The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it.   This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature.   When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.

Sec. 97. And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation, to every one of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one society, would signify nothing, and be no compact, if he be left free, and under no other ties than he was in before in the state of nature. For what appearance would there be of any compact? what new engagement if he were no farther tied by any decrees of the society, than he himself thought fit, and did actually consent to? This would be still as great a liberty, as he himself had before his compact, or any one else in the state of nature hath, who may submit himself, and consent to any acts of it if he thinks fit.

[Emphasis mine.]

John Taylor Gatto is performing a wonderful role (and doing a bang-up job) as a layman's documenter of the communist conspiracy and the Useful Idiots' participation in the destruction of American education, but when it comes to understanding and labeling the philosophy of men like John Locke, he ought not give up his day job.

Moethy Laynthon

Moe Lane reminds that no one expects the Spanish Inquisition minds an excuse for a Monty Python reference (Moe Lane, And now the President is reminding Russians about Alaska, July 8, 2009):

And I actively dread thinking about what the current President[Obama] is going to say, the next time that he visits Japan.

The above reminded me of:

Whatever you do, don't mention the war.  I did it once, but I think I got away with it.

- Basil Faulty (John Cleese), Faulty Towers

(Yes, I know that it wasn't Monty Python.  It was John Cleese in Faulty Towers, but all former members of Monty Phython shall be cermoniously referred to by the original group name, regardless of what they did or do later.)

The Weekly Standard

A nice news roundup from Mary Katharine Ham from The Weekly Standard: The Daily Grind.

Trolls on the Flip Side

Dan Riehl (Riehl World View) has a few excellent posts on why Sarah Palin's decision to step down as Governor of Alaska is a sign of weakness including Why It's Time To Move Beyond Sarah Palin and Fund On Palin, July 7, 2009.  But you would think that Mr. Riehl had brutally murdered kittens by the ferocity of some of the comments on his posts.

During the election last year, bloggers who criticized Obama often found themselves being harassed by one or more from a legion of trolls, attacking the messenger of such posts. In few instances the commenters weren't trolls, and had substantive arguments (the definition of someone who isn't a troll), all in all, however, these things got nasty.

I think Mr. Riehl, despite a near-decade long establishment of conservative creds and substantive writing, has found himself the recipient of the Right side's equivalent... by being critical of Sarah Palin.

Mr. Riehl has not attacked Palin's family. He's posted his thoughtful and fact-based opinions about Palin's inferiority as a presidential candidate for 2012 (while still leaving open election wins in the longer term).

I had a troll-like comment on one of my posts criticizing Palin.

While I do not think that the trolls on the Right are an organized band of paid commenters (as they often were when they attacked people who criticized Obama), it is just as inappropriate.

Most of us who watched the blogosphere last year became familiar with "Paul-bots", who, like the paid Obama-supporting trolls, seemed to spend their days scouring the Internet, looking for anyone who had the audacity to question Ron Paul's fitness for office or doubt his sure victory.  The comments became all too familiar, as the substance of their comments seemed to come from some sort of "Comment Response Playbook."  These commenters seldom provided original refutations (with counter evidence).  They just regurgitated their candidate's talking points and used pejoratives to attack the messengers.

I don't think the Paul-bots knew they sounded so ridiculous, as most were merely simpletons who had swallowed the Paul Kool-Aid (or more accurately Kook-Aid).  Most appeared to be young (in their 20s) and had no previous election-participation experience (and, therefore, no historical mindedness when it came to elections). In that sense, they were cute (and I don't mean that to be disparaging).  They were innocent and invigorated, and if it was in Ron Paul where they found the need and desire to participate politically, that isn't a bad thing (if it means that their participation will be a life-long one, and not a flash in the pan).  They found the "community" they were a part of giving them a sense of belonging and purpose, something they seemed to be longing for.

That said, that sense of belonging and "higher purpose" is a dangerous thing.  It is cult-like behavior, as they clustered like seals against a common enemy (the enemy being anyone who didn't share their collective views about Ron Paul).  An individual supporting Ron Paul was not a bad thing at all, but an individual who sets aside reason and a willingness to hear thoughtful opinions and criticism, is no longer thinking like an individual.  They've become a cult member.

While I wouldn't put the Paul-bots in the same camp as those who, in the 1930s, found themselves similarly carried away by the charismatic Adolf Hitler, the behavior was the same, even if the candidates weren't comparable from an evil-quotient perspective.

Paul-bots were certain that their hero was going to defy Washington pundit projections, and sweep the election.  Anyone who said otherwise "would soon find out" just how wrong they were.

With the above, my purpose is to provide examples and to illustrate just how passionate people can be, while still being wrong.  The Internet can exacerbate these things, giving someone a sense of a large numbers of supporters (but they forget that the Internet is a dipstick measurement and the electorate is vast). Finding "thousands" of people with similar views on the Internet does not translate into "millions" of voters for your side. Passion can be a good thing, but it can quickly dissolve into fanaticism, justifying (to themselves) a kind of moral conviction to behave badly.

This should be a lesson for all who wish to go on the attack when anyone on the Right shares an negative opinion on Mrs. Palin's credibility as a candidate in 2012.  More accurately, a reminder to bloggers who find themselves on the receiving end of swarm-like personal attacks.

Cultism and fervor for one's political Messiah will morph into attack of anyone who doesn't join in the Kool-Aid drinking, regardless of the ideological aisle.

Attacks of the messenger are always bad form and they become counterproductive.  If a candidate, regardless of how substantive and qualified they may be, has cult-like followers who behave badly and loudly, their bad behavior reflects negatively on the candidate.

As I said above, comments, in order not to be considered troll-like, must be substantive and not contain personal attacks.  The argument can be fierce, but the focus must be on the argument itself, not personal attacks on the individual who expressed an opinion.

This is going to get ugly, as Mr. Riehl has discovered.  Sarah Palin is the standard-bearer for a group of Americans who believe they have been marginalized (and victimized).  Not all Americans support Sarah Palin for those reasons, but many do, and the decent folks are going to be out-shouted by the Sarah cult members. Criticizing their hero will result in all kinds of improper and rude behavior.

Notzofast

From Doug Bandow (Cato @ Liberty, Uwe Reinhardt on Health Care Rationing, July 6, 2009):

Health care analyst Uwe Reinhardt takes on critics of the Obama administration effort to “reform” health care, pointing out that the free market is a form of rationing.  He adds:

As I read it, the main thrust of the health care reforms espoused by President Obama and his allies in Congress is first of all to reduce rationing on the basis of price and ability to pay in our health system.
An important allied goal is to seek greater value for the dollar in health care, through comparative effectiveness analysis and payment reform. As I reported in an earlier post on this blog, even the Business Roundtable, once a staunch defender of the American health system, now laments that relative to citizens in other developed countries, Americans receive an estimated 23 percent less value than they should, given our high health care spending.

To suggest that the main goal of the health reform efforts is to cram rationing down the throat of hapless, nonelite Americans reflects either woeful ignorance or of utter cynicism. Take your pick.

Fair ’nuff.  In a world of infinite wants but finite resources, some form of “rationing” is inevitable.

I understand Mr. Dandow's decision to concede the point, so he can get on to his purpose of framing the argument to one of liberty rather than cost.  The problem is that the economic/cost point remains out there, and it should be thoroughly refuted, because it is a bunch of bunk.

It is easy to claim that another country's socialized medicine programs have saved their country money (or that they "spend less" than we do), when the U.S. has done all the heavy lifting with respect to R&D.  What happens to their costs when we stop doing that?  It is also possible to reduce your costs when the governments of those countries buy our medicines (from our drug companies) at bulk pricing, they ignore our patents, or refuse to allow newer, life saving medicines to be used.

But that's not the main problem with the study.

The fact remains that other countries in the world don't provide the same services we do.  They're perfectly happy to allow people to wait 6 months for an MRI, or to allow patients to die while they wait for needed surgeries.

Of course their medical costs are going to be less.  If you perform fewer surgeries and have more sick patients die, it is going to be a lot cheaper to deliver health care. Actually treating patients is expensive.  Ignoring them is cheap!

From Scott Atlas (National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), 10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care, March 2009):

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government rôle in health care. Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America's health care system should be considered.

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

• Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).


• Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.


• More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).


• Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."[5]Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9]

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]

Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11] [See the table.] The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12]

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13] The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16] [See the table.]

By all means, exercise the right to focus on the liberty argument if you want to, but do not be so fast to allow bogus data to remain unchallenged.