TODD HENDERSON: Occupy Wall Street and the Myth of the 99%. “The ‘Occupy’ movement will never succeed against its ‘one percent’ adversaries until it begins to understand that there is not a single one percent, but rather many. An entire field of economics, known as ‘public choice,’ studies how small, concentrated groups with similar interests generally prevail politically against larger groups of diffused interests. And, in our society, these concentrated interests – like unions, defense contractors, religious groups, farmers , etc. – are not necessarily part of the ‘one percent’ Occupy talks about, and several have even joined or co-opted the Movement. But they are part of the broader one-percent problem. . . . Although it may seem far-fetched at first glance, if Occupy found common ground with the Tea Party or the sentiments behind it, much could be done politically. After all, there are many 99 percents. But so far, Occupy has absorbed or been co-opted by various one percents. For example, in education policy, teachers are the one percent, while students and parents are the 99 percent. But it is generally the power of the concentrated teachers’ unions that drives decisions about education spending and policy. The fact that teachers unions support Occupy undermines its power. A true movement of the 99 percents would be on the side of students, not teachers.”
Archive for 2011
December 13, 2011
BEYOND “BLAME BUSH:” Obama Adds Bill Clinton To List of Those to Blame for Lousy Economy.
All Obama’s trying to do here is give himself a bigger excuse for the fact that his own policies have completely failed. After all, how can anyone expect him to produce strong growth after decades of economic mismanagement?
“I’ve always believed that this was a long-term project,” Obama told CBS’s Steve Kroft, and that it “was gonna take more than a year. It was gonna take more than two years.”
The problem is that, once upon a time, Obama was saying pretty much the exact opposite. Examples:
• On Feb. 2, 2009, Obama told the “Today Show” that “a year from now I think people are gonna see that we’re starting to make some progress,” and that “if I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
On Feb. 12, 2009, he predicted that his $830 billion stimulus would “ignite spending by businesses and consumers” and unleash “a new wave of innovation, activity and construction … all across America.”
• On Feb. 26, 2009, Obama’s first budget projected that by 2011 the economy would be cooking ahead at 4% real GDP growth, with unemployment at 7.1% and falling fast.
• On Feb. 7, 2010, he said “we are seeing the corner turn and the economy growing again.”
• On June 4, 2010, Obama claimed the “economy is getting stronger by the day” and later that month said the recovery was “well under way.”
It was only when the agonizingly slow pace of the recovery became obvious to everyone that Obama started pleading for patience and looking for someone or something else to blame.
President It’s-not-my-fault!
FROM CONGRESS: Internet piracy bill: A free speech ‘kill switch.’ How about killing the careers of the sponsors?
JOHN GIBSON CALL YOUR OFFICE: Capitulation: Gov. Deval Patrick Agrees That It’s A Christmas Tree. “Gov. Deval Patrick capitulated over the controversy surrounding today’s tree lighting ceremony in the State House agreeing it’s not a ‘holiday tree’ but a Christmas tree. . . . Yesterday, Patrick was following where Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee led — into the deep, dark woods of political correctness, sending out invitations to today’s ‘holiday tree’ lighting ceremony, even as he issued invites to a Hanukkah menorah lighting next week.”
ROGER SIMON: Explaining Newt. “Sure Gingrich has an idea a minute, many of which are bad, but at least he has ideas. At least he is thinking. And — guess what — he says what he thinks. Politicians aren’t supposed to do that. But Gingrich reminds me more of a Steve Jobs or a Richard Branson than he does of a politician, and that is a good thing because politicians these days are the kind of people that make me want to bang my forehead against the desk.”
KINDLE FIRE UPDATE: So I’ve used mine to read several novels, currently including Vernor Vinge’s Children of the Sky, and I still like it. It’s easy to carry around and easy to read. I do prefer the double-page display you can get on the iPad, but the price you pay for that is that the iPad is twice as big, and costs more than twice as much. Tradeoffs. Basically, think of the Fire as a Kindle-with-benefits, rather than a junior iPad.
The Vinge book is good, by the way.
UPDATE: A reader sends this negative review from the NYT. I have to say, the power button is a nonissue to me, I don’t care about the privacy part, and the touchscreen works okay for me — but I have a surprisingly delicate touch given that I have very large hands. I agree that the web-browing is kinda slow, as I mentioned in my first review, but I almost never use it for that. As I say, it’s a Kindle with benefits, not an iPad replacement.
ANOTHER UPDATE: On the privacy front, another reader emails:
The NYT is wrong. You can configure the device with a password. I’ve done so, and need to enter the password to use the device.
But of course it’s the NYT, so it’s hardly surprising… Perhaps there will be a correction.
(I’d send you a screen shot, but I left mine at home today. Here are the instructions on how to do it.)
Thanks!
REP. DENNIS CARDOZA (D-CA): Obama Might Make A Better Professor Than President. “Let me be clear, I’m not trying to disparage professors.”
Also: “President Obama projected an arrogant ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’ demeanor that alienated many potential allies.” Actually, good professors don’t generally do that.
UPDATE: Reader Jerrold Clear writes: “Glenn, he said a better professor than a President, not a GOOD professor. A better Professor may end up being the worst at the university. Still better than he was a President.” Heh.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Alan Hegi writes:
It hit me this morning when I was reading National Review Online after reading your blog. NRO had an article about Newt Gingrich as a professor after he left the House in the 90’s. The author had interviewed several of his former students to get their take on his professorial abilities.
Did I miss similar stories about Obama? That was such a huge part of his “narrative” during the last election — Obama the learned constitutional law professor at the prestigious University of Chicago. But I don’t recall seeing a single story where his former students were interviewed about what sort of professor he was. Was he a good teacher? Did he know his subject? Was he approachable? Surely there are some Chicago Law alums who would be willing to discuss this. I’m not looking for a “gotcha” moment, either; I genuinely want to know. But this seems to be another illustration of how the media unquestioningly accepted the Obama campaign’s “narrative” when it would have been relatively easy (and basic journalism) to check it out.
Hmm. Good question. It would be particularly interesting if people found students who weren’t brought forward by the Obama campaign. But I guess they were too busy going through dumpsters in Wasilla.
STATE DEPARTMENT IN TALKS TO STIFLE FREE SPEECH. “The State Department began a three-day, closed-door meeting Monday to talk about U.S. free speech rules with representatives from numerous Islamic governments that have lobbied for 12 years to end U.S. citizens’ ability to speak freely about Islam’s history and obligations.”
LEGAL EDUCATION UPDATE: University of Texas Chancellor Orders Review of Use of Foundation Funds to Pay 19 Law Faculty Over $300,000. Clearly, I’m teaching at the wrong UT, salary-wise.
UPDATE: Reader Luke Pingel emails:
Glenn – As a long-time reader and occasional e-mailer who generally gets the “gist” of your links, I have to say the link to the pay scandal at UT Austin needs clarification.
There are two issues at UT Austin. One is a genuine scandal, the other – to me anyways – demonstrates a genuinely healthy university with a stellar group of law professors. The “forgiveable” loans are a real problem. Something stinks there and the whole thing needs to be investigated and someone should be fired and/or prosecuted.
But the second item about a list of law professors who make more than $300K is absolutely NOT a scandal. The reason I write is because I went to a second tier law school. In my 2L year one of the professors on that list was a visiting professor at my school. In a very law-geek kind of way I knew I had to take his class precisely because he was from UT Austin. I was sick and tired of the second rate ideas from the second rate (or lower) professors from my law school and I wanted to take a class from the best of the best. I was not disappointed.
Richard Markovits is the best professor I have ever had the pleasure of learning from, period. He was brilliant and engaging, iconoclastic, intellectually curious, rigorous and absolutely uninterested in ideological fluff. I left his class every day energized and excited about law. For students who were genuinely interested in learning Constitutional Law without all of the politically-correct garbage that was (and still is) taught at my law school, Professor Markovits was a gift. For one class of one semester we had the pleasure of taking a class from a professor who taught his class as if we were all sitting in a top 10 law school. It is an experience I will always treasure. Markovits is easily worth twice what they pay him and the students at UT Austin are lucky to have him. So, if it takes $600K to keep him, they should pay it. And if Professor Markovits is any indication of the caliber of the professors on that list, then good for UT Austin.
You are welcome to use my name, if you post this.
Glad to hear it.
THAT SHOULD BE “THE INCREASINGLY UNPOPULAR HEALTH CARE LAW:” 55% Favor Repeal of ObamaCare; Just 35% Want It To Stay.
MORE ON CRYSTAL COX FROM JOHN DVORAK: The outrageous verdict in Crystal Cox’s case argues that bloggers are not journalists.
The judge, recent Obama appointee Marco Hernandez, asserted that as a blogger with no other credentials, she was not a journalist and was entitled to no protection.
He said, “Although the defendant is a self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ and defines herself as ‘media,’ the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law in the first instance.”
Apparently, there are now new qualifications for journalists. So who decides these qualifications? Hernandez? Where did he get this from? I’ve never seen a laundry list in the U.S. that precludes bloggers. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights, to wit: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In this instance, the concept of the “press” means any dissemination of information through a communications medium. In the past, this would be a flyer, pamphlet, or newspaper. Now, it includes TV, radio, magazines, PDF files, and blogs. Just because the media have modernized, it does not suddenly mean that the rules have changed.
More importantly, when we look at journalists’ rights, there are no admissions whatsoever. You do not need a license—like you do in most South American countries, for example—to be a journalist. I’m not sure where Hernandez got his ideas from, but it seems someone failed to emphasize the Constitution.
By his definition, all Cox has to do is publish a pamphlet or write a book to be a journalist. The defining difference between a pamphleteer and a blogger is, frankly, beyond my grasp. . . . Hopefully this un-American precedent will be reversed shortly. Meanwhile, the public should be outraged. Furthermore, for years, many writers have advocated for the idea that the Bill of Rights is outdated in the modern era and that journalists per se should be regulated. These people should be strongly rebuked. If we do not protect our rights, we lose them.
Read the whole thing. Especially if you’re Marco Hernandez.
UPDATE: Reader Henry Vanderbilt writes:
The laundry list in question comes from the Oregon journalist shield law definition of “journalist”. It could be argued Judge Hernandez is commendably restricting himself to ruling on the letter of the law involved, leaving the Oregon legislature to correct any resulting injustice.
Of course, the laundry list he cites is preceded by “includes, but is not limited to” (http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/foi/2011/12/08/judge-oregon-shield-law-doesnt-cover-blogger-in-defamation-suit/) so we’re back to a judge with discretion to consider bloggers to be journalists for source-shielding purposes choosing not to. Cox says she plans to appeal. Any thoughts on the odds for a more sensible result, Professor?
I think her prospects are poor if she continues to represent herself. I disapprove of journalist shield laws in general, but I think that if they exist they should be based on whether you’re doing journalism, not who your paycheck (if any) comes from. Members of the nomeklatura, of course, take a different view.
HOW’S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? (CONT’D); Gallup: In U.S., Fear of Big Government at Near-Record Level. With reason.
December 12, 2011
CAMERAS: Toren Smith recently bought a Panasonic Lumix LX-5 and comments: “Just a quick note to say I’m completely happy with the camera–it does exactly what I need. My wife has a Canon PowerShot S95, which is a great camera, but I always found it too small for me. I’m 6’3″ and have very large hands, which is great for playing the piano but not so great when trying to operate a camera the size and shape of a bar of soap, with very tiny controls. The Lumix is not much bigger, but much easier for me to handle.” I’ve loved mine. It’s a great camera.
HEH: Notice that in trashing Newt Gingrich, the NYT winds up endorsing missile defense? “The Missile Defense Agency, an arm of the Pentagon that maintains an arsenal of ground-based interceptors ready to fly into space and smash enemy warheads, says that defeating such an attack would be as straightforward as any other defense of the continental United States.”
MICHAEL WALSH: Gray dawn: green bulbs, black hole. “On New Year’s Day, in addition to a hangover, America will wake up in the pale winter light to one grim consequence of the Bush administration’s never-requited desire to be loved by the left: the traditional 100-watt light bulb will be banned for sale in the United States.”
It’s still not too late to stock up. But it will be soon.
TEN YEARS AGO ON INSTAPUNDIT: Democrats Criticize Bush Administration for Not Using Military Tribunals To Try Terrorists.
BYRON YORK: “You know a candidate is having an interesting day on the trail when he starts out in an evangelical megachurch, testifying to his faith, and ends up in a college-town coffee shop being yelled at by a professor of Queer Studies. For Rick Perry, that was Sunday in Iowa.”
ILLINOIS: Doing Business With The Simpsons. “The Illinois legislature passed a tax package that is designed to keep the $CME and $CBOE from leaving the state. Is it enough? Indiana governor Mitch Daniels has said that being next to Illinois is like living next door to the Simpsons. . . . The core problem is that Illinois is one of the most expensive places to do business in the nation. The Democratic tax increase last January has cost the state many businesses, and it has lost thousands of jobs. The migration of companies from high tax/high cost states has accelerated in the last decade. The American south is rising again.”
The CBOE and CME are welcome to relocate to Nashville. Or Knoxville. Or even Chattanooga, where they have superfast Internet now.
MORE FROM RAND SIMBERG ON ROMNEY’S MOON-MINING EMBARRASSMENT: “I also suspect Governor Romney assumed that Newt was proposing a massive NASA project to build the ‘lunar colony’ that the governor derided as unrealistic pie-in-the-sky (almost literally) in austere times. If so, he knocked the stuffing out of a straw man, because Newt is actually on record as wanting to bypass the agency, if not abolish it outright. . . . What does this exchange tell us about the two candidates? I think it provides a window into their mindsets. Newt sees space as a frontier of human opportunity and plenty, and wants to direct space policy toward opening it using the traditional American tools of entrepreneurship and competition (unlike most people on the Hill who care about space, who only do so as a means of national prestige and jobs in their states and districts). It’s hard to tell how Mitt Romney views it, since he has not offered an alternative to Gingrich’s vision, but by denigrating the development of new resources because it’s a little too ‘far out,’ he comes off as someone who not only has given no serious thought to space policy other than as a cudgel against his political opponent, but as a soulless technocrat. To me, it was worse than his ten-grand-bet gaffe.”
Read the whole thing. Er, especially if you do issues work for Romney . . . .
UPDATE: By way of background — including for you Romney issues people — try reading this.
ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader emails: “Well considering the Chinese view a lunar facility part of their long term goals, Tom Friedman ought to be a Gingrich supporter right? Heh.”
#OCCUPYFAIL: SHOWING SOLIDARITY WITH THE WORKING CLASSES BY KEEPING THEM FROM EARNING A BUCK. “No longshore workers will be called in to the Port of Oakland tonight as Occupy protesters renew their efforts to blockade the docks, according to a spokesman for the International Longshore Workers Union. . . . Roughly 150 longshoremen on the morning shift were sent home with little or no pay, some because they were unable to get to work and others because trucks that haul shipping containers couldn’t reach the docks, Merrilees said. Another 50 longshore workers were able to report to their jobs.”
TAR SANDS MINING: Coming Soon To The U.S.? Faster, please.