Archive for 2012

GREEN ENERGY A LA TONY SOPRANO: “Another green subsidy, another green scandal. The Wall Street Journal reports that a governent program meant to aid businesses that turn cooking oils into fuel may be guilty of serious fraud. The federal government now alleges that two of these businesses have been abusing the system, casting a pall over the entire program.”

AN EARTH-SHATTERING KABOOM: An Olympic Weightlifter on Football, Breaking Windows and the Perfect Lift. “It’s so technical. It looks so effortless when you do it right, and when you do it wrong it looks like it’s really, really heavy. There’s this thing called weightlessness. When you get a good lift the bar is literally weightless. It’s off your body and you don’t feel it until it’s over your head. You get that with maybe one in 100 lifts, but when you get it you’ll chase it for the rest of your life.”

IN THE WASHINGTON POST, Charles Lane reviews Brian Tamanaha’s Failing Law Schools.

If you think those claims sting, consider Tamanaha’s argument that law school effectively transfers money from students to relatively well-to-do professors, via student-loan debt — much of which is ultimately guaranteed by federal taxpayers who are generally not as well-off as the typical law professor.

Law school faculties are also bastions of liberal politics, and this irony is not lost on Tamanaha, who accuses the professoriate of not only enriching itself but also erecting de facto barriers to upward social mobility and true public-service law practice, all in the name of “academic freedom” and other abstractions.

They must speak and politic in one direction, to balance the fact that they actually act in the other . . . .

CLARICE FELDMAN: Tea Party Unbound. “For several years now it seems to me that voters throughout the country in a perfectly peaceable way have demonstrated their revulsion at the ruling class’s political, academic and media elites, and the media’s disparagement or utter refusal to cover this civil revolution has not succeeded in killing it.”

WHY IT’S SO HARD to land on Mars.

IT’S ALL IN THE FAMILY for Harry Reid.

MAYBE THEY COULD LEARN A LESSON FROM, SAY, CHICK-FIL-A: Amtrak Dining Cars Losing Money On $10 Hamburgers. “Only a government subsidized operation could sell hamburgers for $10 each and lose money. People who use Amtrak know that the food is overpriced and not very good. But, hey, it’s a captive dining audience, right? The dining car should be a way for Amtrak to recoup some of its losses from running its expensive trains. Instead, the food system is so badly managed that somehow it also loses a lot of money, apparently because of theft, bad management, high labor costs, and other problems.”

9TH CIRCUIT JUDGE STEPHEN REINHARDT: “Carrying a Gun … Is a Second Amendment Right.”

This is consistent with my analysis in Second Amendment Penumbras. One of the effects of Heller and McDonald was to put an end to the notion that firearms possession is somehow a deviant act, carried out at the actor’s peril. Instead, it’s been normalized. That has consequences.

UPDATE: Related: Armed Self-Defense In California. “It is quite entertaining to watch five would-be jewelry store robbers, two of them armed, falling over themselves to escape from a white-haired lady, the store’s owner. The key being, of course, that she was firing a handgun at them.”

RICHARD VEDDER ON TOM HARKIN’S ASSAULT ON FOR-PROFIT EDUCATION: They Just Don’t Get It. “It is true that many of the for-profits have high drop-out rates, but are they really any worse than some of our public universities, like the University of Texas at San Antonio or Chicago State University, schools with thousands of students but very low graduation rates? Should we impose some sort of selective admission standards on all schools wanting government handouts? I suspect that if one compiled a list of all institutions where the six-year graduation rate was below, say, 40 percent, a larger number of students would attend public as opposed to for-profit institutions. The attack on the for-profits is an attack based on ideology, a dislike of capitalism, more than on a comprehensive and objective concern for students. The clearly one-sided nature of Harkin’s criticism may be one reason that his report was not issued by all the Democrats on the Senate education committee—my guess is some did not want to be associated with this unbalanced attack.”

Well, Harkin, remember, isn’t above lying about his Vietnam service, so what can you expect? More here.