So I have a question for disciples of the Obamessiah:

When Bush ordered air strikes against a sovereign country, it was murder and a blatant example of American imperialist aggression; but when Obama orders drone attacks in Pakistan that kill 22 people, including three children, it's a display of "smart power", and no one on the left even raises an eyebrow.

Where is the outrage, the protests, the march on Washington, the denunciation of aggression against the innocent?  Or is it OK as long as it's your guy pulling the trigger?

Well, of course not:

Former New York Gov. Eliot M. Spitzer (D) will not face criminal charges for his role in the prostitution scandal that drove him from office this year, prosecutors announced this afternoon. . . .

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia said today that his office had uncovered no evidence that Spitzer used public or campaign funds in a series of payments to a shell company, QAT Consulting.

"We have determined that there is insufficient evidence to bring charges against Mr. Spitzer for any offense relating to the withdrawal of funds for, and his payments to, the Emperors Club VIP," Garcia said in a prepared statement.

So Spitzer walks for hiring a prostitute, while people whom he prosecuted for the same offenses are probably still rotting in jail.  Business as usual!  Think Obama will give loverboy a job?

I know some of you will have an aneurysm reading this, but we all should be rooting for the Republicans right now.

No, not for McCain; I'm not that stupid.  But as long as Congressional Republicans stand in the way of the largest government takeover of the financial markets in history, we should be cheering them on.  For once in their miserable political lives, the Republicans have found the spine to resist Bush's call to drink the Kool-Aid and recognize Paulson's $700 billion bailout plan for what it is: lifeboats for the idiots on Wall Street who perpetrated the mess while the rest of us go down with the Titanic.  (Yes, Sinfest pretty much nailed the most apt metaphor for this.)

I really want to believe that this is a turning point in our history, for there is no one on the left or right who shouldn't be outraged by this coup d'etat engineered by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve.  For the left it's yet another example of how the rich and powerful take care of their own; for the right, it's a repudiation of every principle the American economy was supposedly built upon.  Washington and Wall Street have crossed a line that all of us recognize, and must resist.

No, it doesn't help those stuck with mortgages they can't afford and people struggling to pay for gas and food, and if the bailout fails, it will have severe consequences for the economy.  But fail it must: the markets have to correct, have to crash and probably burn, if we are to begin any actual recovery.  Like anyone who's dealt with an addiction, banks will have to hit bottom, and realize no one will be there to continue enabling their destructive habits, before they can clean themselves up and return, much thinner but hopefully sober and wiser.  A lot of individuals will have to learn the same lessons—and you can be sure the banks have no plans to bail them out.  What happens to them is what has just happened to WaMu, and what should happen to every other institution which has made the same bad decisions.

The thing is, the Republicans alone can't block the deal.  The Democrats hold the majority in the House.  But what irony it would be—and a potential disaster for Barack Obama's campaign—if it was the Democrats who ultimately voted to bail out the very billionaires they have vilified through decades of anti-business rhetoric.  Just imagine what their constituents might think come November.  The Republicans must be loving this.  It costs them zero political capital to oppose the deal, and the potential gain is enormous, even if the bill goes through—maybe especially if it goes through.

If the Dems were paying attention at all, they'd realize they have nothing to lose by opposing the bailout, either.  But for now, I'm breaking out the pom-poms for Lincoln's Party.

John McCain's economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, claimed that the GOP Presidential candidate helped create the BlackBerry messaging device. Which led to the following addition to Research in Motion's Wikipedia entry (quoted here in case it's reverted):

John McCain v RIM

On September 16th, 2008, according to John McCain's (The 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate) top economical adviser, it was John McCain who created the BlackBerry device. "He's the best mayne, he did it" said Douglas Holtz-Eakin while holding up his BlackBerry when asked what John McCain did while serving as the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. He further said "you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that's what he did."[13]. RIM was not available to comment immediately on the development but it was a fascinating accomplishment for a liar and one who cannot type due to injuries suffered as a POW (Prisoner of War).

My suspicions confirmed: that shot of Sarah Palin allegedly showing her in a short leather skirt and high-heels is a photochop (as is, more obviously, the picture of her in a star-spangled bikini holding a BB rifle).  Even funnier, a Chinese newspaper printed a photo of an allegedly nude Palin from many years ago, except it's not her; it's actually Julia Louis-Dreyfuss, except it's not her either (and they reversed the image to boot).

This is officially The Best Site Ever (at least until the next one):

http://www.wecanbelievein.com/index.php?change=hopey+changitude

Replace "hopey+changitude" with phrases of your own choosing.  HT candid, who got considerably more politically incorrect.

Look, I'm not really up for arguing about the science of climate change anymore—I have my doubts, some of you don't, and there's not much out there (at the moment) that will move us toward the other's position.

But so long as AGW advocates paint me as a crank, I'm going to use this space to point out the useful (or maybe not-so-useful) idiots on the other side:

A top Democrat told high school students gathered at the U.S. Capitol Thursday that climate change caused Hurricane Katrina and the conflict in Darfur, which led to the “black hawk down” battle between U.S. troops and Somali rebels. . . .

“In Somalia back in 1993, climate change, according to 11 three- and four-star generals, resulted in a drought which led to famine,” said [Democratic Rep.] Edward Markey.

“That famine translated to international aid we sent in to Somalia, which then led to the U.S. having to send in forces to separate all the groups that were fighting over the aid, which led to Black Hawk Down. There was this scene where we have all of our American troops under fire because they have been put into the middle of this terrible situation,” he added.

Astonishing!  Eleven three- and four-star generals blamed Somalia's drought on climate change?  What towering giants in the field of climate science!  We should have put the Pentagon on this problem decades ago.

I guess Markey missed the part of the Pentagon briefing where they might have pointed out that drought cycles in the Horn of Africa probably predate AGW by, oh, a few dozen millennia or so.  Or it may have had something to do with the collapse of Somalia's government and its failed economic policies.  Or the civil war that raged there for years before the disastrous aid mission that left 18 U. S. soldiers dead.

Maybe Markey just hasn't researched all the material yet.  I can understand that, being busy as the chairman of the House (Select) Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee and all.

Did I mention that he explained all this to a group of high school students?

If this is what passes as a leader in AGW advocacy, I'm happy to remain a crankish skeptic, thanks.

Political LOL of the day:

Denver's City Council president is getting hammered with hate-filled messages in response to Tuesday's surprise performance of the "Black National Anthem" by a jazz singer during a city event.

Chanteuse René Marie had been invited by Mayor John Hickenlooper's office to sing the national anthem during his annual State of the City address.

Council President Michael Hancock, the master of ceremonies, introduced Marie, who sang what is known as the "Black National Anthem" instead.

The anarchist in me always relishes opportunities for politicians to be embarrassed.  Hickenlooper's call into KOA radio yesterday afternoon was exemplary of a man completely gobsmacked by forces beyond his control; he had virtually no excuse, explanation or coherent reason why Marie chose his speech to make her own political statement (and he's just plain lying or being deliberately obtuse when he says that wasn't Marie's intent).

More thoughtfully, I don't particularly care that Marie sang the national anthem, the black national anthem (aka "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing"), the Uzbek national anthem, or "Howdy Doody".  I am not a nationalist, and symbols of nationalist pride, like the flag and "The Star-Spangled Banner", do nothing for me.  But she did agree (I assume) to sing the national anthem, and I think there is a reasonable expectation that singing the national anthem includes the lyrics as well.  But she purposely chose to sing the words of "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" to the general melody of "The Star-Spangled Banner", and that does not rise to the level of personal artistic expression that Marie seems to think she's entitled to on such an occasion:

Marie said she had no regrets. She deliberately didn't tell anybody about her song choice "because I don't think it is necessary for an artist to ask permission to express themselves artistically," she said.

That, to me, is fraudulent.  Not in the criminal sense, but she deceived city officials nonetheless.

So while the outrage she sparked has turned predictably ugly—already I've heard ominous predictions that we can expect more of this if Barack Obama becomes President, and thinly-veiled references to that ol' reliable, racist canard "Go back to Africa!"—I'm not sure she's wholly undeserving of it.

As for Hick and his crew: next time, get all agreements in writing.

I have to take this news with a rather large block of salt, but it's funny nonetheless:

Political activists planning protest rallies at the upcoming Democratic Convention in Denver have their stomachs in knots over a rumor about a crowd control weapon - known as the “crap cannon” - that might be unleashed against them.

Also called “Brown Note,” it is believed to be an infrasound frequency that debilitates a person by making them defecate involuntarily.

My advice for protesters coming to Denver?  Bring an extra pair (or three) of undies.  Or take a cue from the monkeys and fling your poo back at the cops!

It's no secret the Democrats (and sadly, Republicans these days) in Washington are enemies of the free market, but it's not often a sitting member of Congress so blatantly pulls a page from Hugo Chavez' play book and threatens the president of Shell Oil with nationalizing the oil industry.  But that's exactly what California Democrat Maxine Waters did.  She didn't say "nationalize"; in fact you can see her struggling for the right word, almost calling it "socializing" before settling for "taking over" the oil companies.  But her intent was crystal clear.

So we have at least one member of Congress who's on record for seizing the assets of companies which in her view are making too much money.  This is amusing and not a little ironic, considering Rep. Waters isn't averse to using her position to make a little scratch for her family:

Waters was named in 2005[2] and 2006[3] as one of the "most corrupt" members of congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. They said, "Her ethics issues arise from her exercise of this power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son." They said that Waters' daughter Karen charges other politicians to appear on mailers sent to constituents in Los Angeles showing her mother's support for the politician. Karen has received $450,000 in fees from this endeavor and Waters' son Edward has received $115,000. Waters' husband Sidney benefited from his wife's connections with his hiring as a political consultant by a firm, Siebert, Brandford, & Shank, seeking government investment. Sidney Williams earned $500,000 from this consulting, which consisted of introducing Siebert to politicians his wife had supported. Sidney and Edward Williams also benefitted when they won a contract to run a Los Angeles golf course, with the decision made by a county supervisor who had won a close race after Waters' endorsement and from which they made financial gain of between $140,000 and $400,000.[4] Citizens for Ethics says this violates House ethics rules for family members' financial gains.

I have a feeling Waters may be, ah, clarifying her position in the days to come, but in their black heart of hearts, how many other Democratic members of Congress are thinking the same thing, even if they're not stupid enough to state it in public?

(HT: writerspleasure in libertarianism)

The young lady at the end of this video deserves to be buried in scholarships to the school of her choice.  She positively drilled Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers (wife of Michigan Congressman John Conyers) following an embarrassing incident during a City Council meeting in which Conyers referred to President Kenneth Cockrel Jr. as "Shrek".  Later she met with some middle-schoolers to explain her behavior and got schooled herself.  Watch the whole thing; it's awesome.



HT: reason's Hit & Run.

[cross-posted from libertarianism]

The Libertarian Party is calling for more cooperation between Federal, state and local law enforcement to battle the scourge of child pornography:

"FBI Chief Robert Mueller was correct when he said we are losing the war on child pornography," says Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory, referring to comments made by the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday before a House Judiciary Committee meeting. "We have an obligation to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse, and we can do this by increasing communication between state and federal agencies to help combat this repulsive industry. While privacy rights should always be respected in the pursuit of child pornographers, more needs to be done to track down and prosecute the twisted individuals who exploit innocent children."

Mueller called for "integration" between police agencies and increasing FBI resources to work on child pornography cases, which the LP press release mentions without comment, except to suggest that those resources could be freed up by not prosecuting victimless crimes.

So, yes: child abuse, particularly sexual abuse, is evil and those who engage in it can hang in the courtyard by their genitals for all I care.  But what the hell is the LP thinking here?  They're not even pretending to support the Constitution, let alone limited government, with this view.  The LP is justifying not only the existence of a national police force (which is not authorized by the Constitution), but by implying support for "integrating" police agencies, they're calling for even more Federal intrusion into areas that should by law be the states' domain.

There's only one reason for such an ill-considered and frankly unlibertarian stance from the LP, and it's to further marginalize the radical core of the party.  It started with the gutting of the party platform in 2006 and it continues through attacks on Mary Ruwart, an LP candidate for President and a more radical libertarian than the current leaders of the LP are comfortable with.

Even party founder David Nolan expressed his outrage in a comment:

I am appalled at the national HQ staff putting out a press release that implicitly disowns one of our candidates over such a relatively minor issue. First, because that’s not a proper role for paid staffers to assume, and second because several other candidates have taken overtly anti-Libertarian stances on a number of issues, and none of them have been shot at by the national staff for doing so. This whole fiasco just reeks of cronyism and witch-hunting. Our presidential nominee will be chosen by the delegates to the national convention in Denver, and attempts by the LNC or (especially) the office staff at LPHQ to subvert that process are despicable.

Once again, the New LP demonstrates its willingness to sell out its own principles, and even one of its most dedicated party members, in a futile effort to gain some mainstream political credibility.  It's just pathetic.  If you truly care about the libertarian movement then stop supporting these clowns.

Emerging market economy + totalitarian political regime = irony:

Police in southern China have discovered a factory manufacturing Free Tibet flags, media reports say.

The factory in Guangdong had been completing overseas orders for the flag of the Tibetan government-in-exile.

Workers said they thought they were just making colourful flags and did not realise their meaning.

Maybe the prospect of global food shortages doesn't spell catastrophe for everyone:

As prices for bread and rice soar, dictators are tottering.

Oddly, one of them is [Hugo] Chávez, who lost a constitutional referendum in December partly because of the combination of soaring food prices and shortages he has inflicted on Venezuela. Another is Robert Mugabe, who to his surprise lost a presidential election in Zimbabwe three weeks ago, though he has yet to admit it. According to the U.N. World Food Program, the government of North Korea faces another food crisis; bread prices explain in part why Pervez Musharraf lost control of Pakistan's government in February.

It's a painful way to bring down dictatorships, but in the long term it's not nearly as painful as allowing them to continue.

Then again, if your military-backed dictatorship has been placating the masses for decades by providing them with subsidized bread, you might think twice about wanting a free market to develop:

As global prices have soared in the past year, cheap bread has been disappearing from Egyptian shops, and free-market prices have risen 48 percent. The predictable result came on April 6, when workers at the country's largest textile factory, in the city of Mahalla el-Kubra, attempted to strike, only to be blocked by a massive deployment of security forces. Angry crowds took to the streets for two days. Schools and shops were burned, a huge billboard of President Hosni Mubarak was torn down and at least two people were killed when police opened fire.

Mubarak responded to the trouble the way the regime always has. His prime minister and a host of other officials rushed to the smoldering city to purchase peace. The textile workers were promised a month's bonus pay and new health-care facilities for their town. Mubarak ordered the army to begin baking and distributing more bread and lifted tariffs on some food imports. Meanwhile, his prosecutors brought charges against some 150 people blamed for the unrest.

As they say in the circus, the show must go on.

Another consequence of the food crisis: less resistance to biotech crops.

What's your F Score?  How receptive are you to fascist personalities?  Take this test and find out.  You will do it for your family, God and country!!  Black shirt optional.

My F Score is 2.4.  That's Mr. "Liberal Airhead" to you.

(This is nothing new, BTW.  Some background information here.  It has been revised and improved upon elsewhere.)

Schadenfreude of the year, maybe:

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's hold on office seemed less certain Tuesday, as a legislative staffer said gubernatorial aides were in transition talks with the lieutenant governor and Democratic sources said Spitzer had no choice but to step down. . . .

Political opponents quickly called for Spitzer's resignation after federal investigators linked New York's Democratic governor to a high-rolling prostitution ring.

After being admonished by fellow libertarians, I will point out that no one, Spitzer included, should be called to account for the consensual non-crime of paying someone for sex.  What Spitzer does with his dick and his money in his spare time is nobody's business but his.

He should not be punished for hiring a prostitute.  He should be punished for all the real crimes he's committed as governor and earlier as attorney general of New York: for all the businesses he ruined in his overzealous (and sometimes extra-jurisdictional) pursuit of so-called white-collar crime; for all the people imprisoned for other victimless crimes under his watch; for his misuse of state resources to harass and damage his political opponents.

There's also Spitzer's reputation for being an arrogant, suppurating asshole (remember his "I'm a fucking steamroller" comment?).  Of course, it's not illegal to be an asshole, but it sure makes it easier to take joy in his downfall.

Goodbye, Mr. Clean.  You may not get the punishment you deserve, but you'll no longer be able to punish anyone else, and I can live with that.

Subject line courtesy of Lou Reed's "Strawman", from his album titled, appropriately enough, New York.

Mitt Romney's out, so unless both John McCain and Mike Huckabee suddenly decide to endorse Ron Paul, the Republicans are absolutely, positively, 100% guaranteed to lose their asses in November.

Mainline Republicans seem to hate McCain nearly as much as they hate Hillary Clinton.  Conservative hag hack crazy bitch Ann Coulter went so far as to say she'd support Clinton should McCain win the GOP nomination.

To be honest, I don't get why McCain so inflames the Republican core.  Of all the remaining candidates, he's most in favor of perpetual war.  He's strongly authoritarian.  He at least pays lip service to fiscal restraint even if it's no longer a core Republican value (has it ever been, really? Republican Presidents, Reagan included, have increased spending for decades).  I don't see him spending any less money, particularly to finance all of his planned overseas military adventures, than Bush has over the past seven years.

So he's not as freaked out by Mexicans as the other border-states folk are.  So he's not in favor of reining in executive authority.  So he's not such a big fan of free speech.  Big deal; neither is George W. Bush.  If Republicans want to retain power for another four years, aren't these issues worth overlooking?

Of course, if they are, they could just vote for Clinton instead.

See what I mean?  Game over.

Colorado lawmaker resigns after claims of indecent exposure

The lobbyist, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Garcia exposed himself to her and said, "Wouldn't this be real nice inside of you?" . . .

The woman said she decided to register a complaint with [House Speaker Andrew] Romanoff after learning about four other similar allegations against Garcia over the past seven years.

Y'know, didn't any of these guys pay attention when Bill Clinton was in office?  He wrote the book on this stuff!

Now if someone can just snap a picture of Douglas Bruce beating up a homeless guy, I'll be in political Schadenfreude heaven.

[cross-posted to A Thousand Cuts]

Going forward, I shall refer to the day on which I prepare my family's tax return, which this year falls on January 30, as Fuck Milton Friedman Day.

Friedman, for all of his great contributions to economic theory and advocacy of the free market, was also instrumental in developing the Federal government's most efficient means of confiscating the income of Americans with a minimum of protest: the withholding tax.  Prior to the 1940s, citizens paid taxes in a lump sum every March.  The 1913 tax act, which was adopted following the ratification of the 16th Amendment, originally called for withholding as well, but taxpayers expressed great displeasure at money being taken out of their pay envelopes before they even received them.  The withholding provision was struck a few years later.

The problem with annual lump-sum payments is that it proved very difficult for the IRS to ensure it received all of the revenue that citizens were obligated to pay.  Furthermore, it hampered the government's ability to fund operations throughout the year.  Imagine getting just one paycheck every year, covering your entire annual salary.  You would likely budget your money very carefully to ensure it covered your expenses throughout the year.  On the other hand, it would also give you the opportunity to invest some of that money so it could earn interest until you needed it to pay later expenses. In retrospect, that's probably not a bad way for government to operate as well.

The Feds seemed to realize this, so to raise revenue during the year it sold "tax anticipation notes" to taxpayers to generate interest to help pay their tax bill the following year.  This allowed taxpayers to meet their tax liability using less money than if they paid out-of-pocket when the bill came due.

With the country's entrance into World War II, the government was faced with skyrocketing expenditures.  Congress adjusted the tax rates from a heavily progressive system that mostly impacted the rich into more moderate brackets that imposed obligations on nearly everyone.  Within three years following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the number of tax returns received by the IRS increased more than four-fold.  Had the lump-sum payments continued, the entire system would have collapsed under the effort of ensuring tax obligations were met with every return.  Withholding taxes at the source—by conscripting employers to serve as the government's revenue agents—was the most effective method to protect the government's revenue stream.  In 1942, Friedman, then working in the Treasury Department, devised a new withholding plan.  But the challenge of selling it to a public which had roundly rejected the previous scheme remained.

And like any good bureaucrats and politicians, they used the time-honored trick of snake-oil salesmen everywhere: they lied about it.

The key strategies used to obtain support for income tax withholding in 1943 all entailed political transaction-cost augmentation. Government officials artfully employed national defense language, tax-cost information, and promises of "tax forgiveness" to engineer support for a withholding system at root designed to enhance and protect government revenue for all times to come. The above-noted conflict between the government's actual objectives and its publicly promoted objectives formed only one part of a systematic pattern of transaction-cost manipulation . . .

Treasury officials repeatedly testified to Congress that such withholding of income taxes--current collection at the source--represented "no additional tax." On dozens of occasions, Treasury official Randolph Paul and other government spokesmen testified:

    This collection at the source mechanism is nothing but a mechanism for collection. It is not an additional tax. ... It merely speeds up the collection (U.S. House Hearings 1942, vol. 1: 100).

    It should be kept in mind that collection at the source does not in itself increase or decrease the tax liability of the taxpayer (U.S. House Hearings 1943: 11).

Given the expert witnesses' knowledge of present value, statements so seriously misleading to Congress and the public could not have been inadvertent.

Because it replaced interest-bearing notes with a pay-as-you-go system, the withholding tax did represent an additional tax on the public, by taking money before it even reached taxpayers' pockets to be used by the government.  Only when taxpayers filed their returns could they determine if they paid too little (and thus would have to send even more money to the IRS) or too much (and thus receive a refund, although the Treasury did initially suggest that interest be paid on any money returned).  And with future dollars worth less than the present value of the money taken by the government, taxpayers would lose even more each year.

The Treasury Department acknowledged all this in hearings before Congress, yet insisted that withholding would not only impose no additional tax burden, but was merely a convenience for patriotic Americans to meet their obligations and support the war effort.  And these same obfuscations were parroted by members of Congress during floor debates.  Oppose such a sensible scheme, and you allow the Huns and Japs to win.

Sixty-five years later the government still gets its loot via the withholding tax, and despite many proposals to eliminate or at least greatly simplify the process, it remains the single greatest enabler of an ever-expanding state.  As Murray Rothbard wrote about Friedman in 1971:

Only the Friedmanite withholding tax has permitted the government to use every employer as an unpaid tax collector, extracting the tax quietly and silently from each paycheck. In many ways, we have Milton Friedman to thank for the present monster Leviathan State in America.

Friedman did later express his regrets at helping bring about the withholding tax, as evidenced in this interview with reason's Brian Doherty in 1995:

It was a very interesting and very challenging intellectual task. I played a significant role, no question about it, in introducing withholding. I think it's a great mistake for peacetime, but in 1941-43, all of us were concentrating on the war.

I have no apologies for it, but I really wish we hadn't found it necessary and I wish there were some way of abolishing withholding now.

Yeah, me too.  And while I stand to repatriate a significant chunk of my income from the Leviathan State this year, when I click the File button in TurboTax I'll remember to honor the man who made it necessary in the first place: fuck you, Milton Friedman.

Anyone who still has the slightest inkling that Rudy Giuliani might be the answer for President needs to read this:

In March 2000, an undercover officer killed Patrick Dorismond, a security guard, during a fight when the police mistook him for a drug dealer. The outcry infuriated the mayor, who released Mr. Dorismond’s juvenile record, a document that legally was supposed to remain sealed.

The victim, Mr. Giuliani opined, was no “altar boy.” Actually, he was. (Mr. Giuliani later expressed regret without precisely apologizing.)

Given Jailiani's vendettas against people who crossed him in NYC, imagine what he could do with the power of the Federal executive.  Good thing his campaign is nearly on the rocks.

Fun Jailiani number of the day: the city paid at least $7 million during his tenure to settle civil rights lawsuits and pay retaliatory damages.