Posts
Concealed Carry Information & News | U.S. Concealed Carry Association: 'it is 3 times more likely that a child will be struck by lightning than die from a firearm accident.
Firearm accidents accounted for 0.5% of all accidental deaths; well below the percentages accounted for by motor vehicle accidents, falls, fires, poisonings, and several other more common types of mishaps.'
Friday, January 06, 2012
Obama's Sham Constitutionalism | Roger Pilon | Cato Institute: Commentary
Obama's Sham Constitutionalism | Roger Pilon | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Article 1, Section 5 says that "Neither House ... shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days" — and the Republican-controlled House did not consent, precisely to block the president from making recess appointments, just as the Democratic Congress did in November 2007 and for the rest of George W. Bush's presidency.'
'as Professor John Yoo noted yesterday, "it is up to the Senate to decide when it is in session or not." Consistent with the separation of powers, "the President cannot decide the legitimacy of the activities of the Senate any more than he could for the other branches, and vice versa."'
'These vacancies did not "happen during the Recess of the Senate." They happened when the Senate was in session, and the nominees for them were before the Senate when it was in session.'
'as Professor John Yoo noted yesterday, "it is up to the Senate to decide when it is in session or not." Consistent with the separation of powers, "the President cannot decide the legitimacy of the activities of the Senate any more than he could for the other branches, and vice versa."'
'These vacancies did not "happen during the Recess of the Senate." They happened when the Senate was in session, and the nominees for them were before the Senate when it was in session.'
Cutting Through the Rhetoric on Defense Sequestration | Benjamin H. Friedman and Veronique de Rugy | Cato Institute: Commentary
Cutting Through the Rhetoric on Defense Sequestration | Benjamin H. Friedman and Veronique de Rugy | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta repeated his warning that such cuts would lead to a “demoralized and hollow force.” One of his deputies has called the cuts the equivalent of “self-castration.” Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina recently warned that the cuts will “destroy” the Department of Defense.'
'In nominal terms, sequestration is not even a cut; it would see nonwar military spending grow by about 10 percent from today, as opposed to the 18 percent the administration wants.'
'Adjusting for the CBO’s predictions for inflation, sequestration would allow the military budget to remain almost flat. The process would leave the 2021 Pentagon with purchasing power equivalent to what it had in 2006, leaving out the wars. That would be a bigger budget in real terms than what the U.S. spent on the military at the height of the Cold War.'
'Because the Budget Control Act leaves war spending uncapped, Congress can effectively take defense programs off the books, evading caps by declaring them to be war-related. Already, the defense appropriation for 2012 includes that gimmick, and it can be expected to continue as long as the Budget Control Act is in place and there are wars to fund.'
'sequestration will not occur until January 2013' ... 'with the president’s signature, Congress can always undo previously passed legislation, including the Budget Control Act and sequestration'
'If the military were to agree to come up with a 2013 defense budget that spends $492 billion or less — the amount it would have after sequestration — it could avoid sequestration while allowing defense officials to choose which programs to cut. Under this scenario, the administration could ask Congress to alter the Budget Control Act to spread the planned savings over time, avoiding a sudden bite.
The extra time could be put to good use identifying not just which programs to cut, but how to reform strategy accordingly. Such a strategic shift could allow the Pentagon to achieve savings equivalent to sequestration while avoiding its worst features, and might even improve American security in the process. Unfortunately, given the cultivated hysteria about defense sequestration, those are discussions that we are unlikely to have.'
'In nominal terms, sequestration is not even a cut; it would see nonwar military spending grow by about 10 percent from today, as opposed to the 18 percent the administration wants.'
'Adjusting for the CBO’s predictions for inflation, sequestration would allow the military budget to remain almost flat. The process would leave the 2021 Pentagon with purchasing power equivalent to what it had in 2006, leaving out the wars. That would be a bigger budget in real terms than what the U.S. spent on the military at the height of the Cold War.'
'Because the Budget Control Act leaves war spending uncapped, Congress can effectively take defense programs off the books, evading caps by declaring them to be war-related. Already, the defense appropriation for 2012 includes that gimmick, and it can be expected to continue as long as the Budget Control Act is in place and there are wars to fund.'
'sequestration will not occur until January 2013' ... 'with the president’s signature, Congress can always undo previously passed legislation, including the Budget Control Act and sequestration'
'If the military were to agree to come up with a 2013 defense budget that spends $492 billion or less — the amount it would have after sequestration — it could avoid sequestration while allowing defense officials to choose which programs to cut. Under this scenario, the administration could ask Congress to alter the Budget Control Act to spread the planned savings over time, avoiding a sudden bite.
The extra time could be put to good use identifying not just which programs to cut, but how to reform strategy accordingly. Such a strategic shift could allow the Pentagon to achieve savings equivalent to sequestration while avoiding its worst features, and might even improve American security in the process. Unfortunately, given the cultivated hysteria about defense sequestration, those are discussions that we are unlikely to have.'
NCLB: Perspectives on the Law | Neal McCluskey | Cato Institute: Commentary
NCLB: Perspectives on the Law | Neal McCluskey | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The idea is that a single standard will keep states from "gaming" accountability. But this assumes that those who would be held accountable won't gut standards at the federal level, an irrational assumption.'
Should Christians Ask: Who Would Jesus Vote For? | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary
Should Christians Ask: Who Would Jesus Vote For? | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'It's not that every profession of faith is false. But offering political rewards for personal testimonies encourages politicians to lie.'
Campaign Finance 'Reform' Has Failed Nation, Voters | John Samples | Cato Institute: Commentary
Campaign Finance 'Reform' Has Failed Nation, Voters | John Samples | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Moreover, there is little evidence that money has much influence on policy-makers. Political scientists have found that contributions explain little about lawmaking once ideology, party and constituency are accounted for. One scholarly study of lobbying concluded that "the direct correlation between money and outcomes that so many political scientists have sought simply is not there."'
'Even as they fail to deliver benefits, campaign finance regulations impose costs. The incumbents who write them are tempted to make it harder for challengers to raise money. Scholars also have found that reducing campaign spending leads to fewer and less-informed voters.
In addition, those engaged in politics seek to legally evade regulations. So reformers constantly demand new regulations to close "loopholes," producing a complex body of law. Legal advice becomes vital for electoral engagement, discouraging participation — a perverse result for rules purporting to advance democracy.'
'Even as they fail to deliver benefits, campaign finance regulations impose costs. The incumbents who write them are tempted to make it harder for challengers to raise money. Scholars also have found that reducing campaign spending leads to fewer and less-informed voters.
In addition, those engaged in politics seek to legally evade regulations. So reformers constantly demand new regulations to close "loopholes," producing a complex body of law. Legal advice becomes vital for electoral engagement, discouraging participation — a perverse result for rules purporting to advance democracy.'
The Ongoing War On Computing; Legacy Players Trying To Control The Uncontrollable | Techdirt
The Ongoing War On Computing; Legacy Players Trying To Control The Uncontrollable | Techdirt: 'If I turned up and said "well, everyone knows that wheels are good and right, but have you noticed that every single bank robber has four wheels on his car when he drives away from the bank robbery? Can't we do something about this?", the answer would of course be "no". Because we don't know how to make a wheel that is still generally useful for legitimate wheel applications but useless to bad guys. And we can all see that the general benefits of wheels are so profound that we'd be foolish to risk them in a foolish errand to stop bank robberies by changing wheels. Even if there were an /epidemic/ of bank robberies, even if society were on the verge of collapse thanks to bank robberies, no-one would think that wheels were the right place to start solving our problems.
[[762.0]] But. If I were to show up in that same body to say that I had absolute proof that hands-free phones were making cars dangerous, and I said, "I would like you to pass a law that says it's illegal to put a hands-free phone in a car", the regulator might say "Yeah, I'd take your point, we'd do that". And we might disagree about whether or not this is a good idea, or whether or not my evidence made sense, but very few of us would say "well, once you take the hands-free phones out of the car, they stop being cars". We understand that we can keep cars cars even if we remove features from them. Cars are special purpose, at least in comparison to wheels, and all that the addition of a hands-free phone does is add one more feature to an already-specialized technology. In fact, there's that heuristic that we can apply here -- special-purpose technologies are complex. And you can remove features from them without doing fundamental disfiguring violence to their underlying utility.
[[816.5]] This rule of thumb serves regulators well, by and large, but it is rendered null and void by the general-purpose computer and the general-purpose network -- the PC and the Internet. Because if you think of computer software as a feature, that is a computer with spreadsheets running on it has a spreadsheet feature, and one that's running World of Warcraft has an MMORPG feature, then this heuristic leads you to think that you could reasonably say, "make me a computer that doesn't run spreadsheets", and that it would be no more of an attack on computing than "make me a car without a hands-free phone" is an attack on cars. And if you think of protocols and sites as features of the network, then saying "fix the Internet so that it doesn't run BitTorrent", or "fix the Internet so that thepiratebay.org no longer resolves", then it sounds a lot like "change the sound of busy signals", or "take that pizzeria on the corner off the phone network", and not like an attack on the fundamental principles of internetworking.
The end result, then, is that any attempt to pass these kinds of laws really results not in building a task-specific computing system or application, but in deliberately crippling a general purpose machine -- and that's kind of crazy for all sorts of reasons.'
'In fact, the proponents of SOPA, the Motion Picture Association of America, circulated a memo, citing research that SOPA would probably work, because it uses the same measures as are used in Syria, China, and Uzbekistan, and they argued that these measures are effective in those countries, and so they would work in America, too!'
'But just as we saw with the copyright wars, banning certain instructions, or protocols, or messages, will be wholly ineffective as a means of prevention and remedy; and as we saw in the copyright wars, all attempts at controlling PCs will converge on rootkits; all attempts at controlling the Internet will converge on surveillance and censorship, which is why all this stuff matters.'
[[762.0]] But. If I were to show up in that same body to say that I had absolute proof that hands-free phones were making cars dangerous, and I said, "I would like you to pass a law that says it's illegal to put a hands-free phone in a car", the regulator might say "Yeah, I'd take your point, we'd do that". And we might disagree about whether or not this is a good idea, or whether or not my evidence made sense, but very few of us would say "well, once you take the hands-free phones out of the car, they stop being cars". We understand that we can keep cars cars even if we remove features from them. Cars are special purpose, at least in comparison to wheels, and all that the addition of a hands-free phone does is add one more feature to an already-specialized technology. In fact, there's that heuristic that we can apply here -- special-purpose technologies are complex. And you can remove features from them without doing fundamental disfiguring violence to their underlying utility.
[[816.5]] This rule of thumb serves regulators well, by and large, but it is rendered null and void by the general-purpose computer and the general-purpose network -- the PC and the Internet. Because if you think of computer software as a feature, that is a computer with spreadsheets running on it has a spreadsheet feature, and one that's running World of Warcraft has an MMORPG feature, then this heuristic leads you to think that you could reasonably say, "make me a computer that doesn't run spreadsheets", and that it would be no more of an attack on computing than "make me a car without a hands-free phone" is an attack on cars. And if you think of protocols and sites as features of the network, then saying "fix the Internet so that it doesn't run BitTorrent", or "fix the Internet so that thepiratebay.org no longer resolves", then it sounds a lot like "change the sound of busy signals", or "take that pizzeria on the corner off the phone network", and not like an attack on the fundamental principles of internetworking.
The end result, then, is that any attempt to pass these kinds of laws really results not in building a task-specific computing system or application, but in deliberately crippling a general purpose machine -- and that's kind of crazy for all sorts of reasons.'
'In fact, the proponents of SOPA, the Motion Picture Association of America, circulated a memo, citing research that SOPA would probably work, because it uses the same measures as are used in Syria, China, and Uzbekistan, and they argued that these measures are effective in those countries, and so they would work in America, too!'
'But just as we saw with the copyright wars, banning certain instructions, or protocols, or messages, will be wholly ineffective as a means of prevention and remedy; and as we saw in the copyright wars, all attempts at controlling PCs will converge on rootkits; all attempts at controlling the Internet will converge on surveillance and censorship, which is why all this stuff matters.'
Barack Obama, Ron Paul Lead in Campaign Cash From Military Donors - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets
Barack Obama, Ron Paul Lead in Campaign Cash From Military Donors - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets: 'On the Republican side of the aisle, Paul has collected the most contributions from active military members and DoD employees. Paul, who stresses a non-interventionist approach on the campaign trail, has received about $32,100 from these sources, according to the Center's research -- nearly as much as Obama.
Paul's haul is nearly eight times larger than that of his GOP rival Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, who has said that he favors bringing troops home from Afghanistan "as soon as the generals think it's okay."'
People say that Ron Paul is weak on defense but why do the military support him so much? They must agree with him!
Paul's haul is nearly eight times larger than that of his GOP rival Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, who has said that he favors bringing troops home from Afghanistan "as soon as the generals think it's okay."'
People say that Ron Paul is weak on defense but why do the military support him so much? They must agree with him!
Expert: WI’s budget repair begets flat property taxes
Expert: WI’s budget repair begets flat property taxes: 'The WTA, a nonpartisan organization that studies tax issues, attributes the “nearly flat” trend to the budget changes pushed through by Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-led Legislature, which cut aid to local governments and set stricter limits on property tax increases.'
'“What we’re seeing this year with all the limits ratcheted down, we’re probably going to see the lowest increase in property taxes really in a long, long time,” said Dale Knapp, the WTA’s research director.'
'“What we’re seeing this year with all the limits ratcheted down, we’re probably going to see the lowest increase in property taxes really in a long, long time,” said Dale Knapp, the WTA’s research director.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)