The Contractors that Couldn't Shoot Straight? | David Isenberg | Cato Institute: Commentary: "For eight years we have been supposedly training the police in Afghanistan. And here is what we have done. We've flushed $6 billion, $6 billion.
Now, am I exaggerating? Let me quote the general in charge of training the police in Afghanistan. This is what General Caldwell said. And I quote, 'It's inconceivable that in fact for eight years we weren't training the police.' He went on to say that essentially we were giving them uniforms."
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Avoid Campus Club Conundrum | Ilya Shapiro and Neal McCluskey | Cato Institute: Commentary
Avoid Campus Club Conundrum | Ilya Shapiro and Neal McCluskey | Cato Institute: Commentary: "It is impossible to reconcile free speech with governmentally compelled support of speech. Just as public colleges cannot choose both which student groups to fund and avoid discrimination, they cannot pay a professor without privileging his speech over that of the taxpayers who pay his bills. It also cannot fire him for saying something that taxpayers dislike without the government being guilty of censoring speech.
There is only one complete solution: Government must stop funding higher education — which, after all, is a form of regressive taxation, with lower-income households subsidizing the children of higher-income households (who attend college at a much higher rate). Ultimately, it's the only way to preserve real freedom and equality for each and every American."
There is only one complete solution: Government must stop funding higher education — which, after all, is a form of regressive taxation, with lower-income households subsidizing the children of higher-income households (who attend college at a much higher rate). Ultimately, it's the only way to preserve real freedom and equality for each and every American."
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
New Rules for Your Taxes | Daniel J. Mitchell | Cato Institute: Commentary
New Rules for Your Taxes | Daniel J. Mitchell | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Here's where CBO accounting would be a big help. Why don't you assume that you were going to get a raise of $10,000. Because your pay 'only' went up by $5,000, you can claim your pay was reduced. The IRS will come down on you like a ton of bricks, but you can tell the agents as they cart you away that you were following official government methodology. (Maybe they'll go easy on you when you tell them that an identical approach helped push the IRS budget up to $12 billion.)"
"When filing your taxes, you can fantasize that you moved into a much larger house with a higher mortgage. Then, claim a bigger mortgage interest deduction. Once again, the IRS may frown upon that approach, but perhaps a judge will sympathize if you say you'll pay your full tax bill if and when Congress follows through on the supposed Medicare savings in the Obamacare legislation."
"When filing your taxes, you can fantasize that you moved into a much larger house with a higher mortgage. Then, claim a bigger mortgage interest deduction. Once again, the IRS may frown upon that approach, but perhaps a judge will sympathize if you say you'll pay your full tax bill if and when Congress follows through on the supposed Medicare savings in the Obamacare legislation."
Monday, May 10, 2010
FOXNews.com - Obama Administration Eases Path for Airline, Rail Workers to Unionize
FOXNews.com - Obama Administration Eases Path for Airline, Rail Workers to Unionize: "In a 2008 election, 5,253 Delta flight attendants voted to be represented by the AFA. But the union lost under the old election rules because the roughly 8,000 flight attendants who didn't vote were counted as 'no' votes."
When not voting is interpreted the same as a "no" vote, why should you go to vote if you would vote "no" anyway?
Friday, May 07, 2010
FOXNews.com - French University Builds 11,000 MPG Car
FOXNews.com - French University Builds 11,000 MPG Car: "they run over a much shorter course, only a few miles, at very low speeds"
Apparently they only go 15 mph. I can get infinite MPG by just riding a bike -- and I would be going about the same speed!
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
FOXNews.com - How the Subsea Oil Recovery System Works
FOXNews.com - How the Subsea Oil Recovery System Works: "The structure is a 40-foot tall concrete chimney that conveys leaking oil to a ship on the surface, the Deepwater Enterprise. Once there, oil is separated from water and stored until the ship can return to shore, where it is offloaded and shipped to an on-shore terminal.
The ship is capable of storing 139,000 barrels of oil, processing it at a rate of 15,000 barrels per day. BP hopes it will be able to collect as much as 85 percent of the oil leaking from the sea floor."
The ship is capable of storing 139,000 barrels of oil, processing it at a rate of 15,000 barrels per day. BP hopes it will be able to collect as much as 85 percent of the oil leaking from the sea floor."
I hope it works!
Passive House in the Woods
Passive House in the Woods: "The exterior wall assembly of the Passive House in the Woods consists of 11” Insulated Concrete Forms (ICF) for structure, and an 11” Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) facade with an overall R-value of 70. Windows and doors are Passive House certified, come with high solar heat gain (64%), triple pane low-E coated glazings, as well as insulated frames for installed R-values of 8. The slab sits on 12” of extruded polystyrene insulation with an R-value of 60. The flat roof utilizes an average of 14” of polyisocyanurate insulation with an R-value of 95."
Monday, May 03, 2010
Education Race to Top Hits Bottom | Neal McCluskey | Cato Institute: Commentary
Education Race to Top Hits Bottom | Neal McCluskey | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Indeed, as Duncan conceded when he announced the victors, what put Delaware and Tennessee in the winners' circle wasn't embracing cutting-edge reforms, but getting all districts and teachers' unions to endorse their applications."
LOL!
LOL!
The War on Drugs Is Lost | Patrick Basham | Cato Institute: Commentary
The War on Drugs Is Lost | Patrick Basham | Cato Institute: Commentary: "In prisons, drugs are plentiful and their use is widespread. No matter what they try, prisons can't keep drugs out - an important lesson for those who would turn Russia, or any country, into a prison to stop drug use.
The startling, deeply unpleasant, but equally unavoidable fact is that 80 percent of drug-related deaths aren't the result of drug use. They are the result of drug prohibition."
"filling prisons with substance abusers doesn't make any public policy sense. If we ended the war on drugs, drug addicts could be treated as patients, not as pestilence."
The startling, deeply unpleasant, but equally unavoidable fact is that 80 percent of drug-related deaths aren't the result of drug use. They are the result of drug prohibition."
"filling prisons with substance abusers doesn't make any public policy sense. If we ended the war on drugs, drug addicts could be treated as patients, not as pestilence."
Thursday, April 29, 2010
FEDERALLY SANCTIONED PROCESS FOR PUERTO RICO'S SELF-DETERMINATION
FEDERALLY SANCTIONED PROCESS FOR PUERTO RICO'S SELF-DETERMINATION: "(a) First Plebiscite- The Government of Puerto Rico is authorized to conduct a plebiscite in Puerto Rico. The 2 options set forth on the ballot shall be preceded by the following statement: `Instructions: Mark one of the following 2 options:
`(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX.
`(2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.'.
(b) Procedure if Majority in First Plebiscite Favors Option 1- If a majority of the ballots in the plebiscite are cast in favor of Option 1, the Government of Puerto Rico is authorized to conduct additional plebiscites under subsection (a) at intervals of every 8 years from the date that the results of the prior plebiscite are certified under section 3(d).
(c) Procedure if Majority in First Plebiscite Favors Option 2- If a majority of the ballots in a plebiscite conducted pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) are cast in favor of Option 2, the Government of Puerto Rico is authorized to conduct a plebiscite on the following 3 options:
(1) Independence: Puerto Rico should become fully independent from the United States. If you agree, mark here XX.
(2) Sovereignty in Association with the United States: Puerto Rico and the United States should form a political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution. If you agree, mark here XX.
(3) Statehood: Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State of the Union. If you agree, mark here XX."
Why does the government want to force the people to choose between just those 3 choices? And they want them to keep voting until they make a choice that is acceptable. Also why can anyone born in Puerto Rico vote their with an absentee ballot even if they don't live there right now? This doesn't sound very democratic -- it sounds like they want them to "vote until they get it right".
`(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX.
`(2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.'.
(b) Procedure if Majority in First Plebiscite Favors Option 1- If a majority of the ballots in the plebiscite are cast in favor of Option 1, the Government of Puerto Rico is authorized to conduct additional plebiscites under subsection (a) at intervals of every 8 years from the date that the results of the prior plebiscite are certified under section 3(d).
(c) Procedure if Majority in First Plebiscite Favors Option 2- If a majority of the ballots in a plebiscite conducted pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) are cast in favor of Option 2, the Government of Puerto Rico is authorized to conduct a plebiscite on the following 3 options:
(1) Independence: Puerto Rico should become fully independent from the United States. If you agree, mark here XX.
(2) Sovereignty in Association with the United States: Puerto Rico and the United States should form a political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution. If you agree, mark here XX.
(3) Statehood: Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State of the Union. If you agree, mark here XX."
Why does the government want to force the people to choose between just those 3 choices? And they want them to keep voting until they make a choice that is acceptable. Also why can anyone born in Puerto Rico vote their with an absentee ballot even if they don't live there right now? This doesn't sound very democratic -- it sounds like they want them to "vote until they get it right".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)