The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports:
Darren Evanovich gave a video testimonial intended to deter others from a life of crime. Nine days later he was shot to death after committing a robbery.
The story goes on to praise 23-year old Evanovich for giving a video interview to the Minneapolis office of MAD DADS recounting his many criminal exploits and counseling others to avoid a life of crime. The story contains 21 paragraphs chronicling Evanwich’s so-called good works, which consisted of no more than the interview he gave for an 8-minute video. Three paragraphs were given to the violent crime Evanovich committed 9 days later.
Darren Evanovich and his sister confronted an elderly woman in a parking lot, put a gun to her head, snatched her purse and then pistol whipped her. The pair then ran. A good samaritan witnessed the beating and robbery and gave chase. When Evanovich ran around a corner he stopped. As the good samaritan came around the corner Evanovich drew his gun and pointed it at the citizen. Unfortunately for Evanovich, the good samaritan was also armed, legally carrying a firearm with a Minnesota concealed carry permit. He shot Evanovich one time, and the purse-snatching, old-lady beating criminal died on the spot.
The Hennipin County prosecutor has declared the shooting to be justified self defense and the good samaritan will not be prosecuted for any crime.
Here is all the Minneapolis Star Tribune had to say about Evanovich’s crime:
On the evening of Oct. 20, a little more than a week later, a 53-year-old woman was accosted in a supermarket parking lot off E. Lake Street. The stranger was armed with a handgun, and after taking her money, he struck her in the head with his weapon, police said.
A man nearby saw the attack. He had a state permit to carry a pistol, and he had one with him. He chased the robber behind a restaurant and shot him dead. Police say the robber was Darren Evanovich. He was 23.
Authorities have not released the name of the man who killed him. The case remains under review by the Hennepin County attorney to determine whether the homicide was a crime.
Those words, “shot him dead” leaves the impression that the shooting was not justified. The Star Tribune neglects to say the Evanovich drew his gun first placing the good samaritan in reasonable fear for his life. It seems to be pretending there is some question as to whether the robber was actually Evanovich, although it was Evanovich who was chased from the scene of the crime by a citizen witness to the crime, was shot by the citizen and the purse and gun used in the crime were recovered on Evanovich’s person.
John Hinderaker said this about the Star Tribune’s treatment of the Darren Evanovich story:
The Star Tribune’s coverage of the Evanovich case provides evidence to support the proposition that liberalism makes you stupid, or requires you to be stupid. I think it is true as a general proposition. Yet in this case we have the counterexample of Mike Freeman [Hennipin County prosecutor] — not stupid. At the very least, the case is a good reminder that the Star Tribune gives new meaning to the expression “the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.”
I’m glad I didn’t rush out and buy an iPhone4S just yet. It seems there is a problem with the battery running out of gas too quickly, in some cases very quickly. In other cases no problem at all.
Just in case you still aren’t convinced that America is not only broke, but that it has also gone barking mad crazy, certain politicians (of which party?) are calling for the government to provide us with free diapers. Yes, it’s been observed that people are having to buy their own diapers. Food Stamps don’t cover them, you see. Since there is almost nothing these days that we think the government should not provide us for free, why not diapers?
But it’s not just paying for our diapers that the government must do, there also needs to be awareness of the need for government supplied diapers, so last Thursday was the official “Diaper Need Awareness Day” in Connecticut, proclaimed by the governor. That’s in case you weren’t aware that babies need diapers. Well, you probably knew that but did you know that adults also need diapers? Adult babies, that is.
Why is it that birdbrain ideas always seem to originate in the wealthiest parts in the country, Connecticut, California, Washington D.C., certain neighborhoods of Omaha, etc. Does having a ton of money rot brain cells?
Just so Connecticut’s governor doesn’t steal all the honors for this much needed and long overdue awareness raising, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro has jumped into the diaper act with an Act of her own. Mark Steyn makes nonsense of it all with humor and brilliance in his National Review column, Adult Babies:
If you’re wondering what sentient being isn’t aware of diapers, you’re missing the point: Connecticut representative Rosa DeLauro is raising awareness of the need for diapers in order to, as Politico reported, “push the Federal Government to provide free diapers to poor families.” Congresswoman DeLauro has introduced the DIAPER Act — that’s to say, the Diaper Investment and Aid to Promote Economic Recovery Act. So don’t worry, it’s not welfare, it’s “stimulus.” As Fox News put it, “A U.S. congresswoman in Connecticut wants to boost the economy by offering free diapers to low-income families.” And, given that sinking bazillions of dollars into green-jobs schemes to build eco-cars in Finland and a federal program to buy guns for Mexican drug cartels and all the other fascinating innovations of the Obama administration haven’t worked, who’s to say borrowing money from the Chinese politburo and sticking it in your kid’s diaper isn’t the kind of outside-the-box thinking that will do the trick?
Congresswoman DeLauro is thinking too small: Maybe we could all be issued with free diapers. As a casual glance at the headlines suggests, there’s almost nothing you can’t get government to pay for, but that’s no reason not to demand more. At its core, the “Occupy Wall Street” movement (in the political rather than the diaper-filling sense) is a plea for ever more extended adolescence funded at public expense. Don’t knock it. Dozing around listening to drum circles all day is more dangerous than it looks. Last week, several dozen members of “Occupy Las Vegas” occupying land located under the final approach to Runway 19 at McCarran International Airport narrowly missed being hit by a 50-pound slab of what’s euphemistically known as “blue ice” that fell from the bathroom of the president’s plane. Perhaps, as a symbol of the new post-self-reliant America of adult babies, Air Force One should be fitted with a giant diaper.
Treat yourself to a little Sunday morning of poking fun at the latest folly of our leaders and read it all.
Can we still get free government cheese? We need a Free Lunch Act. Wonder why Rosa DeLauro didn’t think of that.
Keynesian economics is popular with politicians because it espouses all sorts of things that politicians can and should do to fix a stalled economy.
Hayek’s Austrian economics holds that politicians will be creating more harm than good by doing the things Keynesianism approves of, and that there are only a few things that government should do. Those few things are generally loathsome to politicians because they offer little opportunity for political gain, as least not in the short term. Often the best course of action for economic improvement is for politicians to do nothing.
Examples of good economic times resulting from politicians following Hayek (of course, they had never heard of Hayek or his mentor Ludwig von Mises at the time) are the 1920’s the 1950’s. Harding did little about the panic of 1921 and within 18 months things were back to normal. Coolidge presided over good times in the 1920’s by doing basically nothing.
Examples of good times ushered in by Keynesian policies are ….well, there aren’t any. The Great Depression was caused by government overreaction to the stock market crash on Black Friday in 1929. If government had not restricted the money supply, enacted the Smoot-Hawley tariff, and raised taxes dramatically (all done by or under Herbert Hoover), the market crash would not have led to a recession that resulted in a run on banks that lasted until Roosevelt took office in 1933. But the recession would still not have turned into the Great Depression if Roosevelt had not inflicted the New Deal on America. The only thing that ended the Depression was events beyond the control of the politicians. WW II ended the New Deal and then the Depression ended.
Another example of good times when politicians restrained themselves was the 1950’s. Eisenhower decided he would rather play golf than meddle with the economy, and the country prospered as a result. He’s not remembered as a great golfer, he is remembered as a good president. There is political gain to be had by a politician for following Hayek’s advice, it just doesn’t come in time for the next election.
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe raising tax rates at the highest margin will have little or no effect on production, and will enable them to effect greater re-distribution of wealth. Conservatives believe that raising taxes will change the rate of return on investment which will in turn change investment behavior leading to a reduction in production of good and services in the economy as the private sector retreats and government grows, resulting in less wealth creation and less wealth to be re-distributed by liberals.
Conservatives are right; liberals are wrong.
Excepting former Georgia governor and senator Zell Miller, all Democrats are liberals. Not all Republicans are conservatives, however. Some are liberals but differ in important respects from their Democrat counterparts. Republican liberals don’t generally believe much of the nonsense that true liberals believe but they think they will gain politically be adopting some of the liberal jargon and policies, or at least pretending to. Even though they aren’t firmly committed to the liberal ideology they like being in charge of government for the opportunity to control the finances of the country. They know how money talks and they want to have that power. They don’t much care for conservatives and they don’t have any more commitment to conservative principles than for liberal ideology. Seen in this way, liberal Republicans can be more harmful to the country in terms of achieving good government and wise economic policies because they will join forces with liberal Democrats whenever they think it will help them maintain and increase their personal political power. One party pushing liberalism but being held in check by a conservative party is less dangerous to liberty and prosperity than one liberal party running amuck and half the other party going along for the ride, with the conservative wing being forced to operate at half strength while being betrayed by those who should be helping them stop the Democrats.
Examples of such opportunistic liberal Republicans include the obvious such as Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Snowe and Collins of Maine; sadly, Scott Brown of Massachusetts appears to have joined them. Less obvious and less avowed but still dangerous to limited government and individual liberty are George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. These Republicans are not flaming liberals but they are not conservatives either. They are nevertheless quite worthless to the conservative cause of preserving the sort of government the founders created.
The choice between another four years of Obama with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress (as seems probable), or 4 years of a Romney presidency with Republicans controlling both houses, appears to be Hobson’s Choice. That usually means that while there are two choices apparent, the choices are a matter of form only. The substance is only one choice, and it’s a bad one. The lesser evil would be, in my opinion, to keep Obama with Republicans in control of Congress. Even the liberal Republicans in Congress will understand they have nothing to gain politically in helping Obama impose socialism on the country. The upshot is the country would be better off with an Obama/Republican Congress than a Romney/Republican Congress because four years of Romney pushing liberal policies and Republicans going along because they don’t want to oppose their president will destroy conservatism for good, as the 8 years of George W. Bush so weakened it that we got Obama and a solid Democrat Congress from 2008-2010. In just 2 years that combination so wrecked the economy it will take years to fix it. If the patient is left in the trauma center waiting room for 4 more years because of liberal Republicanism without any counter balance, we’re toast.
For a little Saturday morning diversion take a look at the interesting cell phone incident you’ll see by clicking on the image below (nothing will infect your computer):
Assuming this is authentic, it’s funny. Is it ethical? Is it a nice thing to do? You have to be as old as I am to remember Alan Funt and Candid Camera. That was very funny television, but the victims were paid later for their trouble and inconvenience and they gave their permission for the broadcast of the video. I assume the people in this video were contacted and their permission obtained before this was shown on CMT.
More judicial support for the restoration of gun rights where one’s felony conviction is many years old, did not involve violence or the use of a firearm, and one has lived a law-abiding life since. Johnston v. North Carolina finds that 2nd Amendment protects gun rights in those cases. It’s time for some amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968. Just repeal the whole thing, I’d say.
“Hope and Change” was the motto of the Obama election campaign which many soon re-phrased as “Hype and Chains.” That was clever and humorous but the truth of the Obama presidency is now firmly established as a new era of decline and despair. It’s quite revolting to hear Obama compare himself to Abraham Lincoln considering that Lincoln’s America was the time of “a new birth of freedom.”
Instead of hope and change, the Obama presidency has delivered decline and despair on a scale not seen in America since the dying days of the Carter administration. Both at home and abroad, the United States is perceived to be a sinking power, and with good reason. The big-spending interventionist economic policies of the current administration have been little short of disastrous, and have saddled the US with its biggest debts since 1945. The liberal experiment of the past few years has knocked the stuffing out of the American economy. Job creation has been barely non-existent, and millions of Americans are now significantly worse off than they were a few years ago. Even The New York Times has acknowledged “soaring poverty” in Obama’s America, citing a Census Bureau report showing the number of Americans officially living below the poverty line (46.2 million) at its highest level for more than half a century, since 1959.
To this Professor Jacobson adds:
What I find most dispiriting is not the decline, which as Gardiner notes is not yet irreversible, but that over 40% of the population still approves of the job Obama is doing:
When you consider that some of the people who do not approve of Obama’s performance want him to be more liberal, we’re approaching half the country.
That’s the depressing part, that almost half the country still buys what Obama is selling, or wants more.
The Democrat party can’t be expected to care about the destruction of education in America when it produces so many idiots who support Democrats and will vote for them no matter what.
The media tries its best to portray the crime wave known as the “Occupy Movement” as a grass roots political movement but we know two things in spite of the media coverup: The Occupy bunch is not a grassroots movement, it’s a financed and controlled product of the community organizer in chief himself, with assistance from ACORN, and with plenty of George Soros’ money thrown in. It is a prime example of the the elite political class following the Cloward-Piven strategy to create social chaos leading to a crisis that will overload the welfare state until it collapses. The final stage of the strategy is to replace the current social and economic system with pure socialism. The tactics used to accomplish the desired results can in large part be found in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. That book is a sort of bible for the strategies used by Obama all of his career as a community
We also know that the Occupy Movement is more accurately characterized as a crime wave than a genuine political movement exercising “the right of the people peaceably to assemble , and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” as guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. While we know the Occupy movement is a bunch of lazy bums occupying public spaces and shouting demands to be given free stuff, that they create public health hazards and leave garbage and filth strewn everywhere they go, and that crime is rampant in their little Obamavilles, the media refuses to report specific incidents or actively covers up those incidents, all to try to hide the true nature of the Occupy movement.
But now there is a website, OWS Exposed, devoted exclusively to revealing the truth about the disreputable, crime and filth ridden, far left Occupy Wall Street Movement.
Here is a sampling of headlines of some of the incidents that are being reported at OWS Exposed:
Staged Arrests by Cleveland Occupiers Results in Restraining Order
Woman Raped at Occupy Camp
Albuquerque Occupiers — Riots and Mayhem
AFL-CIO President Defends Unlawful Actions by OWS Agitators
And much more.
The book description at Amazon begins:
“Jeffrey D. Sachs has been at the forefront of international economic problem solving. But Sachs turns his attention back home in The Price of Civilization, a book that is essential reading for every American. In a forceful, impassioned, and personal voice, he offers not only a searing and incisive diagnosis of our country’s economic ills but also an urgent call for Americans to restore the virtues of fairness, honesty, and foresight as the foundations of national prosperity.”
There are some scary words in there. “Forceful, impassioned and personal” in a book of economic analysis? A “searing and incisive” diagnosis of our economic ills when it’s plain to any fool that the economic malaise is the result of out-of-control government spending, irresponsible economic and regulatory policies by the government that have turned a quite ordinary recession in a nightmare of unemployment and stagnation, with constant demagoguery from our president to divert attention from the failings of his economic policies. The fault for everything from unemployment to worts and dandruff can be explained, according to Obama, by a few rich people not paying enough in taxes. The wealthiest 10% already happen to pay over 90% of all income taxes collected but somehow that’s not enough. The wealthiest 1% make 18% of all income and pay 38% of all income taxes, and 28% of all taxes. How much more can be squeezed out of them? And will it even matter? If they can be made to pay more what would that do to change the economic condition of the country? Would that create jobs? Would low-income people be helped by skinning the rich for more?
Don’t expect Professor Sachs’ “forceful, impassioned, and personal voice” to explain any of that, nor his “searing and incisive” diagnosis of our economic ills to come anywhere close to explaining how a government that spends money faster than it can be printed or borrowed will use that revenue to do anything positive for the economic woes of the country. No lowering of unemployment or the creation of new jobs outside of government jobs have been created despite a massive stimulus and plenty of other government spending. Over 6 million private-sector jobs have been lost under Obama in spite of his massive spending. How can new tax revenue help and why is it even needed when government spending proceeds at full speed ahead without any constraint whatsoever by a lack of government revenue?
Can we all work for the government? Yes, we can. Si se puede. But our paychecks will be worthless pieces of paper with no private sector creating the wealth necessary to sustain the economy. The government taking even more of the reduced level of wealth being created today can’t “reawaken American prosperity” as Professor Sachs promises. That is idiocy that can only further weaken the economy and create yet more unemployment.
Sachs seeks to justify his call for increased taxes by a statement made by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in 1904 that “Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” Michael Patrick Leahy shows that this statement of the great Supreme Court Justice is taken out of the context in which it was made, and when put back into that context it is shown to be a ridiculously thin reed for Professor Sachs to base his present argument:
“Holmes issued his famous quote back in 1904, during the 142 year period between 1789 and 1931 when peace time federal spending as a percentage of GDP never exceeded 4 percent. I note today that under policies Professor Sachs supports, federal spending as a percentage of GDP–at 24 percent– is now six times greater than it was during Justice Holmes’ prime.
“When Justice Holmes delivered that famous quote, I’m pretty sure he didn’t have the current level of taxation in mind as the “price” of civilization. At 24 percent of GDP, we’re dramatically overpaying for civilization.”
We’re not only getting gouged by government overcharging us, we aren’t even getting the “civilization” we are supposedly paying for. Instead we’re getting flash mob violence by Black youths against Whites, Occupy movement filth and defilement of our public spaces, a drug war that is killing people North and South of our border with Mexico, and a ever more and more bloated government regulating the smallest crevices of our private lives, from our light bulbs and toilets to our banking fees (that have been made higher by the Dodd/Frank Financial Regulatory Act).
The scariest words in the Amazon book description are “the virtues of fairness.” When you hear that kind of talk you should expect that a beating with a rubber hose is about to occur. Everybody has their own subjective views of “equity” and “fairness” and after they convince themselves that what they want to do to you is “only fair” then they can do just about anything. As Mr. Leahy says;
Professor Sachs makes the same mistake many well intentioned altruists make when it comes to public policy. They substitute their own ideas of “equity” and “fairness” for Constitutionally valid solutions. The implication is that their altruism–because it’s good and noble–trumps our notions of Constitutionality.
As an economist, Professor Sachs understands the difference between the concepts of “price” and “cost.” 4 percent of the GDP may be the “price” of civilization, but 24 percent of the GDP sounds more like the “cost” of tyranny.
Surprise, Surprise: Women Would Rather Work For A Man Than Another Woman Because — Women Are Too Emotional
So says, or found, Chicago-Kent Law Professor Felice Batlan who surveyed 142 legal secretaries at larger law firms in 2009, and not one expressed a preference for working for a female attorney. This accords with what I saw those many years ago when I was a partner in a law firm. Conflicts between secretaries (who were all women) and women lawyers in the firm were much more prevalent than conflicts with male lawyers. Complaints by attorneys in the firm about their secretaries were higher among the women as well. The firm never officially took notice of this fact, it was just there for everyone to see but no one talked about it.
Forty-seven percent of legal secretary’s in Batlan’s survey expressed no opinion on way or another. But not one of the entire survey preferring to work for another woman is striking. So much for the sisterhood.
Here are some of responses Batlan found:
• “Females are harder on their female assistants, more detail oriented, and they have to try harder to prove themselves, so they put that on you. And they are passive aggressive where a guy will just tell you the task and not get emotionally involved and make it personal.”
• “I just feel that men are a little more flexible and less emotional than women. This could be because the female partners feel more pressure to perform.”
• “Female attorneys have a tendency to downgrade a legal secretary.”
• “I am a female legal secretary, but I avoid working for women because [they are] such a pain in the ass! They are too emotional and demeaning.”
• “Female attorneys are either mean because they’re trying to be like their male counterparts or too nice/too emotional because they can’t handle the stress. Either way, their attitude/lack of maturity somehow involves you being a punching bag.”
• Women lawyers have “an air about them.”
The mother instinct might explain some of the secretaries preference for a male attorney. If so, Men are easier to mother than other women, especially fiercely independent women lawyers. Here is what one of Batlan’s respondents said:
“My partner in particular tends to forget the little things. I often find myself tailing him as he’s walking out the door to a meeting going down a list of things he may need. Oddly, I don’t feel like my female attorneys need that kind of attention.”
Maybe this is just a phenomenon of the self-selected personality types that go to law school and become lawyers. But notice that the number one reason women secretaries prefer a male boss is that women are said to be too emotional. That’s not a trait just of women lawyers. If it were not true that women’s emotions are more complex the “male and female control panel” wouldn’t be as funny:
The male part of the control panel is just an on/off switch.
I have two cats, brother and sister. The female fusses about everything all the time. The male just eats, sleeps and stares out the window.
Media spin reports this as “more than a third of Americans…” Yeah, that makes it sound bigger than 37% doesn’t it. In addition to photos of bums defecating on cop cars, which I didn’t have the nerve to post here (no sense in grossing out my readers), here is what that 37% supports (will gross you out only a little bit):
Well, if you use your freedom to totally screw up your body maybe wasting freedom in such a grotesque manner isn’t much different than being a slave.
That’s right. The stimulus cost $862 Billion, the Iraq War cost $709 Billion. The stimulus was a failure, we got little from the stimulus but a huge deficit for future generations to pay off. The Iraq war, dubbed operation Iraqi Freedom was a success. The Iraqi people are free. Whether they stay that way is up to them.