The Blue Grotto

Here's the Most Beautiful Black Lab on the North Shore.

     This is Brandy (thought that was a girl's name, but this is a boy lab).  He spends a lot of time relaxing in front of the Dunkin' Donuts in Beverly Farms.  Whenever I see Brandy, I always make sure to stop, exchange pleasantries, and spend some quality time with this handsome and proud beast.  The keys to a beautiful lab are "huge head," "huge paws," and "expressive eyebrows," all of which Brandy has.

   

This October 12th Release Is a No-Brainer. . .

     Elizabeth: The Golden Age

     Let's see. . . the best actress in the world reprising her 1998 Oscar-nominated breakout role.  I think I'll check it out.

 

.

 

     Geoffrey Rush returns to join Cate Blanchett, and they're joined by Clive Owen and Samantha Morton this time.  Here's the bit from ComingSoon.net:

Reprising the roles they originated in seven-time Academy Award®-nominated "Elizabeth," Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush return for a gripping historical thriller laced with treachery and romance--"Elizabeth: The Golden Age." Joining them in the epic is Clive Owen as Sir Walter Raleigh, a dashing seafarer and newfound temptation for Elizabeth.

"Elizabeth: The Golden Age" finds Queen Elizabeth I (Oscar®-winner Cate Blanchett) facing bloodlust for her throne and familial betrayal. Growing keenly aware of the changing religious and political tides of late 16th century Europe, Elizabeth finds her rule openly challenged by the Spanish King Philip II (Jordi Molla)--with his powerful army and sea-dominating armada--determined to restore England to Catholicism.

Preparing to go to war to defend her empire, Elizabeth struggles to balance ancient royal duties with an unexpected vulnerability in her love for Raleigh. But he remains forbidden for a queen who has sworn body and soul to her country. Unable and unwilling to pursue her love, Elizabeth encourages her favorite lady-in-waiting, Bess (Abbie Cornish), to befriend Raleigh to keep him near. But this strategy forces Elizabeth to observe their growing intimacy.

As she charts her course abroad, her trusted advisor, Sir Francis Walsingham (Academy Award® winner Geoffrey Rush), continues his masterful puppetry of Elizabeth's court at home--and her campaign to solidify absolute power. Through an intricate spy network, Walsingham uncovers an assassination plot that could topple the throne. But as he unmasks traitors that may include Elizabeth's own cousin Mary Stuart (Samantha Morton), he unknowingly sets England up for destruction.

"Elizabeth: The Golden Age" tells the thrilling tale of an era...the story of one woman's crusade to control love, crush enemies and secure her position as a beloved icon of the western world.

     Here's the link to the site.  Click on Trailer:

http://www.elizabeththegoldenage.net/site.html?main=3&sub=3

.

.

Inspector Clouseau Must Be Vacationing on the North Shore. . . .

     This red version of the Silver Hornet was parked in the vicinity the other day:

 

I Like This Cartoon. . . .

Single Bee Sends Gathering Of Humans Into Helpless Panic

DALLAS — A western honeybee measuring barely one-quarter of an inch in length and weighing approximately .03 ounces triggered panic among a gathering of six fully-grown Homo sapiens during a picnic at Davis Park on Monday, witnesses reported.

"Where is it—where is it?" said 44-year-old general manager Charles Freid, who has been described by his coworkers and business rivals as  "ruthless," after the bee happened to fly in his general direction. "Get it off me! Is it on me?"

Enlarge Image  

Dallas' Davis Park on Monday afternoon, still abandoned hours after the bee enounter. Inset: the bee.

"Jesus!" added Freid, screaming and flailing his arms as he raced to his car, got inside, and locked the doors.

The college-educated humans, all of whom are not allergic to bee-sting venom and possess both cerebral and muscular capacities several orders of magnitude beyond that of the insect, proceeded to retreat in abject fright from its half-millimeter stinger, which, when used, causes a twinge of discomfort followed by mild irritation and kills the bee.

According to entomologists at the University of Texas at Dallas, the Apis mellifera was most likely trying to pollinate a nearby cluster of dandelions and was not, as alleged by 50-year-old attorney Georgia Sakko, who has twice endured the pain of childbirth and successfully battled breast cancer, "out to get us."

"Don't make it angry—don't make it angry!" Sakko said. "Is it in my hair? I feel something in my hair. Somebody get it out. Get it out!"

Airline pilot Mike Grunwold, 49, who is approximately 1,224 times the size of the bee, said that he was "certain" the bee had landed on Sakko's back. Fiber tests on Sakko's clothing later found no traces of a bee's presence, but did reveal a small piece of lint and matted hair that may have resembled an insect at a distance and in certain lights.

Civil engineer, marathon runner, and Gulf War veteran Scott Fogel, 39, briefly attempted to use force against the bee's non-aggressive actions, waving it away with a paper plate. After accidently upending a container of potato salad, which caused the bee to suddenly swerve, Fogel leaped back several feet and dashed for cover behind a trash can.

"They're attracted to sweat," Fogel said. "It makes them want to kill. Just try to keep as far away from it as you can."

After the bee seemingly disappeared, the humans—members of a species that has crossed an Ice Age land bridge from Asia to North America, domesticated the wolf, built the pyramids, and landed a manned vehicle on the surface of the moon—walked cautiously back to the picnic area.

"I think it's gone," personal trainer Marcus Weller, 32, said. "Thank God."

A few seconds later, the bee emerged from an overturned Coke can, prompting the humans to scream and retreat once more. They opted not to return to the area, abandoning several hundred dollars' worth of food and picnicking equipment. The brutalized parkgoers characterized the day as "totally ruined."

The bee, which was reportedly never more than vaguely aware of the presence of other living organisms besides the blooming plants it sought, eventually returned to its hive without incident.

Exciting "Irony" / Tax Policy Post!!!

  "Karl Marx's vision of a socialist society included a progressive income tax, where higher income people pay not just more tax, but higher rates on their income. Ironically, while the U.S. and Western Europe tend to embrace capitalism, they adopted Marx's progressive income tax. Yet nine of the East European and formerly communist countries have abandoned it for a flat tax, where only one tax rate is applied to all income. And now Bulgaria and the Czech Republic are considering joining the flat taxers with a single 10% rate. Having spent decades under communist rule, formerly communist countries are ready to cast off Marxist policies that stifle economic growth--like the progressive income tax. So when will the capitalist countries also abandon their Marxist policies?"

    Merrill Matthews Jr., Institute for Policy Innovation

.

New Yorker Cartoon of the Day

     My favorites are the extra-awkward dog sitting next to the guy and the bull terrier at bottom right. . . .

"People Are Too Damn Dumb to Know the Difference. . . ."

     The full quote at the beginning of the below column makes me think of the actors skillfully playing the parts of "ordinary Americans" in those BP commercials.  You know the ones.  There's the concerned guy on the city street wondering aloud if oil executives have ever, perhaps, thought of the pros and cons of renewable energy sources.  There's the midwestern farmer standing next to the field he's plowed for fifty years pontificating about how we need to dispense with fossil fuels (I can only assume the farmer/energy analyst has run the numbers and come to his conclusions with a few facts, rather than just relying on what he might have heard some genius like Matt Lauer say).

     Please enjoy this column about the biases that people hold when looking at the world.  It's not just the people you see wandering aimlessly through the mall who grasp the issues at about the same level as a golden retriever.  Some of the most breathtakingly dumb people I've met have fancy degrees from the most prestigious institutions of higher learning (or at least what used to be called learning - now more like indoctrination). 

     Read on to learn about evil CEOs who greedily conspire to manufacture undeserved profits, the immorality of creative destruction in the jobs market, and the terrifying and ominous balance of trade non-issue!

     As usual, Grotto fall-term interns have highlighted important passages at the Editor's direction.

.

Stupid, Ignorant or Biased?
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, September 19, 2007

President Franklin D. Roosevelt's closest adviser and architect of the New Deal, Harry Hopkins, advised, "Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference." Professor Bryan Caplan, my colleague at George Mason University, sheds some light on Hopkins' observation in his new book, "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies."

Caplan is far more generous than Hopkins. Instead, he says people harbor economic biases, several of which he discusses. There's the anti-market bias, the failure to believe that market forces determine prices. Many believe that prices are a function of a CEO's intentions and conspiracies. If a CEO wakes up feeling greedy, he'll raise prices. They also believe that profits are undeserving gifts. They fail to see that, at least in open markets, profits are incentives for firms to satisfy customers, find least-cost production methods and move resources from low-valued to high-valued uses.

Then there's the make-work bias, where many believe that labor is better to use than conserve. Thus, the destruction of jobs is seen as a danger. Technology, as well as outsourcing, throws some people out of work. Caplan reminds us that in 1800 it took nearly 95 of every 100 Americans, working on farms, to feed the nation. In 1900, it took 40. Today, it takes three. Workers no longer needed to farm became available to produce homes, cars, pharmaceuticals, computers and thousands of other goods. Caplan doesn't make the equation, but outsourcing, just as technological innovation, frees up labor to produce other things as well.

Next is the anti-foreign bias. Caplan explains that there are two methods for Americans to have cars. One is to get a bunch of workers into Detroit factories. Another is to grow a lot of wheat in Iowa. You harvest the wheat, load it on ships sailing westward on the Pacific Ocean, and a few months later the ships reappear loaded down with Toyotas. We have cars as if we produced them. In other words, exchange is an alternative method of production.

Added to the anti-foreign bias is the balance-of-trade fallacy. Caplan says that nobody loses sleep over whether there's a trade balance between California and Nevada, or between him and iTunes. Trade balance fears arise only when another country is involved. The fallacy is not treating all purchases as a cost but only foreign purchases as a cost. There might be another bias as well. Caplan reports that, according to an opinion survey, 28 percent of Americans admitted they dislike Japan but only 8 percent dislike England and a scant 3 percent dislike Canada.

People have a pessimistic bias where they believe economic conditions are not as good as they really are and things are going from bad to worse. This is the message of doomsayers, but the reality is quite different. By any measure of well-being, Americans at the start of this century are far better off than Americans at the beginning of the last century. Perennial doom-and-gloom predictions about resource depletion, overpopulation and environmental quality are exaggerated and often the opposite of the truth. Preaching doom and gloom has been beneficial to the political class. They use it to gain more power and control.

Caplan is one of George Mason University Economics Department's up-and-coming young scholars. In fact, I'm proud to say, he was hired during my department chairmanship. "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies" is a highly readable and interesting political-economic discussion of why we choose bad policies. Those policies are harmful to the general public but beneficial to particular interest groups who gain from restrictions on peaceable, voluntary exchange. Maybe that's why our founders loathed a democracy and gave us a republic -- which we've lost.

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

Check Out This Family Photo. . .

Blue Grotto Fashion "Don'ts": More Denim Disasters from Orvis!

     The Grotto High Fashion Dept. has been inundated lately with letters from loyal readers desperate for more pleated denim-wear.  I'm happy to report back that Orvis seems to be the one-stop-shop for all your comfortable denim needs. 

     The Vintage Denim 14-Pocket Pants (featured in this column on September 3rd) that you wear on Wednesdays can now be attractively sandwiched between Tuesday's Denim Chinos and Thursday's Denim with S-T-R-E-T-C-H:

.

.

New Yorker Cartoon of the Day

Unprecedented Ass Expansion Threatens Area Pantsuit

December 10, 1996

NEW ROCHELLE, NY — Preservationists throughout the nation are expressing alarm at what they call an "unprecedented" rate of ass expansion within the confines of a New Rochelle-area pantsuit.

Enlarge Image  

The ass.

According to a study released Monday by the activist group PantsWatch, the pantsuit, a Jaclyn Smith-brand outfit purchased in 1992, could suffer irreparable damage within the next six months if the ass expansion were to continue unchecked.

"The current ass expansion rate is nearly double that of last year. Containment of the emergent assosphere is becoming less and less viable," PantsWatch's Brent Klarman said. "This ass must not be allowed to destroy vital stitching. We can not idly stand by and allow this ass to continue its relentless growth beyond the already-allocated fabric zone."

Among the study's alarming claims are a 40 percent increase in seam stress, a 23 percent rise in chafing and bunching, and a devastating 48 percent drop in pocket space resulting from excessive ass increase.

"At the current rate of ass expansion, fabric integrity will likely be breached by September 1997," the report concluded. "This is ass mass acceleration of astronomic, catastrophic proportions."

"Proper ass containment requires a careful balance between ass-space allocation and pants availability," said Greg Hemming, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Trouser and Legwear Conservation. "Once that balance is shifted, an ass can cause irreparable damage to its environment, taxing a pantsuit's stitching, elastic band and fit beyond its capacity to adapt. In some cases, when a pantsuit's resources are strained past the limits of feasibility, it can no longer accommodate the increased pressures of the changing ass. In a worst-case scenario, riding, binding and severe seam rippage can be the result."

Enlarge Image  

Hemming also warned that once an ass breaks free of the confines of its enclosure, there is often no stopping it.

According to conservationists, making matters worse is the rare nature of the pantsuit.

"This is a four-year-old pantsuit, so it is unlikely that it would be replaceable should it burst," said Pat Wallingford of the activist group Asspeace. "If these pants become no longer viable as a clothing option, the owner will most likely have to supplement her wardrobe with a more contemporary design. And this rare pantsuit will be lost forever, gone the way of the passenger pigeon."

Making matters worse, Wallingford said, is the fact that many laws mandating ass containment measures are in danger of being repealed due to pressure from powerful pro-ass lobby groups, including AssNow! and Asslamic fundamentalists.

"These groups aren't concerned about preserving the nation's pantsuits for our children," Wallingford said. "All they care about is profits and ass expansion at any cost."

The pantsuit, which was recently placed on "protected" status, faces its most serious crisis since Thanksgiving weekend 1994, when rescue workers were rushed in for an emergency button-opening procedure.

"We Didn't Progress from 4-inch Black-and-White Cathode Ray Tubes to 4-foot Flat Panels Because the Government Raised Television Standards. . . ."

     Required reading for liberals and bureaucrats:

How About This Little Guy?

     This fruit bat is just minding his own business and doing the best that he can. . . .

At This Rate, They'll Be Churning Out Teachers Clad in Little Kim Jong Il Uniforms Instead of Graduation Gowns!

     What the hell is going on?  Read the following column and ask yourself if this indoctrination crap is happening in America or in some long lost George Orwell novel.

     Wanna be a teacher?  Better be ready to fight "oppression" as part of your daily job. 

.

Indoctrination 101
By John Leo
Tuesday, September 11, 2007

In 1997, the National Association of Social Work (NASW) altered its ethics code, ruling that all social workers must promote social justice "from local to global level." This call for mandatory advocacy raised the question: what kind of political action did the highly liberal field of social work have in mind? The answer wasn't long in coming. The Council on Social Work Education, the national accreditor of social work education programs, says candidates must fight "oppression," and sees American society as pervaded by the "global interconnections of oppression." Now aspiring social workers must commit themselves, usually in writing, to a culturally left agenda, often including diversity programs, state-sponsored redistribution of income, and a readiness to combat heterosexism, ableism, and classism.

This was all too much for the National Association of Scholars. The NAS has just released a six-month study of social work education, examining the ten largest programs at public universities for which information was available. The report, "The Scandal of Social Work," says these programs "have lost sight of the difference between instruction and indoctrination to a scandalous extent. They have, for the most part, adopted an official ideological line, closing off debate on many questions that serious students of public policy would admit to be open to the play of contending viewpoints."

Nine of the ten programs, the NAS reports, require students to accept the ideology-saturated NASW code of ethics to get a degree in social work. The University of Central Florida says students "must comply" with the code of ethics if they wish to remain in school. Failure to accept the code constitutes "academic misconduct" in the University of Michigan program and "can result in disciplinary action" at the University of Minnesota—Twin Cities.

"Diversity/multiculturalism" and "oppression" were among the most common themes in coursework. The report notes, "Although it's certainly true that racism has been oppressive in American history, it seems question-begging to assume that ‘oppression' is a leading cause of poverty in the modern U.S. And it is far from clear that the only pathway to a non-racist or egalitarian society passes through the gateway or multiculturalism."

The NAS called on government agencies at the federal, state and local level "to cease requiring that social workers hold degrees from CSWE accredited programs in order to be hired." By associating themselves with the ideological tests in the CSWE standards and NASW code, "such agencies violate constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and religious conscience."

At schools of education, the buzzword "dispositions" carries the message of politicized advocacy. Ed schools once required aspiring teachers to display only competence and knowledge. Then the amorphous criterion of "dispositions" appeared, referring vaguely to habits and attitudes that teachers must have. The National Council for Accreditation of Teachers of English (NCATE) said education departments could "include some measure of a candidate's commitment to social justice"—in effect ruling that public school teachers could be evaluated on their perceptions of what social justice requires.

This opened a door to reject candidates on the basis of thoughts and beliefs. It also allowed ed schools to infer bad character from a political stance that the schools opposed. At Washington State University, where the college of education tried to expel a conservative student, the dean was asked whether Justice Antonin Scalia could pass a dispositions test at her school. "I don't know how to answer that," she replied.

Interventions by free speech and religious liberties groups induced a few schools to back down in well-publicized cases of abuse. At Missouri State University's undergraduate social work program, Emily Brooker received a "C" after complaining that professor Frank Kauffman "routinely engaged in leftist diatribes." Kauffman instructed Brooker's class to write the state legislature urging legal approval of adoption by gays. She refused on religious and moral grounds. As a result, Brooker was brought up on very serious charges; to get her degree, she had to promise to abide by the NASW code. After graduation, she sued and won a settlement.

In an attention-getting article, Stanford education school professor William Damon wrote that ed schools "have been given unbounded power over what candidates may think and do, what they may believe and value." In what seemed to be an exercise in damage control, NCATE president Arthur Wise said he agreed with Damon that it is not acceptable for ed schools to assess social and political beliefs.

Still, the ideology behind disposition theory and social justice requirements is intact and strongly holds sway in the schools. It dovetails with the general attitude on campuses that promoting liberal advocacy in the classroom is legitimate and necessary. So long as government agencies collaborate with the social work programs and ed schools, reform will remain a long way off.

John Leo is editor of MindingTheCampus.com and a former contributing editor at U.S. News and World Report.

Paparazzi Teaser! Stay Tuned for Soon-To-Be-Released Chris and Mary Beth Wedding Pics!

     The weekend of September 7th saw the arrival of a fun bunch of guests at the gorgeous wedding of Chris L. and Mary Beth O'K. on this island:

 

.

     The newlyweds:

.

     The bride the night before:

.

     The happy groom:

.

In Memoriam: Apache Baker

     There are only two types of people in the world:  Those lucky enough to have known Apache, and those unfortunate folks who did not.  This affable, gentle giant was half shepherd, half grizzly bear, as far as I could tell.  He was a faithful member of Andrea and James's household (he even predates James!) throughout his many happy days in Los Angeles. 

     Apache was so large that watching him run around the yard was like watching an oil tanker try to take a sharp turn.  He would sort of point himself in a direction and go.

     Farewell!  We miss you, Apache.

 

.

.

   

.

New Yorker Cartoon of the Day

Sorry, Demagogues: Pull Back the Curtain on Gasoline Price Volatility and You'll Find the Very Dull Law of Supply and Demand, not an Evil Wizard of Big Oil!

     Yawn.  If you're not a liberal, don't bother reading this article about the law of supply and demand, because, unlike the liberal, you probably grasped the concept in sixth grade.

.

Economics vs Politics
By Paul Greenberg
Monday, September 17, 2007

With gasoline prices now only medium outrageous, Gentle Reader may have forgotten how eager politicians were last year to find someone to blame when the pain at the pumps was off the charts.

The usual congressional investigation was hastily called, the usual outrage expressed, and the usual suspicions voiced with the usual lack of any economic effect. Then the political ritual was concluded, prices fell in the normal course of economic events, and few now ask whether there was anything to all that talk. It's a question worth asking as a lesson in politics - and economics.

Mark Pryor, the junior senator from Arkansas, was one of those making roundhouse accusations back then. In search of the nearest scapegoat for high oil prices, he settled for the same old one: dastardly Big Oil. The senator was out to protect us, so he said, from "the greed and profiteering in the oil marketplace" - not to mention economic literacy.

So what happened? Even though Sen. Pryor joined a number of his colleagues in trying to bully the Federal Trade Commission into cooking up some evidence to back up his conspiracy theory, all the FTC could do was reach the same conclusion it usually does: There was no substance to his charges.

Once again the bogeyman turns out to be nothing more sinister than the law of supply and demand. Sure enough, when supply dwindles and demand goes up,so do prices. Big surprise.

But every time gas prices go up, a certain kind of politician is shocked, shocked! Or at least pretends to be. And demands an investigation. Which is a lot easier than taking Economics 101 all over again.

Naturally the politician blames some vague, amorphous monster out there like Big Oil rather than the real-life owner-operator of your neighborhood filling station. After all, the little guy votes.

And it's too much trouble to think this thing through - as Henry Hazlitt did in his dandy little primer, "Economics in One Lesson."

To quote Mr. Hazlitt, "we cannot hold the price of any commodity below its market level without in time bringing about two consequences. The first is to increase the demand for that commodity. Because the commodity is cheaper, people are both tempted to buy, and can afford to buy, more of it. The second consequence is to reduce the supply of that commodity. Because people buy more, the accumulated supply is more quickly taken from the shelves of merchants. But in addition to this, production of that commodity is discouraged."

Gosh, just like gasoline last year.

If there's an avaricious cartel setting oil-and-gas prices, it's called OPEC. But oil sheikhs and Venezuelan caudillos are scarcely subject to a congressional investigating committee.

If there's a conspiracy at work here, it's the dismal science itself -economics. It's been refuting demagogues ever since they've been taking advantage of our anger, suspicion and ignorance. Hey, somebody's got to be blamed when we're unhappy. Especially somebody rich and powerful. What better scapegoat than Big Oil?

The art and science of economics may never be as simple or dramatic as Mark Pryor's populist rhetoric. But the study of economics may have the great advantage of clarifying things rather than hopelessly muddling them. Attached as we all may be to our own favorite conspiracy theory, along comes an actual investigation, and it goes poof. Which is just what's happened,again, to Mark Pryor's.

To quote the latest report from the FTC's investigators, whose prose isn't exactly scintillating: "The 2006 price increases were caused by a confluence of factors reflecting the normal operation of the market."

Aw shucks. And just when we were getting the tar and feathers ready for those oil executives.

And what were the factors that drove gas prices higher last summer? Among them, greater demand for fuel by vacationers (another big surprise), the still lingering effects of hurricanes (Katrina and Rita) that shut down refineries along the Gulf Coast, reduced oil refining capacity as producers switched to ethanol, and, as you might have expected, greater demand for both crude oil and ethanol. What, no conpiracy? How boring.

Once again the FTC found no evidence that gas prices were being manipulated by some sinister cabal in this country's boardrooms. Despite Senator Pryor's demand for more government regulation of gas prices (shades of Jimmy Carter's long lines back in the '70s), the FTC couldn't come up with any facts to support him.

This isn't the first time a sleek conspiracy theory has run aground on the rocky shore of fact. To quote Joseph Simons, a former director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition: "The FTC has looked at the same phenomenon, which occurs almost every year, year after year, and they get the same result. Why people think it's going to come out any different the next time is unclear. It's a waste of taxpayers' money."

But it's not a waste of ambitious politicians' efforts. They get to posture before the cameras and demand ACTION! -even if it's precisely the wrong kind.

The pols may be wrong again and again, year after year, but think of the advantages. They're able to strike while public anger is at its zenith, appease their louder and less thoughtful constituents, and they never have to say they're sorry by the time gas prices fall and the public's interest in the subject has waned. (Somehow they never get around to demanding a probe when gas prices go down.)

That's the way it is with wild accusations; the facts may never catch up. Or if they do, the story is relegated to the business section. Ho hum.

The price of gasoline may rise and fall and rise again, like that of any other commodity, but the market for demagoguery remains remarkably stable.

Word of the Day: Lammergeier

Lamergeier:  Giant, vulture-like European bird of prey.

.

     "The boys at Eton during Dr. Keat's tenure as headmaster took to skulking along the passageways and cloisters out of sheer terror lest this lammergeier suddenly loom upon them with his cane."

.

     Sam the Eagle, from The Muppets, was a lammergeier, right?

 

Scientists Isolate Area Of Brain That Doesn't Like Poking

September 14, 2007

BETHESDA, MD—After an extensive six-month study using an electroencephalogram and a finger, researchers at the National Institutes of Health have discovered the section of the human brain that responds unfavorably to poking.

"We found a direct link between this negative effect and our finger pressing on a particular area of the brain," said neuroscientist Matthew Redman Monday, who conducted the study on 12 healthy participants. "After analyzing our data and testing and retesting our subjects, we finally identified this region as the surface area of the brain."

Redman added that science has still barely scratched the surface of this intricate and fascinating organ, though he intends to keep doing so as soon as he receives his grant.

Is It "Unfair" That a TV Set Is 364 Times More Expensive Than a Gumball? (For the "Liberal Zero-Sum Thinking" Collection)

     When liberals think about economics, which I suggest is a very rare event, two scenarios unfold.  One:  Whichever liberal happens to be writing the capitalism-bashing article (usually some loser journalism major who wakes up to find himself high up in the ranks of a widely-read newspaper) has never taken a moment to think about some very basic economic concepts.  Two:  The liberal knows deep down inside that certain economic laws, like that old favorite concerning supply and demand, cannot be repealed any more than can the law of gravity, but then willfully decides to ignore this fact.  See, this savvy liberal (usually a Democratic Senator or Congressman) knows that you CAN actually fool most of the people most of the time, and if you speak gravely into a microphone enough times about the evils of capitalism and the "inequality" it produces, you'll probably win some elections!

     Please enjoy the underlined passages if you are in a rush. . . .

.

In Defense of CEO Compensation
By Robert Murphy
Thursday, September 13, 2007

If someone wants to bash corporations and the "excesses" of raw capitalism, there's no easier target nowadays than CEO pay. Recently critics were in a tizzy over a report claiming that CEOs make 364 times what the average worker earns. For example, in this MSN article Michael Brush declares:

In recognition of the just-completed Labor Day weekend, I'd like to offer a salute to American workers, who the United Nations just reported are second only to Norway's laborers when it comes to productivity.

And now, a bit of bad news for those same workers: You're not getting credit for that productivity. Instead, top executives at your companies are reaping the rewards in the form of increasingly fat paydays.

It's sad that this is the level of economic literacy among the media. If the press ignored advances in other scientific fields as much as they do in economics, we'd see weathermen advising readers to offer sacrifices to the rain gods.

What Mr. Brush apparently doesn't realize is that there isn't a fixed pie of income, such that high pay for CEOs necessarily translates into lower pay for workers. He's also ignoring the fact that competition impels companies to pay workers what they're generally worth. If Company A were paying its workers $25,000 per year when the workers were really adding $30,000 to the bottom line, why wouldn't Company B offer them a few thousand dollars more to switch?

In our increasingly global economy, certain individuals are incredibly productive and can command incredibly high earnings as a result. Corporate executives really do perform valuable tasks, and it really does make a difference who is running the company. Once we concede that productive individuals will earn more than less productive ones, the fact that some make 364 times what others do is largely irrelevant. After all, a TV set might be 364 times more expensive than a gumball. Is that "unfair" or does it merely reflect the forces of supply and demand?

Fortunately, some financial commentators would concede my points above. What these people object to, however, is CEOs making a bundle even when they fail. This viewpoint is expressed in a recent BusinessWeek piece by Bill George:

The public is outraged these days over CEO compensation, with good reason. Far too many chief executive officers get paid large sums even when they don't perform. I believe that CEOs should be well-paid when they do perform, but there is no justification for paying for nonperformance.

Now this raises an interesting question: Why in the world would shareholders agree to compensation schemes that are so "obviously" ridiculous? It offends the public (and Bill George) when Home Depot's "former CEO Bob Nardelli [received] a $200 million termination settlement after declines in market share and shareholder value." Yet the people who should really be upset are Home Depot shareholders. Are we to conclude that shareholders care less about their money than outside observers?

Let's not rush to judgment. It's risky to take a job as CEO. Highly talented individuals know that, despite their best efforts, they might perform poorly. Indeed, maybe a company has dug itself into such a hole that nobody could prevent the stock from falling. Now imagine that you are such a person, and you could (say) get a sure $10 million working in some other capacity with much less stress. Your other option is to take the job as Home Depot's CEO, where you will earn $250 million if the stock price goes up, but $100,000 if the stock price tanks. Does that sound like a good deal? Would Home Depot attract many qualified candidates with such a proposal?

Obviously I am simplifying matters, and in the real world companies have all sorts of mechanisms to align the long-run incentives of management with the shareholders. My point, however, is that the typical critic who spends five minutes thinking about the issue often overlooks the large element of risk. If corporations don't want to simply hire daredevils, they will need to have lucrative contingencies in place in case things turn sour. No one objects to this at the lower levels, either: If the stock price tanks, nobody expects the janitor to give back half his salary.

Finally, I should deal with the objection that in the real world, shareholders can't exercise control over management. This is true to varying degrees. But the market has an elegant solution to bloated management who fritters away shareholder value: the corporate raider. Ironically, the government's restrictions on so-called hostile takeovers make it harder for shareholders in large corporations to clean house and install managers who will look out for their interests. As usual, the imperfections of the marketplace can be traced to the unintended consequences of earlier government interference.

Robert Murphy has a Ph.D. in economics and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism (Regnery 2007).

"Good Boy!" Pic of the Day

Nameless Hurricane That Much More Terrifying

September 3, 2007

MIAMI — South Florida residents were overcome with fear, confusion, and an unnerving sense of dread Tuesday when they learned that an unidentified hurricane is heading for their area—its origin uncertain, its intentions unclear, and perhaps most frightening, its name unknown.

Enlarge Image  

The vacant eye of the unnamed storm fixes its baleful stare on the Florida peninsula.

"Who is this hurricane?" said Miami resident Beverly Motolla, just one of hundreds of thousands of citizens struggling to put a human face on this impending tragedy. "Why is it here? What does it want from us?"

Such questions remain agonizingly unanswered, as the anonymous storm front shows no signs of slowing down or divulging its background. Lacking any reliable information on the character traits of the popularly dubbed "Hurricane That Shall Not Be Named," thousands have fled the area, hoping to escape its destructive winds, driving rain, and chilling impersonality.

"If this hurricane were a Wilma or a Frank, or even a Rebekah, I'd at least know what to expect—a storm system with a low pressure center, sustained winds above 119 miles per hour, high gusts, and severe inland flooding," said Stewart Tomlinson, a Miami-area police officer who plans to drive his family north to Georgia on Wednesday. "But I don't even know if this hurricane is a boy or a girl. And frankly, that scares me."

"I don't want this…thing…coming anywhere near me or my family," Tomlinson added.

Those who have decided to stay home and brave the imminent storm have reported incidents of raindrops rapping on their windowpanes with a sinister, relentless urgency; drops in barometric pressure so sudden they could freeze a man's soul; and, in the words of one Coral Springs body shop owner, "the kind of heartless devastation that could only be wreaked by an unfeeling tropical cyclone that doesn't even have the decency to introduce itself."

"I heard that the hurricane killed 620 Guatemalans last week in cold blood," Mark Barclay of Sweetwater said. "And that it didn't even care."

Though the hurricane is predicted to cause widespread destruction, many say it brings something even more dangerous than a 10-foot storm tide and rapidly contracting eyewall: the element of the unknown.

"You can tell a lot about a hurricane by its name—that's why they have names," Surfside resident Brenda Harrison said. "Mitch, strong and unpredictable. Katrina, devious and vengeful. Bob, good guy, just passing through. But this hurricane could be anything. It could be a gentle mist, or it could be the worst natural disaster in the history of mankind. It could strike anytime, and it could be anywhere…even right behind you. Also, what if it doesn't even have an eye?"

"When the big hurricane struck Florida in 1998, I was scared until I found out its name was Earl," Panama City, FL citizen Sam Hewer said. "I went to high school with a guy named Earl. He was a little wild, but ultimately harmless. In fact, we used to make fun of him. So when the storm hit and destroyed my house, it didn't seem so bad. It was like, 'Oh, there goes Earl again.'"

As the storm approaches the coast, citizens have been speculating as to its identity. Many claim that the hurricane's erratic changes in course and spiral rainbands make it seem like a Dave. Still others suspect that it might be Hurricane Andrew in disguise, returning to finish what it started in 1992.

Also on Tuesday, the National Weather Service issued a statement in which it rejected calls to name the hurricane, describing such an action as "impossible."

"We've monitored, studied, and examined this hurricane in the two weeks since it appeared seemingly out of nowhere on our radar, and it simply has no name," NWS acting director Mary Glackin said. "If it had one, we'd be using it. It's not like we can just make up a name."

When asked if he could identify the storm, veteran WTVJ meteorologist Cal Valencia threw back his head and laughed scornfully.

"Fools! Be glad you don't know this hurricane's true name!" Valencia said. "It may be the sole mercy we are shown during this coming ordeal. Savor it! For in a day's time, you will be pining for your lost ignorance as a drowning man for oxygen."

One Miami-Dade citizen, however, has decided to take matters into his own hands.

"For my wife and children's sake, I've decided to tell them it's named Bradley," said Jackson Graham, a local carpenter who claims he cannot bear to tell his family the horrible truth. "Hurricane Bradley. God, I hope that doesn't make it angrier."

Word of the Day: Abacinate

Abacinate

To blind by putting red-hot copper basin near the eyes.

.

     "We found Miss Hurlothumbro collecting old bits of copper sheeting and threatening to heat them red hot and stage an abacination, so furious was she at having been omitted from the guest list at Mrs. Digby-Vane-Trumpington's cotillion."

.

Smart Countries Sprinting to See Who Can Get Their Tax Rates Lowest Quickest

     Read this and then compare to any Democratic candidate's creaky, outdated, terrible tax ideas.

.

Reaganomics 2.0

By Stephen Moore

August 31, 2007

Earlier this year the cover of Time Magazine depicted Ronald Reagan with a tear running down his cheek -- the message being that the political class has abandoned the Reagan legacy. There's no doubt Reagan's pro-growth, tax cutting philosophy is in full-scale retreat: This Congress has proposed higher tax rates on personal income, capital gains and dividends. Ironically, the Reagan economic philosophy of lower taxes, less regulation and free trade has never been more in vogue abroad -- so much so that it has become the global economic operating system.

Let's call this phenomenon Reaganomics 2.0.

In the Pacific Rim nations, for example, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam all have cut taxes this year or have plans to do so. Singapore has cut taxes multiple times in recent years and it now operates with no capital gains tax.

But the remarkable attitudinal shift on taxes has been in Europe, which in the 1980s and '90s showcased their gold-plated social safety nets, boasted of their citizens' willingness to pay high tax rates to maintain them and were openly contemptuous of the Reagan tax-cutting philosophy. Now those same nations of old-Europe seem to be in a sprint to see which country can get their tax rates lowest quickest. Nicholas Vardy, the editor of "The Global Guru" economic newsletter calls the phenomenon "Europe's Reagan Revolution."

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has plans to cut his country's business income tax by at least five percentage points as part of his economic rehabilitation plan. Spain and Italy are negotiating plans to lower their corporate tax rates, and the U.K. already did so earlier this year. Sweden and Russia last year eliminated their estate taxes because they said the tax was economically counterproductive. In Germany under Chancellor Angela Merkel, the corporate tax rate has been reduced to less than 30% from 39%.

Some of this tax chopping in Old Europe is a response to the success of the U.S. tax rate reductions and the fast pace of job creation that ensued from economic growth -- though few European officials will acknowledge that reality. But a bigger factor more recently has been the impact of the flat-tax revolution in Eastern Europe. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute says there are now 14 nations with flat taxes, 10 of them in nations formerly behind the Iron Curtain. "The pace of tax reform in these nations is so frantic, that it's hard to keep up to date with the changes," he says. Poland hasn't yet established a flat tax, but recently cut its business tax to 19% from 27%.

Austria cut its corporate tax rate to keep pace with its neighbor, Slovakia which recently adopted an 18% flat tax. Singapore is cutting taxes to compete with its 16% flat-tax rival Hong Kong. Northern Ireland wants to cut its tax rates so that it can compete with the economic gazelle of Europe, the Republic of Ireland. In 1988 Ireland was a high-unemployment stagnant economy with a 48% corporate tax rate, today that rate is 12.5% and the rest of the world is now desperate to match its economic results. Meanwhile German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck sold the latest tax cuts as "an investment in Germany as a business location."

The idea that jobs, businesses and wealth follow low tax rates is widely accepted. Nguyen Van Ninh, head of the Department of Taxation in Vietnam is typical. He concedes that the corporate tax cuts may lose revenues, but "on the other side, the business environment will become more and more attractive, resulting in increased investment."

This is all very good news -- except in the U.S. Arthur Laffer, one of the architects of the Reagan tax policies, believes that one major explanation for the strength of the euro and the weakness of the dollar in recent years, is the divergent paths on tax policies on the two sides of the Atlantic. Europe is cutting levies, while the only debate among the political class in Washington is how high to jack them up.

Still, it is a testament to the Reagan economic revolution launched in 1981 that, a quarter century later, global tax rates are 25 percentage points lower on average today than in the 1970s. And those figures don't even include this latest round of chopping under Reaganomics 2.0. The enactment of supply-side policies is helping ignite one of the strongest and longest world-wide economic expansions in history. Yet few are giving Reagan or his ideas the credit. Mr. Vardy points out that there are only two official statues of Reagan in Europe. Last month the Poles unveiled one financed by an American entrepreneur. The first was erected in Budapest to commemorate Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech in Berlin. Now tax walls are being torn down.

Alas, there's only about one place on the planet where politicians hold Reaganomics in outright disrepute today -- and that is here. The Democratic leadership in Congress believes that tax rates don't matter much if at all, and that the Bush tax cuts were a giveaway to the rich. Presidential candidate John Edwards has even suggested a near doubling of the U.S. capital gains tax rate as part of his economic program, and his rivals all have schemes to soak the wealthy as well.

All of this threatens to move America from leader to laggard in the global race for job creation, capital investment and prosperity. Maybe that explains the tear rolling down the Gipper's cheek.

New Yorker Cartoon of the Day

Dogs and People Turn Out for Sunday's Horse Show at Myopia

     There was a horse show at Myopia on Sunday, and all the horses and dogs were there.

     Here's a typical North Shore dog in Lilly Pulitzer saying hello to another dog in a wedding dress:

.

     Another preppy canine attendee:

.

    Letti, Margaret, my cousin's horse, my sister Gallaudet, and Jay:

 

.

     My cousin's horse, Perry, attempting to take control of Graham and Hugo Sweet's stroller:

.

    Here, I give some expert jumping advice to Katy:

.

     Another one of Katy:

Read On To Find Out Why Unattractive Secretaries Should Be for Low Taxes. . . .

Economics and Property Rights
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Economic theory does not operate in a vacuum. Institutions, such as the property rights structure, determine how the theory manifests itself. Similarly, the law of gravity isn't repealed when a parachutist floats gently down to earth. The parachute simply affects how the law of gravity manifests itself.

Failure to recognize the effect of different property rights structures on outcomes leads to faulty analysis. Think about several questions. Which lake will yield larger, more mature fish -- a publicly owned or a privately owned lake? Why is it that herds of cows flourished and buffalos did not? Who will care for a house better -- a renter or owner?

The answer to each question has to do with the property rights structure. In a publicly owned lake, everyone has the right to the fish. In order to assert his right, the person has to catch the fish. This leads to overfishing because the person who tosses back an immature fish doesn't benefit himself. He benefits someone else who will keep the fish. It's a different story with a privately owned lake. The owner needn't catch a fish in order to assert his rights and can let the fish mature. It's the same principle with buffalo and other wildlife that's publicly owned. Through various rules and regulations, governments, though imperfectly, attempt to solve this property rights problem with licenses, fishing and hunting seasons and setting limits on catch and size.

Private property rights force the owner to take into account the effect of his current use of the property on its future value. A homeowner has a greater stake in what a house is worth 10 or 20 years from now than a renter. An owner would more likely make sacrifices and take the kind of care that lengthens the usable life of the house. But owners have methods to make renters share some of the interests of an owner through requiring security deposits against damage.

There's a completely ignored aspect of the effect of restrictions on private property rights and that's restrictions on profits. Pretend that you're an owner of a firm. There are two equally capable secretaries that you might hire. The pretty secretary demands $300 a week while the homely secretary is willing to work for $200. If you hired the homely secretary, your profits would be $100 greater. But what if there were a 50 percent profit tax? The profit tax reduces your rights to profit and reduces your cost of discriminating against the homely secretary. Instead of foregoing $100 without the profit tax, you'd forego only $50 by hiring the pretty secretary. The more the cost of doing something goes down, predictably, the more people will do of it. Wherever private property rights to profits are attenuated, we expect more choices to be made by noneconomic factors such as race and other physical attributes. That's especially the case in nonprofit entities like government and universities.

You say, "Hold it, Williams, government and universities have preferential hiring policies in favor of racial minorities; so you're wrong." No. When it was politically expedient, government and universities were the leaders in racial discrimination against racial minorities. Now that it's politically expedient to discriminate in favor of racial minorities, government and universities are in the forefront. For example, in 1936, there were only three black Ph.D. chemists employed by all of the white universities in the U.S., whereas 300 black chemists alone were employed by private industry. In government, blacks were only 1 percent of non-Postal Civil Service workers in 1930. By the way, where did blacks make their entry into white universities? If you said in sports, the moneymaking part of the university, go to the head of the class.

There are numerous issues and problems that are otherwise inexplicable unless we take into consideration the property rights structure.

Blue Grotto Fashion Do's and Don'ts!

     I was flipping through the new Orvis catalog over the weekend, nodding with satisfaction and approval at page after page of attractive, outdoorsy apparel.  As I turned over to page 67, I almost blew a mouthful of Odwalla fresh-squeezed grapefruit juice out my nose and all over my living room upon seeing the following Grotto Fashion Don't.

     My theory is that somebody at Orvis snuck this one in there as a prank.  I hope that's the case.  The funny thing is, I spotted Grotto friend Juan Seitz wearing these pants recently at one of the "smart-casual" events that he likes so much.  They're good for him, as he's always "on-the-go" and looking for a convenient place to carry his "pocket knife, compass, and other essentials."

     Here's the item with Orvis' description:

.

Vintage Denim 14-Pocket Pants

These comfortable men’s travel pants are great when you’re on the go and need pockets for all your gadgets. Our classic 14-pocket pant style is available for the first time in hardy, soft-washed pure cotton Vintage Denim™. Handy pockets keep your sunglasses, pocket knives, compass, and other essentials on hand. Pants feature two special security zipper pockets to secure your keys and wallet. D-ring and tool loop. Adjustable twill strap for a custom fit. Extra-wide cargo loops. Pants available in dark indigo. Washable. Imported.
Men’s even waist sizes: 32-44. Cuffed up to 34" or plain finished up to 35" at no extra charge.

.

 

"Good Girl!" Pics of the Day. . .

     Here is the almost-impossibly-good girl Scout Wigglesworth guarding the Wigglesworth home, while relaxing at the same time:

.

Clinton Joke of the Day. . .

     Thanks to Christopher L. for this one:

.

     When Bill and Hillary first got married Bill said, "I am putting a box under the bed. You must promise never to look in it." 

     In all  their 30 years of marriage, Hillary never looked. On the afternoon  of their 30th anniversary, curiosity got the best of her and she  lifted the lid and peeked inside. In the box was 3 empty beer cans and $81,874.25 in cash.

     She closed the  box and put it back under the bed. Now that she knew what was in the  box, she was doubly curious as to why there even was such a box with  such contents. That evening, they were out for a special anniversary dinner.

     After dinner, Hillary  could no longer contain her curiosity and she confessed, saying, "I  am so sorry, Bill. For all these years, I kept my promise and never looked into the box under our bed. However, today the temptation was too much and I gave in. But now I need to know, why do you keep the 3 beer cans in the box?"

     Bill thought  for a while and said, "I guess after all these years you deserve to  know the truth. Whenever I was unfaithful to you, I put an empty  beer can in the box under the bed to remind myself not to do it again."

     Hillary was shocked, but said,  "Hmmm, Jennifer, Paula 
and Monica. I am very disappointed and  saddened by your behavior. However, since you are addicted to sex I guess it does happen and I guess 3 times is not that bad considering your problem."

     Bill thanked  her for being so understanding. They hugged and made their peace. A little while later Hillary asked Bill, "So why do you have all that  money in the box?" 

     Bill answered: "Well, whenever the  box filled up with empty cans, I took them to the recycling center  and redeemed them for cash."

"Corporate Social Responsibility" Quote of the Day!

     "There is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

    Milton Friedman

   

"Maybe the Kid Can't Read, But Look at the Bright Side, He's Smart!"

     Here's the latest column on how kids are being totally hosed by touchy-feely, lame schools and idiotic academic sub-standards:

.

No Fad Left Behind
By Debra J. Saunders
Thursday, August 23, 2007

"Many Americans do not believe that the success of our students or of our schools can be measured by one test administered on one day, and I agree with them. This is not fair," Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., told the National Press Club last month.

As the House Education and Labor Committee he chairs is expected to roll out a draft for legislation to reauthorize the 2001 No Child Left Behind bill, Miller and fellow Democrats want to change NCLB testing.

Currently, the law requires that students be tested in math and reading every year between third-grade and eighth-grade, then once in high school. Miller explained he would add "multiple measures of success. These measures can no longer reflect just basic skills and memorization, but rather critical thinking and the ability to apply knowledge to new and challenging contexts."

On the one hand, Miller is right to push to improve NCLB. He wants to allow states to apply graduation rates toward their yearly NCLB progress scores and also would have states include history and science test scores.

On the other hand, when the education establishment touts testing for "critical thinking," that can be code for: Maybe the kid can't read, but look at the bright side, he's smart.

And when educrat groups -- such as the Forum on Educational Accountability -- recommend that NCLB add "comprehensive assessments systems," which would include portfolios (essays, drawing, reports) in order to offer "rich and challenging educational goals," beware. What sounds like more sophisticated testing could end up being more confusing and inconclusive. A kid who can draw does not mean a kid who can multiply.

"The great danger here is that it clouds the accountability system," noted Amy Wilkins, vice president of Education Trust, a nonprofit group that advocates for higher standards in K-12 education.

No Child Left Behind's mission -- to help all children read and compute at grade level -- puts basics first so that children have the fundamentals in place to tackle more challenging subjects. Testing for problem-solving and critical thinking skills would only allow children who don't know the basics to score higher than they should.

Miller spoke to me on the telephone Wednesday about "drill and kill" and "teaching to the test." That's the standard line against standardized multiple-choice tests.

"It's goofy, they (the anti-test crowd) talk out of both sides of their mouth," Wilkins noted. Some educators complain that NCLB tests are confined to low-level skills and that they have to spend all their time teaching to the test. But: "If they're such low-level skills, why do you spend so much time teaching them?"

Besides, Wilkins noted, the NCLB tests "should not be comprehensive and test every standard." She likened NCLB testing -- which can consume from a couple hours to a day per year per student -- to "a dipstick" that allows educators to see if kids are making adequate progress toward mastering grade-level skills, and then hopefully move on.

Will the new NCLB draft include portfolios? Miller told me that a state might be able to include portfolios for English-language learners -- if the state has no valid test for that group, and thinks it can put together a good package and if the U.S. secretary of education approves. If the House education committee limits portfolios to that narrow area, so be it.

But on a larger scale, forget it. Teachers, parents and students already complain that there are too many tests. So the answer is: Another test? I don't think so.

The time it would take for teachers to grade portfolios is prohibitive. Most important of all, subjective grading defeats the whole purpose of NCLB. Washington passed this law because schools have graduated too many students who were not performing at grade level. The remedy is not a test that would allow graders to paper over the sorry fact that children cannot read.

.

USA Today Crossword Puzzle Grants False Sense Of Intelligence

August 29, 2007

DES MOINES, IA — Forty-five minutes after sitting down with a cup of coffee and the USA Today crossword, local window fashions salesman Tom Dolan completed the puzzle's last three open squares and was filled with a sense of intellectual accomplishment.

Though he admitted to consulting the Internet for the tougher clues, such as "a Kentucky liquor aged in oak barrels," Dolan, 38, credited the successful completion to his amazing ability to follow word-based clues. "The clue said 'Charlie's' blank," Dolan said. "It took a little while, but I realized that it was 'Angels.' That was my Rosemary Stone for unlocking the rest of the puzzle."

Dolan's confidence in his superior cerebral faculties faltered slightly after he noticed the adjacent Sudoku grid, but then he realized that it was rated "hard" and was immediately relieved of the pressure to solve it.

"Moralizing for Me, But Not for Thee. . ."

     Here's an excerpt from Jonah Goldberg's latest column:

. . . The left claims to hate "moralizers." So any failure to live like Jesus while telling others to follow his example is an outrage, even the defining challenge of our lives. (In 2005, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean pledged, "I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy.")

One solution to the hypocrisy epidemic, of course, is to have no morals at all. You can't violate your principles if you don't have any. Another solution: simply define down your principles until they are conveniently consistent with your preferred lifestyle. My own perfect moral code would mandate a strict regimen of not enough exercise, too much scotch and a diet rich in cured meats. Men would be religiously barred from taking out the garbage until their wives told them no less than three times to do so. "Thou Shalt Not Shave More Than Thrice Monthly": I'd never be a hypocrite if only the Bible gave us commandments like that.

But the left has another solution. Under its system, you can still be a moralizer. You can still tell people what to do and how to live. And, best of all, you can still fall short of your ideals personally while guiltlessly trying to use government to impose your moral vision on others. All you have to do is become a liberal moralizer.

Once you become a liberal, you can wax eloquent on the glories of the public schools while sending your kids to private school. You can wax prolix about the greedy rich while making a fortune on the side. You can even use the government to impose your values willy-nilly, from racial quotas and confiscatory tax rates to draconian environmental policies and sex-ed for grade-schoolers - all of which will paid for in part by people who disagree with you.

You don't even have to give up traditional religion, so long as you now define the teachings of your faith in perfect compliance with the Democratic platform. . . .

. . . The point is simply this: Hypocrisy is bad, sure. But it's a human failing that should fall upon the individual in question. What the left wants to do is use hypocrisy as a cudgel to declare that conservative ideals are categorically illegitimate because some conservatives fail to live up to them. But we all fail to live up to our ideals sometimes (just ask John Edwards, who wants get rid of everyone's SUV, save the one in his driveway). That's sort of why we call them "ideals." Most of us don't fall as far as Larry Craig seems to have fallen, but that's not necessarily an indictment of his arguments, it's an indictment of the man.

.

"I Felt As If Rocky Has Come From Our Village."

Posted Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:39am AEST

A statue of Sylvester Stallone's famous film character, boxer Rocky Balboa, has been erected in a tiny Serbian town to give a positive punch to the village's image after years of hard times.

The three-metre high bronze statue of Stallone as Rocky, made by a Croatian sculptor, was revealed late on Saturday (local time) in the centre of the Serbian village of Zitiste, some 55 kilometres north of the capital Belgrade.

A village resident thought up the idea of building a statue last February as he wanted to pay tribute to his favourite movie hero after seeing the sixth and latest Rocky movie.

"I felt as if Rocky has come from our village, he had to fight to win his place in society," Bojan Marceta said at the time.

The village, in Serbia's northern Vojvodina province, suffered serious damage after persistent floods last year. Many of its inhabitants have left their homes in search of a better future.

When village officials heard of Mr Marceta's idea they enthusiastically embraced the project in a bid to shed a "more positive light on Zitiste," said Zoran Babic of the local council.

"For years, only negative reports on farm diseases, monstrous murders, floods and landslides, have been coming from our village," Mr Babic said.

"This is the chance to give a better, more positive image to Zitiste."

- AFP