General David Patraeus

Mark Bowden on Patraeus - If you ever cared about the topic, you will enjoy the read. Bowden is as good as ever. I had eye leaks reading several spots.

When in Iraq, I watched the Change of Command from Casey to Patraeus - wondered what it must feel like to have, what felt at the time, the future of his nation in his hands. Right man, right time, and incredible turn of events.  I feel incredibly grateful ... indescribably grateful.  Thank you, Sir.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/05/petraeus-exclusive-201005

More Obamacare Surprises

"By granting amnesty for at least 10.8 million illegal immigrants, the Democrat health care bill will cost $162 billion a year -- or $1.62 trillion, which the CBO never took into account."


Not my favorite blogger, but who could doubt the charges.  This thing will be nasty ...
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/04/demcares-secret-162-trillion.html

Excellent Polspeak AKA 'Nonanswer'

"Barney Frank's Fantasy World, Posted: 28 Jan 2010 09:07 PM PST, http://www.cafehayek.com/

At Big Think <http://bigthink.com/ideas/18439> , they used one of my questions in their interview with Barney Frank:  Question: How can Fannie and Freddie be structured to avoid the moral hazard problem and a too-cozy relationship with regulators? (Russ Roberts, Café Hayek)
Barney Frank: Yes, in 2004 the Bush Administration significantly increased those housing goals and particularly ordered Freddie and Fannie to start buying up a lot of low income individual mortgages, and I opposed it at the time.
Interesting answer. Here is the relevant data on the housing goals from my soon (really) to be finished essay:
Starting in 1993, Fannie and Freddie have affordable housing goals―30% of Fannie and Freddie's purchases of loans have to be loans made to borrowers whose income was below the median income in their area. These are interim goals. In 1996, the interim goal becomes firm at 40%. In 1997, the number rose to 42%. In 2001 it rose to 50%. The Bush Administration increased this number to 52% in 2005, 53% in 2006, and 55% in 2007.
So it turns out there was no increase in 2004 and a minimal increase in 2005. The big increase was in 2001, the legacy of Clinton and Andrew Cuomo his HUD chief. Of course Bush embraced the housing goals and did increase them. But "Bush in 2004″ is a red herring.
I'd love to see the evidence that Frank "opposed it at the time."
And none of Frank's answer addresses the moral hazard problem�that people kept lending to F and F as the quality of their portfolio deteriorated because they knew the government stood behind them."

The Inept Politician's Remedy - Take What They Need

""We need more money. You have more money. We have more guns and prisons than you have. So hand it over." That's the root message that Sacramento is now blasting throughout the Golden State.
This arrogant attitude is not new to those in power. Throughout history, kings, queens, caliphs, czars, parliaments and congresses, being vested with monopoly power over the legitimized use of force, have been naturally inclined to deploy that force to serve their own ends. And to maintain as much support as possible among the productive populace (without whom there would be no wealth to tax or to otherwise confiscate), these sovereigns typically justified their predations as being for the greater good of the people."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/boudreaux/s_652904.html

Corruption of Science

The scientific method - protecting scientists from themselves since recorded history ... if they use it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/04/how_climate-change_fanatics_corrupted_science_100163.html

"Second, because the way to encourage people to fund projects is to show evidence that they work , not that they are futile and ineffective. One might almost suspect that these groups would prefer maternal mortality to remain high.

Or, as a prominent climate scientist said in another context,

"If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster."" http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/hold-good-news
(Nicely bird-dogged from www.cafehayek.com)

One of the ten rules of economics - incentives matter. If we can't take into account these 'interest group' incentives to keep the news bad, we'll never be able to sort out the facts. This is why we should never assume that because 'a majority of scientists thing human actions are causing climate change' that we're getting some beam of truth from a scientifically sterile laboratory. They have incentives to tell us things they want us to hear, regardless of the truth of the matter.

Unintended Consequences Beget Laws Beget ...

more unintended negative consequences ... begets more laws ....

"The partisans on the left who preach with certainty about the effects of the new health care law -- it will reduce the federal deficit; it will allow you to keep your current coverage; it will lower premiums -- speak from ignorance. No one really knows what the bill will do, including the members of Congress who voted for it."
"A new Congressional Research Service study has found that the law appears to boot members of Congress and their staffers off the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program before the alternative insurance options created by the law will be ready."

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Oops%2c+we+did+that%3f+More+health+care+surprises&articleId=95a06f2f-35f5-460b-8bff-a4dbc185aa59

What more need anyone say about the folly of politicians running a health care system.  Unintended consequences is a runaway train destined for additional future government intervention, just as the mistakes made by past and mostly dead politicians is what created the conditions leading to this most recent affront to liberty.  The most certain prediction to made is that this bill will not do what they think it will.  They insult our liberty to get who knows what ...