Thursday, April 27, 2006
Property Rights Victory in PA
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case that local governments can seize private property to increase tax revenues or to benefit other private interests without violating the U.S. Constitution, a number of States prepared legislation to protect the property rights of citizens. This week, the PA Legislature passed the “Property Rights Protection Act” (SB 881) and its companion bill, HB 2054, to preserve property owners from eminent domain abuse. These bills restrict the taking of private property for private commercial uses, tighten the definition of “blight” which is used to condemn private property, and increase reimbursements to property owners when eminent domain is exercised against them.
Gov. Rendell has not committed to signing them, stating that he wants to assure that municipality needs are balanced against citizen rights. However, since the bills passed both houses unanimously, they should be veto-proof and the Governor will most likely sign them into law.
This is a major gain for property owners' civil rights in our State. There was considerable grassroots pressure for these bills and the Legislature acted well, passing the best of several bill versions. The practice of defining "blight" will need monitoring to assure compliance with legislative intent, but this is still a great improvement.
Gov. Rendell has not committed to signing them, stating that he wants to assure that municipality needs are balanced against citizen rights. However, since the bills passed both houses unanimously, they should be veto-proof and the Governor will most likely sign them into law.
This is a major gain for property owners' civil rights in our State. There was considerable grassroots pressure for these bills and the Legislature acted well, passing the best of several bill versions. The practice of defining "blight" will need monitoring to assure compliance with legislative intent, but this is still a great improvement.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Federal Court Upholds Voter Photo ID's
A while ago, I posted here and here about The Pennsylvania Voter ID Act for "Fraud-Free Voting" that Governor Rendell vetoed, claiming it would place an unfair burden on poor and minority voters. Well, Indiana passed a similar, if not stronger, bill and their Governor signed it. The usual cast of characters sued in Federal Court.The result was just announced - Law upheld: Voters need photo ID: "U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker upheld Indiana's stringent voter-identification law. Barker said plaintiffs, including the Indiana Democratic Party, failed to back up their contention that the ID law is unduly burdensome and would keep many people from casting ballots."
But what about all those horror stories that we heard in Pennsylvania from the ACLU, the LWV, the Governor, and the other Democratics opposed to Fraud-Free Voting? It seems that same song was sung by the same chorus in Indiana, but Judge Barker was unimpressed.
"The Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, a co-plaintiff, had argued that the law -- passed by the Republican-led legislature in 2005 to prevent voter fraud -- would particularly affect the elderly, minorities and people with disabilities.
They would bear the cost of obtaining the documentation needed to get state-issued ID cards, plaintiffs said, arguing that having to spend money to vote was the modern-day equivalent of the "poll tax" -- the Jim Crow-era method of keeping black people from voting.
But Barker wrote: "Despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale voter disenfranchisement, plaintiffs have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting" because of the statute."
Repeat "not a single piece of evidence" . Must be a difference between the standards for court evidence and for political spin. Oh yes, voters can get a free photo ID from the State if they need one.
It also seems Indiana is reputed to have the worst case of bloated voter registration rolls ( i.e., lots more registered voters than warm bodies) in the nation. That shocked me; I thought we held that title with the Philadelphia rolls, as John Fund argued in my first post link above.
Still, we should give Gov. Rendell credit for helping out the poor and disabled Philadelphia voters by keeping open those 600 people-friendly polling places in bars and homes of Democratic functionaries (see photo) . After all, with all those "voters" on the Philly roles, we need as many obscure polling places as possible.
Why would Philadelphia, its roles and polling places, be so important to Gov. Rendell that he would veto bills to improve access for real people and assure honest "fraud-free" voting ?
Consider this bit of electoral history. In the 2004, PA went 'blue' by about 120,000 votes with Kerry winning Philadelphia County by 400,000 votes. In other words, all of PA, except for Philly, went for Bush by a 280,000 vote plurality. Could that be why Gov. Rendell's vetos were far from unexpected in this election year?
Repeat "not a single piece of evidence" . Must be a difference between the standards for court evidence and for political spin. Oh yes, voters can get a free photo ID from the State if they need one.
It also seems Indiana is reputed to have the worst case of bloated voter registration rolls ( i.e., lots more registered voters than warm bodies) in the nation. That shocked me; I thought we held that title with the Philadelphia rolls, as John Fund argued in my first post link above.
Still, we should give Gov. Rendell credit for helping out the poor and disabled Philadelphia voters by keeping open those 600 people-friendly polling places in bars and homes of Democratic functionaries (see photo) . After all, with all those "voters" on the Philly roles, we need as many obscure polling places as possible.
Why would Philadelphia, its roles and polling places, be so important to Gov. Rendell that he would veto bills to improve access for real people and assure honest "fraud-free" voting ?
Consider this bit of electoral history. In the 2004, PA went 'blue' by about 120,000 votes with Kerry winning Philadelphia County by 400,000 votes. In other words, all of PA, except for Philly, went for Bush by a 280,000 vote plurality. Could that be why Gov. Rendell's vetos were far from unexpected in this election year?
Monday, April 17, 2006
Call It TheWar On Jihadism
In an earlier post, here, I had complimented Sen. Rick Santorum for his outspoken defense and characterization of the current war as being waged against "Islamic Fascists" rather then against "Terror". It's essential to know and name your "Enemy" to fight effectively. I have used the term "Islamist" to distinguish the violent, radical, fascist, jihadist faction in Islam from majority of Muslims and the broader religion of Islam. But no one has a really good, simple and broadly acceptable term for and definition of our enemy.
Jonathan Rauch suggest a good solution to that problem. I think the suggestion makes sense, has historic authenticity, and is timely. So, I'm going to quote extensively from his National Journal article, A War On Jihadism -- Not 'Terror':
"'I think defining who the enemy is is a real problem in this war,' says Mary Habeck, a military historian at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. 'If you can't define who's a real threat and who's just exercising free speech, it's a problem.' As it happens, Habeck is the author of one of three new books that, taken together, suggest the time is right to name the battle. It is a war on jihadism.
Jihadism is not a tactic, like terrorism, or a temperament, like radicalism or extremism. It is not a political pathology like Stalinism, a mental pathology like paranoia, or a social pathology like poverty. Rather, it is a religious ideology, and the religion it is associated with is Islam.
But it is by no means synonymous with Islam, which is much larger and contains many competing elements. Islam can be, and usually is, moderate; Jihadism, with a capital J, is inherently radical. If the Western and secular world's nearer-term war aim is to stymie the jihadists, its long-term aim must be to discredit Jihadism in the Muslim world.
No single definition prevails, but here is a good one: Jihadism engages in or supports the use of force to expand the rule of Islamic law. In other words, it is violent Islamic imperialism. It stands, as one scholar put it 90 years ago, for 'the extension by force of arms of the authority of the Muslim state.'
In her new book, Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror , Habeck sets out to map the ideological contours of Jihadism. The story begins, but does not end, with religion. 'Western scholars have generally failed to take religion seriously,' she writes.
'Secularists, whether liberals or socialists, grant true explanatory power to political, social, or economic factors but discount the plain sense of religious statements made by the jihadis themselves.' Pretending that Islam is incidental, she notes, is not just incorrect, it is patronizing.
Jihadists, she writes, are not merely angry about U.S. policies. They believe that America is the biggest obstacle to the global rule of an Islamic superstate. Ultimately, in the Jihadist view, 'Islam must expand to fill the entire world or else falsehood in its many guises will do so.' Violence is by no means mandated, but it is assuredly authorized.
And always has been. The point that Bush, Blair, and others understandably finesse is that the ideology of Jihadism traces its lineage to the very beginning of the religion of Islam. It has 'roots in discussions about Islamic law and theology that began soon after the death of Muhammad and that are supported by important segments of the clergy (ulama) today,' Habeck writes."
Two other new books strikingly document the connection. One is The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. Edited by Andrew G. Bostom, it provides more than 700 pages of source material on jihadist doctrine and practice (including many fascinating translations from Arabic). A second is Islamic Imperialism: A History, by Efraim Karsh, a political scientist and historian who heads the Mediterranean studies program at King's College (part of the University of London).
A key point from these books is that there have always been two distinct threads running through the religion of Islam - one moderate and adaptable to other religions and cultures and the other rigidly 'Jihadist'. Thus , our problem becomes recognizing this tension within Islam so that we can engage and encourage cordial relations with the moderates while energetically fighting and thwarting the Jihadists. Properly naming the enemy is essential to both these objectives and to devising national strategies to accomplish them.
One could argue that the Bush Administration is doing that in practice while not clearly articulating its position for reasons of diplomatic or religious nicety. Perhaps, but the lack of a clearly defined enemy is very unhelpful in explaining why we should fight a long war. I think it would help immensly if the Administation would adopt this approach and terminology. It would open up a solid array of historical scholarship to define the problem, the enemy, and how he thinks and has acted through history. In a Nuclear Age, I don't think we can afford not to have a broad popular understanding of the essential characteristics of our enemy.
As Rauch's article puts it : "This is a struggle over Islam and who's going to control Islam," Habeck says. "If you can't talk about that, you can't talk about most of the story." Specifying that the war is against Jihadism -- as distinct from terrorism or Islam (or Islamism, which sounds like "Islam") -- would allow the United States to confront the religious element of the problem without seeming to condemn a whole religion. It would clarify for millions of moderate Muslims that the West's war aims are anti-jihadist, not militantly secular. ...... Habeck cites one other reason to call the enemy jihadists: "This is what they call themselves."
Thanks to Instapundit for the reference to Rauch's article. I think it this is a useful and timely suggestion. Read the article and try the books; I have Bostum's book and it is a lengthy, well documented product. Habeck's sounds very interesting at about 1/3rd the page count.
Jonathan Rauch suggest a good solution to that problem. I think the suggestion makes sense, has historic authenticity, and is timely. So, I'm going to quote extensively from his National Journal article, A War On Jihadism -- Not 'Terror':
"'I think defining who the enemy is is a real problem in this war,' says Mary Habeck, a military historian at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. 'If you can't define who's a real threat and who's just exercising free speech, it's a problem.' As it happens, Habeck is the author of one of three new books that, taken together, suggest the time is right to name the battle. It is a war on jihadism.
Jihadism is not a tactic, like terrorism, or a temperament, like radicalism or extremism. It is not a political pathology like Stalinism, a mental pathology like paranoia, or a social pathology like poverty. Rather, it is a religious ideology, and the religion it is associated with is Islam.
But it is by no means synonymous with Islam, which is much larger and contains many competing elements. Islam can be, and usually is, moderate; Jihadism, with a capital J, is inherently radical. If the Western and secular world's nearer-term war aim is to stymie the jihadists, its long-term aim must be to discredit Jihadism in the Muslim world.
No single definition prevails, but here is a good one: Jihadism engages in or supports the use of force to expand the rule of Islamic law. In other words, it is violent Islamic imperialism. It stands, as one scholar put it 90 years ago, for 'the extension by force of arms of the authority of the Muslim state.'
In her new book, Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror , Habeck sets out to map the ideological contours of Jihadism. The story begins, but does not end, with religion. 'Western scholars have generally failed to take religion seriously,' she writes.
'Secularists, whether liberals or socialists, grant true explanatory power to political, social, or economic factors but discount the plain sense of religious statements made by the jihadis themselves.' Pretending that Islam is incidental, she notes, is not just incorrect, it is patronizing.
Jihadists, she writes, are not merely angry about U.S. policies. They believe that America is the biggest obstacle to the global rule of an Islamic superstate. Ultimately, in the Jihadist view, 'Islam must expand to fill the entire world or else falsehood in its many guises will do so.' Violence is by no means mandated, but it is assuredly authorized.
And always has been. The point that Bush, Blair, and others understandably finesse is that the ideology of Jihadism traces its lineage to the very beginning of the religion of Islam. It has 'roots in discussions about Islamic law and theology that began soon after the death of Muhammad and that are supported by important segments of the clergy (ulama) today,' Habeck writes."
Two other new books strikingly document the connection. One is The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. Edited by Andrew G. Bostom, it provides more than 700 pages of source material on jihadist doctrine and practice (including many fascinating translations from Arabic). A second is Islamic Imperialism: A History, by Efraim Karsh, a political scientist and historian who heads the Mediterranean studies program at King's College (part of the University of London).
A key point from these books is that there have always been two distinct threads running through the religion of Islam - one moderate and adaptable to other religions and cultures and the other rigidly 'Jihadist'. Thus , our problem becomes recognizing this tension within Islam so that we can engage and encourage cordial relations with the moderates while energetically fighting and thwarting the Jihadists. Properly naming the enemy is essential to both these objectives and to devising national strategies to accomplish them.
One could argue that the Bush Administration is doing that in practice while not clearly articulating its position for reasons of diplomatic or religious nicety. Perhaps, but the lack of a clearly defined enemy is very unhelpful in explaining why we should fight a long war. I think it would help immensly if the Administation would adopt this approach and terminology. It would open up a solid array of historical scholarship to define the problem, the enemy, and how he thinks and has acted through history. In a Nuclear Age, I don't think we can afford not to have a broad popular understanding of the essential characteristics of our enemy.
As Rauch's article puts it : "This is a struggle over Islam and who's going to control Islam," Habeck says. "If you can't talk about that, you can't talk about most of the story." Specifying that the war is against Jihadism -- as distinct from terrorism or Islam (or Islamism, which sounds like "Islam") -- would allow the United States to confront the religious element of the problem without seeming to condemn a whole religion. It would clarify for millions of moderate Muslims that the West's war aims are anti-jihadist, not militantly secular. ...... Habeck cites one other reason to call the enemy jihadists: "This is what they call themselves."
Thanks to Instapundit for the reference to Rauch's article. I think it this is a useful and timely suggestion. Read the article and try the books; I have Bostum's book and it is a lengthy, well documented product. Habeck's sounds very interesting at about 1/3rd the page count.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Pennsylvania Leadership Conference
Two weeks ago, I went to the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference in Harrisburg. I thought I'd learn about and get a better perspective on some key state issues, activists and politicians. It's taken me a while to sort out my impressions enough to discuss them here and in future posts.
The conference was a good gathering of (mostly) conservatives and some libertarians with an excellent agenda of speakers and panels. The key speakers were Sen. Rick Santorum, Mr. Lynn Swann, former Congressman Pat Toomey, former Congressman Joe Scarborough, and Mr. John Fund.
Joe Scarborough is a popular TV host and commentator; he is super-dynamic and clearly shows how good theater and presentation can arouse an audience and power a campaign. John Fund is one of my favorite Wall Street Journal columnists; his style is more restrained, but his points and perceptions were excellent. I enjoyed and learned.
This audience loves Pat Toomey and he comes across as a dynamic and seriously good political leader. He kept his word to serve only three terms in Congress, lost a cliff-hanger nomination battle against Sen. Specter. and then urged his followers to vote for his opponent. The Republican Party is lucky to have him and his new job as president of the Club for Growth gives him nationwide access to key conservatives and funding sources. I think he may return to the PA political scene and, if this crowd is any indication, he will be very welcome.
Lynn Swann has a great stage presence and personality; he reaches out and engages his audience. He's got the sports celebrity factor in his favor and knows how to use it to enhance his political points and speech. I liked him and his talk. But he and his team did not impress me with depth on the issues. He's got some good visions but must build a better campaign effort and get more specific on the what and how of his issues. His poll numbers are very good. If he shows he can organize his team and himself into a well-tuned campaign effort, he'll have demonstrated the executive talent he needs to be the Governor and he will win the job. I think he will do it.
Rick Santorum spoke about the war, the economy and family values. He clearly understands the issues, knows where he stands on them and is very articulate about both. He started discussing the war by asserting that it is an essential war against Islamic Fascists rather than using the ambiguous 'war on terror' terminology. That is the right way to frame the discussion on this issue. You can't fight an enemy if you don't clearly identify him.
Sen. Santorum convinced me that he knows the enemy and understands the importance of the war and how to conduct it on military, social and economic fronts. As an example, I know that he was instrumental in getting US unions to help support the Iranian unionized bus drivers who were striking against the regime. That's a good way to support the Iranian people who want to change their regime as much as we do. His poll numbers against Mr. Casey are still poor. But he is smart and sincere and right on most of the key issues. I think Mr.Casey will fare very poorly against him in any open debate on issues. The nation needs Rick Santorum in the Senate during this war.
The main things I got from the conference were the above impressions of Sen. Santorum and Mr. Swann. I had not seen them speak before. I believe they are both worth supporting. I think Lynn Swann will be a good and honest Governor. Rick Santorum has been a first class statesman and leader; we need to keep him in the Senate.
The conference was a good gathering of (mostly) conservatives and some libertarians with an excellent agenda of speakers and panels. The key speakers were Sen. Rick Santorum, Mr. Lynn Swann, former Congressman Pat Toomey, former Congressman Joe Scarborough, and Mr. John Fund.
Joe Scarborough is a popular TV host and commentator; he is super-dynamic and clearly shows how good theater and presentation can arouse an audience and power a campaign. John Fund is one of my favorite Wall Street Journal columnists; his style is more restrained, but his points and perceptions were excellent. I enjoyed and learned.
This audience loves Pat Toomey and he comes across as a dynamic and seriously good political leader. He kept his word to serve only three terms in Congress, lost a cliff-hanger nomination battle against Sen. Specter. and then urged his followers to vote for his opponent. The Republican Party is lucky to have him and his new job as president of the Club for Growth gives him nationwide access to key conservatives and funding sources. I think he may return to the PA political scene and, if this crowd is any indication, he will be very welcome.
Lynn Swann has a great stage presence and personality; he reaches out and engages his audience. He's got the sports celebrity factor in his favor and knows how to use it to enhance his political points and speech. I liked him and his talk. But he and his team did not impress me with depth on the issues. He's got some good visions but must build a better campaign effort and get more specific on the what and how of his issues. His poll numbers are very good. If he shows he can organize his team and himself into a well-tuned campaign effort, he'll have demonstrated the executive talent he needs to be the Governor and he will win the job. I think he will do it.
Rick Santorum spoke about the war, the economy and family values. He clearly understands the issues, knows where he stands on them and is very articulate about both. He started discussing the war by asserting that it is an essential war against Islamic Fascists rather than using the ambiguous 'war on terror' terminology. That is the right way to frame the discussion on this issue. You can't fight an enemy if you don't clearly identify him.
Sen. Santorum convinced me that he knows the enemy and understands the importance of the war and how to conduct it on military, social and economic fronts. As an example, I know that he was instrumental in getting US unions to help support the Iranian unionized bus drivers who were striking against the regime. That's a good way to support the Iranian people who want to change their regime as much as we do. His poll numbers against Mr. Casey are still poor. But he is smart and sincere and right on most of the key issues. I think Mr.Casey will fare very poorly against him in any open debate on issues. The nation needs Rick Santorum in the Senate during this war.
The main things I got from the conference were the above impressions of Sen. Santorum and Mr. Swann. I had not seen them speak before. I believe they are both worth supporting. I think Lynn Swann will be a good and honest Governor. Rick Santorum has been a first class statesman and leader; we need to keep him in the Senate.
No Gambling Fix in PA
You could take this post title two ways - and I will.
Let's start with the news report about the Fix not in - DeNaples license not a sure thing: "The chairman of the state Gaming Control Board admitted Friday the agency has an image problem rooted in a widespread belief that the awarding of slot-machine licenses is rigged. ..... His remarks came a day after Greg Matzel, a New Jersey developer who leads a group planning a $1.2 billion investment in Pocono Manor Resort & Casino in Monroe County, raised concerns about Dunmore businessman Louis DeNaples’ connection to Lackawanna College President Raymond Angeli, the newest member of the gaming board.
Mr. DeNaples is investing $360 million in Mount Airy Lodge in Paradise Township, and he and Mr. Matzel are competing for standalone licenses that would allow up to 5,000 slot machines.
Mr. DeNaples’s, brother, Dominic, is chairman of the college’s board. On Thursday, Mr. Matzel voiced concerns about the connection between Dominic DeNaples and Mr. Angeli."
The article talks on about perceptions of corruption on the gaming board, the need for the state to be sure casino licensees have deep pockets so they won't go out of business and that the board, and its newest member, will be fair. It also notes that : "The arrests of three gaming board staff members since September also has darkened the agency’s image. Among them was former Scranton resident Kevin Eckenrode, who is awaiting trial on a homicide charge after he allegedly dropped his girlfriend from a 23-story window of a Harrisburg high-rise.
The incidents all involved alcohol but were distinct, Mr. Decker said, admitting it created a sense that the commission lacked control."
I don't know any of these folks and have no opinion about their integrity or fairness. If State Gaming Control Board Chairman Decker says there is no fix, I'll accept that. In fact, I'll go further and argue that the whole licensing process is lacking a badly needed Fix.
Mr. Decker is worried about the depth of pockets of license applicants. That is an odd worry about two contestants that are offering to put up $350 to $1200 Million to develop their casinos in addition to the $50 Million fee for the license. Also, the article isn't clear whether those development costs include or are in addition to an inflated price for the underlying real estate.
Remember that, as I posted before here , the ability to have slots increased the real estate value of Pocono Downs by $260 Million. Since a very savvy casino operator bought the track with the intention of paying another $50 Million for the license, it's reasonable to say that the total increased value of Pocono Downs, due solely to the ability to operate gambling there, was at least $310 Million. I wonder how much monetary value is created in these two real estate property developments by the ability to get a gambling license? Probably a great deal more than the $50 Million that the State will get.
Giving away a license for a fixed $50 Million fee via Gaming Control Board decision, when the real value of the license may well be 5 or 6 times that amount, is a prescription for the perception of corruption if not the actuality. It certainly greatly reduces the funds that the State could recieve from an auction or other competitive bidding process. The only sure thing in this game is that the taxpayer loses.
There may not be a "Fix" in for the DeNaples - Matzel license decision; but the State definetly needs a Fix to its licensing process.
Let's start with the news report about the Fix not in - DeNaples license not a sure thing: "The chairman of the state Gaming Control Board admitted Friday the agency has an image problem rooted in a widespread belief that the awarding of slot-machine licenses is rigged. ..... His remarks came a day after Greg Matzel, a New Jersey developer who leads a group planning a $1.2 billion investment in Pocono Manor Resort & Casino in Monroe County, raised concerns about Dunmore businessman Louis DeNaples’ connection to Lackawanna College President Raymond Angeli, the newest member of the gaming board.
Mr. DeNaples is investing $360 million in Mount Airy Lodge in Paradise Township, and he and Mr. Matzel are competing for standalone licenses that would allow up to 5,000 slot machines.
Mr. DeNaples’s, brother, Dominic, is chairman of the college’s board. On Thursday, Mr. Matzel voiced concerns about the connection between Dominic DeNaples and Mr. Angeli."
The article talks on about perceptions of corruption on the gaming board, the need for the state to be sure casino licensees have deep pockets so they won't go out of business and that the board, and its newest member, will be fair. It also notes that : "The arrests of three gaming board staff members since September also has darkened the agency’s image. Among them was former Scranton resident Kevin Eckenrode, who is awaiting trial on a homicide charge after he allegedly dropped his girlfriend from a 23-story window of a Harrisburg high-rise.
The incidents all involved alcohol but were distinct, Mr. Decker said, admitting it created a sense that the commission lacked control."
I don't know any of these folks and have no opinion about their integrity or fairness. If State Gaming Control Board Chairman Decker says there is no fix, I'll accept that. In fact, I'll go further and argue that the whole licensing process is lacking a badly needed Fix.
Mr. Decker is worried about the depth of pockets of license applicants. That is an odd worry about two contestants that are offering to put up $350 to $1200 Million to develop their casinos in addition to the $50 Million fee for the license. Also, the article isn't clear whether those development costs include or are in addition to an inflated price for the underlying real estate.
Remember that, as I posted before here , the ability to have slots increased the real estate value of Pocono Downs by $260 Million. Since a very savvy casino operator bought the track with the intention of paying another $50 Million for the license, it's reasonable to say that the total increased value of Pocono Downs, due solely to the ability to operate gambling there, was at least $310 Million. I wonder how much monetary value is created in these two real estate property developments by the ability to get a gambling license? Probably a great deal more than the $50 Million that the State will get.
Giving away a license for a fixed $50 Million fee via Gaming Control Board decision, when the real value of the license may well be 5 or 6 times that amount, is a prescription for the perception of corruption if not the actuality. It certainly greatly reduces the funds that the State could recieve from an auction or other competitive bidding process. The only sure thing in this game is that the taxpayer loses.
There may not be a "Fix" in for the DeNaples - Matzel license decision; but the State definetly needs a Fix to its licensing process.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Power Line Finds a "Climate of Fear"
I had thought about posting on Prof. Lindzen's article, but it's done well in Power Line: "Climate of Fear": "Most people assume that 'science' has proved that the earth is getting significantly, and potentially catastrophically, warmer, and that the reason is human activity, specifically the release of carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse' gases. In fact, scientific support for that theory is weak. But it's where the money is: funding for climate research by the U.S. government alone is up more than a billion dollars a year as a result of the alarmism spread by--guess who--the same people, largely, who get the extra billion dollars. There are some contexts in which economic interests make reporters suspicious, and some contexts in which they don't. Why? Beats me. Ask a reporter.
One sinister aspect of the global warming industry is the extent to which it bullies those who employ scientific methods to critique its claims. Richard Lindzen of MIT writes in the Wall Street Journal:
"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
[H]ow is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear.""
That's a good introduction to the problem of "scientists following the money" and reinforces the Crichton "state of fear" theme with scientists being intimidated by fear of professional ostracism. By the way, Richard Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and responsible for discovering the "Iris" phenomenon which one of nature's ways of balancing global temperature. Lindzen is a top scientist in the field and too senior and accomplished to be intimidated.
Read the full article here and you will get a quick easy lesson in atmospheric science and what scientists really agree on and where there is uncertainty.
One sinister aspect of the global warming industry is the extent to which it bullies those who employ scientific methods to critique its claims. Richard Lindzen of MIT writes in the Wall Street Journal:
"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
[H]ow is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear.""
That's a good introduction to the problem of "scientists following the money" and reinforces the Crichton "state of fear" theme with scientists being intimidated by fear of professional ostracism. By the way, Richard Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and responsible for discovering the "Iris" phenomenon which one of nature's ways of balancing global temperature. Lindzen is a top scientist in the field and too senior and accomplished to be intimidated.
Read the full article here and you will get a quick easy lesson in atmospheric science and what scientists really agree on and where there is uncertainty.
Voter Fraud - Danger or Opportunity
Pennsylvania's "rich history of corruption" and voter fraud makes it ground zero in the battle for election reform according to John Fund in the OpinionJournal :
"Democrats claim anything that impedes or discourages someone from voting is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Republicans insist the state's rancid history of voter fraud requires preventive measures. The conflict of visions, to borrow Thomas Sowell's phrase, couldn't be more complete.
Take the bill the GOP-controlled Legislature passed, which would require voters show a form of official ID or a utility bill; another bill would end Philadelphia's bizarre practice of locating over 900 polling places in private venues, including bars, abandoned buildings and even the office of a local state senator. City officials admit their voter rolls are stuffed with phantoms. The city has about as many registered voters as it has adults, and is thus a rich breeding ground for fraud.
But Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell vetoed both bills last month, saying that in a time of voter apathy "the government should be doing everything it can to encourage greater participation." He warned that requiring an ID could disenfranchise the homeless, nursing-home residents and the poor. Mr. Rendell says there is no evidence people routinely impersonate others to vote."
Having thus framed the issue, Fund cites some of the facts and people involved in voter fraud in Pennsylvania. For example, regarding Philadelphia Democrat Bill Stinson who was removed from office by a federal judge for voter fraud, " Mr. Rendell, then Philadelphia's mayor, had this reaction to the Stinson scandal: "I don't think it's anything that's immoral or grievous, but it clearly violates the election code." In 1997, Mr. Rendell admitted to the Journal's editorial board that Philadelphia judges had "a rich history of corruption" that called into question how fairly city laws are enforced."
Mr. Fund concludes that: "The integrity of the ballot box is just as important to the credibility of elections as access to it. In not closing off opportunities for fraud and chaos, Pennsylvania is inviting trouble in its fall elections that could rival that of Florida in 2000."
I agree. Read it all; voter fraud is real and dilutes our honest votes. But, in this election year, where the PA Legislature sees the danger of voter fraud, Gov. Rendell may only see the opportunity.
"Democrats claim anything that impedes or discourages someone from voting is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Republicans insist the state's rancid history of voter fraud requires preventive measures. The conflict of visions, to borrow Thomas Sowell's phrase, couldn't be more complete.
Take the bill the GOP-controlled Legislature passed, which would require voters show a form of official ID or a utility bill; another bill would end Philadelphia's bizarre practice of locating over 900 polling places in private venues, including bars, abandoned buildings and even the office of a local state senator. City officials admit their voter rolls are stuffed with phantoms. The city has about as many registered voters as it has adults, and is thus a rich breeding ground for fraud.
But Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell vetoed both bills last month, saying that in a time of voter apathy "the government should be doing everything it can to encourage greater participation." He warned that requiring an ID could disenfranchise the homeless, nursing-home residents and the poor. Mr. Rendell says there is no evidence people routinely impersonate others to vote."
Having thus framed the issue, Fund cites some of the facts and people involved in voter fraud in Pennsylvania. For example, regarding Philadelphia Democrat Bill Stinson who was removed from office by a federal judge for voter fraud, " Mr. Rendell, then Philadelphia's mayor, had this reaction to the Stinson scandal: "I don't think it's anything that's immoral or grievous, but it clearly violates the election code." In 1997, Mr. Rendell admitted to the Journal's editorial board that Philadelphia judges had "a rich history of corruption" that called into question how fairly city laws are enforced."
Mr. Fund concludes that: "The integrity of the ballot box is just as important to the credibility of elections as access to it. In not closing off opportunities for fraud and chaos, Pennsylvania is inviting trouble in its fall elections that could rival that of Florida in 2000."
I agree. Read it all; voter fraud is real and dilutes our honest votes. But, in this election year, where the PA Legislature sees the danger of voter fraud, Gov. Rendell may only see the opportunity.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Citizen-Net Journalism Finds A.N.S.W.E.R.
This post is about an innovative new media experiment in citizen journalism that "scooped" the major media (the NY Times) on a key facet of a big story. Perhaps "scooped" is not quite the right term; perhaps it really just uncovered the facts being hidden by the Times.
It all started at Power Line Blog: "As an exercise in citizen journalism, we put out a call to readers to attend yesterday's demonstrations in support of illegal immigration, film them, and send us the resulting video. We didn't know what to expect, but the results were gratifying. We got lots of submissions, both of video and photographs. As a result, we've put together a Power Line Video of yesterday's rallies, from Seattle to Washington, D.C., which you can watch here.
We intended this as an experiment to see whether this type of citizen journalism can work; our conclusion is that it certainly can."
What can we learn from the citizen jounalists' video reports? Watch them at PowerLineNews on the April 10 Demonstration video and check the ANSWER- Infiltrated video (actually just audio). Or consider the Power Line conclusions :
What conclusions do I draw from the materials we received? You can judge for yourself, but I would make two broad observations. First, notwithstanding mainstream media accounts that portray the turnout as vast, most of the rallies struck me as of modest size. The flagship demonstrations were pretty big; most of the others looked small to me.
Second, despite the blowback against the display of Mexican flags two weeks ago, and the distribution of American flags by leaders of some of the demonstrations, many of the demonstrators are still defiant about carrying the flags of Mexico and other Latin American countries and displaying radical slogans and images, thereby undercutting the "all-American" image of the rallies that most of the mainstream media worked hard to present."
So what's the big scoop? "The Times covers the demonstration that took place in the paper's own city here. Again, the paper's coverage is entirely positive, although it implicitly acknowledges that turnout in New York was disappointing. The Times notes the presence of Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, who addressed the rally, but it makes no comment at all on who organized the demonstration.In fact, as our video shows, the New York demonstration (like those in some other cities) was organized and controlled in substantial part by International A.N.S.W.E.R., the Communist organization that we have written about many times, most recently here. A.N.S.W.E.R.'s National Coordinator, Brian Becker, was prominent at the New York rally; he is the man in the blue shirt on the right in the photo (above, click to enlarge).
Note A.N.S.W.E.R.'s large "amnesty" banner with the words "Full Rights For All Immigrants!" as well as the Che Guevara banner.
International A.N.S.W.E.R. passed out thousands of mass-produced, yellow and black signs with exactly the same message. You can see them prominently displayed in our video footage from New York. Here, though, is what I think is even more interesting. At either of the two New York Times pages linked above, you can also link to the Times' own video of the New York demonstration. Take a look at it. Look at the sea of yellow and black, International A.N.S.W.E.R. signs. They vastly outnumber all other signs and banners. They are the dominant visual image of the New York demonstration. "
That's a real story in these times - but not in the NY Times.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Did Global Warming Stop?
I've been busy and not blogging. Then I saw this and could'nt resist posting on a bit of controversy from the UK. Bob Carter, who does paleoclimate research at James Cook University has an opinion in the Telegraph. He argues that There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998:
"For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero.)
And over a longer time frame, consider : " a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. .....
The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate."
In conclusion : "The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.
My goodness! Could it be that Michael Chrichton and George Bush are right after all?!
UPDATE - Maybe it's becoming an Anglosphere Thing, per this item( thanks to Instapundit for the link) - KYOTO: CANADA DROPS OUT: "... supported by a letter from 60 leading international climate change experts who once more reiterated the near impossibility to seperate the various causes that are contributing to climate change:"
"For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero.)
And over a longer time frame, consider : " a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. .....
The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate."
In conclusion : "The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.
As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution."
My goodness! Could it be that Michael Chrichton and George Bush are right after all?!
UPDATE - Maybe it's becoming an Anglosphere Thing, per this item( thanks to Instapundit for the link) - KYOTO: CANADA DROPS OUT: "... supported by a letter from 60 leading international climate change experts who once more reiterated the near impossibility to seperate the various causes that are contributing to climate change:"
