Hmmm. Needs work. That’s a lot of words for a t-shirt. Maybe watch the video instead:
Feb 052011
Jan 312011
I’d think the main question is not so much whether the TSA chief personally finds alternatives to its government/union workers to be advantageous, but whether passengers and airport managers do.
But on Friday, the TSA denied an application by Springfield-Branson Airport in Missouri to privatize its checkpoint workforce, and in a statement, Pistole indicated other applications likewise will be denied.
“I examined the contractor screening program and decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports as I do not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so at this time,” Pistole said.
CNN article: TSA shuts door on private airport screening program
Jan 202011
Here’s an idea. First we establish mechanisms to make sure that, without a search warrant, the government cannot intercept our e-mails and track our web browsing. After that’s done, we can think about the FTC’s proposed “Do Not Track” rules for web advertising.
WSJ article: The Internet Browsing Cops : The FTC considers ‘Do Not Track’ Rules for Web advertising.
Dec 312010
My comment in WSJ magazine in response to an article about the Fiat 500 C, a small car that may be coming to the U.S.
I hope none of these people complaining about the safety of a small car are also people who quote Benjamin Franklin, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” A small, economical car can give people a whole lot of liberty.
Dec 152010
I saw there were 1200 comments for the WSJ article titled, “Court Strikes at Health Law,” which is the most I’ve ever seen. I tried to post the 1201th with the following:
The headline is stupid, dangerous, and Murdochish. The judges make rulings. They don’t “strike at” things. If they do, the reporters should present their evidence and impeachment hearings should begin.
Dec 032010
So Congress wants to ban loud TV ads. I personally have no problem with loud TV ads. It’s the idiots who are on television in between the ads who are too loud for me, so I watch none of it.
Well, I did watch election night coverage once, back in 1982. And I sometimes join my wife in watching Big Ten football or basketball.
The bad part is that sometimes I’m inflicted with television noise in public places where it doesn’t belong: MacDonalds, the jury waiting room, hospital waiting rooms, gas stations. THAT is a public health hazard and it is offensive.
When it comes to banning things, I usually prefer social controls to federal government corruption and bureaucracy. But if government can’t get over its urge to ban things, it should channel its energies in a useful direction. It should ban TV in public places. Governments already ban smoking in hospitals and retail establishments. What’s the point of doing that and allowing a public health nuisance like TV?
Nov 292010
Excellent article by Diane Ravitch at the WSJ, on “The GOP’s Education Dilemna.”
In addition to reminding us of all the usual bad things about George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” act, she tells us that it’s also causing the closure of community schools. I wish she had given us some examples of how that works, but it’s not surprising. Every time you centralize more authority (= funding) you tend to wipe out some of the smaller players.
Way to destroy local communities, Mr. Compassionate Conservative.
Nov 292010
My comment at Weasel Zippers:
The government doesn’t want us to have any secret transactions. Pay someone more than $10,000 in cash and the government wants to know what that’s all about. With the ObamaCare act, businesses are supposed to report any transaction over $600.
So if we can’t keep any secrets from the government, what good reason is there for the government to keep so many secrets from us?
I can understand that we don’t want secret military technology to fall into other hands. If we were at war, we wouldn’t the enemy to know about our strategizing. (Q. How do I know we’re not at war? A. Congress hasn’t declared any war that I’ve heard of.) But we’re not at war, so there isn’t a lot of information that needs to be kept so secret.
And I’m a bit suspicious of Rep. Peter King, anyhow. Sounds to me like his call for WikiLeaks to be treated as a terrorist organization, besides being a stupid move that robs the term “terrorism” of any slight bit of meaning it may still have, is an excuse for him not to be spending time on his real job, which is to find ways to cut spending and cut the deficit.
Nov 222010
This is what I wrote in response to Stephen Moore and Richard Vedder’s article, “Higher Taxes won’t Reduce the Deficit : History shows that when Congress gets more revenue, the pols spend it.”
The only way tax increases MIGHT work is if Congress first shows that it knows how to cut spending. Zero out NPR funding on budgetary and First Amendment grounds. Repeal ObamaCare. Eliminate ag subsidies, ethanol subsidies, wind generation subsidies, and corporate welfare in general. Cut the budget for Congressional staffs and White House staffs in half. (I’d prefer to give Members of Congress healthy increases in pay and pensions, though.)
This isn’t going to deal with the problem of entitlements, but it is going to give Congress some much-needed practice in making cuts. It will give Congress a chance to prove that it knows how to do it.
Then, after it obtains a Constitutional amendment for Congressional term limits (it needn’t consist of drastic limits) we might talk about tax increases, if we can find a way to pay for them. Until then Congress has a lot of other work to do to have any kind of credibility at all.
If Congress can’t get those preliminaries done, there is no point in raising taxes.
Nov 212010
I presume Krugman said “real solution” because “final solution” was already taken:
Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It’s going to be that we’re actually going to take Medicare under control, and we’re going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it’s not going to happen now.
Newsbusters.org URL.
BTW, both Palin and Krugman have clarified their original remarks. Krugman is the one we don’t want to have anywhere near the levers of power.
BTW(2), this is an example of why we should not be seeking solutions to our problems. We should instead seek to ameliorate them. (I’m trying to break myself of any lingering tendency to ever speak of any reform as a “solution.”)