What to look for in a Digital Camera

  In the market for a digital camera?  More than ever, people have turned to the convenience and low cost of digital cameras over 35mm film.  Unfortunately, doing your own research often isn't very helpful-- camera manufacturers focus their marketing on gimmicks and gizmos and downplay those things that can actually distinguish one camera from another.  We'll walk through all the specs that you might see in your digicam travels and explain what they mean and if they matter.

  Before you dive into the rest of this article, please note that photography, like many other things is subjective.  There is no "best" camera.  Photography is visual, and each individual person perceives that sensory input differently.

   Every camera has a slightly different "look" to the images that will never show up on the spec sheet.  Trust your eyes and go with what you like.  Specs are nice and can point you one direction or another, but follow your instinct when you a certain camera's images  So, here we go!
What Matters
  What matters most in a camera depends on what you are photographing.  Since most people take most of the pictures of people, I will target my comments accordingly.
   The most important feature for a camera to have is quick response.  This means that when you push that button down, the camera is focused and accurately  metered.  If it has to stop and think for even an instant, then the moment will be gone.  Photo editing after the fact can change color balance, sharpen an image, and work near miracles to your photos.  But NOTHING can change an expression or switch the captured moment to the one you *really* wanted to capture.
   Because response matters so much, then those camera factors that determine response will be at the top of the list:

• Autofocus Speed & Accuracy
• High ISO Capability/Range
• Shutter Lag 

  Autofocus speed matters because most cameras won't intentionally take an out-of-focus picture.  Unless it's in focus, it won't take the picture until the moment is gone.  Accuracy of autofocus matters similarly- if the focus is easily confused, it takes more time.  You *need* focusing that's instant and dead-on, every time.
  ISO capability is just a measure of light sensitivity.  There are two components to this aspect: how high the values go, and how good the images look as the numbers go up.  Higher ISO capability allows faster shutter speeds, and this makes your images sharper and less prone to blur from people movement.  Be advised that just because the ISO is listed as going all the way to 1600, it doesn't mean that this high setting is useful.  Many cameras have too much "noise" at elevated settings to be useful.  You want the maximum ISO with acceptable noise.  This "noise" is equivalent to the hissing sound you hear between songs when the stereo is cranked up-- it's an artifact of  having to crank up the "volume" on the sensor so much.  Almost always, a larger size sensor is better.
  Why is a larger sensor size better?  A larger sensor catches more light in a given amount of time.  Both a spoon and a shovel can be used to move a dirtpile, but which will do it faster?  A larger sensor size captures "enough" light in far less time, making image capture in low light or fast action situations far better.  Sensor size is typically quoted as a fraction of a square inch, like 1/1.7 sq inch.  The smaller the second number (denominator), the larger the sensor and the faster it will be.
   Finally, shutter lag is just the time between when you press the button and when the image is captured.  Pro cameras have nearly instantaneous response, but you'll pay for that.  Go with the fastest you can afford.


  After response, the remaining performance aspects of a digital camera are far less important.  Least important of all is resolution (the megapixels). This is probably the opposite of what you've been led to believe.  Indeed, the marketing departments of every maker of digicams have pushed this ridiculous myth year after year as resolutions get higher.  But how much do you really need?  That's actually rather easy to figure out, as the math is straightforward.
   If you have a computer screen with 1280x800 resolution (a common laptop resolution), then you'd need 1280x800= 1,024,000 pixels-- or an underwhelming ONE MEGAPIXEL!  Yes, a single measly megapixel will completely fill a laptop screen, and a very large 24" display running 1920x1200 only needs 2.3Mp.
   If you decide you want to make prints of your photos, you'll need more resolution.  But you'll only need enough to make the ensure the printer's capability is the limiting factor.  So if your printer can print 300dpi (dots per inch) and you want to print an 8x10, you'll need 8(x300) x 10(x300) or 2400x3000 resolution.  This is 7.2Mp.
   Generally speaking, you will never need more than 8Mp resolution.  This is because as you print larger and larger, you will view if from farther and farther away, reducing the needed resolution accordingly.  Sure, 100dpi doesn't look sharp at point blank range, but you won't be viewing a 22x30 print at arm's length anyway-- it won't matter.
   So all the manufacturers stick you with more resolution than you need.  Now, this would normally be OK, but like many things in life, this is one area where getting something for free really isn't free.  That extra resolution ends up reducing the ISO sensitivity of the sensor.  How so?
  Cramming extra sensing elements on the same size sensor reduces the amount of light that falls on each one-- just like trees in a crowded forest get less light because the neighboring trees steal some of it.  This means it takes more total exposure to the light to "charge" the sensor sufficiently.  This would be like the trees growing more slowly in a crowded forest.  The price of "free" extra resolution is noise and reduced ISO capability, all else being equal.  This is why pro cameras with "full frame" sensors are so stunningly responsive and capable of superb high ISO performance.


  Finally, we lump together all the intangibles, gadgets, gizmos, and gimmicks to weigh our decision on a camera.  Lighter is better.  Faster is better.  Longer battery life is better.  Good feel in the hand is important.  Shake reduction/image stabilization is important.  Buttons for key functions instead of 20 levels of sub-menu saves a lot of time.  Face detection can help your people pictures turn out right the first time. 

Found! A Memory from my Past

  We each have memories from our childhoods that we particularly value.  Sometimes, we came across something seemingly random object or person that brings back a memory in detail.  This happened recently when I was looking at air rifles online.

   There was this occasion when the spring thaw came to Wisconsin, and my brother and I helped Dad drag the irrigation pump out of storage and set it up on the backyard well.  It had been a long winter that followed a bountiful harvest; we had a lot of food stored in the same area where the well pump was located.

   When we went to move the pump, I heard my Dad jump back with a startle I had not seen before and haven't since.  "Oh my God!" he exclaimed (not empty words coming from my Dad-- no doubt it was an urgent prayer) as we moved the pump back.  I saw a lumpy silhouette dash for cover over in the corner.

    Our food supply in the basement had been pillaged all winter by an uninvited guest-- the largest rat I have ever seen.  That thing was easily over a foot long without the tail and as fat as a hog.  When we moved the pump, it took off for the corner probably as startled as the three of us in that room, adrenaline flooding our bodies.

   Lacking normal weapons, we took to weapons of opportunity, but eventually settled on pellet guns by a process I don't remember.  I do remember it took a remarkable number of shots from a rather high powered pellet rifle to subdue that beast of a rat.

  The rifle that saved our family from certain doom from the killer beast was a gift from a lady in our church by the name of Bernie Irish (I think she was German :-).  We never new what kind of rifle it was, only the rumor that is was some old antique German rifle.

  I believe I have found that exact make and model of rifle.  Turns out it it probably just a Benjamin model 392.  I don't know where the rifle is (no doubt in Arkansas storage somewhere), but I was stunned to see you can still buy a shiny new version of the same rifle.

The Coming Crash of Gold

   Recent headlines proclaim yet-a-new record high price for gold.  Another mentions a new high for home foreclosures and a record for repossessions. While those who have “invested” in gold are cheering the former headline, they should be paying attention to the latter and getting off the gold train before it derails.

  The problem is the assumption of hyperinflation.  All the late-night gold hawkers scare the viewers with horror stories of Zimbabwe-like levels of hyperinflation, and how the US Dollar is doomed and why the “smart money” and the “experts” are investing in gold.

  Now , before we get into the specifics of why they are wrong, let’s first address the idea of gold as an investment.  Gold is a commodity- like oil, pork bellies, or corn.  Commodities sell on futures contracts—a promise to buy a certain amount of something at a future price.  This is why you hear things on AM radio (catering to farmers) like “June soy beans down a quarter, July lean hogs up an eighth” for example.  Buyers not only bid on future production of a given month, but they also trade with each other to try and improve their positions.  Let’s say it’s May and you make a deal with a corn grower to pay $5.07 per bushel in September.  Meanwhile, it turns out that there was a major disease infestation and the September harvest looks like it will be very poor.  Other buyers for that September corn are now willing to pay the grower $7/bushel.  You could sell your contract to them for $6.50—they save money, you turn an instant profit and have no risk anymore because you don’t have to wait on the harvest results, you converted your position to cash.  This is essentially how all commodities markets work (Chicago’s mercantile exchange is the Wall Street of Commodities, and that’s where the famous “we should have a Tea Party” rant by Rick Santelli gave the current movement it’s name).

  This is *not* investing in a traditional sense.  You are not putting capital into an operation with an expectation that the operation will CREATE value.  No, you are saying that the current price is less than it should be.  This is *speculation*, not investing.  Commodities are not investments!  They are speculation—always.  Whether oil, cotton, hay, beef, corn, soy, or whatever—they are not investments.

  Contrast that with real investment where a person thinks a company is will increase in intrinsic value, not just in price.  Price is intrinsic value expressed through dollars.  Dollars go up and down in strength, and price along with it.  Intrinsic value is a nebulous concept, but it’s the value of the company apart from the value of the dollars used to express it.

  

  So when a person “invests” in gold, they are not investing at all, they are speculating that the current price is too low, that it will be going up as the market realizes how underpriced gold really is.  There’s no belief that gold will increase in intrinsic worth.  A bar of gold always has the same capability to be made into different products.  Rather, it’s the belief that the dollars used to express the price of gold will radically change (not the gold itself).

  So speculating in gold is invariably a speculation that inflation will occur, and to an extreme degree.

So any discussion of Gold has to be a discussion of inflation, or quite simply, what is a dollar worth?  Right now, a dollar is worth different things in different measures: 1/1300^th of an ounce of gold, 1/3^rd of a gallon of gasoline, one entire crappy plastic toy from the dollar store, etc.

  But on a larger level, the value of a dollar follows basic supply and demand.  If there’s more than adequate supply for the demand, the value will go down.  If there’s not enough supply for the demand, then the value goes up.

  On the “demand” side of things, you can usefully lump all those sources together as essentially the size of the American economy.  If the economy shrinks with the same number of dollars in circulation, then your dollar is a slice of a smaller pie, worth less than before (inflation).  If the economy grows radically with no change in the number of dollars, then your piece is of a bigger pie, and it’s worth more (deflation).

  So the gold speculators look at the current US economic mess, the astronomical US Gov’t deficits and conclude that the supply of dollars will drown the economy, as the Fed fires up the printing presses and mints a couple trillion dollars more in cash. 

But is that the only source of money?  NO!

Now I will explain to you why the FED is fighting its hardest to prevent DEFLATION and how it may be losing that war.  When/if deflation comes, the price of gold will collapse massively.

Cash isn’t the only source of money.  The FED keeps tabs on all currency in circulation (and can tightly control that), but they cannot control the money supply—they can only influence it.  WHY?

Because money in circulation is “created” from thin air.  Let’s say you walk into a bank with $10 cash and want to deposit it.  The bank can turn around and loan someone else $100 based on the $10 cash you deposited. So that person’s loan would be the $10 you deposited, plus $90 created from thin air.  The $100 loan is backed by only $10 in real cash.  This is called “fractional reserve lending” and it means that any bank generally has available 1/10^th of its nominal value in hard assets.

When banks fail and houses go into foreclosure, the amount of “funny” money in circulation collapses as the loans get liquidated for pennies on the dollar.

The FED influences the amount of “funny money” by creating incentives to borrow—low interest rates.  But they cannot MAKE people borrow.  Borrowing is the activity that pulls money from the Fed vaults and into circulation.  It is the activity that increases the money supply (through our loan example).  Conversely, bad loans or failed banks decrease the money supply.

You can see now that the Fed printing more money will not put that money in circulation.  Only borrowing and other economic activity does that.  That’s why even though the Fed created over a Trillion dollars cash in Feb 2009, we have not seen a whiff of inflation at all.   So, while the Fed can quickly pull money OUT of circulation (like pulling on a rope), it cannot PUSH it into circulation (like pushing on a rope). 

The Fed has “pushed on the rope” as hard as it possibly can.  It has cut its main interest rate to ZERO.  Essentially they are offering to PAY banks to borrow money!  Home mortgages are available in the three percent range, yet sales are slacking.  Car sales are at their lowest since 1983 despite historically low rates on loans.

So while the Fed has tons of cash in the vault, the supply of money in circulation keeps shrinking and shrinking.  There’s nothing more that can be done to fight deflation.  They are doing everything possible to CREATE inflation—yet it’s STILL not happening!

So even though there’s no current inflation, and hasn’t been since Sept 2008 or so, the price of gold keeps inching higher.  Based on what?  It’s based on the fear of future inflation, primarily.  It has created a high demand for gold as a hedge against risk. (much the way oil speculators bid up crude in early 2008 to astronomical prices).

But there’s no way that future inflation can get bad enough to justify the current price of gold.  For one, the collapse of an economy (which as we outlined earlier SHOULD be inflationary --too many dollars representing too little value), ends up being Deflationary because of how it shrinks the money supply.

Increasing the money supply takes a lot of economic activity, and it takes time.  The economic activity isn’t happening now because Congress is jerking around the America with all kinds of uncertainty.  So people are hunkered down, waiting to see what’s going to a happen.  They will believe things are OK slowly—only when unemployment comes down, homes are not foreclosing at record rates, and banks are being newly opened rather than closed down.

When the economic activity happens, it will happen slowly enough that the Fed will be able to withdraw money from circulation enough to keep inflation in check.

The real fear remains deflation, because so many things are pointing that direction.  Foreclosures shrink money supply and you get deflation.  Bank failures? Deflation.  Unemployment? Deflation.  Federal indebtedness at some point will cause higher interest rates—and higher interest rates push towards deflation (that’s why the Fed LOWERS rates to fight deflation).

So it’s not just contrarian to resist the temptation to jump on the golden bandwagon.  Those who buy gold NOW are depending on others being even more fearful than they are.  The overwhelmingly likely outcome is that those who now “invest” in gold will either lose a little or lose big, depending on how long they stay in it.  Gold most likely will never be below $400/oz again (but it could—high prices are a strong incentive to produce and increase supply—what happens when the demand collapses?).  However, it’s almost certainly not hitting $2k anytime soon.

Thoughts on the Ground Zero Mosque

No one can credibly claim that a private property owner doesn’t have the right to build a mosque if he chooses.  Despite the straw-man set up by the mosque's proponents, the key issue at hand is not one of religious freedom—but rather of religious purpose.  What is the purpose of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque?

            It cannot be to meet some kind of need for a Muslim worship center.  After all, there are already many mosques readily available to meet the needs of the Muslims in NYC who wish to worship.

            It cannot be to foster peace and understanding.  When a mosque shares the same religious creed as those who attacked us on 9/11 (and make no mistake that it does), it cannot foster peace any more than would a swastika foster peace with the Jews.  Americans who are paying attention already have all the understanding of Islam that they need—furnished with crystalline clarity on that terrible day in 2001.  No, a Ground Zero mosque will not furnish peace and understanding.

            It cannot be to foster religious tolerance.  Americans are already a very religiously tolerant people—unlike those citizens of majority Muslim countries where proselytizing may be a capital offense.  Rather that foster tolerance, it aims to TEST tolerance—to see just much submission to political correctness we will abide; to see how much indignity we will tolerate.  It is a measuring stick—to see how ripe for conquest we are, much as a farmer goes to inspect his crops to gauge the harvest.  This measuring occurs all the time, and Osama bin Laden himself took the measure of us in Somalia and declared us fit for conquest.  Would a Ground Zero mosque be evidence favoring the truth of his conclusion, or of its falsehood?

            The purpose of the Ground Zero mosque only makes sense when viewed you understand that its purpose is to humiliate.

            Land in Manhattan is expensive.  On lower Manhattan, extremely expensive.  For this reason, it has come to be dominated by massive high-rises funding by very deep pockets.  It is perhaps the least cost-effective location on which to build a mosque that could be imagined.  Not only that, but the developer paid in this present economic downturn a substantial price premium for the property over the previous price paid during the real-estate boom of the mid-decade.  Yet, this location is the desired one.  WHY?  Why not build 10 mosques elsewhere with the same money?  Perhaps the money could build 100 other mosques in other parts of the US.  Why is that property worth so much money to this Muslim developer and not to anyone else?

            Rather than meet the needs of the Muslims in many other locations, the Mosque developers have elected to build rather one very large Mosque in a location already served.

            Only as a trophy does it make sense, like the Ka’aba was built and filled trophies of early Christendom.

            Only as a trophy does it make sense, like the Dome of the Rock built directly on top of the ancient Jewish Temple Mount.  Can the message be any clearer?

            Are we sufficiently out of tune that we will miss the message they are sending to us?

I guess that in the end, it sure beats the proposed location depicted below by Michael Ramirez:

Froma Harrop as an example of Democrat (and Republican) Failure

I had never heard of Froma Harrop when I came across her op-ed at the Rasumussen Reports website.  Her characterizations of the Republicans, as well as her illustration of Democrat thinking both struck me as needing explication.
  She begins by outlining the fictional conversation with a pollster:

When the pollster calls and asks whether I think the country is going in the right direction, I will say "no." When she asks if I approve of the job Congress is doing, I will say "no." And when she follows up with a question on President Obama's performance, I will answer: "Sometimes good, sometimes bad. The guy drives me nuts at times."

But when they ask whether I want Republicans to take back Washington, I'll respond: "Are you out of your mind? We're still recovering from their last round of debauchery -- their fiscal irresponsibility, servility toward Wall Street, disrespect for science, contempt for the environment."

While it's easy to dismiss the "disrespect for science" criticism (since Lefties define Science as "that which fellow Leftist "Experts" will say) and she's  intimating hints of Green lunacy, she  raising valid points concerning the characterization of the Republican Congresses that President Bush had from 2000-2006.

The Bush Congresses did not rein in federal spending.  Rather, under GWB, the Federal gov't grew still larger than ever with the creation of the feckless Homeland Security Department (including every traveler's best friend, the TSA).  Most recklessly, GWB expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage, adding tons of additional weight to an economy already overburdened by unsustainably expensive federal entitlement programs.

However, Harrop's charge that Republicans demonstrated "servility towards Wall Street" is simply false-- at least to the extent that she intends to say that there was an uncommonly high level of influence of Wall Street over Federal Policy.  The reality is that Democrats get more funding from Wall Street than Republicans do.  Heck, Democrats get more money-- period.  In fact, 12 of the 15 biggest political donors favor Democrats, and 10 of those 12 give over 90% of their money to Democrats.  But hey, it's always easier to MSU than actually get some facts.

Harrop continues in a manner that asserts her certain superiority as a Democrat:

Did you hear Mitch McConnell say the other day that 'there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue'? This is our Senate minority leader spewing absolute ignorance! He must be trying to yank more campaign money out of the fat cats. Or he's playing to the yahoos who believe they can have big tax cuts, Medicare, wars and balanced budgets all at the same time.

The ignorance belongs to Froma Harrop in this case.  Please note the Bush tax cuts occured in 2001, 2002, and 2003 in three separate rounds.  Despite prognostications from all the usual quarters that Federal Revenues would decrease as a result, the actual data says differently-- even allowing for the temporary major setback of 9/11:

So it is plainly wrong for Ms Harrop to lambast the Bush Tax Cuts as diminishing revenue.  Though she probably has a valid point including Medicare in the last sentence-- you indeed cannot have it all.

Americans Too Dumb to Choose Lightbulbs (so Gov't will do it)

Don't worry, they say-- CFLs (Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs) will end up saving you money over their lifespan.  Don't worry, they say-- CFLs will reduce energy consumption.  Don't worry, they say-- the 600% cost premium of a CFL over a traditional bulb is money well-spent.

Only a fool would think that this is about light bulbs, however.  This is about freedom to choose.  This is about the fact that true freedom is the right to be captain of your own ship-- even if you run the ship onto the reef.  This is about you making your OWN decisions on cost versus benefit.

If these really were so great, why would the Police Power of the State need to be used to force their adoption?  Why would people balk at a bulb filled with toxic mercury that costs 6x more to buy and (despite claims) often does NOT last that long? (The *assumed* lifespan is often based on some jeweler's sample bulb, not the cheap junk primarily available to US consumers).

If we grow tolerant of little tyrannies, we prepare ourselves for slavery to the State.

Homosexuality Increases Diversity?

So says the sign at a local business.  This is, after all, the time of year where the homosexual lobby gathers to flaunt its overrepresentation in the seats of power, having declared some kind of claim to the month of June.  On the occasion of that "celebration" the sign I viewed was raised.

Rather than dissect the missing merits of many of the claims of the "diversity" lobby, I will here discuss the inclusion of homosexuality as a member of the club.  Simply put, they claim that homosexuality increases diversity (and we *all* know, the diversity is such a great thing, you can't get enough of it).

However, this claim is absurd-- even within the muddled world of "diversity".  My understanding of diversity is a movement to incorporate people of different national origins, cultural backgrounds, and so forth to better expose others to the unique perspectives each member can offer to the others as a result of their difference.  This thinking is itself guilty of some serious reasoning errors, but it does represent the case for diversity.

Moreover, the "diversity" in these backgrounds comes from things one cannot control or influence: where you are born, which family you are born into, etc.

When you include homosexuality in the definition of diversity, you completely destroy the basic concept, because I can at any time choose to become homosexual (though I'm sure they'd prefer it stated as "coming out" or "realizing").  This means that the membership in the group now changes from things a person cannot control or change to now include something one can voluntarily assume.  Ignoring the question of "why", is there anyone who would dispute that a person could become homosexual at any time of their choosing by engaging in homosexual behavior?  If not, then what is the definition of homosexual?

By including homosexuality in the pantheon of "diversity" you broaden the definition to simply be any person or behavior that is different.  That means that now the Harley Rider is just as diverse as the cat lover and the favorite sports hero-- regardless of color or language or birthplace.

The homosexual lobby has therefore hijacked the diversity movement, and by broadening "diversity" in this way, the concept is reduced to something as tautological as "no two people are the same."  Profound?  Do we need a month for that?

Public Employee Interest vs the Public Interest

To hear some tell it, NJ Gov. Chris Christie is out to destroy NJ Children.  He's poisoning their food, building his own personal Gitmo for detention of unruly students while destroying the entire education infrastructure of NJ.  Here's a radio ad aired by the NJEA:

Then we have this video from the NJEA, claiming the NJ teacher pay and benefits lag far behind "comparable professionals."  I guess we just have to take their word for what "comparable" really is.  Anecdotally, I don't think there is a "comparable" profession that has regular summer sabbaticals included.


Yet, we have some hard facts that stubbornly refuse to go away.  As noted in this article, The NJ teachers have fought some rather high-minded approaches Christie has proposed to make education cuts less draconian.  A plan that included a pay freeze (not a pay cut, mind you) for teachers was rejected out of hand, as it also required teachers to pay (a mere) 1.5% to the very generous healthcare plans they now enjoy.

   In my view, the state that has the highest taxation rate while still running a budgetary shortfall of over 30% shouldn't have to make the case that spending cuts are needed.  The state of NJ produced as much revenue as higher taxes could reasonably expected to produce.  Even those who've never heard of the concept can intuit that NJ is quite likely on the wrong side of the Laffer curve and further tax increases most likely will reduce rather than increase revenue. 

   If you've never heard of the Laffer curve, it's simply the concept that there is on "optimal" tax rate for maximizing government revenue; below that point, there is untapped potential while above that rate, the tax burden causes the economy to shrink (reducing actual revenue).  Most people know this instinctively-- that there is a middle ground between low revenue with no taxation and low revenue due to 100% taxation; after all, what incentive has a person to do anything economically productive when the gov't is the only or primary beneficiary?

   The NJEAs argument that high pay and benefits are needed to attract top teachers simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  For one, the high pay and benefits go primarily not to new teachers, but to established veteran teachers.  For another, pay and benefits are funded at the state level, but states rarely compete against each other for teachers.

  Instead, the primary competition is within a state, or within a city.  Most teachers are not primary breadwinners.  Hence, their choice of where to live is not primarily based on their teaching occupation.  Most likely, they are living in a location where the primary breadwinner is able to ply his or her trade.  Hence, they are competing for a job only within a narrow geographic area.  The school district has a competitive advantage in that it can interview candidates from all over the state or country, while the teacher is most likely NOT interviewing all over the country, but rather simply trying to find employment at the place they currently live.

   In short, the districts don't need to "compete" much on the pay and benefits side to attract new talent, and those teachers who receive the better pay and benefits do so because of the lack of competition that has allowed them become more prosperous by simply surviving.

   This is where we get into another problem with the the NJEA argument that they need give teachers exceedingly generous pay and benefits in order to attract top talent.  Gov't employment rarely attracts top talent--period.  Top talent recognizes that the majority of the appeal of gov't employment is job security--protection from competition.  This doesn't attract achievement-oriented, confident people who believe they can make it anywhere, but rather another kind of person who views competition as more likely to cause them to lose than to win.  Top achievers are far more likely to feel limited by the lack of opportunity provided by the entrenched gov't employment hierarchy populated by similarly minded fearers of competition. 

  Moreover, the best teachers don't pursue their careers to get rich anyway-- they view it as a calling, an outreach to children, a public service, etc.  No one embarks on a teaching career with aspirations of wealth.

If the teacher unions really cared about children as much as they claim to, they would be in favor of a more competitive hiring environment that increases the level of educational excellence for the given dollar expenditure.  Instead, they care primarily about their own golden eggs-- secure and intact regardless of how incredibly ineffective a teacher may be.

  Finally, we see the most offensive non-sequitur of all: the idea that the teachers narrow personal interest is indistinguishable from the public interest at large.  This offensively arrogant assertion lies at the heart of the message from the NJEA: keeping teacher pay at its current level is an attach on children!  Making teachers pay a tiny fraction of their cadillac healthcare plans is an attack on children!

No, Barb Keshishian-- your public employee interest is NOT the public interest.  You can drop the war on Gov Christie.  The public is interested in having the best teachers work for free.  Your Union interest are the most pay for the least work (like all other people's interests).  These are not only different, they are diametrically opposed.

Kagan Gave Plagiarist a Pass?

Apparently, SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan failed to enforce standards of academic conduct upon an esteemed member of the Harvard Law School faculty while she was Dean of that institution.  Excellent detail of this issue from the Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law (Larry Velvel) who argues that Kagan should have been fired:  click here

Lay me off, PLEASE, they said..

..Or so I'm hearing through the grapevine at my place of employment.  My employer has a facility in NY State, and as a result of current market conditions, elected to temporarily lay off some employees as a cost reduction measure.

   What's startling is that they ended up having to have a "lottery" of sorts to see who GOT to get laid off.  You see, the employees are smart.  They soon realized that current unemployment benefits are lucrative enough that they made more money on unemployment that they made by working.  When employees realized that unemployment paid $2000 more over the coming six-month period than they would make by working, a competition soon emerged for the layoffs.  Eventually, a mechanism was established by which all parties could agree who was going to get the "privilege" of getting laid off.

Do I need to even comment on the insanity?

I'd say this is "your tax dollars at work," but I realize that there is only a 70% chance that a US reader of this blog posting would have paid a single cent in income tax.

Mr, President, it's NOT Yours to Decide

..when a person has "made enough money."  I personally think the current President has PLENTY of money, making over 5 million last year.  Maybe we should take all the rest of his future earnings and "spread the wealth around"?

What to do when you think the Christian Right is Christian Wrong?

I'm seeing indications that many of the major Christian Groups have drunk the kool-aid of political power, and been corrupted by it.

First comes word that the Libertarian streak in the Tea Party movement that is ill-received by the American Family Association.  Then we have someone from the Family Research Council calling "liars" anyone who claims to speak for conservatives without including the standard spate of social conservative issues.  They've arrogated to themselves the position of indispensable conservative plank: you can't call yourself conservative if you're not with us.

In effect, they seem to be saying that a large government is really no problem-- a long as someone can harness that government power to impose socially conservative policies and laws.  Less charitably, their position is:" Gulags are OK as long as we can control who goes to them."

Then comes word that Focus on the Family, after spending about $500K campaigning for Prop 8 (The CA referendum on gay marriage), is laying off 46 employees.

What the current leadership of the Christian Right is failing to recognize is that decency and morality are not amenable to top-down legislation.  That old saw about "you can't legislate morality" is tempting to insert here, but I think that phrase is often wrongly used.  Legislation often does have moral aspects, and many times we send moral messages by what we choose or choose not to codify into law.

But what of this idea of social conservatism being more important than limited government or fiscal conservatism?  I have to disagree with this thinking.  I think it is woefully off the mark, and indicative of a lack of understanding or an abandonment of principles.


If truly free, a person is free to sin.  This is the free will given from God.  It's as if the Christian Right has re-"discovered" the Law that the Apostle Paul told us brought condemnation because if we are guilty of one part of the law, then we're guilty of the whole law.  Can a "law" banning drug use, homosexuality, or (recently) online poker save us?  Clearly not.

Let's say that the Christian Right is successful in achieving the goal of a Constitutional Amendment defining and respecting the traditional definition of marriage.  Then what?  Does homosexuality end?  Does sin end?  Does the angry militant gay preference lobby somehow become less motivated in their political crusade?  Hardly.  Any such "victory" is bound to be hollow and temporary.

Societal change must occur through bottom-up movement, never top-down.  The Left learned this long ago-- that's why they target the dependent class, and they strive to control the definitions used in debate, from "political correctness" to "earth friendly" and so on.  Once you've established something as a "fact" in the minds of so many people, you've already won the lion's share of the war.

Yet they all but admit defeat by effectively declaring that they cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas-- that they must use the police power of the State to inflict upon the populace their desire for traditional family values.  I'd argue that inflicting your will via the State is truly the "last refuge of scoundrels".  Compete in the marketplace of ideas, and WIN.

Meanwhile, the Tea Partiers are competing (and winning) in the marketplace of ideas.  People are seeing the light that government must be limited to be effective.  They understand the high stakes for our nation's future solvency.  The Tea Partiers are wanting to take power away from Government, and restore to people the Liberty with which our Founders believed we were endowed by our Creator. 

To use a weak analogy, the Tea Partiers are trying to fix the engines on a struggling plane while the FRC and AFA are attending to the brand of bottled water served on board.  Without addressing the core issues of limiting government and stemming the tide of the Leftist/Statist march, there will be little room or relevance for religious freedom or groups founded on such.

What is the state of the Christian Church in countries that have embraces totalitarianism and/or Socialism?  How "on fire for Christ" is the nation of England?  France?  Abortion rates?  State of sexual purity?

So I ask, how likely is it that a Socialist American society will experience a Christian revival on a massive scale?  How likely is it that an America with a vastly smaller government will re-discover its roots and traditional values along with it?

I'll put my money on the latter.  The Tea Partiers are right to not pick the social issue fights right now-- stand up for those issues, but don't wrap yourself in them.  I think the Christian Right has this one wrong...