August 30, 2003

Who Killed Uncle Fungus

I have wanted to blog about this many times in the past four days but I have nothing to say or add to it.

Let me point you to a great blog in France (mirabile-freakin-dictu), The Dissident Frogman, which is always available on the blogroll. And point you to this posting about the heat wave, French medicine, and a personal connection.

Posted by jk at 11:36 AM | What do you think? [0]

Arnold wins over another one

Too bad for Arnold that he lives in Pennsylvania but AlexC, over at pstupidonymous is coming around to supporting Arnold's gubernatorial adventure:

So, is he a traditional Republican?

He supports abortion, but not partial birth. He's pro-Brady bill.

However, he's pro school vouchers, pro cutting budget, tax cuts are at least open for discussion, doesn't support gay marriage.

In a strange quote for a non-biased media outlet like CNN, they say this...

"I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman," he said, a misstatement in a rush to keep up with the staccato-like delivery of the questions.

While, factually it is correct. That is precisely what he said in the interview, the fact that they point it out is very strange.

Hmm, Alex. I consider myself a pretty traditional Republican and most of his stands sound pretty good. Abortion but not partial birth is a reasonable position. I have no problem with gay marriage. I wish he didn't support the Brady Bill but he wont lose me over it. And I agree with you that this is California. He is conservative enough.

I heard Cruz Bustamante on NPR yesterday (imagine that) and he is scary. He wants the state to regulate gasoline prices. Presumably, they did so well on electricity...
The other GOP candidates should pull out and my friends at National Review, whom I respect dearly, should stop pushing McClintock. Arnold is the best shot at keeping California from economically falling into the ocean.

Posted by jk at 10:21 AM | What do you think? [5]

August 29, 2003 Responds?

On August 22nd I blogged the Alabama Ten Commandments case. Since it was based, in part, on an open letter petition from the website I emailed them a copy of my blog and tried to explain that I thought their opinion was on the wrong side of this case because the Constitution is not based on God but on principles of individual liberty and, although I may not have stated it clearly enough, reason.

On August 27th a comment was posted by Rob Richards, whom I believe is associated with the PatriotPetitions.US and the website. I have responded to Mr. Richards by explaining how Judge Moore's personal crusade can do only harm to the causes the Founders held dear.

See the original post and comments which follow here.

Posted by JohnGalt at 10:54 PM | What do you think? [0]

jk disagrees with Larry Kudlow!

This doesn't happen everyday. But my buddy Larry (co-host of the greatest show on TV, Kudlow & Cramer, on CNBC) thinks that W has to act now to discredit Gov. Dean's candidacy in Larry Kudlow on Howard Dean on NRO Financial

Howard Dean's left-wing uprising should be squelched before it gains any currency in the public mind. Standing above the fray is no way to do it. Neither are caustic put downs. The Bushies must dig in now. They've got to pull out some serious policy analysis and some long knives -- before this Dean thing gets out of hand.

No. Be magnanimous and presidential, stay above the nine dwarves. There will be plenty of time to take on the winner, and if it is Dean, there will be much to take him on about.
Besides I LOVE seeing Senator Kerry getting wiped around the ring. This is just way too much fun.
Get back to your show Larry, last night Jonathan Alter was allowed to say that W is just like Gray Davis.

Posted by jk at 03:35 PM | What do you think? [0]

Voting With Their Feet


Daniel Henninger's Wonder Land has taken over the void in my life when Peggy Noonan is on hiatus. Today, he looks at demographic migration and it is strikingly from "Blue to Red,"
If you look down the Census Bureau's coming-and-going column nearby, the consistent breakdown of Democratic blue-state population losers and Republican red-state gainers is striking (there are exceptions; Oregon and Washington state gained, while Louisiana lost). This may leave the blue states bluer than ever, but not very pleasant places to live if their most industrious, motivated citizens are loading up one-way U-Hauls.
Posted by jk at 04:37 AM | What do you think? [0]

August 27, 2003

Adam Smith "At the Movies"

The good folks at know economics and movies.

And lo, the Two Towers two-disk set was mine, as I'd predicted, for a mere 11-99, provided I spent fifty quid on other Tesco items. Oh please, I never get out of there for less than a full ton (100) these days, what with nappies, slim-line tonics, and Atkins' diet steaks. So laughing all the way to the till, with a trolley load including two small steaks valued at my saving of seven pounds, I inwardly praised Adam Smith and the mysterious workings of the free market, before I bore the precious item home.

And thanks to the invisible hand, I scored the DVD for $15 at Super Target and bought a Starbucks while I was there.
WOW! That is a GREAT film.

Posted by jk at 10:46 PM | What do you think? [0]

About Those Numbers...

The WSJ lead editorial is important today. It is not on the free site, so I am going to steal it from Dow Jones (you are insane if you do not subscribe, by the way). As they say it represents facts you won't read elsewhere.

The Spending Boom
If you want to know how Washington is different from the rest of America, or even from normal human aspiration, consider its reaction to yesterday's major economic news.
Out in the productive part of the country, the big story was the buoyant capital goods report for July. The 1% rise in durable goods orders, following 2.6% growth in June, suggests that the long-awaited rebound in business spending may finally be here. This is -- dare we whisper it -- good news.
But inside the land of spin and spenders, the big story was the increase, to $480 billion, in the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of the 2004 federal budget deficit. "We've got a grave problem on our hands," intoned South Carolina's John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. The Democratic Presidential candidates joined this chorus of economic gloom, while ignoring the good business spending news.

That's politics, we know. But allow us to draw a couple of points from the CBO update that you won't be reading elsewhere. One is that "the economy now seems poised for a more sustained recovery," with CBO estimating growth of nearly 4% in 2004. Because of that growth, moreover, "the recent surge in federal budget deficits will peak in 2004." That's right, if growth continues even at the CBO estimate of 3.3% a year from 2005-2008, federal revenues will begin to rise again and deficits will fall through the rest of the decade, just as they always do amid prosperity.

What this tells us is that President Bush's decision to use fiscal policy (tax cuts) to promote growth has been the right priority. And it seems to be paying off now in accelerating business purchases. This is crucial to restoring vibrant growth because the economy has had to survive on the hardy consumer since the stock and tech bubbles burst in 2000. This was also one of the explicit goals of Mr. Bush's dividend and marginal income-tax rate cut proposals.

Yesterday's report showed that shipments of non-defense capital goods, excluding aircraft, rose 2.9% in July following a similar rise in June, and are up by more than 21% at an annual rate in the last three months. This figure is especially meaningful because it is a proxy for non-government business fixed investment. Economist Brian Wesbury, among others, thinks this signals third-quarter growth in the 5% range.

By the way, if our politicians are shedding more than crocodile tears about "the deficit," we have a suggestion. They could always slow the growth of their own spending. CBO points out that in fiscal 2003 non-defense discretionary spending will rise a remarkable 8.5%, or $33 billion, mostly for education, health care and transportation. As a share of GDP, this spending will increase to 3.9%, "its highest level since 1985." Anyone who argues that the war on terror is crowding out domestic spending should be laughed out of the room.

The CBO report makes another useful point: Its deficit estimates assume no change in current law. That is, they do not include the monumental increases in federal outlays that are certain to follow the passage of a new Medicare entitlement for prescription drugs for seniors. If someone wants to guarantee deficits as far as the eye can see, just pass that huge expansion of the entitlement state.

We've praised President Bush for keeping his eye on the prize of economic growth, but on spending control he's been disappointing, to say the least. He seems to think that the only way to get his essential increases in defense is to accept huge new domestic outlays. Perhaps he should ask the Members to choose guns or butter. In this time of war and deficits, he might discover that the voters agree with his priorities.

Posted by jk at 09:42 AM | What do you think? [1]

August 25, 2003

Jewish World Review

I expect a lot of overlap between Berkeley Square Blog readers and those of Jewish World Review.

Over five years ago, I launched and told one and all that I would "put my heart" into it -- what has resulted may have been more literal than I had imagined.
On the afternoon of Sunday August 17, I was admitted to Maimonides Hospital in Brooklyn. It's an institution that enjoys a reputation as having one of the finest cardiac centers in the nation. Without getting into the particulars, after a battery of tests, the problem was diagnosed and a remedy is being worked upon.
Why am I telling you this? For a simple reason: Because I think you care.
Though time and again I have been advised against publicizing this fact, I do not hide that JWR is a one-man-show. I think the quality of my webzine and, particularly, the quality of its readers -- including White House staffers, senators, congressmen, syndicated talk show hosts, editorial page editors, Fortune 500 CEOs and just ordinary religious and patriotic Americans -- says a lot about who we serve and what we stand for.

I challenge readers to support Binyamin L. Jolkovsky and JWR.

Posted by jk at 11:53 AM | What do you think? [0]

The Charisma Tour

Matt Labash at The Weekly Standard takes a humorous look at Senator Bob Graham's family vacation across Iowa in The Charisma Tour.

I mean, just look at these parade exhibits. There's the WB frog, the Wal-Mart employees looking their blue-vested best, the umbrella brigade, twirling umbrellas in time to ABBA's "Take a Chance on Me." There's a herd of obedience-school puppies, the gals from Becky's Dance Studio, and the Roberts' Dairy truck, complete with giant plastic cow and mooing horn. But I have not come to see any of that. I have come to see Florida senator Bob Graham, or, as his family calls him, the "44th President of the United States."
One can almost hear the children begging, as children do everywhere, "Grandpa, take us to lunch with the Warren County Democrats, and then on to the John L. Lewis Mining and Labor Museum!"

Posted by jk at 11:14 AM | What do you think? [0]

August 24, 2003

Howard Dean

David Ellis at Wunderkinder has a great post tiled "Why Howard Dean Scares Me"

Reasonable men have tried to deny it for too long, but now we must acknowledge the irrefutable conclusion that Howard Dean is now the frontrunner among the Democratic candidates for president. For me his oft-repeated statement that the reason he believes in the things that he does is because he tends to focus on the facts is a terrifying thing for a potential president to believe. It reminds me of Noam Chomsky, who thinks that his opinions are on a higher plane than those he disagrees with because he is basing his views on fact and reason, which are objective. Therefore men of good faith cannot disagree with Dean and Chomsky, because fact and reason cannot lead to divergent viewpoints.

To further qualify: of all the blogs on the blogroll here, Wunderkinder is by far the least ideological and right-wing. I see many a Democratic post over there and think he is on to something here...

Posted by jk at 05:24 PM | What do you think? [0]

New blog

AlexC (a prolific and sagacious commenter over at Zogbyblog) has started his own blog: pstupidonymous. In his first four posts, he covers Chemical Ali, W's suspension of Hamas funders, the media, and sneaks in a snippet of script from "Airplane." Check it out...

Posted by jk at 11:35 AM | What do you think? [1]

A true no-brainer

The Airline Pilots Security Alliance has lobbied long and hard to allow airline pilots to carry guns. The legislation has passed, but now the bureaucracy is destroying implementation.

In an attempt to discourage volunteers, and disqualify pilots, TSA requires psychiatric interviews, tests and observations, and onerous redundant background investigations of pilots who have already passed the required layers of screening repeatedly to fly multimillion-dollar airliners. Our own government admits these same aircraft in the wrong hands are weapons of mass destruction.

There are demonstrations planned in several airports, follow the link to see what you can do.
We trust these people with expensive aircraft and thousands of lives. Some think that they cannot be trusted with a handgun -- amazing.

Posted by jk at 09:40 AM | What do you think? [0]

August 23, 2003

Dateline Tikrit

"U.S. Army Brings Internet to Saddam's Hometown" is not a bad headline, especially considering it is Reuters.

TIKRIT, Iraq (Reuters) - The U.S. army opened the first unrestricted Internet access in Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit Saturday in a bid to convince skeptical Iraqis their occupation will bring tangible benefits.

"This Internet cafe we are inaugurating gives people in Tikrit for the first time total freedom of access to the Web," Major Troy Rader, in charge of the project, told Reuters.
"It is one of many reconstruction projects we are doing here to help local people," he added at a ribbon-cutting ceremony in Tikrit closely guarded by troops.
Local residents said Internet access prior to the toppling of Saddam was restricted to government-approved sites and was closely monitored by state security services.

Just to recap: The US Military has replaced the tyrannical rule of Saddam, Uday and Qusay Hussein with an inchoate free society and has done it in a difficult and strategically important part of the world.

And: is "Major Troy Rader" the best name for a soldier or what? Thank you for your service, Major!

Posted by jk at 08:27 AM | What do you think? [0]

August 22, 2003

Dear Judge Moore: Constitution is not based on God

I consider myself an advocate for individual liberty, limited government, and a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. So when I received an email from The Federalist web site asking me to sign a petition supporting fundamentalist Christian Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore's effort to promote Christian moral law at the site of adjudication of Alabama's civil law, I realized this was an important and confusing issue that required an Objectivist evaluation.

(Click on "continue reading" to see why I say the Ten Commandments monument must be removed not just from the rotunda, as the federal judge has ordered, but from any state or federal court or legislature.)

Federal Judge Myron Thompson reportedly ruled that "the monument violated the Constitution's ban on government promotion of a religious doctrine." Judge Moore (and Alan Keyes) claim the feds have no jurisdiction over state law in this matter because the Constitution limits the power of the Congress, not the states, in this matter. Well, we have a different perspective now about the limits of the Constition applying only to the federal, and not to state governments than we did before the Civil War. The Constitution does not prevent the states from "making laws respecting the establishment of religion," but it does not prevent them from legalizing slave ownership either.

In simple terms one may consider this case to be a conflict between a more powerful central (federal) government on the one hand, and a more religious government in the state of Alabama (and ultimately other states) on the other. Carried out to their ultimate ends, this is a choice between two tyrannies. But an advancement of any branch of government further into the altruistic collectivist and supernatural realm of religion is a far greater threat than the idea that the federal government shall have the power to regulate the excesses of the governments of the states. They're not barring the people of Alabama from displaying religious beliefs, only Alabama's state government.) It is right to remove the monument not just from the rotunda, as Judge Thompson has ordered, but from the premises of any state or federal court or legislature.

There is no denying the real motives of Judge Moore. Regardless of the legal arguments he employs, his goal is to enshrine his Christian God as the supreme authority over the laws and lives of American citizens. This is evidenced by quotes such as, "I will never deny the God upon whom our laws and country depend," and "Not only did Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God as well." If Moore is allowed to succeed it will be a step away from the America's true founding principles of reason, liberty, and individual rights, and toward the same kind of theological influence over government that exists today in Iran.

Posted by JohnGalt at 09:50 AM | What do you think? [6]

August 21, 2003

Public Education Debate on the Blog

In response to Cyrano's blog of an excellent Thomas Sowell "rant?" our solitary comment writer who presents as something of a moderate lefty has kicked off a debate about whose responsibility it is to educate our youth and who gets to decide what they are taught.

Jump down to the August 15th post and read the comments. It's just getting interesting!

Posted by JohnGalt at 02:56 PM | What do you think? [0]

NY Schools offer choice

...If You're Gay points out the WSJ. I have printed the whole short editorial here, with apologies to Dow Jones. I do suggest that people subscribe.

It's not exactly what we meant by school choice. We're talking about the $3.2 million in tax dollars New York is spending to expand a program for gay students into America's "first accredited public high school designed to meet the needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth."
Though the headlines have had a field day playing up the issue of sexual orientation, a lawsuit just filed by a Hispanic state senator exposes the real scandal here: a city public school system willing to deliver choice to a politically influential group while subjecting hundreds of thousands of others to education triage. The co-plaintiffs in the suit are the Reverend Ruben Diaz, a state senator, and "Jane Doe" -- a mother of four whose children attend public schools in Mr. Diaz's district in the South Bronx. Mr. Diaz emphasizes that his suit has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with opportunity. How, the suit asks, can the city justify spending millions on a gay school with a total enrollment projected at only 170 while leaving many of the one million other New York schoolchildren in the lurch? Good question. The Harvey Milk School for gays claims a graduation rate of 95%, with more than 60% of its students going off to college. Whatever you think of the idea of a gay school, by any measure we're talking about an education elite. In sharp contrast, a good chunk of New York City's other high school students -- say, the black and Latino students who make up Mr. Diaz's district -- will never see a high school diploma. At the middle school attended by Jane Doe's eldest child, only 13% of eighth-graders test at level for English and only 8.5% for math.

These dismal statistics help explain why Mr. Diaz belongs to a growing species of inner-city Democrats who support school vouchers. In its mission statement, the Harvey Milk School says its purpose is to provide "an opportunity to obtain a secondary education in a safe and supportive environment." Surely all New York kids deserve the same. Only in America's big-city public schools do you get better treatment if you're gay than if you're poor.

Posted by jk at 05:16 AM | What do you think? [2]

August 19, 2003

Lord Keynes's Vision is Dead

Milton Friedman has a guest Ed in the WSJ today: The Fed's Thermostat paid site only, sorry kids!

Yet it does, I believe, suggest the answer. Central banks the world over performed badly prior to the '80s not because they lacked the capacity to do better, but because they pursued the wrong goals according to a wrong theory. Keynes had taught them that the quantity of money did not matter, that what mattered was autonomous spending and the multiplier, that the role of monetary policy was to keep interest rates low to promote investment and thereby full employment. Inflation, according to this vision, was produced primarily by pressures on cost that could best be restrained by direct controls on prices and wages.
That Keynesian vision was thoroughly discredited by experience in the '70s and '80s. It has since been replaced by what has become known as New Keynesian Economics, which incorporates some key quantity theory (monetarist) propositions: that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon; that monetary policy has important effects on real magnitudes in the short run but no important effects in the long run (the long run Phillips curve is vertical), the crucial function of a central bank is to produce price stability, interpreted as a low and relatively steady recorded rate of inflation. Once the banks adopted price stability as their primary goal, they were able to improve their performance drastically.

The article is a little technical but it's a compelling look at the gains made since Keynesianism stopped being the law of the world. Nixon said "We're all Keynesians now." It was true then and we have the '70s to prove it. Someday, a president will say "We're all Friedmanites, now." Get ready for good times when you hear that!

Posted by jk at 06:04 PM | What do you think? [0]

August 18, 2003


The forces of darkness and carbohydrates are arrayed in confederacy! Andy Duncan at Samizadata exposes Anti-Atkins do-gooder working for the flour industry.

Who would have thought it? One of the main nutrition-industry opponents of the Atkins diet has had some of her research sponsored by the flour industry. Remarkable.

The author, like yours truly, has seen good results on the Atkins Diet -- and has heard all kinds of scare stories ginned up by the current nutrition industry, scared of Schumpeterian gales.

I left a long comment ending it with what I consider the big question: "This discussion does belong on Samizdata because why, why, why, do we look to the government to select between competing diets? I grew up (in the USA) with "The Four Food Groups," truly "The Four Most Successful Government Lobbying Organizations." This was discredited for the food pyramid -- oddly enough, it was probably more sound nutrition."

Posted by jk at 11:15 AM | What do you think? [5]

Big Government Conservative

If you missed Fred Barnes's guest Ed in the WSJ last week, you're in luck. It is up on the Weekly Standard site: Big-Government Conservatism

This is a trenchant address of the concerns of Andrew Sullivan and others about W's prodigality.

Being a big government conservative doesn't bring Bush close to being a moderate, much less a liberal. On most issues, his position is standard conservative: a pro-lifer who expects to sign a ban on partial birth abortion, he's against stem-cell research and gun control, and has drawn the line at gay marriage. His judicial nominees are so uniformly conservative that liberals are furious.
On taxes, Bush is a supply-sider. He's gotten large tax cuts that would have slashed even deeper if a few moderate Republicans hadn't balked. His interventionist foreign policy has near unanimous support among conservatives. His backing of tough internal measures against potential terrorists has riled civil libertarians but pleased most conservatives.
Yet conservative critics insist Bush is no Ronald Reagan--and they're right. Reagan was the leader of the conservative movement before he entered the White House. In his initial years as president, he cut taxes as boldly as Bush and curbed domestic spending. But Reagan was a small government conservative who declared in his inauguration address that government was the problem, not the solution. There, Bush begs to differ.

I miss the small government conservatives but think it is more realistic to look at this president in this light instead of as some kind of "sell-out."

Posted by jk at 08:56 AM | What do you think? [2]

August 16, 2003

The Blackout: It's Intellectual

So what did the temporary electricity problem show us?

It underscores how shortsighted and cognitively blacked out many Democrats -- and Republicans for not defending themselves properly on this issue (what did Aristotle say about a person who could defend himself physically but not with reason???) -- media personnel, and modern "intellectuals" are. And how they have, let's say, ignored the investment need of the mind in the study of logic.

The event is used as another opportunity to throw more shackles on the body and mind of America, and as another opportunity to attack America.

From "Democrats Rip Bush on Blackout," by Mike Glover, the Associated Press:

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (Aug. 16) - The Democratic presidential contenders blamed President Bush Friday for the massive blackout in the northeastern United States, saying the White House's refusal to invest in the nation's infrastructure caused the problem.

``It underscores a blackout in this administration on energy policies,'' Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry said. ``They have ignored the investment needs of our infrastructure in favor of a tax cut for the wealthy.''


While no one has yet pinpointed a cause, Democrats were quick to bash Bush.

Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt argued that the blackouts can be linked to flaws in Bush and the Republican party's energy policy. ``These events illustrate how shortsighted the Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress were in 2001 when they rejected modernization of our nation's power grid,'' Gephardt said.

And this nonsense, from "U.S. Is Energy Glutton," by Calvin Woodward, the Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Aug. 15) - As a rule, Americans can't take the heat in summer. Or the cold in winter. Or inconvenience any time. The delicious shock of chilled air on a sweltering day is a tonic not to be denied and they'll do everything in their overtaxed power grids to get it.

By world standards, the United States is an electricity glutton, using one-quarter of the power consumed everywhere and far more than any other country. As power again thrummed through cables deadened by the historic blackout, no one expected that to change fast.

The emphasis Friday was on getting past the immediate power crunch and, over the longer term, making power systems more reliable so Americans can go on getting as much as they want.


...From his home in New York City, where he was struck by the ''party atmosphere'' of the blackout Thursday, the secretary general of last year's United Nations summit on sustainable development said Americans have not been pushed to accept inconvenience.

''The focus in the United States has been not in terms of changing how people live but improving the efficiency of use,'' said Nitan Desai, a UN undersecretary-general from India.

Or are there some news articles and shows with a rational view -- an application of induction and context to understanding the electric problem -- that I have not seen???

Is there someone pointing out how we do not know the cause yet -- and discussing causality, the nature of explanation, the logical fallacy of hasty generalization, the problems caused by false accusation, the importance of seeing the big picture in understanding any issue, the problems (and destruction) caused by false accusation and by acting on something that isn't true, and giving historical examples of each of these important topics???

Is there someone saying Sen. John Kerry is drawing conclusions he has no grounds whatsoever to make? And that he is going further to attack people based on his false conclusions? That his conclusions and accusations have no bearing on reality and therefore should be dismissed as having the same cognitive standing as the ramblings of a parrot?

Is there any reference to or reverence of reality and truth in this issue???

In the mean time, I'm going to enjoy my AC. In fact, I think I'll crank it down a bit for my cat's comfort while I guzzle some gas going to see my horse -- heck, I'm paying for it, I've earned it, and I'm contracting with people who can produce it. We created the electricity, we own it, and can use it as we please, with the blessings of happiness and morality. Amen.

Posted by Cyrano at 11:18 AM | What do you think? [4]

August 15, 2003

John Locke and the Internet

It's not VP Al Gore, or Gov. Howard Dean. Arnold Kling at TCS says The Real Internet Candidate is John Locke

For Locke, political power is a contract among consenting adults. We want to live in a society in which we have rights to life and property. We consent to form a government that enforces those rights. We are not children, and government is not a parent.

Locke's philosophy of government influenced our Constitution, which was designed to keep central authority down to minimum functions. Over time, the Constitution's limitations on government powers have been eviscerated, and most people have become accustomed to the nanny state.

The Internet architecture reminds me of the Constitution. It is designed as an agreement among responsible, consenting adults rather than as a paternalistic regulatory regime. In my opinion, the political figure who best "gets" the Internet is John Locke.

Posted by jk at 03:41 PM | What do you think? [0]

Public Schools: Inculcating Conformity

Since the school year is starting for everyone about this time, it's nice to be reminded of what our kids are being taught. There have been many books, articles, and warnings in the past, but one recent article, "Peers and Pied Pipers" by Thomas Sowell, points out the effects of modern education on American society.

Once I asked a federal judge why some of his fellow judges made some of the incredibly bad rulings that they had made. ...he specified that it was the opinions of the liberal media and the elite law school professors that was the gallery to whom these judges were playing.


It was even more baffling to hear, within the past year, professors at two of the top law schools in the country tell me that (1) they found the arguments used to justify affirmative action were just a crock and (2) they supported affirmative action anyway. One said he didn't want to offend donors to his law school.

We usually think of peer pressure as something that kids succumb to. But not only is such pressure effective with people who have long since passed childhood, not all the peer pressure on children is spontaneous.

Cut to the chase? Kids are not being taught that reality is the court of final appeal in all matters of truth, especially in the important areas of law, politics, and rights. They are being trained to follow the crowd -- they are being slowly cultivated to be mindless followers of whatever fashions are in the air, or whatever demagogue might come along.

Evidence? There are no firsthand, fact-based, principled arguments in law or politics anymore. It's all just a rehash of the same of bromides; basically: do it because that's what I say everyone accepts. When was the last time you heard a good, complete, inductive argument for or against a position: affirmative action, price controls, complete freedom in the electricity market? Or any step-by-step relating of these to the principle of individual rights? Or any discussion of how price controls spread to affect all areas of man's life?

A world even of demi-Aristotles, Galileos, Mozarts, Henry Fords, Goethes, Hugos we do not have.

If you really want to help your kids, check out "The Well-Trained Mind" by Jessie Wise and Susan Wise Bauer. A proper, rational, moral educational system should train our children to live their own lives, think their own thoughts, and look to reality for what is true.

Posted by Cyrano at 12:55 PM | What do you think? [13]

Anorexia Watch

This is from a banner ad on Yahoo from eDiets.
Hey don't get me wrong -- I am a big Atkins fan (Well I was 57 pounds bigger before I was an Atkins fan). But I think this woman needs help beyond dieting. Here's hoping she can trim off that unsightly spare tire that she's carrying around.
Besides, we haven't had pictures of "Young Women in Panties" (are you listening. Google?) on the blog in a while...
Posted by jk at 10:58 AM | What do you think? [1]

August 14, 2003

Dog Takes Self to Vet

While I am stealing from my buddies at ZogbyBlog, Melissa posted this yesterday and I have to run with this: Injured Dog Amazes By Taking Self To Vet

The 6-year-old dog, Scooby, ran away from his owners when his collar ring snapped during a recent thunderstorm. As he was running across a road a vehicle hit him, injuring his leg and tail.
Scooby then somehow walked miles to a local animal clinic and was waiting on the doorstep when employees arrived for work.
"He obviously knew this was the place to get help," Scooby's owner Shirley Farris said.
"There are subdivisions with hundreds and hundreds of houses between me and the vets office, there are three lanes and there is a mini mall. How he knew to take himself to the vet, I don't know."
Workers said Scooby followed them inside and walked straight into the operating room. His owner called the vet to tell him she'd lost her dog and was amazed to learn he had taken himself to the right place.

Get Well Soon, Scoob! Hmm, maybe I should go and get my leg looked at...

Posted by jk at 02:46 PM | What do you think? [0]

Pay Cut for Troops?

I hope that this can be filed under "more lies from the SFChronicle." If this is correct , I am leading a march on Washington.

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120-degree-plus heat.
Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."

Gee, guys, maybe we could cut the mohair subsidy and pay our soldiers. Any chance we could take $300 million out of the farm bill? Maybe let private industry develop fuel-cell cars?
Thanks to ZogbyBlog!

UPDATE: Score one for jk! It appears that this IS more lies from the SF Chronicle. They fooled Taranto at the WSJ Best of the Web, but not me. Today's Best of the Web corrects with a letter from a Captain Jamie Flanders of the USAF. Still not enough for these brave heroes but better than the SF Chronicle portrays.

Posted by jk at 02:35 PM | What do you think? [0]

Coulter on CA

Ann Coulter is a bad habit with me but I just can't stop. I think she is dead on in suggesting that the current California government is the laboratory for modern Democratic politics.

"California is the only one of the nation's 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control." In the Golden State, [American Prospect's Harold]Meyerson said, "the next New Deal is in tryouts." (Can't you just feel the tension building?)
California is, in fact, a perfect petri dish of Democratic policies. This is what happens when you let Democrats govern: You get a state -- or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" -- with a $38 billion deficit, which is larger than the budgets of 48 states. There are reports that Argentina and the Congo are sending their fiscal policy experts to Sacramento to help stabilize the situation.

Harsh, yes (this IS Ann Coulter...) but is she wrong? Nopers!

Posted by jk at 11:39 AM | What do you think? [4]

August 13, 2003

Nigerian EMail Conference

Too Funny!

The 3rd Annual Nigerian EMail Conference
"Write better emails. Make more moneys."
Conference highlights:
-- Debate:
Attend a lively debate between Lady Mariam Abacha and Mr. Godwin Oyathelem. Topic: "The effectiveness of using all UPPERCASE characters"
Grammatical errors: What's the optimal number?

Thanks to The Corner (NRO)

Posted by jk at 03:31 PM | What do you think? [0]

Steel Tariffs, Part XCLVIII

Sorry, more steel tariff whining. But there might be some hope. The lead editorial in today's Wall Street Journal advocates repeal. 'Cause it's right and because it serves the naked political interest that the tariffs were supposed to accomplish.

President Bush meets with his economic team at the Crawford ranch today to discuss how to help the economy create more jobs. We have a modest proposal: Repeal his own 30% steel tariffs.
At this stage in his Presidency and the business cycle, there isn't much else Mr. Bush can do. Fiscal and monetary policy are more or less baked in the cake for 2004. The tax cuts are beginning to kick in and the Federal Reserve has the monetary gates wide open; its statement yesterday holding the fed funds rate at 1% suggested a rate hike later rather than sooner.
Any White House heading into an election year is naturally worried about job growth, which has been lousy for about three years. But business hiring is always a lagging indicator and it too should begin to improve if growth accelerates past 3% a year. Nonetheless, if Mr. Bush wants to take out some employment insurance, repealing the steel tariffs would have instant benefits.

Posted by jk at 08:49 AM | What do you think? [0]

August 11, 2003

Shoppin' the Chains

Too funny! Michael Jennings at Samizdata visits his local Books. Etc. (Borders to us yanks) and despairs at the employee picks of John Pilger and Noam Chomsky. So he makes some of his own and returns to the store -- great fun.

On a more serious side, he links to a great article in The Atlantic, "Two--Make That Three--Cheers for the Chain Bookstores" by Brooke Allen. I have always liked Borders and Banes & Noble and received great disapprobation from my friends.

"The book business was an elitist, standoffish institution," Len Riggio told BusinessWeek in 1998. "I liberated it from that." Riggio's critics have mocked his populist pose, but it should be taken seriously. Before the appearance of the chains, a relatively highbrow, urban clientele shopped at the independents, and a relatively lowbrow, largely regional one bought mass-market titles at supermarkets, price clubs, and drugstores. Now, thanks to the chains and to Internet sales, the vast territory between the two extremes has been bridged. Elitists may carp, but the truth is that they are no longer quite so elite. These days shoppers in Buford, Georgia, and Rapid City, South Dakota, can pick up important titles such as Norman Cantor's Inventing the Middle Ages, Eugene Genovese's Roll, Jordan, Roll, and Andrew Motion's biography of John Keats—titles that are neither "popular" nor newly published—at their local Borders. (None of these books were available at the venerated independent Manhattan bookstores St. Marks Bookshop and Three Lives, or at Los Angeles's hip and highbrow Book Soup, when I called.)
Posted by jk at 04:18 PM | What do you think? [0]


TO: Governor Howard Dean, The Deanery, Old McGovern Way, Montpelier, Vermont.
FROM Nick Machiavelli, Senior Partner, Machiavelli, O'Blarney, Iago, Alcibiades, and Morris, Political Consultants.
John O'Sullivan channels the prince to help Gov. Dean. Great stuff!

I had read the polls too and realized the desperate situation you are in. Not to put too fine a point on it, you are Leonidas at Thermopylae, Scott of the Antarctic, and Colonel William Travis at the Alamo all rolled into one namely, the gallant leader of a doomed band.

Posted by jk at 01:57 PM | What do you think? [0]

August 08, 2003

W Action Figure

My buddy, KBZ, at ZogbyBlog has found the perfect christmas gift for, well, everybody: the George W Bush Action figure!

Posted by jk at 11:01 AM | What do you think? [3]

More Bad News for Dems

The New York Times (would Howell have run this story?) has some more bad news for McAuliffe & Moyers, Inc. It seems their capacity to completely take African-American voters for granted may not last forever. In Younger Blacks Tell Democrats to Take Notice, the NYTimes follows a young Democratic operative who is being asked tough questions for a change by young voters:

"I don't cast my ballot based on learned behavior."
Mr. Eddings's comments were emblematic of what some Democratic strategists fear may be a growing problem: The party is perilously out of touch with a large swath of black voters--those 18 to 35 years old who grew up after the groundbreaking years of the civil rights movement. It is a group too important and complex to ignore, many strategists caution, when analysts are predicting another close election.

This is the best news in the paper since Saddam's statue was pulled down. The monolithic support of that community for Democrats is harmful to the republic and does no favors for African-Americans.
The article makes it clear that the disaffected voters are not turning Republican in droves, but it cheers me up all the same.
Alan Keyes's BAMPAC recruits conservative black candidates and will be airing some issue commercials during the election. Someday, they may be "Free at Last!" of the Democratic party.

Posted by jk at 10:52 AM | What do you think? [0]

August 07, 2003


An e-mail from my brother provides a list of medals, honors and decorations won by Hollywood stars in WWII and invites the reader to compare them to today's bravest. I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but the stories of Clark Gable and Jimmy Stewart ring true.

They gave up their wealth, position and fame to become service men & women, many as simple "enlisted men". This page lists but a few, but from this group of only 18 men came over 70 medals in honor of their valor, spanning from Bronze Stars, Silver Stars, Distinguish Service Cross', Purple Hearts and one Congressional Medal of Honor.

>Hollywonk! Real Hollywood Heros
>Alec Guinness (Star Wars) operated a British Royal Navy landing craft on
>James Doohan ("Scotty" on Star Trek) landed in Normandy with the U. S. Army
>on D-Day.
>Donald Pleasance (The Great Escape) really was an R. A. F. pilot who was
>shot down, held prisoner and tortured by the Germans.
>David Niven was a Sandhurst graduate and Lt. Colonel of the British
>Commandos in Normandy.
>James Stewart Entered the Army Air Force as a private and worked his way to
>the rank of Colonel. During World War II, Stewart served as a bomber pilot,
>his service record crediting him with leading more than 20 missions over
>Germany, and taking part in hundreds of air strikes during his tour of
>duty. Stewart earned the Air Medal, the Distinguished Flying Cross,
>France's Croix de Guerre, and 7 Battle Stars during World War II. In peace
>time, Stewart continued to be an active member of the Air Force as a
>reservist, reaching the rank of Brigadier General before retiring in the
>late 1950s.
>Clark Gable (Mega-Movie Star when war broke out) Although he was beyond the
>draft age at the time the U.S. entered WW II, Clark Gable enlisted as a
>private in the AAF on Aug. 12, 1942 at Los Angeles. He attended the
>Officers' Candidate School at Miami Beach, Fla. and graduated as a second
>lieutenant on Oct. 28, 1942. He then attended aerial gunnery school and in
>Feb. 1943 he was assigned to the 351st Bomb Group at Polebrook where flew
>operational missions over Europe in B-17s. Capt. Gable returned to the U.S.
>in Oct. 1943 and was relieved from active duty as a major on Jun. 12, 1944
>at his own request, since he was over-age for combat.
>Charlton Heston was an Army Air Force Sergeant in Kodiak.
>Earnest Borgnine was a U. S. Navy Gunners Mate 1935-1945.
>Charles Durning was a U. S. Army Ranger at Normandy earning a Silver Star
>and awarded the Purple Heart.
>Charles Bronson was a tail gunner in the Army Air Force, more specifically
>on B-29s in the 20th Air Force out of Guam, Tinian, and Saipan
>George C. Scott was a decorated U. S. Marine.
>Eddie Albert (Green Acres TV) was awarded a Bronze Star for his heroic
>action as a U. S. Naval officer aiding Marines at the horrific battle on
>the island of Tarawa in the Pacific Nov. 1943.
>Brian Keith served as a U.S. Marine rear gunner in several actions against
>the Japanese on Rabal in the Pacific.
>Lee Marvin was a U.S. Marine on Saipan during the Marianas campaign when he
>was wounded earning the Purple Heart.
>John Russell: In 1942, he enlisted in the Marine Corps where he received a
>battlefield commission and was wounded and highly decorated for valor at
>Robert Ryan was a U. S. Marine who served with the O. S. S. in Yugoslavia.
>Tyrone Power (an established movie star when Pearl Harbor was bombed)
>joined the U.S. Marines, was a pilot flying supplies into, and wounded
>Marines out of, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
>Audie Murphy, little 5'5" tall 110 pound guy from Texas who played cowboy
>parts? Most Decorated serviceman of WWII and earned: Medal of Honor,
>Distinguished Service Cross, 2 Silver Star Medals, Legion of Merit, 2
>Bronze Star Medals with "V", 2 Purple Hearts, U.S. Army Outstanding
>Civilian Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, 2 Distinguished Unit Emblems,
>American Campaign Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal
>with One Silver Star, Four Bronze Service Stars (representing nine
>campaigns) and one Bronze Arrowhead (representing assault landing at Sicily
>and Southern France) World War II Victory Medal Army of Occupation Medal
>with Germany Clasp, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Combat Infantry Badge,
>Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar, Expert Badge with Bayonet Bar, French
>Fourragere in Colors of the Croix de Guerre, French Legion of Honor, Grade
>of Chevalier, French Croix de Guerre With Silver Star, French Croix de
>Guerre with Palm, Medal of Liberated France, Belgian Croix de Guerre 1940
>So how do you feel the real heroes of the silver screen acted when compared
>to the hollywonks today who spray out anti-American drivel as they bite the
>hand that feeds them? Can you imagine these stars of yester-year saying
>they hate our flag, making anti-war speaches, marching in anti-American
>parades and saying they hate our president? I thought not, neither did I!

Posted by jk at 01:18 PM | What do you think? [1]

Worth the Wait!

LILEKS IS BACK! LILEKS IS BACK! with a vintage column: new Target, Ahhnold's gubernatorial bid, and then an awesome riff on the new bishop:

This story has irritated me from the start, and it has nothing to do with Rev. Robinson's sexual orientation. The guy left his wife and kids to go do the hokey-pokey with someone else: that's what it's all about, at least for me. Marriages founder for a variety of reasons, and ofttimes they're valid reasons, sad and inescapable. But "I want to have sex with other people" is not a valid reason for depriving two little girls of a daddy who lives with them, gets up at night when they're sick, kisses them in the morning when they wake. There's a word for people who leave their children because they don't want to have sex with Mommy anymore: selfish.

Posted by jk at 11:44 AM | What do you think? [6]

Dean's Record

Wow! My buddy KBZ over at ZogbyBlog has unearthed a jewel in The Washington Times. In Dean's budget-balancing act left taxpayers in red Donald Lambro takes some whacks at the Governors soi-disant fiscal conservativism:

Mr. Dean, a Democrat who calls himself a "fiscal conservative," says he balanced all his state budgets by cutting spending. And allies and critics alike praise his budget-balancing record.
What the former governor doesn't say is that he raised hundreds of millions of dollars in higher taxes, including sales taxes, cigarette taxes, property taxes and corporate taxes, to balance the books while paying for his social welfare proposals.

This is my trouble with all the Democratic fiscal conservatives: they mean we'll raise taxes high enough to pay for services. This is not conservative in my book.

Posted by jk at 11:24 AM | What do you think? [2]

'95 Nostalgia

Well, yes, Mr. Clinton was President, but the 104th Congress was in full swing, the Contract With America had been passed, and -- best of all -- Adrianna Huffington was a conservative!

I was a big fan of Ms. Huffington, she had a powerful and fresh conservative voice. And I was quite the fan of Speaker Gingrich, watching his Pepperdine course on TV and enjoying a conservative Republican who lived for new ideas and change and was comfortable with technology.

Now, Arianna has discovered the SUV as bete-noir and we have discovered a few too many of Newt's secular appetites. But The Weekly Standard brings a great blast from '95 with "Why Newt Must Run." Arianna celebrates the Speaker and tries to prevent the Dole debacle of '96:

The second moral imperative was again identified by the speaker in his speech on the night of the Million Man March: "I don't think that any white conservative anywhere in America ought to look at Louis Farrakhan and just condemn him, without asking yourself where were you when the children died, where were you when the schools failed, where were you when they had no hope, and unless we're prepared to roll up our sleeves and we are prepared to reach out and to say, 'I'll give you an alternative . . .'" There is a moral imperative to articulate the alternative not every now and then but with a sense of urgency, day in and day out, in full-length speeches and in answers at press conferences, on talk radio and on "Oprah" and on "Live with Regis and Kathie Lee," until this becomes a revolution with a human face and Americans recognize it as their own.

I think I'll go play a Spin Doctors CD and think about it awhile...

Posted by jk at 10:00 AM | What do you think? [2]

About Sec. Powell's Retirement

Slow-news-cycle-August has blessed us with the Kobe Bryant story, and a big will he/won't he kafuffle about Colin Powell's second term as Secretary of State (should W fend off the Dean juggernaut, of course!)

My wife says you'll know when his career is over: he'll be doing commercials for his own line of GAP jeans. hahahahahahahaha!

Posted by jk at 09:06 AM | What do you think? [0]

August 06, 2003

Ayn Rand Awards

One for JohnGalt: Samizdata proposes "Michael O'Leary, the Ryanair chief executive, for the Hank Rearden Award for Top Quality Businessman of the Year."
Ryanair is the budget of budget airlines, I tried to buy one of its 29 flights from Southampton to Dublin but they were sold out. O'Leary sells tickets, and grows revenue, and tells the Telegraph "I've no intention of making life easy for bureaucrats." I'll certainly support his nomination...

Posted by jk at 09:54 AM | What do you think? [0]

Steel Tariffs, Part XCLVII

Sick of me talking about steel tariffs? Yeah, me too. I hold our President in high esteem and it hurt to watch him put naked politics above principle.
Sometimes, you have to play the game. I can appreciate that. But the steel (and softwood) tariffs slowed the economic recovery and gave every other nation on this planet cover for protectionist policies. Cui bono? Well, Richard Gephardt!
In Steel Thyself, Karl Rove the WSJ documents the political "gains" of this policy:

After all George Bush has done for steel, the United Steelworkers of America yesterday returned the favor and endorsed Richard Gephardt for President. Call it more evidence, if any more were needed, that the Administration's decision to impose 30% tariffs on steel imports last year was a major economic and political blunder.
In announcing the endorsement, union president Leo Gerard praised Mr. Gephardt's trade record but never once mentioned the dive Mr. Bush took for steel. Far from it, he called the field of Democratic contenders "an embarrassment of riches, any of whom we can support over the reactionary policies of the current Administration." On protectionism, Mr. Gephardt is indeed hard to beat. He fought against fast track, against permanent normal trade relations with China and in favor of steel quotas.
Mr. Bush's problem is that the steel tariffs were never going to deliver as advertised. They couldn't save Rust Belt mills or keep Big Steel companies from filing for bankruptcy and walking away from their pension and retirement obligations. They would do nothing to win over protectionists in battleground states.

It's time to say "The WTO has spoken, and we must remove or reduce these to comply with our own trade policy," that's a face-saving way to backtrack on a bad idea.

Posted by jk at 06:29 AM | What do you think? [0]

August 05, 2003

Good News!

I'll let the good people at Samizdata tell it:

As a political professional, I can assure you that nothing turns off your audience more quickly than an unremitting diet of negativity, and nothing harms an advocate more than having only complaints without solutions. I happen to believe that, in the very big picture and the very long view, a lot of trends are running our way. Now, I enjoy complaining about the cult of the state as much as the next fellow, but I will be making a conscious effort to bring some good news to the fore. With that in mind, I give you the retirement of Senator Fritz Hollings.

To protect his home state textile industry, he threw the laws of comparative advantage and the people of Africa down the drain. Good riddance to this partisan protectionist.

Posted by jk at 09:57 AM | What do you think? [0]

Verbing Gigli

ben domenech online welcomes a new verb to our rich language. Gigli (jee-lee):

[T]his week, please try to use the title in some format, preferably in a normal water-cooler conversation. I suggest:
"That bad sushi we ate last night made me want to Gigli all over my shoes."
Or maybe: "Have you seen the new TPS reports? What a stinking pile of bureaucratic Gigli."
And for the philosophical among you: "As a dog returns to its Gigli, so a fool returns to his folly."

Posted by jk at 09:38 AM | What do you think? [0]

August 04, 2003

jk vs. Gov Dean and Andrew Sullivan

It's about time that I, jk, took on Governor Howard Dean.
The good doctor and media darling is making a name for himself: gracing the cover of two newsweeklies this week, raising money, and rising in polls. Seeing the establishment Democratic candidates get whacked has been so much fun so far that I have been silent. Karl Rove and I both like a Bush v. Dean matchup in '04.
But, as Mose Allison said, "I can't believe the things I'm seein'..." Andrew Sullivan has posted a column today on Gov. Dean, in which Andrew says that he'd support Dean except for his large failings on national security. This gives you a flavor:

Dean is the current hot candidate for the presidency on the Democratic ticket. A short, rough-around-the-edges populist former doctor, who served several terms as governor of Vermont, Dean has astounded many political observers by rising to close to the top of the pack of the current group of Dems in the polls. He's on the cover of both newsweeklies this week. A new kind of candidate, he built his base in part through the Internet, where he both blogs and raises large amounts of cash - more than any other candidate so far. He has the "straight-talking" buzz of a John McCain. And he has fired up Democratic party activists by asserting clear, if radical, positions on the issues of the day. His best recent quip - and running campaign slogan - is that he represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. And when you see the party base's enthusiasm for a man absolutely unashamed to take on president Bush with glee and vigor, it's hard not to root for him as a candidate. He feels alive; he seems fresh; he seems different.

WOW! Let me sum up: Dean is brave to attack the President during an election, okay. His "best quip" was stolen from Senator Paul Wellstone, but he doesn't really need it anymore does he? The big part of the story is praise for Dean as a "fiscal conservative."
Dean's web page includes a speech: "Governor Dean Lays Out Vision for Economic Growth and Job Creation." He tells you that he is a fiscal conservative, and there is some corroborating evidence from his tenure in Vermont. But the speech points out that Dean wants to roll back Bush's tax cuts in favor of "guaranteed health care," raise the minimum wage, and fight any privatization of Social Security or change in benefit age. He castigates the President for being tough on unions and for relaxing ergonomic standards.
And Andrew Sullivan thinks this guy is the way to lower deficits. It's not. It is old-time tax-and-spend and it would be devastating to our economy right now. A little profligacy from a supply-sider is far less damaging than any of the economic horrors Dean promises.

Posted by jk at 10:49 AM | What do you think? [3]

August 01, 2003

Day by Day is back!

After a brief break. my favorite comic strip is back.

Posted by jk at 03:51 PM | What do you think? [1]

Ann Coulter's Living

The pundette branches out with a new magazine.

Posted by jk at 01:43 PM | What do you think? [0]

Requiescat In Pace

Memphis Shaken as Rock 'n' Roll Heart Is Stilled

He had been ailing for months, his friends all knew, but Sam Phillips's death on Wednesday still knocked the wind out of Memphis.
He had set out in 1950 to record the great black musicians of the South: B. B. King, Howlin' Wolf, Joe Hill Louis and others. But when none of them could break into the mass market, said Peter Guralnick, the Elvis biographer and music writer, Mr. Phillips became convinced that "a white artist with a Negro sound and feel" could accomplish his purpose. "It was a secret assault on a racist system -- the realization of a true sense of democracy, something very much against the mores of the time and place they lived," Mr. Guralnick said.

There are a lot of people who contribute to the world and to music in different ways. Sun Records added quite a bit to both. I like the reference to Democracy, I think Mr. Philips might have as well.

Posted by jk at 01:42 PM | What do you think? [0]
Don't click this. Comments (2)