The ideology of "organic" meets free market truth..

The images are pastoral and pristine---verdant fields of vegetables and other crops---grown and harvested locally, just as Mother Nature intended---organically.

The goal?

To rid planet Earth of food stuffs ridden with pesticides and chemicals, to slow if not reverse global warming, and to make the globe's population healthier.

"See what Mother Nature can do when you don't mess with her?
And it tastes so gooooooooooddddd!"

Who possibly could protest such noble goals?

Certainly not The Motley Monk, who always cooks using fresh produce.

But, then, as with all statist ideologies that eventually must contend with truth and reality in a free and unfettered marketplace, the "ideology of organic" is now having to confront some rather harsh free market truths and realities, according to a New York Times article.

The original and pristine ideology of organic required eating local, seasonal produce.  However, the success of the adherents of the organic ideology now has consumers in locales as far flung as New York and Dubai fueling geometric growth in marketplace demand for organic produce.  In turn, farmers' efforts to meet this demand are now stressing water tables where the crops are being grown and harvested due to the irrigation required (called "overexploiting").  Delivering all of that produce to the marketplace is also now draining the world's reserve of fossil fuels, thus contributing to global warming.

In 1990, U.S. organic ideologues successfully lobbied Congress to pass a law promoting ecological balance and biodiversity.  If produce is to carry the USDA's organic label, farmers bringing their produce to market in the USA must comply with regulations prohibiting the use of synthetic fertilizers, hormones, and pesticides.  The law also requires that soil and water health are not engendering environmental sustainability.  However, the USDA checklist has few regulations promoting environmental sustainability.

Certifiable!

Like all statist ideologies, the organic ideologues want this lacuna remedied by increasing governmental regulation.  For example, the organic ideologues in 2011 successfully lobbied the USDA's National Organic Standards Board to revise its rules to require that for an "organic milk" label, cows had to be at least partly fed by grazing in open pastures rather than standing full time in feedlots.  The Motley Monk suspects that PETA also lobbied for this revision.

In the end, what happened when the organic ideology confronted marketplace truths and reality?

• The development of an expanded global marketplace.
• A geometrical increase in demand.
• Overexploitation of the water table.
• Less environmental sustainability.
• Increased use of fossil fuels.

In sum, an increase in capitalist global agribusiness!  Adherents of the organic ideology have expanded not contracted the very problems that ideologues seek to rid from planet Earth!

Fruit being unloaded at Portsmouth, UK

 

But, it gets worse yet for the organic ideologues.

 

It seems their "brand"---organic---has also been diluted.  Despite all of the federal regulations, the Distinguished Fellow at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, Frederick L. Kirschenmann, notes:

People are now buying from a global commodity market, and they have to be skeptical even when the label says "organic"---that doesn't tell people all they need to know.

Like "If you purchase this product, you are contributing to the end of the Earth as humanity has known it."



Let the discussion begin...




To read the New York Times article, click on the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/science/earth/questions-about-organic-produce-and-sustainability.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

A few "inconvenient" statistics for the 2012 presidential election cycle...

The Motley Monk happened upon five statistics that he sure would like the Republican nominee seize upon in the upcoming 2012 presidential election cycle.

These statistics include:

1. In the first quarter of 2010, 48.5% of American citizens lived in a household with at least 1 person receiving some form of government benefit from more than 70 federal programs.  34.2% lived in a household that received multiple benefits, including: cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to poor and low-income persons.  That's a record high!  (source: The Wall Street Journal)
2. Federal anti-poverty spending has soared form $190B in 1990 to $348B in 2000 (or ~83.2%).  In 2010, spending rose to $638B (or, 336%) and that's adjusted for inflation!  Since 2000, Children's Health Insurance has increased 470%, food stamps 229%, energy assistance 163%, child care assistance 89%, and Medicaid 80%.  Adjusted  for inflation, anti-poverty spending in 2010 was 1300% higher than when LBJ declared his "War on Poverty" in 1965.  How is one to spell "Success"? (source: Office of Management and Budget)
3. In 2010, the top 20% of federal taxpayers provided the federal government 86% of it total revenue.  The top 1%, who earn 16% of all income, pay 36.7% of all federal income taxes. (Heritage Foundation)
4. In 2011, the number of the "poorest of the poor" (defined as "50% or less of the 2011 official poverty level of $22,350 for a family of 4") climbed to 1 in 15 people (or 6.7% of the U.S. population).  That's the highest rate in 35 years!  How's all of that "Hope and Change Treatin' 'Ya"?  (source: Associated Press)
5. In 1966, the Food Stamp Program (in 2008, renamed "the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program") provided assistance to 500k citizens.  By 2011, that number ballooned to 45.8M citizens (or, ~15% of the population).  (source: Bloomberg News)

Surveying these statistics, The Motley Monk cannot conceive of a way that the 2012 Republican presidential nominee could possibly fail to communicate and turn to his advantage the utter failure of the so-called "War on Poverty" during the past 4+ decades as well as the direction of the economy for the past 3 years.

But, then, The Motley Monk is no starry-eyed idealist.  He's willing to bet the Republican nominee will figure out a way to blow it and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The "betting man's" question is: "How?"


Let the discussion begin...

More on the "imperial presidency"....

Since President Obama commenced "Operation Kinetic Military Action" (OKMA) on March 19, 2011, The Motley Monk has been keeping track of the number of days of silence on the part of the Catholic left "peace with justice" crowd.  It has been a very long time waiting for them to condemn the President for commencing hostilities...even though OKMA appears to be all but a "Mission Accomplished" moment for the President.

Is it a case of persistent laryngitis or a matter of plain, old-fashioned hypocrisy?

The Catholic left's big mouth

The Motley Monk had thought the peace with justice crowd would be outraged that President Obama---who overrode the advice of his own lawyers as well as the Office of General Council---declared that he did not need congressional approval to commence hostilities against Libyan dictator, Moammar Qaddafi.  After all, Congress enacted the War Powers Act (WPA) in 1973 much to the delight of the Catholic left peace with justice crowd because the it limits a President's ability to commit U.S. troops before being required to secure congressional approval to continue military operations, like OKMA.

Then, too, The Motley Monk thought, if that wasn't enough for the Catholic left peace with justice crowd, perhaps President Obama's declaration that the United Nations had sanctioned OKMA surely would outrage the Catholic left peace with justice crowd.

Why?

It  was their beloved agency of supreme global governance, the United Nations, that empowered President Obama to commence OKMA against the Libyan dictator.

Surely, that would provoke outrage, no?

As Qaddafi begged for mercy, the militant
 rebel said: "Shut up, you dog...."

Nope.  Not a peep.

A persistent case of laryngitis or plain, old-fashioned hypocrisy?

The Motley Monk hasn't forgotten that former President George W. Bush invaded Iraq with congressional approval.

The Motley Monk also hasn't forgotten that the Catholic left peace with justice crowd accused then-President Bush of abusing his powers as Commander-in-Chief and of engaging in an illegal if not immoral attempt to change the Iraqi regime.

"Read my mind, Nicolas. Just like I told Congress:
'OKMA'-'Oh Kiss My Arse.'  Now, get your finger
off my lapel.  These are expensive threads."

With President Obama unleashing the nation's military to remove or kill a foreign head of state while refusing to seek congressional approval, the Catholic left peace with justice crowd remains deafeningly silent.

That's why The Motley Monk believes many of those Catholic left peace with justice types are just plain, old-fashioned hypocrites.  It's not about "principle" but "convenience."


Let the discussion begin...

The "balanced budget amendment": A political ruse?

For all of those who are concerned with the federal deficit, the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) seems to make a great deal of sense.  The basic argument is: "Congress should not ever spend money it does not have."

BBA proponents note that most states have BBAs and their legislatures have learned to live within their means. "If the states can do it, why can't the federal government?", BBA proponents ask.

Taken at face value, the argument seems to make eminent sense.

But, hold on for just one minute.

According to a Cato Institute budget analyst, Tad DeHaven, the problem voters should target is spending.  For decades, the federal government has expanded its powers to spend that today "the federal government can do pretty much what it pleases."

DeHaven correctly argues neither political party has been willing to confront congressional overspending because that would require cutting the size and scope of government---all of those sacred cows---if they were truly serious about bringing the federal budget into balance without raising taxes.

So, instead, members from both sides of the congressional aisle seem to be warming up to the idea of a BBA.

Why?

Many voters are empathetic with the idea and, in this economic and political environment, it's a winning campaign promise.

But, more ominously, DeHaven points out that a BBA "would actually end up solidifying the oversized and overbearing federal government we have today."  That is, while the BBA would require Congress to balance the federal budget, it wouldn't necessarily cut the size and scope of the federal government.  Congress could keep expanding the federal "pie" as long as it balances the federal budget.

That got The Motley Monk thinking.  The BBA may be a political ruse candidates are using to deflect voters from electing representatives who really will cut the size and scope of the federal government...which means slaying sacred cows.


Let the discussion begin...




To read Tad DeHaven's article, click on the following link:
http://townhall.com/columnists/taddehaven/2011/12/29/we_dont_need_a_balanced_budget_amendment/page/full/

More from "the gift that keeps giving"...

The minority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), recently announced that extending unemployment benefits would add 600k jobs to the nation's economy.

Imagine that!  Doling out wads of taxpayers' cash to needy citizens, the federal government will stimulate the nation's economy.

Ms. Pelosi also said the money from unemployment benefits creates a "safety net" for the U.S. economy because it "injects demand into the economy [by] creating jobs."

Isn't that a bit backwards?  Shouldn't unemployment benefits provide a "safety net" for the unemployed?

Well, it doesn't to matter very much to Ms. Pelosi.  Those citizens who aer receiving the benefits will spend the money that the government has doled out which, in turn, creates taxpaying jobs!

Not allowing economics to sully her ideology, Ms. Pelosi argues:

The payroll tax cut that the president proposed would put $1,500 in the pockets of 160 million Americans.  The unemployment insurance extension is not only good for individuals.  It has a macroeconomic impact.  As macroeconomic advisers have stated, it would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy....

Again this is important because this is about the safety net not just for these individuals, but for our economic system that, in times of unemployment, we have a safety net and that is important....

Again, [not only] a safety net for individuals, but a safety net for the economy and again this money when received is immediately spent, it's urgently needed, and injects demand into the economy, creating jobs....

What a bunch of complete nonsense!

Discussing this matter with an eminent, nationally-quoted, and well-published economist to find out what Ms. Pelosi "gets" and what The Motley Monk "doesn't get," the The Motley Monk was told:

Resource allocations should be based on economic grounds, not on political grounds and the general public is too stupid to know the difference.  No, moving money from your right pocket to your left pocket does not somehow make you richer.  Consumption is not wealth.  Pelosi supports a program that creates gross inefficiencies.  Is she an idiot?  If her decision was based on economic reasoning, then yes.  But, she does not care about the nation's economy.  Her decisions are made for political reasons.  She is buying votes because the recipients of her generosity (with other peoples' money) think they are better off when in fact they are not.

 

In the end, the only way Ms. Pelosi's fantasy world works is if the federal government increases taxes to 100% of gross income or prints money.  The former is socialism that makes slaves of citizens; the latter fuels inflation and kills national prosperity.

 

 

Let the discussion begin...

The Motley Monk offers a "tip of the hat" to Mavronious (aka, "Liberal Pilgrim"---watch for his blog) who informed The Motley Monk that Ms. Pelosi's "macroeconomic advisers" names are the think tank, Macroeconomic Advisers.  They are a well-respected economic forecasting entity boasting excellent credentials.  Having read some of their recent reports to get a sense of their politics, it seems Ms. Pelosi "cherry picked" a report that fit her talking points.  Mavronious opines that Macroeconomic Advisers is "independent" in its political orientation.  That may be an accurate assessment.

Emperor Rhamulus and the Chicago Teachers Union: An unhappy marriage...

Evidently all's not well in "Rhamsville" if you're a member of the public school teachers' union.

According to an article in the Chicago Sun Times, the Kenwood-Oakland Community Organization along with members of the Chicago Teachers Union and Occupy-Chicago hijacked a Chicago School Board meeting.  Outside the meeting, ~300 parents, students, teachers, and school activists protested.  Inside, protesters used a tag-team of chants, charging the system's school closing policy with failing the city's children.

Adourthus McDowell, a Chicago Public School parent and member of the Kenwood-Oakland Community Organization, told the Board:

We see through the sounds bites. You have betrayed the public trust. You have failed Chicago's children.   Children have died, literally and spiritually, as a result of your policies, You have produced chaos.

The chants persisted for 20 minutes, forcing the Board to go into closed session. That's when Chicago Teachers Union Vice President Jesse Sharkey "grabbed the microphone and led the beginning of the public participation section of the meeting to ensure speakers who had been waiting for hours to speak could at least comment on videotape for later viewing by board members."  The protesters want the Superintendent of Chicago Public Schools Jean-Claude Brizard and the man who appointed him, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, fired.

So, what was this protest really about?

CPS officials had previously announced plans to phase out Dyett and Crane High Schools, close four elementary schools, and replace the staffs of 10 other schools during "turnarounds."  The CPS Board is scheduled to vote on those plans in February 2012.

But, 2 hours after moving into closed session, the Board approved, without comment, what the protesters were challenging.  The Board also approved 12 new charter campuses.

So that's what this was all about: Public schools in Chicago are being replaced by charter schools and unionized teachers and administrators will have to find new jobs.

"Emperor Rhamulus"---as columnist John Kass calls Chicago's Mayor---put the public school teachers' union on notice: He's not singing their song.


Let the discussion begin...



To read the article in the Chicago Sun Times, click on the following link:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/9440216-418/protesters-take-over-chicago-school-board-meeting.html

Illegal immigration: A power grab by an imperialist President?

Proponents of illegal immigration have made Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, their poster boy for all that is wrong with opposing "undocumented immigrants."  In their view, the Sheriff is unconscionably extra-constitutional and anti-humanitarian in his treatment of harmless and semi-nomadic people.

While it cannot be denied that Sheriff Arpaio fuels his critics' arguments with his "larger than life" approach to carrying out his authority as the County's chief constable, this politicization of the situation misses entirely the problem Sheriff Arpaio is charged by both federal and state law to confront: Identify and arrest undocumented immigrants.  Sheriffs like Joe Arpaio are empowered to carry out this very important function of government.

These muddy waters have recently become muddier as the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, has jumped into the middle of the fray by limiting Sheriff Arpaio's authority to enforce federal immigration law.

It's a classic constitutional confrontation: Federal vs. States rights.

Should a President, like President Obama, have the power to dictate to a state which federal laws it should and should not enforce?   President Obama seems to believe he can pre-empt state law whenever its enforcement might irritate a foreign government.

Or, should a state, like Arizona, have the power to act legally even if it is not in the interests of the President of the United States?  Commensurate with federal law, the State of Arizona enacted legislation that penalizes "illegal immigrants."  The goal was to drive down their numbers and reduce the burdens on the State's budgets and services.

In a Washington Post op-ed, David Rivkin and Joe Jacquot raise these fundamental questions as well as the constitutional issues dividing both sides, arguing that "the Obama administration has taken federal-state relations to a new low in its quest for an unprecedented expansion of presidential power."  Like Rivkin and Jacquot's assessment or not, their explication of the details associated with the arguments on both sides are well worth reading and considering.  Suffice it to say, both sides uphold important values.

That said, Rivkin and Jacquot believe President Obama has made "a stunning and audacious power grab, far more expansive than the legal theories that prompted critics of President George W. Bush to argue that he established an 'imperial presidency.'"

The argument seems to hinge on Congress' power to legislate.

Congress not the President is the federal government's legislative branch and when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration, Congress has been very clear.  In 2008, none other than then-Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said about the bipartisan immigration law that Congress had passed and which the Arizona legislature used in crafting its so-called "illegal immigration" bill:

[The bill is true to the nation's] humanity and...tradition of a nation of immigrants.  Politics is the art of the possible and the agreement we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders, bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America.

Summing up their argument, Rivkin and Jacquote note: "When those measures are also incompatible with the basic precepts of federalism, his power is nonexistent. The fact that the Supreme Court granted swift review of this case suggests that it will repudiate the Obama administration’s imperial power grab."

Let the discussion begin...




To read the Riovkin and Jacquote's Washington Post op-ed, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-imperial-power-grab-on-immigration/2011/12/27/gIQAaI6GLP_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions


To read about the passage of the 2008 immigration bill, click on the following link:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070517220656.d4w2ywk1&show_article=1

A random, passing thought of Dr. Thomas Sowell...

One of The Motley Monk's fave economists, Dr. Thomas Sowell, has published some of his random, passing thoughts.

Many of Dr. Sowell's thoughts are "spot on."  But, one in particular caught The Motley Monk's attention, especially in terms of how Dr. Sowell succinctly sums up completely different worldviews by asking three questions.

According to Dr. Sowell:

1. What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly?  Theft. 
2. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force?  Robbery.
3. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him?  Social Justice.

Then, there's this "teaser" to motivate reading Dr. Sowell's entire column:

Can you imagine a man who had never run any kind of organization, large or small, taking it upon himself to fundamentally change all kinds of organizations in a huge and complex economy?  Yet that is what Barack Obama did when he said, "We are going to change the United States of America!"  This was not "The Audacity of Hope."  It was the audacity of hype.

Let the discussion begin...



To read Dr. Thomas Sowell's random, passing thoughts, click on the following link:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/12/27/random_thoughts/page/full/

Unemployment benefits and welfare queens...

This morning, The Motley Monk read the Bloomberg News report discussing the plight of John Reat, 62.  Reat lives in Worthington, Ohio, a Columbus suburb.  His job as a customer-support manager was eliminated in 2009.

For the past two years, Reat has been trying to find work.  Reat is 1 of ~5M people nationally and an estimated 70k in Ohio whose "emergency unemployment benefits" of $375/week ($18k/year) will begin expire on December 31st if Congress doesn't extend them.  An additional 95k Ohioans would lose the benefits in February and March 2012.

Reat's is a sad story and The Motley Monk has empathy for Reat as well as the many others who currently find themselves navigating such difficult straits.

At the same time, it is difficult to know exactly what the phrase "been trying to find work" means for many of the unemployed, especially since Congress extended benefits to 99 weeks (almost two years) and there now is talk of extending the benefits again.  For example, the phrase could mean:

• There really are no jobs to be found in particular locales, no matter how much and how hard an unemployed person searches.
• The incentive to search for a job decreases as long as unemployment benefits provide a "cushion" that make low-paying, entry-level jobs that produce minimal cash flow less appealing.
• The incentive to search for a job decreases as long as unemployment benefits provide a "cushion" that makes the idea of moving to locales where jobs are available (e.g., North Dakota, Texas) less appealing.

In an interview, Reat said he has been trying to figure out ways to make ends meet:

I'm trying to look at a lot of those things that you don't normally look at unless you're under duress.

What might "those things" include?

First: Reat is renegotiating his home mortgage.

The Motley Monk thinks that an excellent idea.  To the degree that the lender is willing, lower those monthly payments and increase cash flow.

Second: Reat is thinking of tapping his retirement savings next month.

Whoa!  "Tapping his retirement savings"?

What's this all about?

Does Reat have a stash of cash piled up in an IRA or 401k plan that he's been sitting on while receiving unemployment benefits of $375/month for the past two years?

Evidently so.

The Motley Monk doesn't "get it."

Yes, those savings are intended primarily for "retirement."  But, those savings can also be used for a "rainy day" or, perhaps in this case, the dire consequences of an economic "tsunami."

Actually, the truth is that The Motley Monk does "get it."

Reat and those like him have legally "gamed the system" for two years.  With their right hand, they collected from the largess of the federal government (actually, those who pay federal taxes) while with their left hand, they coddled their nest eggs to keep them nice and warm.  Why should Reat and those like him tap into those "retirement savings" while the federal government is doling out the dough?

This isn't a matter of The Motley Monk being "cold hearted."  After all, unemployment benefits represent a positive commitment on the part of society to provide a short-term safety net for the unemployed.  But, when those benefits make it possible individuals like John Reat to game the system for two years and to claim say they are searching real hard and far and wide for a job, yet not renegotiate their mortgages, dip into their retirement nest eggs, or make the move to another locale where well-paying jobs are available, something is wrong with the system.

In another era, they were called "Welfare Queens."

Oh and lest The Motley Monk forget: Reat also said in his interview that he led a delegation to Washington earlier this month.  Why?  To lobby the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, John Boehner, an fellow Ohioan from West Chester, for help and to make the case that individuals in his home state are struggling.

Busy as he is searching for a job, just where did Reat find the time for that trip?  And then, too, where did he come up with the spare cash to make the trip?


Let the discussion begin...



To read the Bloomberg News report, click on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/emergency-unemployment-benefits-may-expire-for-5-million-at-the-end-of-the-year/2011/12/22/gIQA5X2jDP_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headline

The Motley Monk's Christmas 2011...

In retrospect, it appears there might have been a conspiracy concerning The Motley Monk's Christmas gifts for 2011.  Judging from several gifts The Motley Monk received from relatives and friends, it seems that people must have communicated among themselves to make it a "kitchen Christmas."

For example, take the "OCD cutting board" a friend and his wife from Tulsa sent to The Motley Monk:

While The Motley Monk has been called "fussy" and "fastidious" on many occasions, The Motley Monk didn't know he had "obsessive compulsive disorder."  However, examining the board closely, perhaps he does.  The board provides precise measurements for batonnet, allumete, julienne, and fine julienne slicing.  Not bad!  Then there's medium dice, small dice, brunoise, and fine brunoise.  Even better!  And as if that's not enough, everything that's to be sliced and diced can be sliced and diced in precise centimeters and millimeters as well as on 30, 45, 60, and 90 degree cuts.  Wow!

Perhaps not OCD.  But, the cutting board will be quite helpful as a guide to slicing and dicing!

Then, another friend gave The Motley Monk two microplaners:

The Motley Monk originally spied these microplaners at this friend's house while he was serving dinner.  Evidently, lust was filling The Motley Monk's eyes...of the type that filled Ralphie Parker's eyes in "A Christmas Story" every time he saw a Red Ryder, carbine action, two-hundred shot range model air rifle whether in a daydream or on display at Higbee's Department Store.

The microplaner on the bottom is for grating cheese over salads, soups, and pasta dishes or into measuring cups for polenta, risotto, and the like.  It works best for hard cheeses but does a fine job even with softer cheeses.  The top microplaner is excellent for zesting.  Quick, easy, and perfect little pieces of peel.  Lemons, oranges, limes...whatever.  No more using a potato peeler and then a knife to make fine zest.

These microplaners are much wider than many of the microplaners available at kitchen and hardware stores.  Because of this feature, leftover fragments don't adhere and a gentle tap cleans the microplaners of most residue.  The plastic covers are nice for storage, but aren't necessary.

Two great kitchen gifts for Christmas 2011!

But, neither can possibly meet the standard of what The Motley Monk's niece gave him as a Christmas gift.

When The Motley Monk first opened the package, he was a little dismayed.  If there's something The Motley Monk did not need and wished he had first been asked about, it was another Dutch oven, especially one made of earthenware.  The Motley Monk has an excellent Calphalon Dutch oven which he uses for braising short ribs, making pork and sauerkraut, and veal or beef shanks.  It works perfectly and never fails to produce an excellent product.

So, The Motley Monk was feeling somewhat dejected because he'd prefer not to have doubles of kitchen utensils, tools, and cookware that he doesn't really need (or want).  The weight of the Dutch oven also felt a little light, causing The Motley Monk to wonder if it would crack in the oven or if perchance he was to drop it.  The Motley Monk was trying to figure out what he'd do with the gift.  Maybe a planter?  Then, too, what would The Motley Monk say to his niece?

With all of these worrisome thoughts coursing through his mind, The Motley Monk scanned to Dutch oven and was astounded when he turned it around to discover:

Tremendous!

Now The Motley Monk has to construct a shrine in the kitchen of HIH II for the best of all Dutch ovens!  More on that later.  The Motley Monk has also changed the headline banner on his cooking webpage.  It's worth taking a look at!

Alas, there was no conspiracy. Serendipitously, 2011 ended up being a "kitchen Christmas" at HIH II.

Let the discussion begin...

Maricopa County, AZ, Sheriff Joe Arpaio: U.S. Attorney General Holder's "ace up the sleeve"...

With Fox News reporting that a federal judge has issued a ruling that further restricts Maricopa County, AZ, Sheriff Joe Arpaio's authority to uphold federal immigration law, his deputies no longer can detain people based solely on the suspicion that they are in the United States illegally.  This ruling follows upon the Justice Department's decision to forbid Sheriff Arpaio to exercise his federal powers.

More importantly, the ruling also awards "class-action status" to a lawsuit brought by 5 Latinos who allege that Arpaio's office has engaged in racial profiling during patrols of Maricopa County.  Class-action status now allows other Latinos to enter into the case if they have been detained and questioned by Arpaio's deputies as either a driver or passenger in a vehicle since January 2007.

Why are the feds so determined to "tie the hands" of Sheriff Arpaio and his deputies, especially since the Sheriff is bound and determined to uphold federal immigration law?

In politics, an answer to a question like this is always opaque if not murky, allowing for multiple interpretation and plausible deniability as well.  Perhaps the answer is found in one, both, or all three of the following interpretations:

• No doubt about it, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is under heavy fire for his mishandling of "Operation Fast and Furious" and artfully deceptive sworn testimony to Congress.  By deflecting the media's attention to its most detested sheriff, AG Holder is able to get his mishandling of the gun running operation to recede into the background and, hopefully, be forgotten.  All that AG Holder has to do is to turn up the heat on Sheriff Arpaio incrementally.  First, it required stripping the Sheriff' of his power to uphold federal immigration law.  Second, it required facilitating a federal lawsuit alleging racial profiling under the Sheriff's supervision.
• There's also the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.  The former Democrat Governor of Arizona, Ms. Napolitano has no love for Sheriff Arpaio.  He was a thorn in her side while she served as Governor, if only because the Sheriff was more popular than was the Governor.  But, that would be pretty petty on Ms. Napolitano's part, no?  She has much larger fish to catch and fry in Washington, DC, and spending time on this two-bit sheriff from some Podunk county in the middle of nowhere would be a waste of that time, no?  Or, could it be that Sheriff Arpaio embarrassed the Governor because she was not fulfilling her duty to protect Arizona's citizens as he was...and in highly-publicized ways?
• Don't forget about David Axelrod in Chicago.  Raising a civil rights issue in Arizona helps the Democrat cause in 2012 because the party doesn't have a winning economic or foreign policy record.  Making Sheriff Arpaio a "poster boy" for the racist Republican establishment is a very clever way to fire up the base and to gin up the vote.

So, what might the next step be?

The Motley Monk would look for an indictment to be brought by a federal grand jury.  Forget the need for solid evidence because grand jury indictments are a dime a dozen.  The goal here is to make Sheriff Arpaio appear guilty.  That's the whole point.  And, in the end, there will be no conviction because that's not what either AG Holder or Ms. Napolitano are interested in.  For very different reasons, both want Sheriff Arpaio out.  And, if they get their way, they will have Sheriff Arpaio out by smearing him and his office through their willing accomplices in the media:

Let the discussion begin...


To read the Fox News article, click on the following link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/23/arizona-sheriff-faces-new-setback-over-immigration/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

Economic progress requires a thriving free-market meritocracy not a dependency class...

When it comes to which political philosophy "cares" most for the masses, The Motley Monk would observe that those on the political left relish any data set---whether it is honest or not doesn't seem to much matter---which they can seize upon to pillory their enemies on the political right.  The argument typically advanced is an "Us-Them," the "Have Nots vs. Haves," or in its most recent iteration, the "99% vs. 1%."  It's the classic Marxist dialectic.

As those on the political left view the electorate, the "Us" is the group that cares not just for themselves but also for the masses disenfranchised by the "system," namely, the poor, the downtrodden, and those suffering discrimination.  The government is a tool the political left must seize to be successful in shifting the balance of power in favor of themselves and the disenfranchised by expanding the role and scope of the federal government.

The "Them" is business, in general, and free-market capitalism, in particular.  Possessing an inordinate share of the nation's wealth, the political left believes the members of this group---the "Haves" and the "1%"--- cares only for themselves unless, of course, they decide to throw some crumbs in the direction of the disenfranchised.

The Motley Monk believes this view is, for the most part, overly simplistic and intentionally so.

First, it conveniently overlooks the fact that most of the nation's eligible voters do not vote, making it possible, in turn, for coalitions of pressure groups to gain control the federal government by winning elections, as the political scientist E. E. Schattschneider noted in his 1961 book, The Semi-Sovereign People.

Second, and more substantively, both the political left and political right are minority factions of the electorate.  But the former has been most effective in forming a majority coalition to control the federal government for most of the federal elections during the 20th century.  The political left did so by creating one dependent group after another, whose members live off of the federal government's largess.  This group is not the "welfare state" as that term is used in the traditional sense.  It consists of all those citizens who are dependent upon the federal government providing for their basic needs...food, shelter, energy, education, medical care, etc.  Since 1960, this group's magnitude has been growing exponentially.  Robert Samuelson has called this "giveaway politics."



A successful "war"?

According to a Senior Fellow with the Independent Institute, Robert Higgs, an "index of dependency" reveals that the metric increased from 19 in FY 1962 to 272 in FY 2009, meaning that in 1962, 21.7M persons were dependent upon programs run by the federal government while in 2009, 64.3M persons were dependent upon programs run by the federal government.  That's a whopping 297% increase! By the way, these are conservative figures because the metric does not include all programs run by the federal government which provide assistance.  A more liberal metric estimates that 100M (or 33% of the nation's population) are now dependent upon the largess of the federal government.

In the estimation of The Motley Monk, the important "take away" of Higgs's study is that these handouts exploit those who depend upon them by earning loyalty---through greater dependence and fealty---as well as repeated and unwavering vote counts.  This outcome perpetuates the status quo the political left desires and, as a larger faction of the population relies on the federal government to provide for their livelihood, the more clout the political left possesses as its number of detractors dwindles.  As Higgs notes, the political left is successful "because the welfare state allows the current regime to be the primary provider for an ever-growing body of dependents, and this dependency engenders loyalty."

The only bulwark capable of holding back this tide, Schattschneider noted in 1961, is the Republican Party which, the political left rightly argues, is controlled by the business community because its members know that they cannot afford to be isolated.  They must win federal elections by forming a coalition among citizens whose shared interest is in a thriving free-market meritocracy where the government is of, by, and for the people, not a minority faction whose members seek to retain power by increasing the number of dependent persons.

As Schattschneider said of this contest between the two political minority parties:

The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent.

Let the discussion begin....




To read Robert Higgs' article, click on the following link:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3199

Omnibus salutem plurimam dicit Caesar Clausius...

On this Christmas day, The Motley Monk wishes everyone the warm embrace of family and many friends, with everyone seated around the dining room table (like The Motley Monk will be at HIH II) and celebrating what is most important: "God became human so that humans may become like God.

And, now for the motley part...

Omnibus salutem plurimam dicit Caesar Clausius!
(Caesar Claus wishes everyone many greetings!)

...and then, it's all to be followed by the digital version of "A Christmas Story"...

So, The Motley Monk is almost as stupid as is Governor Rick Perry?

In response to a recent post, Mavronious wrote that The Motley Monk is "almost as stupid as Rick Perry."

So, just how really stupid is the three-term Governor of Texas?

The Motley Monk checked into the Governor's credentials and was delighted to discover the following stupidities:

• In 2003, the Texas Legislature passed Texas' version of informed consent before an abortion, called the "Woman's Right to Know" law. The bill established a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion and also required that information be offered to women seeking abortion.
• Also in 2003, just days after the bodies of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, were discovered, Governor Perry helped move the "Prenatal Protection Act."  As a result, Texas penal code recognizes unborn children at the moment of fertilization.
• Under Perry's leadership, in 2005 Texas became the 10th state to fund alternatives to abortion in the state budget.  The Governor has ensured that the program remains fully funded, if not increased.
• Governor Perry also signed a small measure in a 2005 bill that overhauled the Texas Medical Board (TMB).  Some House members added some amendments to the TMB bill to restrict third trimester abortions and to change the wording of the Parental Notification statute to parental consent.
• In the 80th and 81st Legislative Sessions, Governor Perry buttressed adult stem cell research and cord blood banking in hopes of eventually matching the endless flow of private funds to the embryonic stem cell research.  In sharp contrast to President Obama, Governor Perry recognizes the personhood of human embryos—including lives manufactured through scientific means in laboratories.
• The recently adjourned 82nd Legislative Session produced a new sonogram law requiring abortion providers to share this vital piece of medical information with a woman before finalizing a decision to abort.
• After eight amendments to the budget passed overwhelmingly in the State House taking $64M from the state’s family planning budget and diverting them to the abortion industry, Governor Perry told legislators who were writing the final version of the state's budget bill: "Not one cent was to be moved back to the abortion abnormalities."
• Governor Perry partnered with Texas Right to Life to cut revenue to the abortion industry in the state's budget in the 2011 Legislative Session. As a direct result, six Planned Parenthood affiliated clinics have closed in North Texas.

Then, too, there's all of those stupid jobs and stupid economic prosperity that Governor Perry has drawn to Texas.  Unfortunately, The Motley Monk doesn't recall the third stupidity.  But, that matters not.  The Governor of Texas is stupidly and unashamedly pro-life.

Come to think of it, Mavronious, The Motley Monk wishes he was not "almost as stupid" but was "more stupid" than you happen to believe the Governor is.


Let the discussion begin...

Once again, "It's all George Bush's fault"...

In what's nothing short of a national tragedy, nearly 50% of the nation's public schools in 2010 failed to meet federal achievement standards.  That's highest failure rate since President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001.

Sad to report: Things are getting worse, not better.

According to the Associated Press, a Center on Education Policy report indicates that in 2010, 43k+ public schools (48%) did not make "adequate yearly progress."  The state sporting the highest failure rate was Florida (89%)---The Motley Monk had been led to believe that Governor Jeb Bush had turned things around---and the lowest failure rate was Wisconsin (11%)---that's the state that Governor Rick Scott is supposedly destroying.

While many NCLB critics blame the law's testing provisions for this outcome, The Motley Monk respectfully disagrees.

In 2001, the hope was that every student would be able to perform at grade level in math and reading within 12 academic years (that's three presidential terms).  A noble and lofty goal, no?  Tough, but maybe achievable.  Certainly a "stretch" goal.  But, America did put a man on the moon!

The testing provision would identify schools where there were problems, indicating that the school was not on track to meet the goal.  Educators, then, could use the testing data to identify remedies to get their schools "back on track."  Sounds reasonable, no?  Like other professionals, educators would use the testing data to make decisions about much-needed improvements to the curriculum, teaching, and learning so none of their students would be left behind.

Additional funding could then be directed to those schools to provide assistance in that regard and, if that didn't help, a series of "carrots and sticks" would be used to ensure that students would be performing at grade level in math and reading by 2014.  Makes eminent sense, no?  Well, maybe not every school or every child would achieve the desired goal---everyone knew that---but even if 9 out of every 10 did, wouldn't that be great?

The Motley Monk thought so, but not the nation's public school teachers' unions and all of those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.  No, they thought it a terrible prescription for remedying what was ailing public education.

So, here we are one decade later with the 2010 testing data indicating that nearly 50% of the nation's public schools are failing to make average yearly progress toward the NCLB goals.

Who or what's to blame?

Certainly not educators in the nation's public schools.  No.  Never.  Impossible.  They're highly trained professionals.  They have all of the answers to all of the problems.  Just increase their salaries and benefits and, voila, an educational miracle will occur!

Certainly not the parents or the children.  No.  Never.  Impossible.  They're all victims who need the federal government to tell them what to do and to provide them what the federal government says they need.  After all, they're too stupid to figure all of this out for themselves.

No, according to Education Secretary Arne Duncan, NCLB is to blame:

Whether it's 50 percent, 80 percent or 100 percent of schools being incorrectly labeled as failing, one thing is clear: No Child Left Behind is broken.  That's why we're moving forward with giving states flexibility from the law in exchange for reforms that protect children and drive student success.

Translation: "It's all George Bush's fault."

Yes, indeed.  It's those darned tests he signed into law that continue to expose the scam for what it is not.  It is not educating students.

The Motley Monk doesn't blame President Bush or Obama or the public school teachers' unions or the parents or the students.  No, The Motley Monk blames the taxpayers.

Why?

Despite all of the additional billions of federal dollars that have been poured into the nation's public schools since 2000, only ~52% of the nation's schools get their students to read and do math at grade level.

That's an atrocious return on investment.

Why do the taxpayers continue to use their money to allow this tragedy to continue?

It just doesn't make sense.


Let the discussion begin...




To read the Associated Press report, click on the following link:
http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/printerfriendly.csp?id=53116582

More on the repeal of sodomy and bestiality in the Armed Forces...

The Motley Monk has been chronicling the politics surrounding the National Defense Authorization Act and Article 125 which bans sodomy and bestiality in the U.S. Armed Forces.

In the last post, PETA rebuked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney for being a bit too dismissive when he responded to a reporter's question at a White House press briefing about the 93-7 Senate vote that approved the bill repealing the ban.

It appeared Carney did not want to state President Obama's position on the issue.

Well, it just so happens that President Obama has clarified his position.  Wanting the ban repealed, the President sent representatives of his administration to testify to a House-Senate conference committee to argue his position.

Despite the testimony, the members of the conference committee were not persuaded and voted to restore the ban in the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

According to a CNSNews.com article, the Executive Director of the Service Members Legal Defense Network (SNDL), Aubrey Sarvis, said his group was disappointed with the vote:

Dropping Article 125 has been recommended for more than a decade by SLDN and several groups, including the Cox Commission that includes distinguished legal scholars from the military and academia, as well as the Comprehensive Review Working Group.

The Senate was right to take this action, and it is unfortunate that their attempt to end Article 125 did not prevail.  SLDN will continue to work with the Senate, House, and Department of Defense to bring about this needed change.

 

The Motley Monk doesn't believe this is the end of the road for those who lobbied hard for the repeal.  Once Congress passes NDAA, President Obama could veto the measure.  Short of that, the administration could continue pressing for the repeal by getting "friendly" legislators to attach the repeal as a rider to bills they present during the second session of Congress.

 

The only thing standing in the way of success is the significant opposition in the House of Representatives to any efforts to decriminalize sodomy and bestiality.  As The Motley Monk noted in the last post, forget the Senate.  Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) voted for the repeal and when asked about their votes, both said: "I know nothink!"

Let the discussion begin...



To read the CNSNews.com article, click on the following link:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/defense-bill-will-not-include-provision-legalizing-sodomy-bestiality-military-0

Unethical is as unethical does...

It's pretty easy to "pin the tail on the donkey" of unethical capitalists, as the Occupy Wall Streeters have been doing for the past couple of months.  No doubt about it, there are more than a number of them belonging to the 1%, at the expense of the 99%.  It's a difficult truth to deny.

Would that the whistleblowers were equally as honest about pinning the tail on the donkey of unethical scientific practice!

Consider the science behind the so-called global warming "findings."

According to an article published by the National Association of Scholars, H. Sterling Burnett argues that "climategate" offers textbook cases of complete lapses in professional ethics.

How?

As any public school student in the United States should know by 8th grade, science is the pursuit of truth and development of knowledge through objective observation, testing, and experimentation.  The goal is to explain, describe, and/or predict natural phenomena.  Progress results from a rigorous process which includes proposing a hypothesis and developing a theory to explain or understand certain phenomena, testing the hypothesis against reality, and analyzing and interpreting the data.  Science doesn't "prove" anything, however.  It provides evidence that "x" is the case, given a level of probability of error.

"Climategate" consists of two sets of emails, linked by the fact that some of the world's the most "acclaimed" scientists were promoting the idea that humans are the cause of what will be catastrophic global warming.

In November 2009, the first set of e-mails revealed that these scientists were attempting to suppress or alter inconvenient data, destroying raw data so that others would be unable to analyze it, and trying to suppress dissent by undermining the peer review process.  The second set of e-mails contained little new information, but did indicate that scientists were heavily involved in hiding data.

The Motley Monk knows that the two sets of e-mails do not disprove that humans are causing potentially catastrophic global warming.  That is not the point.  What the emails demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the scientists who claimed that the consensus of their peers is that humans are the cause of potentially catastrophic global warming are unconscionably unethical.

The ethical duty of administrators of any institution of higher education where such malpractice occursis clear: Those who commit malpractice should be removed from their positions.

That's not likely to happen in this case, however.

Why?

Environmentalism is a set of sacred tenets whose adherents are undeterred in their pursuit of doctrinal purity.  When "scientific findings" are said to support the doctrine, why ever would they hold accountable those who have distorted and suppressed the truth to the ends of promoting their false ideology?


Let the discussion begin...



To read H. Sterling Burnett's article, click on the following link:
http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=2319