Krugman's latest hypocrisy

(The following is adapted from an e-mail I sent to Don Luskin, with a few additions and deletions.)

Coming across Krugman's latest -- the same old hackery -- was unintentional. I rarely read his columns anymore, and certainly not at lunchtime lest they turn me into a bulimic. I have a new tagline for his columns and blog: "Hypocrisy purer than Vermont maple syrup."

The minute he started talking about executives getting paid too much, I knew he'd never, ever mention Robert Rubin. I even Ctrl-F'd to make sure; it's not there.

Of course, Krugman has to create a strawman, and I'd lay odds he knows he did, about bankers' pay being "a reward for their creativity — for financial innovation." This is utter BS. Sandy Weill contributed immensely, unquantifiably to the American economy by running a supercompany that helped people grow their wealth, "creatively" or not. Rubin, on the other hand, took $115 million over a decade so he could direct Citi to increase risk-taking in 2004-2005.

So how many strawmans can he create in the same breath? "Still, you might argue that we have a free-market economy, and it's up to the private sector to decide how much its employees are worth. But this brings me to my second point: Wall Street is no longer, in any real sense, part of the private sector." So Wall Street can't pay people what they're worth because the government stepped in, using force to dictate terms of compensation. Is Krugman unaware of his absurd circular logic here, or was it deliberate because he couldn't otherwise make the argument?

Then as if to demonstrate his utter cluelessness, he writes, "Claims that firms have to pay these salaries to retain their best people aren't plausible: with employment in the financial sector plunging, where are those people going to go?" Unemployment may be high overall, but valuable people always have options. A few months ago, I was being courted by a major private bank. They were excited to find me, because of my experience combined with strong tech skills. It would have been a very senior position -- would have been, because I turned it down. It's not the first time I've been recruited, but this time was tempting: the big role came with total compensation double what I'm currently making. However, I'd rather stay where I am, because asset managers are historically more stable than banks. After a couple of bad quarters, new staff could be the first to be downsized. Most importantly, I'm loyal to my boss, who's become a good friend as well as a mentor. I'm hesitant about working for someone new, someone who I might find I cannot trust. You also never know when you start somewhere and are sabotaged or made to be the fall guy for a boss' mistake.

And I'm not the only one who gets calls from recruiters. My friends at work do, too, and we choose to go or stay depending on what's offered. Then again, we have skills that are in demand, even during a recession, unlike dime-a-dozen types like, oh, a newspaper reporter.

I suppose it's too much to expect that a tenured economics professor would ever understand the nature of competition. He and his Princeton colleagues don't have to worry about "So it's eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you may be sacked" and can pretty much do what they want, whereas most of the rest of us actually have to continue producing value to keep our jobs.

You've no true competition from the kid, Susan Boyle

We all know about the human propensity to go ga-ga over children who are far more cute than they are good. I'll never fathom it. Here's a Yahoo blogger thinking the world of some British-Indian kid, who has power and potential but needs work. Instead of following Yahoo's link to advertising-preceded video, go here for the YouTube video.

Good lord, it's far more annoying than anything. The original song is ghetto-sounding enough, but this kid's notes are all over the place. He can't yet be compared to an experienced singer with a matured voice, or to someone who doesn't have to use "ay-ay-ay-ay-ay" to hide an inability to hold a clear note for more than two seconds.

A note to the raghead "Ibrahim" who spammed comments

First, making comments throughout my blog on random posts isn't going to work: it was easy enough to delete your trolling. Want to check?

Second, you're hypocritical enough to praise Charice while insulting Filipina women in the same breath. What's the matter, are all four of your wives beating you up today?

Third, you're another fool impressed by mediocrity. Worse for you, you're impressed by your lack of debating ability that can't even rise up to "mediocrity."

Fourth, I have a very tolerant comment policy, but this is my forum run under my rules. Consider yourself a rude guest who just got thrown out on your ass.

You want to face me anytime in real life, let's do it: but I guarantee I'll be pounding your face into pavement before you can cry to Allah.

That's all for now.

Godspeed, Arnita and Lyle

It's absurd for the AP to put this in the "Odd News" section. This isn't odd, it's beautiful.

Kansas couple married for 67 years die hours apart

TROY, Kan. – Residents of a northeast Kansas town are mourning the deaths just hours apart of an elderly couple who were married 67 years. Arnita Yingling died in her sleep early Saturday at the family's home in Troy. She was 93. Six hours later her 95-year-old husband, Lyle, died at a nursing home in the nearby town of Wathena.

At their funeral Wednesday, friends and relatives described the two as inseparable. Some found comfort knowing neither would have to live without the other.

The Yinglings were married in 1941. Both were born on northeast Kansas farms and were active in Troy as members of their church and civic organizations.

That's real love. It reminds me of an elderly couple I once saw, eating lunch at the deli I usually go to for lunch. The wife was in a wheelchair, and too frail to take care of herself: her husband had to bring each spoonful of soup right up to her lips. That was as great devotion as I've ever seen.

Is it too much to ask that reporters actually know what they write about?

Among the least of their sins, but demonstrative of one of the big problems with professional journalism:

British spy agency searches for real-life `Q'

LONDON – He was James Bond's go-to guy for inventions that included dagger-embedded shoes, radioactive lint and a deadly sofa that swallowed people. Now, Britain's domestic spy agency — MI5 — is hunting for its very own "Q," of sorts.

IKs this moron "Paisley Dodds" the only person in the West who didn't see "From Russia with Love"? The "dagger shoe" was Rosa Klebb's weapon, not Bond's.

What a difference 140 years make: Democrats now say secession is "anti-American"

Democrats used to be the party in favor of states' individual sovereignty over their own affairs. They were also staunch opponents of the tariffs that the Whigs introduced in 1828, which in fact were as much of an impetus for the South to secede as the issue of "states' rights." Lincoln had switched to the newly created Republican label, but he was still a Whig in every sense: a mercantilist who once declared, "I am in favor of a national bank. I am in favor of the internal improvement system and a protective tariff." These three, separate or combined, are the very antithesis of liberty: each is a different way that government robs people. Thus Lincoln's election in 1860 alarmed Southerners who saw nothing less than at least four years of continued Northern oppression.

Apparently Texas Gov. Rick Perry has hinted at secession, and some Texas Democrat had the hypocrisy to say, "Talk of secession is an attack on our country. It can be nothing else. It is the ultimate anti-American statement."

How ironic, for Lincoln said as much from his first inaugural address throughout the entire Civil War War of Southern Secession.

So will this Democrat tell us what the South, predominantly Democratic, was doing in 1861? Or maybe, since Obama signed the pork-laden omnibus bill because it was "last year's business," secession to Democrats is now "the 19th century's business"?

Then at Democratic Underground, some asshat said, "Any asshole who wants to secede now should simply renounce his citizenship and be done with it. But if he doesn't have the courage of his convictions, then he should shut the fuck up."

Yes, those demmed colonials in the 1770s should have just shut up and been good Loyalists, right? And so much for Democrats being "the party of Jefferson," as they like to say. Not only does that claim fly in the face of the anti-government, pro-individual Jefferson, it ignores that he said in his 1801 inaugural speech, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

I've previously laid out why states have the power to secede, and more importantly why individuals have the right and duty to nullify bad laws. Both stem from the basic principle that government is legitimate only when it has the consent of the governed. This isn't "consent" by the claptrap called "majority rule," either. There must be consent from every individual who is not doing anything to infringe upon the equal rights of others. Nearly all Americans would protest, "But that's impossible, there would then be little or even no government!" And that is precisely the point. If there's even just one person who does not consent to what the government is doing to him, then the government is illegitimate for exercising tyranny.

My comment today at my friend Karol's blog:

I'd hardly call Rick Perry "likeable." I can't "like" someone who wants to force young girls to get vaccinations for a disease spread mainly via sexual contact, all because he's getting campaign contributions from the manufacturer of the vaccine. Instead of talking about rights at the state level, how about rights at the individual level.

That said, while we can, for different reasons, laugh at the idiocy of both conservatives and liberals who don't know what they're talking about, don't forget that this country was founded on the very principle of secession. If things progress so severely, people have a perfect right to withdraw from a political jurisdiction that oppresses them. Jefferson wrote without any equivocation,

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Government's powers come from the people, which is how people have the right to say "Enough!" and destroy the government that exists legitimately only by their consent. Thus the colonials properly gave careful consideration to what they were doing, and remonstrated with the governors and the Crown. The tyranny continued, so they were justified.

The Civil War rendered the idea of state secession moot, but only because Lincoln, that great consolidator of federal power who shut down opposition newspapers and jailed their editors, was willing to send hundreds of thousands to their deaths to prove his political ideology: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

If Lincoln hadn't been such a bastard, like illegally blockading Southern ports to force Southern states into accepting trade-hindering tariffs (which since 1828 was far more of an issue than slavery), maybe the "house" wouldn't have to have fought itself.

So as drastic as it is, there are far worse options than secession. Even so, there's no comparison to the crybaby liberals who said they'll move to Canada or France. They aren't calling for secession as a matter of freedom.

What I didn't get into was, as detailed by the awesome Thomas DiLorenzo, Lincoln ordering the detention, without due process, of tens of thousands of Northerners merely suspected of opposing him. Add to that the forced shut-down of hundreds of newspapers who dared to publish opposing editorials, including jailing a few hundred editors.

God bless you, Susan Boyle

...for making us amazed, one note at a time.

What a rare and wonderful gift. Let the disparaging girl at 1:23 eat crow for the rest of her life. And just look at the "My stars, I'm blown away!" expression on Simon Cowell's face throughout the entire performance!

I don't particularly care for most "Britain's Got Talent" performances I've seen on YouTube. They range from the mediocre (and I'm not kidding when I say most of the contestants) to the highly overrated Connie Talbot. BGT needs to stop accepting these young children with thin, undeveloped voices (apparently the judges and viewers overlook that because the children are "cute") and instead try to discover more unknowns like Susan Boyle.

Susan could teach a lot to the incredibly overrated Filipina "Charice," who evidently has yet to hire a good vocal coach. She may be only 16, but after all this time in the limelight, there's no excuse for her lack of control and poor tones, or for her limited repertoire of the same Celine and Whitney songs. I bring this up because tonight my wife found Charice's rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner" at Dodger's Stadium a few nights ago. For crying out loud, Americans are bad enough, but this was as atrocious as I've ever heard: off-key, slower than a dirge, and "ghettoed up" (meaning sustained notes are turned into the "ay-ay-ay" that so many black "singers" do).

Update, 4/20: here's a typical "rebuttal" to me over at charicediva.com:

ppl lyk that should be ignored...y should we argue w/ that guy or anyone who r not impressed w/ charice? taste can't be quantified...that's a thousand year old fact...

Good lord. Can I be expected to engage in any sort of intellectual reasoning with such illiterate nitwits?

"God Is An Anarcho-Capitalist"

Be sure to check this out at my new friend's blog. John also recounts God's warning that Samuel delivered to the Israelites, who wanted a king.

Like the American republic, old Israel didn't waste any time in degenerating into a different form of slavery. They weren't satisfied with a legal system based on judges -- who weren't perfect, e.g. Samson, but their job was about going around to right wrongs rather than trying to rule). They clamored for a monarch, and they got it. Solomon was the third thing and already had already turned the role into one of economic parasitism. His wealth was in clear contravention of the command given to the future king in Deuteronomy 17:17: not to multiply his wives, horses, and gold. It is written in 1 Kings 4:

And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life.

And Solomon's provision for one day was thirty measures of fine flour, and threescore measures of meal,

Ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen out of the pastures, and an hundred sheep, beside harts, and roebucks, and fallowdeer, and fatted fowl.

For he had dominion over all the region on this side the river, from Tiphsah even to Azzah, over all the kings on this side the river: and he had peace on all sides round about him.

And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon.

And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

And those officers provided victual for king Solomon, and for all that came unto king Solomon's table, every man in his month: they lacked nothing.

Barley also and straw for the horses and dromedaries brought they unto the place where the officers were, every man according to his charge.

And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore.

Wisdom and understanding are clearly no guarantee of righteousness. What was the source of Solomon's wealth? Did he tame horses, or plow fields, or trade goods with caravans? Not at all: he lived off the fat of the land, using government as the means to force others (Israelites as well as non-Israelites) to give him "tribute." And of course, he made sure to pay his military well, so that they'd unhesitatingly support him if anyone refused to hand over their wealth.

The only reason the kingdom withstood the taxation and slavery for a while was because of God's blessings. It still didn't last long. Rehoboam, Solomon's son, was even worse:

And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for to Shechem were all Israel come to make him king.

And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was in Egypt, whither he fled from the presence of Solomon the king, heard it, that Jeroboam returned out of Egypt.

And they sent and called him. So Jeroboam and all Israel came and spake to Rehoboam, saying,

Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore ease thou somewhat the grievous servitude of thy father, and his heavy yoke that he put upon us, and we will serve thee.

And he said unto them, Come again unto me after three days. And the people departed.

And king Rehoboam took counsel with the old men that had stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, saying, What counsel give ye me to return answer to this people?

And they spake unto him, saying, If thou be kind to this people, and please them, and speak good words to them, they will be thy servants for ever.

But he forsook the counsel which the old men gave him, and took counsel with the young men that were brought up with him, that stood before him.

And he said unto them, What advice give ye that we may return answer to this people, which have spoken to me, saying, Ease somewhat the yoke that thy father did put upon us?

And the young men that were brought up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou answer the people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it somewhat lighter for us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins.

For whereas my father put a heavy yoke upon you, I will put more to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.

So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day, as the king bade, saying, Come again to me on the third day.

And the king answered them roughly; and king Rehoboam forsook the counsel of the old men,

And answered them after the advice of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add thereto: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.

So the king hearkened not unto the people: for the cause was of God, that the LORD might perform his word, which he spake by the hand of Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

And when all Israel saw that the king would not hearken unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? and we have none inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to your tents, O Israel: and now, David, see to thine own house. So all Israel went to their tents.

But as for the children of Israel that dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them.

Then king Rehoboam sent Hadoram that was over the tribute; and the children of Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. But king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem.

And Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day.

Flashback: my own post from late 2005, "Is limited government in accordance with the Bible?"

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

The title comes from Romans 5:

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Today is the commemoration of when big government put Jesus to death. The Romans viewed Him as a political dissident, and the Sanhedrin feared Him as a threat to their own power. Biblestudy.org has an excellent list of 12 reasons why the arrest and conviction of Jesus was illegal, everything from an arrest and trial at night to switching of the charges.

Matthew 22:27-31:

Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.

And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.

And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.

And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!

And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.

And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.

Archived video of Leonard Reed, founder of FEE

Check out this wonderful video from 1978.

Via the Foundation, check out this wonderful video featuring Larry Reed, Walter Williams and others. I don't know who Gary DeMar is, but I can see he knows his Bible: he points out that nowhere in the scriptures is power given to civil authority to redistribute wealth.

Passover, a holiday of freedom

Until today, I've meant to but never blogged about Passover.

Remember this day, in which you came out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, for by strength the hand of the LORD brought you out from this place.

While our Jewish friends celebrate Passover, we of other religions, or even no religion, who believe in true freedom can still appreciate it.

It is written that Pharaoh would not heed the Lord's call to "Let my people go," so God sent forth the ten plagues. Sometimes a people need a little help from above to attain freedom. Sometimes they need a lot.

Today, will it take a little help, or a lot? Will it take one plague, or ten, before those trying to rule us will give up? I can only pray that we can say these words and see them come to pass: "This year we are slaves. Next year we will be free people."

Speaking of those trying to rule us, Obama is the last on earth qualified to talk about people being "free from bondage and repression, and are able to live in peace."

"Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!"

Blarney Frank -- the same blubbering old fool, and hardly frank in his reply

I'll call him "Blarney" from now on because that's all that comes out of his mouth. Via Michelle Malkin, check out a student asking Blarney Frank how much responsibility does Frank think he bears for the current crisis. Thank goodness this was caught on media, because understanding Frank requires several rewindings to get every word. Is he deaf that he didn't understand the question, or was he fearful of being caught that he got so defensive?

When the student said, "You're a public representative, I'm a student," Frank interrupted, "Oh, which allows you to say things which you don't back up." Rude and a non sequitur, but what else could we expect?

The student was not making any allegations or assertions, but asking an open-ended question. He was remarkably composed, compared to how I'd be. "It does [interrupting laughter] it does allow me to ask you a question, I'm waiting for you to explain, how much, if any, responsibility do you think you have?"

Then Frank went on a tangent about the student being "entitled" to his freedom of speech. See how gracious Lord Frank is, to permit a peasant to rise up from a prostrate position for a few moments? Even so, how dare the peasant make the lord think he was being accusatory!

The student clarified for the functionally illiterate Frank, "I didn't accuse you of anything." All he was asking was, how much responsibility does Frank think he has for this crisis, considering he pushed through all the gargantuan "stimulus" and TARP legislation? "If you say 'none,' that's fine!"

Frank still couldn't answer the question, getting more defensive about the "accusation," babbling about trying to get hedge funds registered and the "right-wing" attacks on him, and incorrectly saying the student called on him to "apologize." The student never said that!

And Frank lied. "Congress did not vote to give AIG that -- money." Not originally, no, because it was initially done through the Federal Reserve. But subsequent funds came out of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008," which Bernanke specifically pushed for as the means of "saving" financial companies, including AIG, and which Frank not only voted for but co-sponsored.

Now who's being "disingenuous"?

I guess Hitler was actually speaking...Austrian?

Petitedov, guest-blogging at Alarming News, links to Hot Air's and Ace's posts on Obama's reference to the "Austrian" language. This wasn't a reference to culture, but the language that the Austrians are speaking, as if someone from Dixie said to a bunch of Yankees, "I don't know what you call it in New Englander..."

"Mickey Finn" tried to justify it by talking about regional dialects. Liberal idiots like him will say anything to excuse or dismiss Obama's idiocy.

My comment:

Well damn it, Eric, Mickey is showing that we were wrong all these years. You know, all those old videos...Hitler was actually speaking Austrian, not German!

But wait a minute. Part of the justification for the Anschluss was that, after all, the two countries share the same language. So that means Germans...are actually...speaking Austrian?!

Right, Mick?

So much for our smart president. As a friend said, "I'll take my faith and guns any day over his type of pseudo-intellectualism."

"Bad Phoenix cops" hell-bent on proving it

My friend Charlie sent me the story of Jeff Pataky, who runs Bad Phoenix Cops and its blog to expose the corruption in that police department.

The latest development is at Carlos Miller's site:

In what should send a frightening chill down the spine of every blogger, writer, journalist and First Amendment advocate in the United States, Phoenix police raided the home of a blogger who has been highly critical of the department.

Jeff Pataky, who runs Bad Phoenix Cops, said the officers confiscated three computers, routers, modems, hard drives, memory cards and everything necessary to continue blogging.

The 41-year-old software engineer said they also confiscated numerous personal files and documents relating to a pending lawsuit he has against the department alleging harassment - which he says makes it obvious the raid was an act of retaliation.

Maricopa County Judge Gary Donahoe signed the search warrant that allowed at least ten cops to raid his home in North Phoenix on March 12 while handcuffing his female roommate for three hours as they tore the place apart.

Pataky, who was out of town on a business trip during the raid, also believes police were retaliating against him for the content of his blog, much of it which comes from inside sources within the department.

"They broke into my safe and took the backups of my backups," he said in a phone interview with Photography is Not a Crime on Wednesday.

"I can't even file my taxes because all my business plans are gone. They took everything."

The search warrant lists "petty theft" and "computer tampering with the intent to harass" as probable causes. He has yet to see an actual affidavit that lists in detail the probable cause and is skeptical that one even exists.

"They say everything has been sealed," he said.

Michael Ferraresi at the Arizona Republic has more:

Police officers accused of drunken driving. A female officer's alleged promiscuity and infidelity. A commander whose critics labeled his son a child molester.

Jeff Pataky said he uses negative complaints and anonymous tips to fuel his blogging crusade against Phoenix police. A headline on his Web site suggests rewards would be provided for "dirt" on police indiscretions.

Pataky, a former software sales and marketing executive who now focuses his energy shoveling content on www.badphoenixcops.com, said he believes his online criticism of the department - along with past criticisms of police investigations - led officers to serve a search warrant at his home last week.

Police officials said Wednesday that a Phoenix detective prompted the investigation after complaining about harassment, though they declined further comment.

Pataky said he felt the investigation was a response to a lawsuit he filed on Monday in U.S. District Court saying he was maliciously prosecuted by police in 2007 after his ex-wife accused him of harassment, a case later dropped. In his lawsuit he's asking for an unspecified amount for damages. City officials declined to comment on pending litigation.

Pataky's blog is known in law-enforcement circles for its off-color language that, according to the blogger, is aimed at Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris, Maricopa County Andrew Thomas and other public officials.

"Too bad. They need to get over it," Pataky said. "They are held to a higher accountability."

Pataky said he edits the blog and works with four or five people who receive tips from a variety of sources, including sworn and retired officers.

Investigators confiscated computer material and other items from Pataky's north Phoenix home, which he considered a threat to quit writing.

"We have heard internally from our police sources that they purposefully did this to stop me," Pataky said. "They took my cable modem and wireless router. Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem."

Read the rest of this articles. I won't say this is "unbelievable," because in these times, no thinking person should be surprised!

"with as much civility as I can muster"

Go here, and in the comments you'll find my free lesson on why government projects fail while crowding out private endeavors (invoking Bastiat, unsurprisingly). Keep scrolling to the end for all my responses; there's a bit to go through.

"Call Gore to repentance for misleading the nation on global warming"

Be sure to check all the comments. As my friend Charlie said, "They're far more interesting than the article."

What happens when a gentile tells a Jew a Jewish joke

As a Jewish friend taught me today when I told him one he's heard a million times, always, without fail:

1. He'll tell you he's already heard it, and

2. He'll tell you that you told it wrong.

I never particularly cared for Woody Allen's comedy

...and I still don't.

His New Yorker piece on Bernard Madoff. Don't expect much.