God Bless America

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,


When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

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 in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a 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. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid World.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People; unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule in these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Powers to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic Insurrections among us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of the divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.


Signed by ORDER and
in BEHALF OF THE CONGRESS
JOHN HANCOCK,
PRESIDENT.

ATTEST.
CHARLES THOMSON,
SECRETARY.


PHILADELPHIA:
PRINTED BY JOHN DUNLAP.

Libertarian conundrum

My libertarian instincts sometimes fail me. Here's a prime example;


Man Ticketed For Wearing Speedo On Beach

Windfall profits

I keep hearing this term. Windfall. Leftists/liberals are enraged by windfall profits. They want to take them away from the recipients and give them to people who will vote for Democrats. As with most things in politics (especially things that annoy liberals) it remains undefined. It is just accepted as fact that any person or entity making a certain amount of money is undeserved or unearned. Since said persons or entities are very wealthy to begin with the government is allowed to take that money in the name of "fairness". They won't miss it after all, they have plenty. I googled for a definition of "windfall" profit. The best I could come up with is this:



Windfall
Main Entry:
wind·fall Listen to the pronunciation of windfall
Pronunciation:
\ˈwin(d)-ˌfȯl\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century

1 : something (as a tree or fruit) blown down by the wind 2 : an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage


Windfall
Definition

Money received which was not expected and not a direct result of something the recipient did

So the definition is that these are profits that are unearned. How they are unearned is not explained. Oil companies are evil. Everyone knows that. They're screwing you and me to make money at the pump. Never mind that oil is the the largest global commodity market in the world. It can't be that. Or taxes. Or the fact that our refinement capacity hasn't grown in 30 years. Or that we have over 50 different blends nationwide that cannot be sold when there's an overage in one area and a shortage in another. None of those things cause high gas prices. Just the Evil Rich Oil Companies.

The other target of liberal ire is financiers who make millions. Except George Soros. He's exempt because he hates Bush. Never mind that he almost singlehandedly destroyed the British pound to make his money and caused immense hardship to a great many Britons in the process. All those sins are washed away because he funds leftist polemics.

Of late we've been hearing about the outrageous amount of money hedge funds and their managers are making. One example this week from from IHT. Excerpt:

Five managers earned more than $1 billion (€630,000 million).

One contributor to the enormous amounts of money hedge fund managers are making is the unraveling of the traditional "2 and 20" method of compensation. For years, funds typically charged 2 percent of the amount invested plus 20 percent of the profits.

Ezra Zask of Lakeville Capital Management, a hedge fund advisory, said some of the bigger hedge funds are now charging as much as 5 percent of the invested principal and 40 percent of the profits.

Some investors are willing to pay higher fees to funds' managers if they show they have consistently beaten the market, Zask said.

One manager — John Paulson of Paulson & Co. — earned $3.7 billion (€2.32 billion) last year, which management consultant Peter Cohan pointed out means Paulson in 2007 made 30 times in one hour what the median family made all year.

Leftist logic would intervene here and say that there's no way anyone could have earned that much money. Nothing he does or can do would be worth that much. The government should take at least 2 billion of that and give it to poor people. After all, who couldn't live on the remaining $1.7 billion? One key factor is that liberals always refer to income being "distributed" rather than earned. This post is an example but DonViti violates the rule by using the phrase "income earners". He will be sent to re-education at Berkley until he learns to use the phrase "income recipients" or "corporate fatcats". We cannot have people talking about earnings as that implies merit. Fairness of earnings is determined by how much the person really "needs". That is, once you are really rich you aren't entitled to earn any more money because you couldn't possibly need it. Whether or not it is fair to take money legally earned isn't the way things are viewed. Anyone who makes that much money must be exploiting someone, somewhere to do so. This logic is never applied to the entertainment industry. Singers, actors and sports stars don't have their earnings questioned. Primarily because they are assumed to be liberals and therefore, good people. Good people with lots of money do great things with it. And they have, somehow earned it. After all, they're famous. Being famous entitles you to riches and makes you immune from criticism regarding wealth. How this is so is beyond me. This too, is an unexplained article of faith. Back to the article:

Driven in part by fees hedge fund managers are making, income inequality in 2007 was at the highest level since 1928, the year before the Great Depression began.

In fact, even among hedge funds the disparity has widened, Cohan said: The top 50 managers make a disproportionate share of the fees earned in an industry that by some accounts has 10,000 funds.

Stunned by news stories about Schwarzman's lavish lifestyle, some members of Congress tried to change laws allowing hedge funds' profits to be taxed as "capital gains," at 15 percent, and not income at a rate more than twice that.

Emphasis mine. This is the most clear cut admission that class envy drives liberal politics than I've seen in a while. Congress sees someone living lavishly. Enjoying himself. Can't have that. No no no. We need to get our hands on that money. I have votes to buy!

Lower taxes notwithstanding, Xavier Gabaix, a finance professor at New York University, said it is not clear whether such gaping inequality is necessarily bad.

Because hedge fund managers make their money by charging fees on investments from rich people, these fees represent the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the very rich, he said.

By contrast, the income inequality plaguing many developing countries represents rich people profiting at the expense of the poor, he said.


Further, Gabaix said the economy may benefit when these managers spend the money they have earned.

So, taking money from the rich to give to the very rich. Where's the problem? Also, Professor Gabaix outs himself as a "trickle down" guy which is the financial equivalent of being a Flat Earth Scientist to liberals. They can write him off as a moron or a loon based on that last sentence.

What do they do with all that money? Some people think they have a huge pile of it stashed away gathering dust. They never consider that whether they save that money, invest it or spend it, they're creating jobs. Any activity aside from putting it in a pile and burning it, is going to employ somebody. What else do they do with it?

Several hedge fund managers have a reputation for philanthropy. According to one report, George Soros — the second-highest-paid hedge fund manager last year at $2.9 billion (€1.82 billion) — has spent $6 billion (€3.8 billion) on philanthropic activities ranging from fighting poverty in Africa to funding universities in Russia.

In a fit of mighty restraint, the IHT didn't include efforts to unseat President Bush in his list of philanthropic activities. I imagine there was a blood bath in the editor's meeting over that one.

James Simons, who took home $2.8 billion (€1.76 billion) as manager of Renaissance Technologies Corp., co-founded the Simons Foundation, which finances education and health projects.

That last bit is selling Mr. Simons rather short. Who is this guy anyway? Let's check his Wikipedia entry:

Autism research

The family's charitable foundation has committed $38 million to find the causes related to autism in recent years, and plans to spend another $100 million in what is becoming the largest private investment in the field of autism research, while Simons personally exerts extraordinary control over where and how his money is spent. Simons has provided DNA from his family for study (his daughter is autistic), and has given assistance in helping solve research problems. When MIT asked for brain research funding, he stipulated that the project focus on autism and include scientists of his choosing.

On June 11, 2003, the Simons Foundation hosted its first "Panel on Autism Research" in New York City, a day-long event highlighting research into the causes of autism, the accurate genomic mapping of autism, and in the study of the biochemical mechanisms that occur in people with autism. Attendees included David Amaral, Dr. Eric Courchesne, Dr. Nathaniel Heinz, Tom Insel, MD, Catherine Lord, PhD, Dr. Fred Volkmar and Dr. Paul Greengard. The Simons Foundation recently gave $10 million to two researchers at the Yale University Child Study Center to study genetic influences on autism.

He's a remarkable guy. He requires an unprecidented amount of control over the projects he funds. He personally chooses the scientists and requires frequent updates and briefings on their progress. Any project he funds has a maximum of 12% of administrative overhead. The rest goes to research. That money would never have been spent on autism research had the government seized it. It would likely be spent on something named after Robert C. Byrd. Simons is my hero for reasons that my reader(s) will find pretty obvious. We need men like him to fund valuable research that the government does not and will not. Even if he doesn't and wants to spend it on frivolous things, it doesn't matter. Its his money he earned it and he should get to keep it. If people really cared about what is fair and what is just rather than how much people should be allowed to keep we'd all be a lot better off.

Justice on trial

Radley Balko has an article about criminal justice here.

Reade Seligmann, who had an iron-clad alibi to counter District Attorney Mike Nifong's accusation but was nonetheless dragged through the mud, added, "I can't imagine what they do to people who do not have the resources to defend themselves."

Exactly. Conservatives often dismiss complaints about the imbalance of the justice system. Liberals often decry the system as racist. It isn't. It not about race, it's about class. There is rich man's justice and poor man's justice. There are a great number of minorities in prison but I'd wager that in terms of class the imbalance of poor vs. rich or even middle class is even more pronounced.

With the advances in technology to review DNA evidence and other forensic procedures we need to set the bar ever higher for conviction especially in capital cases. I would go so far as to require manditory review of old cases that have blood or other DNA evidence that was never tested. (I'm thinking of cases that were adjudicated before DNA testing was available.)

If the momentum carries this one forward we may see a bipartisan case for justice reform. The wise candidates will be putting this into their platform.

Referring to the old mentality, Watkins added, "if you sent someone to jail who was possibly innocent, it was a badge of honor."

Positively sickening. Knowing full well the horrors that await inmates, how could anyone think that way?