A couple of years ago, listening to NPR, I heard the story of thousands of rubber ducks floating in the open oceans and helping researchers learn about the great ocean currents. I don’t know why, but the idea of a flotilla of rubber duckies roaming the oceans made me happy. On a stormy night in January 1992, 29,000 ducks, manufactured in China and bound for the United States were washed overboard in the eastern Pacific. Since then, they have floated for 17,000 miles. Part of their journey included moving a mile a day in the Arctic ice. According to oceanographer, Curtis Ebbesmeyer, the duckies are going to wash up on the shore of southwest England. The Daily Mail has the story.

Keith Olbermann delivered a pretty spectacular Special Comment in the wake of Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence. First, he quotes John Wayne who said, after Kennedy was elected, “I didn’t vote for him but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

Our generation’s willingness to state “we didn’t vote for him, but he’s our president, and we hope he does a good job,” was tested in the crucible of history, and far earlier than most. And in circumstances more tragic and threatening.

And we did that with which history tasked us.

We enveloped “our” President in 2001.

And those who did not believe he should have been elected — indeed, those who did not believe he had been elected — willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and sharpened it to a razor-sharp point, and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete…

Did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice…

Did so despite what James Madison –at the Constitutional Convention — said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by” that president…

More after the fold.

[Read more…]

Two hundred and thirty-one years ago, some Virginia planters with dissonant views of liberty (“How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” – Samuel Johnson) got together with some Boston smugglers and rabble rousers who had lost respect for their leader. And, thank goodness they did. They founded a nation based on a radical notion that all men are created equal. They were audacious enough to declare this truth “self-evident.” Think of what a departure this was. There was no automatic deference to anyone else based on their station in life. Governments, they declared, derived their just power from the consent of the governed. They felt so aggrieved by a hereditary leader who had abused his authority so egregiously they felt that he could no longer be tolerated. They felt that his tenure in power was “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” Among the abuses were deprivation of trial by jury and an inclination to raise the military authority above the civil authority. Humble petitions for redress were met only with further injury. I’ll leave drawing parallels to more modern events as an exercise for the reader.

As always, I think it is valuable to read the whole text of the Declaration of Independence, so, here you go:

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
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 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. 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 [George III] 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 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 the 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 legislatures.

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 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 into 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 power 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 compleat 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 amongst 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 divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

I came across this column from a couple of months ago that suggests our assessment of various risks is out of whack.

Our hyper-anxiety about the safety of children is creating a society in which any outdoor activity that doesn’t take place under the supervision of a coach or a “psychomotor activities” mandate from the state is too risky to attempt.

. . .

Although statistics show that rates of child abduction and sexual abuse have marched steadily downward since the early 1990s, fear of these crimes is at an all-time high. Even the panic-inducing Megan’s Law Web site says stranger abduction is rare and that 90 percent of child sexual-abuse cases are committed by someone known to the child. Yet we still suffer a crucial disconnect between perception of crime and its statistical reality. A child is almost as likely to be struck by lightning as kidnapped by a stranger, but it’s not fear of lightning strikes that parents cite as the reason for keeping children indoors watching television instead of out on the sidewalk skipping rope.

And when a child is parked on the living room floor, he or she may be safe, but is safety the sole objective of parenting? The ultimate goal is independence, and independence is best fostered by handing it out a little at a time, not by withholding it in a trembling fist that remains clenched until it’s time to move into the dorms.

Meanwhile, as rates of child abduction and abuse move down, rates of Type II diabetes, hypertension and other obesity-related ailments in children move up. That means not all the candy is coming from strangers. Which scenario should provoke more panic: the possibility that your child might become one of the approximately 100 children who are kidnapped by strangers each year, or one of the country’s 58 million overweight adults?

I place a fair amount of the blame for this phenomenon on the fear porn pushed by the local news and just about anyone else who tries to sell eyeballs to advertisers by keeping its audience scared. “Should we panic?” “Yes. Yes we should.” Parents bear some of the blame as well, but it’s a tough thing. What if you’re wrong? The thought of something like a kidnap or molestation of one’s child is almost too horrible to contemplate. Almost better to put them in a box than take a chance on such a thing.

Over the weekend, I went to my in-laws for a (pre) 4th of July party. One of the other guests was holding forth on the theme of “kids these days” and on “how nobody takes responsibility for themselves anymore.” It occurred to me that I’ve been hearing various individuals bellyache about these themes all my life. In fact, I suspect that folks have been grousing about “kids these days” and the demise of personal responsibility as long as there have been kids.

I can’t imagine there was a time when elders were saying, “you know, kids these days sure are more responsible than we ever were.” Following the logic of these complaints, human society has been in an unrelenting state of entropy since the dawn of time which was obviously some sort of perfect society. That’s obviously hogwash. Through the generations, I figure there has been a better than even chance that any one of these bellyaching elders were just plain wrong. Just a word of warning too look out for crotchety old men trying to pass such crap off as wisdom.

Reverent & Free has some thoughts on Fred Thompson’s “liberal media” complaints. Ruth Holladay flags a study that indicates journalist contribute more frequently to Democratic candidates.

These complaints about journalists don’t really tell us much about the bias of the media landscape without knowing at least two more factors: a) the political orientation of the owners of media outlets; and b) the relative distribution of the Democratic contributing journalists to the Republican contributing journalists.

If you study three journalists and find that Brit Hume is a Republican and the two others work for weekly free papers and are Democrats, you can’t exactly look at that data and say that the media has a liberal bias because liberal journalists outnumber conservative journalists two to one.

The federal minimum wage will rise from $5.15 per hour to $5.85 per hour. One lesser known effect of this will be to raise the amount of a paycheck that is exempt from garnishment under Indiana’s civil collections laws. Garnishments are governed by a formula that directs employers to deduct the mandatory amounts (Social Security, federal, and local taxes, essentially) and, from that deduct the lesser of:
A. The amount by which the result exceeds 30 times the federal minimum wage; or
B. 25% of the result.

So, if your net take home pay would be $400, the employer would figure “A” is $400 – (30*$5.15) which equals $245.50. “B” is .25*$400 or $100. Since $100 is less, that’s the deduction. On the other hand, if your take home is $200, then “A” is $200 – (30*$5.15) or $45.50 whereas “B” is .25*$200 or $50, making the deduction $45.50. Under the current minimum wage, basically, you choose “A” if your take home is $206 or less; and “B” if your take home is more.

The new minimum wage law increases the exempt amount from $154.50 to $175.50. If you make less than $175.50, then you’re essentially garnishment proof. If you make between $175.50 and $234, then the garnishable amount is the difference between your take home amount and $175.50. And, if you take home $234, your garnishable amount is going to be 25% of your take home.

This has been collection law math. You can wake up now.

Maureen Groppe, writing for the Palladium-Item has an article about Congressional pay increases. Reps. Burton, Buyer, Pence, and Visclosky voted to have Congressional pay rise annually with inflation.

Pence joked that he feared Mrs. Pence more than he fears the voters. Even though he voted to keep the automatic cost of living adjustment in place, Rep. Burton said “all lawmakers should have to vote on whether to accept it.” He declined to elaborate on how this position squares with his vote for an increase.

I’ve discussed this before. I don’t really mind paying lawmakers well for doing the job. It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the federal budget. Maybe if we pay them fairly well, there will be less temptation toward corruption, and maybe individuals of limited means can afford to do the job (how such people get elected in the first place is a good question.) Burying pay increases in provisions that raise the pay automatically seems undemocratic but, frankly, I think voters tend to overreact a bit on this subject.

TimF has a thoughtful post on what the immigration bill has meant and will mean to the GOP. Relatively speaking, to the Democrats, it was a matter of some indifference. Certainly Democrats had opinions, but not the white hot passionate ones that seemed to erupt in Republican circles.

In the GOP, Mr.F suggests, this opened a fundamental rift between the business conservatives that fund the GOP and the social conservatives that staff it. The business conservatives tend to benefit from an abundance of cheap labor. Social conservatives often suffer economically from this but, probably more importantly, notice keenly the change in culture that comes more quickly with a substantial immigrant population. I would further suppose that cultural conservatives have an ideological attachment to law and order above and beyond their practical devotion.

The rift has been kept in check by simply looking the other way on the immigration issue. George Bush’s failure to back off on addressing the issue of illegal immigrants in a way that business conservatives would like was probably a political blunder of the highest order. I suspect that Republicans who followed Bush’s lead on this will pay dearly. Democrats will not be above the fray entirely, but I suspect it will be less of a motivating issue for their base.