Shared posts

26 Mar 01:18

The History & Legacy of Magna Carta Explained in Animated Videos by Monty Python’s Terry Jones

by Colin Marshall

Even those who paid next to no attention to their history teachers know about Magna Carta — or at least they know it first came about in 1215. To deliver all the other relevant details, we now have a new teacher in the form of Monty Python‘s Terry Jones, who, on the occasion of this great charter’s 800th anniversary, provides the narration for these two short animations, “Magna Carta: Medieval” and “Magna Carta: Legacy,” that tell the rest of its story.

These videos come as part of a whole web site put together by the British Library meant to help us all “discover the history and legacy of one of the world’s most celebrated documents.” To this end, they’ve put up an introduction to Magna Carta by Claire Breay and Julian Harrison, which summarizes both its origins and its relevance today:

Originally issued by King John of England (r.1199-1216) as a practical solution to the political crisis he faced in 1215, Magna Carta established for the first time the principle that everybody, including the king, was subject to the law.

[ … ]

Three clauses of the 1225 Magna Carta remain on the statute book today. Although most of the clauses of Magna Carta have now been repealed, the many divergent uses that have been made of it since the Middle Ages have shaped its meaning in the modern era, and it has become a potent, international rallying cry against the arbitrary use of power.

These animations, of course, add a great deal of visual, narrative, and comedic vividness to this important piece of Western political history, following it from the reign of King John (“one of the worst kings in history”), through civil war, the creation of the United States of America, struggles for voting rights and the freedom of the press, right up to the writing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in a sense Magna Carta’s modern descendant. “Although very few of Magna Carta’s original clauses remain valid in English law,” says Jones, “it continues to inspire people worldwide. Not a bad legacy for an 800-year-old document.”

via Devour

Related Content:

An Online Gallery of 30,000 Items from The British Library, Including Leonardo da Vinci’s Notebooks And Mozart’s Diary

Download 78 Free Online History Courses: From Ancient Greece to The Modern World

The British Library Puts Online 1,200 Literary Treasures From Great Romantic & Victorian Writers

Free Online Political Science Courses

Colin Marshall hosts and produces Notebook on Cities and Culture as well as the video series The City in Cinema and writes essays on cities, language, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Angeles, A Los Angeles Primer. Follow him on Twitter at @colinmarshall or on Facebook.

The History & Legacy of Magna Carta Explained in Animated Videos by Monty Python’s Terry Jones is a post from: Open Culture. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Plus, or get our Daily Email. And don't miss our big collections of Free Online Courses, Free Online Movies, Free eBooksFree Audio Books, Free Foreign Language Lessons, and MOOCs.

The post The History & Legacy of Magna Carta Explained in Animated Videos by Monty Python’s Terry Jones appeared first on Open Culture.

24 Mar 14:31

WOZNIAK: Future 'scary and very bad for people'...


WOZNIAK: Future 'scary and very bad for people'...


(First column, 9th story, link)
Related stories:
24 Mar 13:27

'We The People Have A Lot Of Work To Do' Says Schneier In A Must-Read Book On Security And Privacy

by Gil Press, Contributor
Bruce Schneier's Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Capture Your Data and Control Your World is a thought-provoking, absorbing, and comprehensive guide to our new big data world.
24 Mar 13:25

These Part-time Jobs Offer Solid Health Benefits

by Kyle James

Part time jobs often suck because they don't include health benefits. Some employers are bucking this trend by offering medical, dental, and vision to entice talented part-time workers.

Read more...








24 Mar 13:24

Is That a Nuke in Your Pocket or Are You Just Happy to See Me?

by Matt Welch

There's a new book out called The Future of Violence: Robots and Germs, Hackers and Drones—Confronting a New Age of Threat, by Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution and Gabriella Blum of Harvard Law School. It's a 307-page warning that the 21st century, with its "technologies of mass empowerment," "threatens…to be Hobbesian"—so much so that maybe it's time we stopped obsessing over "Big Brother" and started preparing better governmental responses to "Little Brothers" instead.

I've got a review of the book in today's Wall Street Journal, and it begins like this:

"As a thought experiment," write Benjamin Wittes and Gabriella Blum, "imagine a world composed of billions of people walking around with nuclear weapons in their pockets." If such an exercise doesn't strike you as bonkers, then I've got an enthusiastic book recommendation for you. Sadly for the rest of us, the fear-mongering in "The Future of Violence" is no laughing matter but rather a depressingly accurate summation of how centrist Washington has come to view the democratization of technology: with a distrust bordering on panic.

Whole thing here.

23 Mar 17:29

European Drone Regulations Are About To Get Smarter And More Permissive

by Gregory S. McNeal, Contributor
If European regulators have their way, drone operations in the European Union (EU) are going to become very permissive, far outpacing American regulations.   The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the EU's authority for aviation safety, has released a regulatory framework that calls for new regulations to be proposed by December of this year. In [...]
23 Mar 16:50

Oklahoma House votes to do away with state-issued marriage licenses

This is the kind of solution to the “gay marriage” issue that we’ve been asking for for a very long time: get the state out of the marriage business altogether! Oklahoma just took an important first step. from Reason:Something remarkably libertarian...
23 Mar 16:49

New Mexico passes bill to eliminate civil asset forfeiture

Good job, New Mexico! This is a good first step! From The DC:The New Mexico state legislature passed a groundbreaking bill Saturday to abolish civil asset forfeiture. Now Republican Gov. Susana Martinez, who will likely get attention as a potential...
23 Mar 16:49

Federal Crop Subsidies go to Billionaires

Federal Crop Subsidies go to Billionaires: How’s this for government efficiency? Federal farm subsidies originally intended to “save family farms” are going to millionaires and billionaires. Yay! From the Washington Free Beacon:Federal crop...
23 Mar 16:49

For The First Time Since 1969, No Tornadoes Were Reported In March

For The First Time Since 1969, No Tornadoes Were Reported In March: Remember when Democrats literally blamed tornadoes on Republicans? Yeah, there’s nothing like rational, level-headed debate like saying that your political opponents are literally...
23 Mar 16:25

Shepherd’s home near Col d’Aspin, French Pyrenees.Contributed...



Shepherd’s home near Col d’Aspin, French Pyrenees.

Contributed by Jeremy Stain.

23 Mar 16:20

Private Pop-Up Towns in the Far North and in Space

by Jesse Walker

Writing in New Scientist, Geoff Manaugh describes the mining settlements of the Arctic and sub-Arctic north. Three things make these places particularly interesting.

First: They're technical marvels. The Quebec town of Fermont is

Fermont: the planhome to an extraordinary architectural feature: a residential megastructure whose explicit purpose is to redirect the local weather. Known as the Mur-écran or "windscreen", this structure is an astonishing 1.3 kilometres in length, shaped roughly like a horizontal V or chevron. Think of it as a climatological Maginot Line, built to resist the howling, near-constant northern winds.

Extreme environments such as those found in the far north are laboratories of architectural innovation, genuinely requiring the invention of new building types. In any other context, a weather-controlling super-wall would sound like pure science fiction. But, in Fermont, urban climate control is built into the very fabric of the city—and has been since the 1970s.

Second: They're built, owned, and operated privately. Now, of the various models floating around for a social order outside the state, the company town has got to be one of the least appealing choices on the table. (I guess I rank it higher than the vision where we're supposed to turn into hunter-gatherers. But it's below virtually all the others.) Still, if you're interested in what can be accomplished in this fashion—and if you want to look at a contemporary example instead of reading Price Fishback's historical studies—Fermont beckons:

Full-service urbanismFermont comes complete with streets, a hotel, a hospital, a small Metro supermarket and even a tourism bureau. For all that, however, it is still run by the firm ArcelorMittal, which also owns the nearby iron mine. This means there are no police, who would be funded by the state; instead, Fermont is patrolled by its own private security force....

[I]ndustrial settlements such as these are not run by mayors or other elected officials, but by extraction firms or subsidiary services corporations, such as Baker Hughes, Target Logistics, or the aptly named Civeo. The last of these—whose very name implies civics reduced to the catchiness of an IPO—actually lists villages as one of its prime spatial products. These are sold as "integrated accommodation solutions" that you can order wholesale, like a piece of furniture, a small city given its own tracking number and delivery time.

City Hall, or what passes for it, has been outsourced.

Just add water!Manaugh notes that "such instant prefab cities dropped into the middle of nowhere are a perennial fantasy of architectural futurists. One need look no further than British avant-pop provocateurs Archigram, with their candy-coloured comic book drawings of 'plug-in cities' sprouting amidst remote landscapes like ready-made utopias." But I don't think the Archigram crowd expected that the communities coming closest to realizing their visions would be run by multinational corporations.

Third: These towns could be a partial model for colonies in space. I'm deeply skeptical about all space colonization schemes, so I take this idea with a jumbo-size box of salt. But I also take Manaugh's point:

In a sense, we are already experimenting with off-world colonisation—only we are doing it in the windswept villages and extraction sites of the Canadian north.

No matter where they crop up, the first rule of remote industrial activities is that they require housing and administrative structures—not parks and museums. These roughshod "man camps", as they are commonly known, are "cobbled together in a hurry", in the words of energy reporter Russell Gold.

In the unlikely event that human beings build settlements on Mars in my lifetime, they may well be extraterrestial Fermonts.

Bonus link: A more detailed look at Fermont life.

23 Mar 15:06

How To Enjoy Twitter Without Working Yourself Into A Frothing Rage

by Samer Kalaf

In general, Twitter is superb. I use it for work, and I love it. As with anything, of course, there are minor aspects that'll make you want to spike your phone/computer into the pavement. But there are incredibly simple actions you can take to minimize the amount of Bad Twitter you have to endure.

Read more...








23 Mar 15:05

The Ultimate Learning Adventure Vacation: Surf Simply In Nosara, Costa Rica

by Ann Abel, Contributor
Competitive-level coaching is accessible to even brand-new beginners—a rarity in any sport.
18 Mar 17:15

Swedish central bank cuts key rate further below zero...


Swedish central bank cuts key rate further below zero...


(Third column, 3rd story, link)

18 Mar 16:41

Brine Your Meats

by Tommy Thompson

Get the best out of your meats.

The simple step of brining brings flavor to the fore in meats. Add a complementary sauce, at left, and you’re set.

Each fall, thanks to my friend Phil DeLaney, I‘m lucky enough to have a pretty steady supply of venison. And the cut I most cherish is the backstrap. But it’s lean and if I’m steering it towards the grill, rather than something putting out less heat, I’m taking a chance that it can get tough, even when thinly sliced. So I brine.

Brining all sorts of meat and poultry prior to cooking has become a popular method in recent years. It’s a different technique from what’s known as marinating, as its purpose is mainly to moisturize and tenderize the flesh, rather than flavor it. Yes, marinades do tenderize, but if you want to taste the original flavor of the meat, brine.

Brining techniques depend on the size of the meat in question. Large birds like turkeys can be submerged in large stockpots. Or if you’re preparing several for a turkey-frying feast, consider a (new, unused) plastic garbage can. Smaller birds or prime cuts of meat work well in store-bought roasting bags or big zip-top bags. Table cuts like chops and backstrap can simply be submerged and covered in non-reactive baking dishes. Brining solutions vary, but the main ingredients are water, salt, and something sweet. Brining times vary, too. Most chefs recommend at least 6 hours in the fridge, with 24 hours being the maximum. Then, about an hour before cooking begins, remove the meat from the brine, drain and pat it dry.

Brining beforehand adds moisture to meat for grilling and searing.

Brining works well to moisturize meats headed towards the deep fryer, the grill or the hot cast iron pan. Cuts like loins, chops and meats that need to be simply seared and served rare to medium-rare are particularly good after brining. There’s no need to brine meats headed towards the stew pot or slow cooker, and there’s also no need to brine seafood. In the case of slow cooking, that method alone will tenderize even the toughest of meat. And in the case of seafood, there is no need to tenderized that tasty, flaky, fishy flesh. FS

The Brine

Stir the following ingredients together until the salt dissolves. Makes 1/2 gallon. Adjust quantities depending on how much meat you plan to brine. For example, a turkey might need 3 to 5 gallons.

2 quarts water
1 cup kosher salt
½ cup molasses
½ cup orange juice
¼ cup Worcestershire sauce
5 crushed bay leaves

Guava-Dijon Sauce
This one’s simple, and adds a Caribbean touch to wild game. Serve alongside, or drizzle it over the meat just before serving. Combine the following, heat in a saucepan and whisk:

1 cup Palmalito guava jelly (available statewide in Publix Supermarkets)
½ cup Dijon mustard
Juice from a large Florida orange

First published Florida Sportsman October 2014

17 Mar 02:35

Redhead Beach

by burn magazine


Edit this

The crowd at Redhead Beach wade into the surf to cool off as a coal ship on the horizon heads back out to sea from Newcastle Port… Photo by @simonedepeak Simone De Peak #burndiary #burnmagazine #redhead #newcastle #nsw #australia #beach #surf #photojournalism #landscape

17 Mar 02:28

Nobbys Beach

by burn magazine


Edit this

Day 5: Marlenn casts an eye over the waves at Nobbys Beach, Newcastle. He works for a surfing school, and manages to squeeze a surf in after teaching some students today… Photo by @simonedepeak Simone De Peak #burndiary #burnmagazine #newcastle #nsw #australia #photojournalism #documentary #surf #beach #landscape #weather #noir

12 Mar 12:48

Government Farming Subsidies Are A Pile Of Poo

by Daniel Payne

It has become reflexive at this point for citified, lily-white, soft-handed, pantywaist foodies like me to criticize the American farmer for his countless shortcomings, but in all fairness the American farmer makes it quite easy. Witness, for example, the man in Chester County, Pennsylvania, who recently accepted a government agriculture grant worth nearly $600,000:

It was the largest ag grant ever awarded to a farmer by the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority, also known as Pennvest.

But what is truly eye-opening is that the state taxpayer money is going to an Amish farmer.

With increasing state and federal pressure to substantially reduce the runoff of nutrients and soil choking the Chesapeake Bay, millions of dollars are being diplomatically offered to reticent Plain-sect farmers in Lancaster County to get more conservation measures on farms.

It is indeed eye-opening that an Amish farmer, of all people, would accept well over half a million dollars in government money, and for “conservation measures” to boot: we learn that the farmer, Daniel Stoltzfus, plans to use the money to “pipe manure from a cow barn to a new manure-storage facility above the floodplain.”

There is, so far as I know, nothing that justifies such a costly and bizarre undertaking. There is no reason Stoltzfus should need to “pipe” his cow’s manure to a “manure-storage facility.” If Stoltzfus is unable to find a use for his cow manure—if he is unable to spread it on his pasture in the growing season or compost it during the winter—then the only explanation is that he is a poor steward of the land, one who requires a massive taxpayer-funded cash influx to stave off ecological catastrophe. It is not that he is a bad person; merely that for all appearances he is a bad farmer, and should not be in this line of work.

Government Props Up Industrial Farming

This is the only reasonable conclusion we might infer from this report. Good farming, like good parenting, is functionally a preemptive endeavor, in the sense that it deals with its problems largely by not creating them in the first place. Good agriculture has no need of a mediating “manure-storage facility,” it has no need of manure pipes, and it does not require government grants.

Aside from apparently requiring hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, ‘manure storage facilities’ and manure lagoons can be ecologically disastrous.

On a good farm—be it a dairy or a beef cattle operation—the cows are on pasture, where they are supposed to be. The manure goes into the pasture, where it is supposed to go, and that is it. During the off-season, the manure can be composted in a covered enclosure, but it will still go back into the soil when spring hits. This does not require pipes, or facilities, or indeed anything but pasture and carbon. Indeed, aside from apparently requiring hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, “manure storage facilities” and manure lagoons can be ecologically disastrous in and of themselves: they can break or their contents can leach out of the porous containers, slowly poisoning the groundwater nearby. They are needlessly expensive, totally unnecessary, and potentially dangerous.

If a farmer has manure, he must properly dispose of it. If he is unable to properly dispose of it, he should not be a farmer. The failure of this remarkably simple feedback loop is the failure of the farmer, and ultimately the farm—no matter how many government grants you receive.

But government grants are part and parcel of the logic of bad agriculture, which creates problems then refuses to fix them. A manure problem, like any farm problem, is a sign that the farmer is doing things wrong. Consequently, if the farmer cannot do things right, he should abandon farming and try something else at which he is better.

The Worse You Farm, the More You Earn

Yet bad agriculture allows for no such humility on the part of the farmer. If there is a problem, it’s not because the farmer is inept—it must be because he does not have enough money. So government must take money from taxpayers and give it to the farmer, so he can continue doing what Noah Webster properly called “the first and most necessary employment” without caring whether or not he is doing it properly.

A culture that abjures the right way to do things in favor of the easy way will inevitably come to this dead end, in which the government must step in to repair the self-inflicted damage.

A restaurateur who did his job so poorly would be encouraged to explore an alternate field of employment, and if he failed to do so he would properly lose his shirt. A farmer, on the other hand, can do his job poorly—and he’ll hit paydirt.

A culture that abjures the right way to do things in favor of the easy way will inevitably come to this dead end, in which the government must step in to repair the self-inflicted damage. The sexual revolution—the loosening of sexual mores, the exaltation of sexual licentiousness, and the disregard of any consequences of sexual debauchery—has ended inexorably in subsidized abortions and government-mandated birth control. The dumbing down of our country’s colleges and universities—the loosening of their standards and the dilution of their curricula—now means students may send themselves into massive government-sponsored debt to purchase an increasingly-worthless product.

And the inferior way by which we do agriculture has resulted in this: more than half a million bucks to help an Amish farmer send valuable cow’s manure to a “manure-storage facility” instead of into the ground where it belongs. It is entirely likely this will do nothing to improve Stoltzfus’s farm, his livelihood, or the local or regional environment. In all probability, this will end predictably, as do all similar government efforts, with nothing more to show for it than a big pile of crap.

12 Mar 12:46

If You Watch ‘House Of Cards,’ Thank Maryland Taxpayers

by Jared Meyer

Netflix subscribers who have been binge-watching the new season’s “House of Cards” need to send their gratitude to Maryland taxpayers. In a real-life drama that could be straight out of a “House of Cards” scene, the show’s producers have been binging on Maryland taxpayers’ money, while schmoozing and extorting legislators whenever necessary.

Maryland offers a fully refundable tax credit that covers up to 25 percent of film production costs incurred in Maryland. For television series, this increases to 27 percent. For the credits to apply, least half of the principal photography must take place in Maryland, and in-state productions costs must exceed $500,000.

In 2013, two television series, “House of Cards” and HBO’s “VEEP,” took all of Maryland’s credits. Maryland’s film production tax credit program is not designed to help small, local filmmakers—it is meant to subsidize rich Hollywood producers.

Living High on Taxpayers’ Dimes

Since Maryland’s program was updated in 2012, $62.5 million in credits have been authorized. Of this total, 97 percent has been awarded to “VEEP” ($22.7 million) and “House of Cards” ($37.6 million).

Proponents of film tax credits argue that productions boost employment, promote tourism, and increase tax revenue. These claims are all false. In reality, film tax credits only help a small slice of the economy at the expense of most taxpayers.

Film tax credits only help a small slice of the economy at the expense of most taxpayers.

Tax credits are more valuable than deductions because, while deductions lower taxable income, credits directly reduce tax bills. When these credits are refundable, as they are in Maryland, states actually pay production companies the difference if the tax liabilities are lower than the amount of the credit. As stated on The Maryland Film Office’s website, “If the tax credit allowed in any taxable year exceeds the total tax otherwise payable by the qualified film production entity for that taxable year, the qualified film production entity may claim a refund in the amount of excess.”

Qualified film production activities are also exempt from sales and use taxes. This has led to foregone revenues in Maryland alone totaling $17.8 million since 2001, including $4.0 million in 2013 and $3.7 million in 2014.

Total Maryland film tax credits are supposed to be capped at $7.5 million, but for fiscal year 2014, this cap was temporarily increased to $25 million. This $25 million is more than the business tax credits given to cybersecurity, wineries, biotechnology, job creation, and research and development—combined.

We’ll Use Your Money to Pressure Your Elected Officials

Last year, “VEEP” received $7.4 million for filming season four, and “House of Cards” was given $11.5 million to film season three, below the $14.4 million it received for season two. Of this $11.5 million, $7.5 million came from additional grants outside of the film production tax credit. This extra subsidy was gifted because Media Rights Capital, the production company behind “House of Cards,” threated to pack up and leave the state if it was not showered with more taxpayer dollars. Former Gov. Martin O’Malley negotiated the increase after a series of masterful manipulations seemingly inspired by the show’s main character, Frank Underwood.

Kevin Spacey, who plays Underwood in the series, visited a wine bar in Annapolis to schmooze with members of the Maryland General Assembly.

Media Rights Capital’s first move was to delay the start of production for season three until June 2014—long enough to see if the tax credit cap is raised. Charles Goldstein, a senior vice president for Media Rights Capital, threatened O’Malley in a letter, which blatantly stated, “In the event sufficient incentives do not become available, we will have to break down our stage, sets and offices and set up in another state.”

Maryland House Speaker Michael E. Busch received a similar letter. The hostile tone of these not-so-veiled threats discomforted a number of state legislators. In response, Delegate William Frick introduced an amendment that would seize Media Right Capital’s property under eminent domain if production left the state. His inspiration? “I literally thought: What is an appropriate Frank Underwood response to a threat like this? Eminent domain really struck me as the most dramatic response.”

Media Rights Capital’s next move, which showed slightly more tact, was to send actor Kevin Spacey, who plays Underwood in the series, to a wine bar in Annapolis to schmooze with members of the Maryland General Assembly. Politicians eagerly snapped selfies with the two-time Academy Award-winner—showing that film tax credits certainly do serve to provide lawmakers with opportunities to rub elbows with Hollywood stars.

Though Maryland could not pass another increase in film subsidies in time, $7.5 million in other grants were approved, and the show continued. Apparently Spacey is just as scheming in real life as Underwood is in the show. He must have been recalling his famous line from Season One, “It’s so refreshing to work with someone who’ll throw a saddle on a gift horse rather than look it in the mouth.”

Bogus Research about Film Tax Credits’ Benefits

Interest groups consistently claim that film tax credits pay for themselves. The Maryland Film Industry Coalition, which is “dedicated to improving the business conditions for the film industry in Maryland,” funded a study which found that every dollar granted in film tax credits leads to $1.03 in tax revenues and $3.69 in economic output.

Every independent study of film tax credits has found they are not effective at creating permanent jobs or economic development.

Film industry groups claiming imaginary benefits to targeted tax credits are nothing new, but they remain pure fantasy. Every independent study of film tax credits has found that they are not effective at creating permanent jobs or economic development. Data from several states find movie production incentives generate less than 30 cents for every lost dollar in tax revenue.

For example, the Maryland Department of Legislative Services came to a slightly different conclusion than did the Maryland Film Industry Coalition. In an October 2014 report, it found that the state’s film tax credit program led to negative long-term outcomes that actually decreased jobs, lowered personal incomes, and slowed GDP growth. For every dollar granted in film tax credits, Maryland receives only 6 cents back—meaning the program is a drain on the budget that, contrary to what the film industry argues, does not pay for itself.

The Department of Legislative Services report stated, “Since the credit does not provide sustainable economic development and provides a small return on investment to the State and local governments, DLS recommends that the General Assembly allow the film production activity tax credit to sunset as scheduled on July 1, 2016. Going forward, DLS recommends that the General Assembly focus economic development efforts on incentives that create permanent and lasting employment, rather than temporary jobs.”

States that choose to enter the competitive arena of film tax credits are set up for losing battles. Unless they continually increase their incentives, film companies will simply pack up and move to states offering sweeter deals, as shown by Media Rights Capital’s threats.

For every dollar granted in film tax credits, Maryland receives only 6 cents back.

Another claimed benefit of film tax credit programs is increased tourism. Although a popular film or television show could theoretically boost tourism, it is puzzling what, if any, tourism benefit Maryland gains from subsidizing two television series that are set it Washington DC.

Positive effects of film tax credits only tell half the story.  State lawmakers could attract almost any industry if they paid for a quarter to a third of its expenditures, but such a policy would be fiscally unsustainable. Balanced budget requirements mean that states must cut spending or raise taxes to pay for these special privileges granted to the film industry. Most people would agree that fixing potholes and staffing fire departments are better uses of tax money than subsidizing HBO, Media Rights Capital, and other film production companies.

Subsidizing Hollywood producers is neither fair nor smart economic policy. Frank Underwood can be a very cunning man, but instead of bending over backwards to keep the show, legislators should realize that working to create a real life “House of Cards” is not the best use of taxpayers’ money.

12 Mar 12:46

The Founders Didn’t Fail—We Are Failing The Founders

by Ben Weingarten

Conservatives are understandably depressed in the wake of Speaker Boehner and the Republican-controlled Congress’ predictable caving on executive amnesty.

Let me stop right there by emphasizing that I only said conservatives. Were our republic healthy, every single American would be depressed that President Obama’s amnesty—which on dozens of occasions he said he did not have the authority to enforce—will continue apace to the benefit of lawbreakers at the expense of American citizens.

Americans would be further demoralized at the notion that our president politicized the sovereignty of our nation represented by failing to protect its borders, all in a transparent attempt to win a permanent Democratic majority—which the shortsighted Republican establishment seem perfectly fine with, since they want immigration and the idea of “those racist Republicans” to become non-issues.

Some are lamenting the cowardice of our representatives, and to that I quote a former NFL Coach: “They are who we thought they were!

I have even seen one article arguing that the Constitution itself has failed. But the Constitution and our Founders did not fail. Human nature has not changed between 1787 and 2015. There were undoubtedly plenty of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century booze-swilling, cigar-smoking iterations of John Boehner lumbering around Capitol Hill.

What has changed is the size and scope of government, the number and composition of people who are voting, and the public’s general indifference to and acceptance of the greed, graft, lying, and all matter of corruption that have become commonplace in public life. There is also a heck of a lot more bread and circuses to keep us fat, happy, and distracted from what our supposed leaders are doing.

Government Is Too Big to Control

Entitlement reform is not going to capture the imagination of the American people like a llama chase or the color of a dress. And it bears noting that many of the Founders themselves were involved in sordid activities, and even willing to accept a king.

The nation our founders entrusted us with was substantially smaller and less intrusive.

But that king’s powers would have looked downright puny compared to those President Obama wields today; and what corrupt politicians did way back when feels less offensive than the systemic abuse and political malpractice on display now, in part because the nation our founders—exceptional citizen legislators—entrusted us with was substantially smaller and less intrusive.

Today, when you have hundreds of agencies and millions of pages of laws, when the federal government is among the largest employers in the world, hyper-regulating almost every aspect of our society, creating arcane and byzantine rules designed to reward one set of constituents or another over and above the American people, not to mention the rule makers, rule interpreters and compliance officers themselves—this naturally creates not only an unwieldy and unaccountable federal government, but one that will invite and reward people willing to pull the kinds of shenanigans we see today.

To the percentage of the public that is actually informed as to what is going on in government, there are simply too many egregious things occurring on a daily basis, not to mention again the Siren song of bread and circuses, for anyone to keep track of it all or know where to focus one’s energies and pitchforks.

The Failure Is Our Fault

What defines an informed voter itself is of course open to interpretation, given what the majority of people are taught in our hallowed Democrat-controlled community organizing institutions, also known as schools; and given that one can read The New York Times, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and Vox, and watch “The Daily Show” each day to qualify as informed by today’s standards, without knowing anything about what the other half of the country thinks and believes.

We elected Barack Obama twice, in spite of his words, actions, and associations, which have unsurprisingly led to these disastrous six-plus years.

On amnesty specifically, as a lame-duck president without control of either house of Congress, Barack Obama is completely unchained, simply running roughshod over our laws. That a supposed constitutional scholar is rendering the system of checks and balances and separation of powers meaningless; that the executive branch is usurping the legislative branch, while congressmen say one thing and stand by idly doing another, is not a reflection that the Constitution or founders failed.

Rather, these travesties reflect that the American people are failing the founders.

We elected Barack Obama twice, in spite of his words, actions, and associations, which have unsurprisingly led to these disastrous six-plus years. The presidents who preceded him were not much better, though no one would have posed the question of them as Mark Steyn recently dared: “If he were working for the other side, what exactly would he be doing differently?”

We elected the congressmen who with rare exceptions (see Lee, Sen. Mike) continue to stand by while Rome burns, and who are derelict in their duty to defend and protect the Constitution, including against its brazen violator who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Welfare Versus Defense: Who Wins?

We have failed to persuasively enough make the case that we cannot thrive as a nation just by slowing government’s rate of growth and hiring smarter technocrats, but must literally be slashing the federal budget by 50 percent, abolishing agencies en masse, allowing Americans to opt out of the welfare state (including programs which can only pay my generation back in devalued dollars like Social Security), ensuring that we have not small deficits but massive surpluses to pay down our debt so the interest alone does not consume all the money we pay to the feds each year, and demanding a massive devolution of power back to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs.

We cannot thrive as a nation just by slowing government’s rate of growth and hiring smarter technocrats, but must literally be slashing the federal budget by 50 percent and abolishing agencies en masse.

And if our fellow Americans choose to live in socialist basket-case states, they are free to do so without reaching into your and my pockets at the point of a gun.

At root and underlying all of these issues, we have allowed the Left to control the media, academia, and the rest of America’s key cultural institutions, such that the vast majority of our fellow citizens are reflexively progressive and cannot even conceive of the types of changes I just mentioned. This is how the radical, morally and economically bankrupting leftist policies can be considered mainstream, while freedom can be considered fascistic.

This inherent progressivism narrowly underlies Republican acquiescence to the growing leviathan, and dictates the type of leaders that America broadly finds palatable, which has led us to this perilous place in our history in which all of our worst enemies are ascendant, while we are fast on the road to bankruptcy and serfdom, with our only choice between welfare and defense.

When entitlements and our armed forces are sitting side by side on the chopping block, which do you think a war-weary, economically pummeled American public is going to choose?

We Need a New Generation of Savvy Statesmen

No, the Constitution hasn’t failed, and our founders haven’t failed. We the people have failed during the hundred-year progressive march. So now we are burdened with the doubly difficult task of trying to win the long game of culture and the short game of politics.

The most important thing in America is protecting the rights of the minority, the most important of which is the individual.

I have much more faith in the latter over the former—that over time the chances are greater that we develop the strategy and tactics to beat an establishment incumbent class than win America’s cherished cultural institutions, which form our national soul.

Our national soul determines whether the Constitution is a piece of parchment or enshrines principles like equal rights for all and special privileges for none, that law resides above man, that men are not angels and that we must compel government’s non-angels to control themselves, and that the most important thing in America is protecting the rights of the minority, the most important of which is the individual.

And the inspiration for our national soul should reside not in our Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence that breathes life into it, a majestic document that we have ignored for far too long.

Don’t Blame Boehner—Blame Us

In any event, we the people have all the leverage in the world. The Boehners and Mitch McConnells will listen to us when the political cost of siding with the Chamber of Commerce is so great that their political lives depend on it.

The Boehners and Mitch McConnells will listen to us when the political cost of siding with the Chamber of Commerce is so great that their political lives depend on it.

Using the power of the purse as a lever to control the president, or threatening let alone bringing forth articles of impeachment are political remedies, and they are not being used not only because the Republican establishment that makes up the majority of the majority in Congress are risk-averse and often spineless, but because the majority of the American people are not demanding it.

That impeachment brings howls of racism alone shows a failure of our culture to separate the original sin of slavery from the demerits of the job done by this president, to separate identity politics from the individual.

Until and unless we devote all of our efforts to winning the long and short games with a constant, strategic, relentless full-court press, we are going to see amnesties ad nauseum, Obamacare not only not abolished but metastasizing, the federal budget and debt continue skyrocketing, comparatively small things like the Export-Import Bank chugging along and, yes, the welfare state expanding and our defenses shrinking while Islamic supremacists, Russia, China, and their proxies grow ever-bolder and more confidently bellicose.

We the people have much work to do if we want to keep any semblance of our republic, as Benjamin Franklin challenged us to do. And we hold the power in our hands.

But do we have the will and capability to exert it?

09 Mar 17:56

There’s No Begging Exception to the First Amendment

by A. Barton Hinkle

"Do you have the time?"

"Would you please sign a petition to support tougher clean-air rules?"

"Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?"

"Excuse me, but could you help out a fellow American who's down on his luck?"

In many American cities, you can ask the first three of those questions on a public street without any trouble. But if you ask the fourth, you can be arrested and jailed.

Laws against panhandling have been around for decades. In case after case, courts have ruled them unconstitutional. But municipal leaders around the country keep looking for ways to impose them.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals recently slapped down Henrico County, Virginia's ordinance. Until 2012 the county prohibited people who were standing in the road to distribute handbills, sell merchandise, or solicit contributions from motorists or passengers. So panhandlers asked for money sitting down. The county amended the ordinance to prohibit such activities outright, although it continued to permit, say, election volunteers to yell "Vote for Smith!" at passing motorists. Henrico claimed this was a distinction based on the "transactional" nature of soliciting and handbilling, which present greater safety issues.

Maybe so, said the court, but the county offered no evidence that this was a problem anywhere but a few select intersections. Besides, it offered no evidence that it tried to address the safety problem in other ways, but without success. For instance, it never prosecuted a panhandler for blocking traffic.

That decision followed by just a few days another in which Charlottesville, Virginia's panhandling ordinance also was struck down. The city had tried to keep beggars from a couple of locations on its Downtown Mall, using the same public-safety fig leaf Henrico used. Federal district judge Norman Moon didn't buy it.

"My examination of the record reflects that the City's focus was on panhandlers, and the City created an ordinance reflecting that focus," he wrote. What's more, "the City offers insufficient justification (much less a good explanation) for the fifty-foot measurement of the so-called buffer zone. There are other laws that permit the City to protect the public safety without burdening speech rights."

Both of those rulings leaned for support on the Supreme Court's ruling against buffer zones around abortion clinics in Massachusetts. Those zones allowed clinic personnel to counsel women on the street, but kept anti-abortion activists from doing the same—a flagrantly unconstitutional restriction based on the content of the speaker's message.

Anti-panhandling ordinances often amount to the same thing, especially when they exempt other sorts of speakers—street preachers, campaign volunteers, political protesters—from similar restraints. And everyone knows why: Panhandlers, who are usually homeless, often look like heck and smell even worse, and that's bad for business. As one Honolulu city councilman said regarding an anti-panhandling ordinance there, he wanted "to make sure tourists are comfortable visiting Hawaii and are not constantly accosted for money." In other words, he wanted to help Honolulu businesses rake in more money by ensuring Honolulu beggars raked in less. Nice.

Whether the laws are nice or not, however, is an ancillary issue. The principal question is whether begging constitutes free speech. Time after time, courts have ruled that it does. "There is no question that panhandling and solicitation of charitable contributions are protected speech," said the 4th Circuit last week. Two years ago, the 6th Circuit noted in a Michigan case that the Supreme Court has protected solicitation by groups, and—citing decisions in the Second, 11th, and 4th (the latter, again, concerning the Charlottesville ban)—held that individual "begging is a form of solicitation that the First Amendment protects" as well.

The Michigan case involved such appeals for help as signs reading "Cold and Hungry, God Bless" and "Need Job, God Bless," as well as the verbal appeal, "Can you spare a little change?" It's impossible to argue with a straight face that such communication is not speech—and, moreover, speech that harms no one.

Michigan claimed it wanted to prevent fraud (some homeless people use donations to buy booze and drugs, not food and shelter). In that case, the court said, the state should ban fraud. Banning all panhandling to prevent potential fraud is like banning all religious worship to prevent human sacrifice.

Of course, sometimes the people with their hands out can be downright menacing. They don't simply ask for your money, they rudely demand it. They tell you how much you have to pay. And then they threaten to make your life miserable if you don't comply.

We don't call them the panhandlers, though. We call them politicians.

09 Mar 17:54

Could Automation Be Labor Unions' Death Knell?

by Greg Jones

There's a new addition to the ever-growing list of things we're supposed to fear. On top of ISIS, Ebola, and a Yellowstone super volcano, tack on automation. The wholesale replacement of large portions of America's workforce with robotic machinery is creating Chicken Little-like headlines.

"As Robots Grow Smarter, American Workers Struggle to Keep Up," declares The New York Times; "Cheaper Robots Could Replace More Factory Workers," suggests Reuters. "What Jobs Will the Robots Take?" asks The Atlantic.

While these perceived dangers are admittedly more subtle than those that might accompany a rogue asteroid, they are worrying indeed. Automation might not wipe us out immediately, but it will almost certainly affect economies in Earth-shattering ways.

Forecasts differ on the specifics, but they generally point to automation being disruptive as far as traditional workplace roles are concerned. A recent Oxford University study put nearly half (47 percent) of all jobs at risk of replacement by automation in two decades. A Wired article puts the number at 70 percent by the end of this century.

Computers are getting smarter and stronger while employees, with their health insurance, pensions, and vacation time are becoming increasingly expensive. The writing is on the wall; plenty of jobs, at least as performed by humans, aren't long for this world.

Of course, no one knows exactly how automation will shake up the worker economy, but there will almost certainly be winners and losers. IT and creative jobs will proliferate while administrative, factory, and service employment will largely go the way of the dodo.

And for labor unions, that may very well mean that the bell tolls for thee. While unions have generally been in decline for some time, automation may prove to be the proverbial dagger through the heart.

Unions played a powerful role at one time, but with more people working from home independently and a global economy that requires 24-hour interaction, groups that demand to define when and where we can work may not be a model for modernity. In today's digitally connected world, any constraints on when people can work will almost certainly only hurt workers. The days of clocking in from 9 to 5 are all but in the rear view.

The biggest problem for labor, though, is that robots will reign first where unions tend to be strongest: manufacturing, shipping, and the service industries, and possibly even education. Anyone that has a single lingering doubt need only to Google "Kiva," the robotics company acquired by Amazon in 2012 that is increasingly responsible for its order fulfillment.

The automation revolution, it seems, has already begun; American GDP has increased by one-fifth since 2001 despite microscopic increases in labor hours and new jobs. The reason: robots. 2013 was a record sales year for the industrial variety.

The brutal irony in all of this, of course, is the fact that the rush to automation is at least partly the unions' own making.

The increased time restrictions and benefits negotiated by unions have simply made it prohibitively expensive to do business in certain areas. That's a misguided effort that continues to this day in the fight for $15 per hour wages for the country's fast food workers. This, of course, has made it easier for companies to choose innovation over human labor. What is to stop any fast food restaurant from using kiosks where customers can order for themselves? They can pay for themselves in no time and they don't take smoke breaks.

The dissolution of unions could well be a good thing for the economy. Consider the fact that nine of the fastest 12 growing cities are in right-to-work states. Then consider the state of traditional union strongholds such as Cleveland, Detroit, etc.

Right-to-work states have rapidly become the land of milk and honey for major manufacturing. From Volkswagen and Nissan (the biggest automotive plant in the country) in Tennessee to BMW and Boeing in South Carolina to Dell and Toyota in Texas, what was once farmland is now factories, far removed from the imposed costs and regulatory hurdles of the Northeast and Midwest.

While the threat of automation puts many of these jobs in jeopardy as well, the cost of these facilities makes relocation a tough sell, meaning that for the time being firms will likely stay put. The more likely scenario is an existing infrastructure to welcome the IT and engineering jobs necessary to facilitate the transition.

And it's likewise possible that in the future a new, IT-focused economy will see new labor organizations arise from typically unrepresented workers, thus restarting the cycle. Such "unions" would have likely have to take a different form considering that these computer- and technology-based fields have thus far largely failed to organize, and demand for tech-type workers is largely projected to increase. Throw in the fact that peoples' work habits will differ greatly (mainly via telecommuting and freelancing) than they did in the unions' heyday of the 1960s and 70s, and change is inevitable.

But if history has taught us anything it's that organized labor will go down swinging. In fact, the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga fought off a union coup last spring only to yield somewhat at the end of 2014. And the Boeing plant in South Carolina faces a similar threat.

But while automation makes the future uncertain, it needn't be scary—for workers who can adapt and potentially thrive with new-found flexibility and opportunity. For traditional unions, the robot future may hold a different fate.

09 Mar 17:53

The War of 1812 Dramatically Changed American People and Government

by Sheldon Richman

Part one: "How the War of 1812 Eroded U.S. Liberalism"

As the War of 1812 with Great Britain approached during the Republican administration of James Madison, the War Hawks saw silver linings everywhere. "Republicans even came to see the war as a necessary regenerative act—as a means of purging Americans of their pecuniary greed and their seemingly insatiable love of commerce and money-making," historian Gordon S. Wood writes in Empire of Liberty. "They hoped that war with England might refresh the national character, lessen the overweening selfishness of people, and revitalize republicanism." The money cost of war was dismissed as insignificant compared to national honor and sovereignty. Indeed, the war was called the "Second War of Independence." Wood quotes the newspaper editors of the Richmond Enquirer: "Forget self and think of America."

Republicans, of course, had previously warned of the dangers of war, including high taxes, debt, corruption, a big military, and centralized power. Madison himself famously said that war contained the "germ" of "all the enemies to public liberty." So now the party set out to prosecute a war while avoiding the evils they held were intrinsic to it. Republicans in Congress talked about cutting military spending even as war loomed. But it didn’t quite work out that way. In early 1812 Congress built up the army, though it—initially—decided a navy was not needed against the greatest naval power on earth. (The strengthened U.S. navy later did very well against Britain.)

The Republican Congress also raised taxes, including dreaded internal taxes, conditioned on war actually breaking out. Madison, Wood writes, "was relieved that at last the Republicans in Congress had 'got down the dose of taxes.'" Still, the government would have to borrow money to finance the war. The proliferation of government securities and new note-issuing banks followed, of course. On the connections among the war, public debt, Madison’s Second Bank of the United States, inflation, government-sanctioned suspension of specie payments, government bankruptcy, and subsequent economic turmoil, see Murray Rothbard’s A History of Money and Banking in the United States and his earlier The Panic of 1819.

Wood notes that Americans hoped the war would deal a blow to the Indians in the Northwest, who had the support of Britain and whose land was much coveted. Indian removal (extermination) was a popular government program. Moreover, "with the development of Canada freeing the British Empire from its vulnerability to American economic restrictions, President Madison was bound to be concerned about Canada."

Although Madison’s government always denied that it intended to annex Canada, it had no doubt, as Secretary of State [James] Monroe told the British government in June 1812, that once the United States forces occupied the British provinces, it would be "difficult to relinquish territory which had been conquered."

Interest in Canada was not just material. A belief in "Manifest Destiny," though the term wouldn’t be coined until 1845, was a driving force. (Acquisition of Spain’s Floridas was also on the agenda.) America was the rising "Empire of Liberty," fated by providence to rule North America (at least) and displace the worn-out empires of the Old World.

Even though the war had no formal victor and produced no boundary adjustments (U.S. forces were repulsed in Canada after burning its capital, for which Britain retaliated by burning Washington, D.C.), Americans were generally delighted with the outcome, mistakenly thinking that Madison had dictated terms at Ghent. (Wood notes that a record 57 towns and counties bear Madison’s name.) Wood writes that a group calling itself the "republican citizens of Baltimore" expressed "a common refrain throughout much of the country" in April 1815 when it declared that the war

has revived, with added luster the renown which brightened the morning of our independence: it has called forth and organized the dormant resources of the empire: it has tried and vindicated our republican institutions: it has given us that moral strength, which consists in the well earned respect of the world, and in a just respect for ourselves. It has raised up and consolidated a national character, dear to the hearts of the people, as an object of honest pride and a pledge of future union, tranquility, and greatness.

The anti-Hamiltonian Albert Gallatin, secretary of the Treasury from 1801 to 1814, said that because of the war, the people "are more American; they feel and act more as a nation." Arthur A. Ekirch Jr. reports in The Decline of American Liberalism that Gallatin admitted that (Gallatin’s words) "the war has laid the foundation of permanent taxes and military establishments, which the Republicans had deemed unfavorable to the happiness and free institutions of the country."

Madison’s restraint, however it is to be explained, ought to be acknowledged. He was an advocate of centralized government and implied powers, yet "he knew that a republican leader should not become a Napoleon or even a Hamilton," the sympathetic Woods writes. He quotes an earlier admirer of Madison as saying, the president conducted the war "without one trial for treason, or even one prosecution for libel." (Some Republicans viewed Federalists who were openly sympathetic to the British as traitors.) A more ambitious politician might have not have kept the "sword of war" "within its proper restraints." However, imperial chickens eventually come home to roost, and Madison indisputably reinforced the imperial course of his predecessors. (See my "The Boomerang Effect: How Foreign Policy Changes Domestic Policy.") Moreover, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel writes, Madison proposed conscription—only the war’s end prevented this from happening—and later a peacetime standing army to the Congress.

How the war dramatically changed America, the people, and the government is discussed at length in Dangerous Nation by Robert Kagan—the historian and prominent neoconservative thinker who advises President Barack Obama on foreign policy—and John Quincy Adams and American Global Empire by William Earl Weeks. (Unlike Weeks, Kagan approves of the war’s effects and the American empire in general; his book is marred by his wish to justify current American intervention in Europe and beyond.)

Kagan notes that the war boosted efforts to expand America westward. "Indian tribes north of the Ohio River, deprived of British support, gave up vast stretches of land in the years immediately following the war," Kagan writes, "permitting a huge westward migration of the American population.… Trying to contain American continental aspirations after the war with Great Britain, John Quincy Adams observed, would be like 'opposing a feather to a torrent.'"

Kagan notes that:

The requirements of fighting the war expanded the role of the federal government and exposed deficiencies in the operation of federal power under the old Jeffersonian Republican scheme—much as the Revolutionary War had pointed up the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. The end of the war in 1815 brought calls for augmented national powers even from Republicans.…

Madison, Jefferson’s staunch colleague in the struggle against Hamiltonian policies in the 1790s, now all but embraced the Hamiltonian system.

Attitudes toward the military also changed for reasons of national and economic security. When Monroe succeeded Madison as president, Weeks writes, a

guiding principle … in [his] effort to expand American foreign trade concerned the construction and maintenance of a formidable military force. Republicans traditionally had mistrusted large military establishments as subversive of republican institutions. Yet once again, the War of 1812 led to a reevaluation of a basic tenet of the Republican faith.

Indeed, future President John Quincy Adams, Monroe’s secretary of state and a champion of Clay’s American System, said, "The most painful, perhaps the most profitable, lesson of the war was the primary duty of the nation to place itself in a state of permanent preparation for self-defense" (emphasis added).

"Along with support for a national bank," Weeks adds, the Republicans’ new imperial principles "stood as a dramatic break with the traditional philosophy of the Republican party. The vision of a decentralized inward looking agrarian republic had been replaced by an imperial vision which reflected many of the basic tenets of the disgraced Federalist party."

It’s important to realize, Weeks writes, that "after the Treaty of Ghent the search for new markets became the explicit aim of American foreign policy."

Kagan agrees: "the War of 1812 spurred the federal government to redouble efforts to open access to foreign markets." Previously, agrarian Republicans like Jefferson hoped that commerce would not dominate America or its politics since that preoccupation would inevitably draw the country into perpetual international turmoil. But with the war, many now saw things differently. "Active promotion of commerce required further expansion of American military strength, especially the navy," Kagan writes.

In other words, America would not promote free trade by unilaterally setting a good example, as libertarians call for today. Instead, the government would aggressively open foreign markets, particularly the colonial possessions of the European powers, threatening retaliation in the case of uncooperative regimes and displaying the military card rather prominently. But "free trade" soon gave way to mercantilism, that is, special-interest economic protectionism. Weeks writes that

changing economic conditions had inspired a new vision of American empire based not on free trade but on protection of certain sectors of the economy. The shortages caused by embargo and war had led to the growth of an extensive manufacturing sector in the United States and a sizable constituency that wanted it protected from foreign competition, once peace was restored.

Revealingly, Weeks writes, the postwar American Society of the Encouragement of American Manufacturers, a pro-tariff group, boasted as members Thomas Jefferson and James Madison along with the old Federalist John Adams.

A remnant of small-government, decentralist, free-trading "Old Republicans" objected to this embrace of centralized power, mercantilism, and militarism, but their voices were fading. Against them, the rising generation of politicians saw the need for new principles. The Old Republicans’ narrow interpretation of the Constitution, the new Republicans said, should not be treated as engraved in stone. "A new world has come into being since the Constitution was adopted," said Henry Clay, chief promoter of the American System. "Are the narrow, limited necessities of the old thirteen states … as they existed at the formation of the present Constitution, forever to remain a rule of its interpretation? Are we to forget the wants of our country?… I trust not, sir. I hope for better and nobler things."

Apparently the idea of a living constitution was born much earlier than the 1950s or 1930s.

The new vision pervaded Monroe’s administration, which the continental expansionist and militarist John Quincy Adams dominated as secretary of state, and then Adams’s own term as president. (Opposition to the spread of slavery would check, temporarily, the drive for southwestern expansion, an ironic turn on Madison’s principle that "ambition must be made to counteract ambition.") As for domestic policy, in 1825, Adams’s first year in power, he called for "a national university, government-sponsored scientific explorations, the creation of new government departments, the fostering of internal improvements, and even the building of a national astronomical observatory," Kagan reports.

The "great object of the institution of government is the improvement of the condition of those who are parties to the social compact," Adams said. The government should not only provide internal improvement, such as canals and roads, but should also see to the people’s "moral, political, intellectual improvement."

Adams’s program, however, proved too much too fast for Americans. So he, like his father, was a one-term president. But eventually the American System, often propelled by foreign policy and war, would return—for good.

The lesson here is that even an apparently justifiable war can be counted on to produce illiberal consequences and precedents. The Republicans could not fight a war unaccompanied by what the Gallatin called "the evils inseparable from it[:] debt, perpetual taxation, military establishments, and other corrupting or anti-republican habits or institutions." They would sooner have squared the circle.

Moreover, the War of 1812 reinforced the executive branch’s de facto monopoly over foreign policy. Within a few years the Monroe administration—and no one more staunchly than John Quincy Adams—would defend Gen. Andrew Jackson’s invasion of Spanish Florida and undeclared war on the Seminoles, after which dissenting members of Congress could do nothing but gripe.

Randolph Bourne was right: war is indeed the health of the state.

This article originally appeared at the Future of Freedom Foundation. 

09 Mar 17:48

Report: White House knew about Clinton email scandal in August but kept quiet about it

Wow. This Clinton email scandal just keeps going. Turns out that Obama was alerted to the fact that it might be a coming scandal way back in August. So why are we just now hearing about it? Because Clinton asked the White House not to mention it....
09 Mar 17:45

AUDIT: 6.5 million people with active SSNs are 112-years-old or older...


AUDIT: 6.5 million people with active SSNs are 112-years-old or older...


(First column, 12th story, link)

09 Mar 15:46

OBAMA: I First Learned About Address 'Through News Reports'...

07 Mar 12:45

Tokyo may allow children to make noise for the first time in fifteen years

After years of relative silence in suburban Tokyo, children may soon be free to make some noise.








06 Mar 17:25

World's tiniest drone shows privacy may be dead for good...


World's tiniest drone shows privacy may be dead for good...


(Third column, 8th story, link)
Related stories:
06 Mar 17:25

DEBT LIMIT MAXED OUT IN 10 DAYS...


DEBT LIMIT MAXED OUT IN 10 DAYS...


(First column, 5th story, link)