Langer's Liberty Blog

Have You Migrated With Me?

2009-11-12T15:28:00.002-05:00

I was talking to a friend the other day who asked me, "Why haven't you updated your blog in so long?"

It's a good question - and the answer largely centers on the fact that most of what I'm up to, professionally, at least, can be found on the Institute for Liberty website (which in and of itself was redone over the summer). Of course, IFL can be found right HERE.

Politically, I'm still as active as ever - trying to strike a balance (and keep a line) between what I do for work and what I do in the context of partisan politics.

I realize that the time this blog went silent coincides pretty well with the birth of the Tea Party movement, and if you have been following what I'm up to (on FACEBOOK and TWITTER [click those links to follow me there] you know that I've been active there, especially on Twitter).

Tremendously active. I'm giving a speech in a Baltimore suburb on the subject tonight, have been talking quite a bit about the impact of the Tea Parties, and am actually writing a book about the movement itself.

And I'd thought I'd share with you, since I haven't shared it here before, my speech at the 912DC event. My numbers put the crowd count at 600,000 - but no matter how you slice it, it was the largest gathering of limited government activists in the nation's history, and far exceeded the 50,000 number originally anticipated.

A bit of background here, by the way. I had been originally allotted 5 minutes to speak, and while I normally speak "off the cuff," sometimes using an outline or the barest of notes, because of the importance of this speech, I'd actually done some serious prep work - there were messages I felt needed to be conveyed, and had gotten them, cogently and coherently, into the 5 minute limit.

But, literally, as I was stepping onto the stage, I was told by one of the event organizers that my time had been cut to 2 minutes, less than half of my original allotment! I asked, "what happens if I go over?" and was told that I'd be played off, like at the Oscars.

So here's what I was able to pull together, out of those remarks and what I felt needed to be said at that point. As you can see, I just went slightly over.

I hope you enjoyed it. And please, follow me over to the IFL page. Follow me on Twitter, friend me on Facebook. Check out IFL's Keeping Small Business Healthy Project

And thanks again for your support!

- Andrew Langer

New Piece on the RNC Chairman's Race...

2009-01-29T11:36:00.002-05:00

Been a busy winter so far - and while I should have written about our "Carbon Footprint of the Inauguration Report (which I'll put up later - but in the interim can be found on the publications page of the IFL website), I just got too buried in work.

Obviously, one of the side projects has been the race for RNC Chair, and Michael Steele has been one of the front-runners. Given the number of people running, and multiple ballots, who knows what's going to happen tomorrow.

But in the interim, here's a piece that just came out...

http://thelucidword.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/who-will-lead-the-rnc-can-the-gop-get-down-with-the-brown/

Who Will Lead the RNC :: Can the GOP Get Down with the Brown?

The GOP has a problem. Well, two. One of them has just been inaugurated with an approval rating near 70 percent—but the other is going to be just as hard to fight. You see, as former Bush speechwriter David Frum put it on NPR , the Republican Party is the “party of white America.” And in Barack Obama’s colorful new Washington, that’s just not going to cut it.

As Republicans begin their cold sojourn out of power, it’s hard to feel sorry for them. In recent years, the GOP has blocked attempts to protect civil rights and fund early childhood education, health care and urban development. Katrina ravaged on its watch. Republican power brokers have a history of exploiting racial and ethnic divides for electoral benefit. And of the 247 members of the congressional Republican caucus, none are African-American and just five are Hispanic. Similarly, at the 2008 Republican convention, just 2 percent of the delegates were black.

But, this Friday, when the Republican National Committee gathers for a vote on its next four years of leadership, members will have the chance to make their own kind of racial history, as former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, both African-American, compete for party chair.

The attempt at a new look couldn’t come a moment too soon. The 2008 election sent a message that the GOP’s 1950s decision to become the party of racial backlash is not only a moral offense, but it’s also a strategic blunder. People of color are at the heart of the predicted “emerging democratic majority.” The GOP’s slice of the black vote was pitifully small in 2008. Republicans hemorrhaged Latino support as well, losing Hispanics of all ages by a disappointing 2-to-1 margin. And Obama’s popularity with the under 30 set has meant that even the white vote can’t be taken for granted. Bloomberg’s Al Hunt surmised that “old white people are their strongest bloc, and young white people are their weakest.” The demographics will only get tougher as the McCain-Palin campaign’s favored “small town,” “real America” becomes an ever-shrinking part of the electorate.

So a mild anguish was on display at a post-election event in Virginia, held by the America’s Future Foundation (AFF), a libertarian-conservative coalition that seeks to raise a new class of Republican leaders. The December gathering of about 50 young people, mainly white men, in a private, wood-paneled room, featured bow ties, wingtips and flag pins, and was dedicated to the question: “Now What?”

The first step to recovery, of course, is realizing you have a problem. Virginia state senator and Attorney General candidate Ken Cuccinelli, speaking to the AFF crowd, didn’t have much of a strategy. But any Republican acknowledgment of the deficiency when it comes to race is welcome—as when Colin Powell announced that changing demographics will require the GOP to listen to minority communities, rather than “shouting” at them with “loaded statements” and “Republican principles and dogma.” Policy proposals that speak to minorities are even better—Donna Cahill, a Steele supporter and longtime Republican Party organizer who is black, pointed out in a recent interview, that women and minorities often benefit from GOP tax policy, and she said she was disappointed that “small businesses only came up in the campaign because of Joe the Plumber. It should have been outreach since the beginning.”
Still, “it’s going to be tough,” said a young African-American GOP activist who asked not to be identified while speaking about the imminent RNC vote. Outreach in past elections, he sighed, has “been about social conservatives in Ohio. It hasn’t been about everyone.”

A faction of right-leaning commentators and organizers has realized that the GOP needs to get down with the brown. Frum has lamented the Republican loss [5] of minorities, as well as the educated and suburban class, and he recently left the National Review to found New Majority [6], a less reactionary Republican Web magazine. Other Republicans have expressed a desire to expand grassroots outreach—via the technological savvy and, yes, community organizing that brought Obama and dozens of new Democrats to Washington. And Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam have written a book [7] specifically aimed at attracting the middle class and restoring a real “compassionate conservatism” to the Republican platform.

But the ongoing fight over who will lead the RNC seems only to underscore, rather than heal, the much-discussed schism within the party—between the aforementioned “reformers,” and “traditionalist” Republicans who think George W. Bush was not conservative enough. The traditionalists call those who want to compete for new votes “RINOs”: Republicans in Name Only. Immigration, tax policy, the scope of entitlements and environmental action are some of the issues that send these camps to war. Race only complicates the matter. Some Republicans, such as Richard Land, think [8] doubling down on culture warring with “pro-life and pro-family agendas” could pay political dividends in the same way that conservative outreach to minorities helped to pass anti-gay marriage initiatives in California, Florida and Arizona. On the other side, Andrew Langer, a Republican strategist who works with small businesses, claims that the GOP is the party of racial inclusion: “Most Republicans view race as almost ancillary,” he said.

It’s true that two black men—of very different political leanings—are among the six men fighting to represent the party of Abraham Lincoln. Blackwell is a rock-ribbed conservative who writes for the far-right Town Hall [9], belongs to the Family Research Council as well as the National Rifle Association. Steele is a moderate who helms the revived Republican Leadership Council, a centrist political action committee, alongside others like Christine Whitman, Jane Swift and Tom Ridge. But how can we forget that Chip Saltzman, another potential RNC head, recently sent supporters an e-mail making fun of “Barack the Magic Negro?” Just this week, a fake cover of USA Today began to circulate among RNC membership, with the unpleasant headline [10] “RNC Members Choose ‘Whites Only’ Chairman”—a reference to Katon Dawson, a South Carolina operative said to be the front-runner, who joined a private club that does not admit blacks. In future, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal [11] has long been cited as a plausible party leader. Other faces of color, such as conservative Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuño, Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio or former Oklahoma congressman J.C. Watts, could mount national campaigns—though Watts has said of minority candidate recruitment, “I’ve never gotten the impression that it was institutionalized.”

The three days of discussion leading up to the vote on Friday will be a key indicator as to which way the wind is blowing for the GOP. The optics of a black RNC chairman could prove irresistible to the embattled minority. Both African-American candidates are already big departures from the status quo: Blackwell “twitters” and recently used the online technology to dub himself “a new media ninja.” And, unlike many non-minority politicians, Steele “loves to talk about race,” says Lindsay Williams Grath, a white GOPAC volunteer who has worked closely with him. True to form, Steele told the conservative Washington Times that “the problem is that within the operations of the RNC, they don’t give a damn. It’s all about outreach … and outreach means let’s throw a cocktail party, find some black folks and Hispanics and women, wrap our arms around them—‘See, look at us.’ ”

That sounds like truth to power. If the Republican Party can successfully shift its focus from ethnic accessorization, to actually “look at us,” the results could be interesting. After all, the title of rising conservative leader Mike Huckabee’s new book—often heavily critical of the Republican intelligentsia—is Do the Right Thing.

The Liberty Blog's Been Mippin-ized and thus Mobile-ized...

2008-12-18T10:10:00.003-05:00

Ok - so I'm on Twitter now (and have been on Facebook since February). I happened to start following "Mippin" on Twitter, and I got the following message:

"Hi Andrew thanks for following! We took the liberty of mobilizing your blog www.mippin.com/web/getMippin.jsp?id=46466 Tell us what you think"

I think it's just awesome! Essentially, Mippin is a service which will take your blog and make it mobile phone-friendly.

So if you want to read the Liberty Blog on your mobile phone, here is the URL:

http://mippin.com/mippin46466

New Column on Blagojevich Up At Townhall.com: Where The Money Is...

2008-12-15T07:18:00.003-05:00

http://townhall.com/columnists/AndrewLanger/2008/12/14/that%E2%80%99s_where_the_money_is

That’s Where The Money Is
Andrew Langer
Sunday, December 14, 2008

With the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, the calls have come once again for reigning in the ability of wealthy donors to give money to candidates. It is almost pavlovian—the scandal breaks, and immediately thereafter the issue of donations causing corruption is raised. But those who raise this miss the point, and in many respects have it backwards. It’s not the influence of money from donors that is the problem, by and large.

No, the problem is the vast sums of money that are controlled by government, and funneling of that money to a variety of special interests. Whether it was Jack Abramoff trying to steer government appropriations, facilities or special consideration to his clients, or the lobbyists from Illinois’ horse racing industry working to get tens of millions of dollars funneled from casinos to their clients’ failing businesses, the underlying cause is the same: government has too much cash to dole out, and those who are able to game the system are going to do whatever they can to get it. As Willie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks, “That’s where the money is.”

People are outraged at the federal monies going to bail out the auto industry—no matter where you are on the political spectrum. But the problem doesn’t lie with the lobbyists for the auto industry, the problem lies in the very fact that the federal government has that much money that it feels it can “play with”. Dan Mitchell, who analyzes policy with the libertarian Cato Institute, was correct when he recently pointed out that such wealth transfers not only cost in terms of the direct impact on taxpayers. They also cost inasmuch as they prevent that money from being spent elsewhere in the economy, where it might do more good.

The auto bailout is only the latest in what has come to be termed the “fetishization of failure”. Over the summer, much was written about political leaders in Illinois deciding to reward the failure of Illinois’ struggling horse racing industry by taxing the state’s most profitable casinos. It has now come to light that Governor Blagojevich’s signature on the bill allowing for that wealth transfer was only going to come after he got his taste of the largesse. That the money was paid could only have happened because the racing industry was going to receive millions upon millions of dollars from the state itself.

Had Illinois not had the power to take money from a successful industry and give it to a failing one, then no attempt to bribe the governor would have been made. Now, this isn’t to say that the governor might not be coerced for other spoils of government, but if you limit the spoils, you limit the corruption.

What’s ironic, of course, is that this all happens in Illinois, home of the President-elect, and has come to light because of chicanery surrounding his replacement in the US Senate. Obama, elected on a mantle of change, is being sullied, early on, with the typical politics of Illinois. It is something that was predicted throughout the campaign—and it could be dismissed as isolated to the Land of Lincoln save for some disturbing reports already starting to come out of DC. The Inaugural Committee, working in concert with the DC City Government, is moving to severely restrict independent vending during the inauguration. Small vendors’ interests are being pushed aside at the behest of much-better-funded big businesses.

These businesses smell the millions that will be made during the Inauguration through government-controlled licenses, and they’re willing to spend whatever it takes to make sure they have them.

It’s not “change” you can count on. It’s government dollars, and lots of them, and the fact that those who can will do whatever they can to make sure that the money flows to them. Get rid of the government dollars, and the stink of corruption will disappear.

A Preliminary Wrap-Up, and a Video...

2008-11-07T07:40:00.004-05:00

I know some of you were looking for my post-election message - and there have been some comments regarding me and McCain. First things first, while McCain lost nationally, he did resoundingly win here on Maryland's Eastern Shore, and my primary responsibility was making sure that happened (which wasn't always a clear outcome from some of the polling numbers I saw). McCain won, and won big out here - and as I've said in the press, it's really a testament to the volunteers...

And it's a testament to the Palin pick. Palin energized the base, and I've had countless people come up and tell me that she's the reason they were coming out to vote. So, I've got a real hard time with the people from the campaign who are throwing her under the bus. I'm working on a post-mortem on the campaign right now, and may share it with you all later. Essentially, McCain failed miserably in telling his story (no, not the POW story. The "McCain as an agent for change" story.).

I'm working on a GOP-Rebuilding strategy for a friend of mine. People who heard me at The Wednesday Meeting or at Harris' Crab House the other night have gotten a preview of it. We simply don't have time to wallow in self-pity - in Maryland the 2010 race started on Wednesday, and the first test for the RNC will be the off-year elections in Virginia and New Jersey.

We've got a lot to do between now and then.

In the interim, I'd meant to link to this video a while ago - and just found out that I could embed it. It's a speech on Coalition Building that I gave at the GOPAC Summit this summer.

Recent Event Pics and Video...

2008-09-21T21:20:00.004-04:00

Thought I'd finally share some pics and videos. The first pics are from a speech I gave to the Mid-Shore League of Republican Women.

These are from the Convention itself:

Tuesday night, with Michael. The day before the speech...

The day after the speech, at the Maryland Delegation's hotel.

Mike pointed me out from the stage after he spoke (anyone have a picture of him pointing?). Here we are talking about it, and the fact that my buddy Bryan and I had hung back from the front of the crowd on the floor, because we didn't want Mike to burst out laughing.

And here is the "Drill, Baby, Drill" video. Somebody just told me they saw me on TV in Germany...

New Column Up: This Time At USNews.Com....

2008-09-12T15:27:00.003-04:00

So, I can now add USNews.com to the list of places that are publishing my stuff. I'd put the following together for National Review Online, but they dawdled a bit. US News took a look at it, and decided they wanted to put it up.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/09/12/sarah-palin-small-town-america-and-the-democrats-ongoing-arrogance-problem.html

Sarah Palin, Small-Town America, and the Democrats' Ongoing Arrogance Problem

Small towns provide real-world experience—as well as electoral victories

By Andrew M. Langer

Posted September 12, 2008

There was a map of the United States produced after the 2000 and 2004 elections, showing the presidential campaign victories on a county-by-county basis in blue and red. America was a sea of red, with clusters of blue for the most part relegated to major urban areas in the East, West, and scattered in between. The Democratic Party is an urban one, focused largely on urban problems and constituencies.

But in order to win in 2008, Democratic leaders knew that they needed to woo small-town America. The time was ripe, the theory went, with an unpopular president, an unpopular Congress, and a Republican Party that had somehow lost its way. So the Democratic machine went to work, bringing Barack Obama to places like Montana, hoping that he could build on that dissatisfaction and show that the Democratic Party cares about Main Streets across the U.S.A., no matter how rural or sparsely populated.

Which is why the attack on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and her prior experience of being the mayor of a town of 9,000, is both strange and troubling. The 2000 and 2004 electoral maps show, and political experience confirms, that America is a place of small towns. So casting aspersions on those who live and govern in Small-Town America seems to be, well, a stupid way of courting those voters.

But it also evinces a complete misunderstanding of the complexities involved with governing a small state or town, a hubris that underscores the dishonest slogans of "change" that have come from the Democratic camp. If you don't understand how public policy actually gets implemented in the real world, how can you possibly work to improve the system? If the belief is that only policy made at the federal level is complex and grants experience to the policymaker, then how can one be trusted to ensure that policies that have to be implemented at the state and local level (i.e., unfunded mandates and the like) are reasonable and limited?

The answer is, they can't. Local government comes with its own set of experience-accruing difficulties. It can be just as complex, the stakes just as high, but without the glamour that comes from being a member of the House, or a senator for two or 36 years. In fact, it has the potential to be much harder, for two reasons.

First, you're governing not just in the public spotlight but in and around and with your constituents. There is no buffer between you and the public if you're a small-town or small-county executive. When you make a decision that people don't like, you hear about it. You get phone calls, you get approached in the supermarket, people walk up to your front porch or back fence. This is just one of the reasons many local political parties have trouble at times finding people to run for office—it is tremendously stressful to be so easily accessible.

Joe Biden sees real people on the train to and from Delaware, and he sees people in carefully scheduled events in the state itself. But when was the last time that Biden made a tough vote to curtail the funding for some project affecting his constituents and then had to go do his family shopping at the local grocery store? When was the last time Obama made a decision to enact some new regulatory scheme affecting small business and got approached while he was weeding in his front yard to hear complaints about it?

These things happen in small towns. And frankly, it makes a politician a lot more sensitive to the impact of what they are doing. It lends an additional air of accountability that people like Barack Obama and Joe Biden simply don't have.

And from a practical standpoint, Obama and Biden have never had to contend with making the hard fiscal choices that small-town mayors and small-state governors have to. They've never had to balance a budget. Local officials do. Every year. They cannot go into debt. And frankly, America would be better off in the long term with more public officials in higher office who have had to grapple with keeping public books balanced.

This talking point about the population of Wasilla, Alaska, is insulting—to the millions of Americans who live in small towns, to those who have done the hard work of serving the public in governance of those small towns, and to the intelligence of all of us by trying to confuse the real issues of experience and judgment with phantom ones.

Those 2000 and 2004 maps told a story, a story with an important lesson. It had appeared as though the Democrats had learned it, but this new bit of arrogance shows that they have not.

Andrew M. Langer is the president of the Institute for Liberty.

IFL Release on Sarah Palin...

2008-08-29T15:16:00.002-04:00

Thought I'd share. Had a piece on NRO earlier this week (they'd asked me to lay out the arguments in favor of my friend Michael Steele, which I did, despite knowing he wouldn't be the nominee), but this is what we sent on on Governor Palin. It's gotten a fair amount of play - picked up on Politicker, and I'm doing a number of radio shows from here and when I get to Minneapolis this weekend. Lars Larson today (in 10 minutes or so) and Mancow on Monday, for instance. At least I think it's Monday. I'll double check.

Anyhow - Governor Palin...

Palin The Right Choice

Advocacy Group Touts Record on Reform and Small Business

Washington, DC—A national small business advocacy group applauded Sen. John McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

“John McCain needed an outside-the-box choice to really up the ante in this presidential campaign season. Sarah Palin is that, and more,” said Andrew Langer, President of the Institute for Liberty. “She’s got an exceptional record of support for small business, and has worked hard to shake up the corrupt elements preying on Alaska’s state government. When it comes to making choices this fall, the American people are going to be looking at what the candidates have actually done in their public service careers, not the empty rhetoric of campaign promises.”

According to surveys conducted by a wide variety of small business organizations, energy, health care, taxes, and regulation rank as the most serious problems facing small business today. In reviewing the proposals laid out by the Obama campaign, IFL sees them as coming up short, containing no workable ideas for reducing energy costs in the short term, no ideas for reducing health care costs without significantly increasing taxes and forcing small business into a government plan, and absolutely nothing on the regulatory front. Regulations cost the American economy more than a trillion dollars annually—translating into a nearly $8,000 per employee, per year cost for America’s smallest businesses.

“The Democrats have paid lip service to the issues of small business and government reform in the past,” Langer continued. “Both John McCain and Sarah Palin have focused squarely on the issues of ethics in government service, producing real results while Democrats throughout the nation have ignored ethical problems in their own camp. Jack Abramoff went to jail because of John McCain’s dogged efforts, while the Democrats have allowed William Jefferson to remain in Congress. Sarah Palin fits the mold of someone who shares John McCain’s values, and her policy positions fit solidly within those of the Republican base.”

IFL Senior Vice President for Policy Kerri Houston added to Langer’s enthusiasm, saying “The choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin throws McCain right over the goal line. She is the whole package—a solid yet gentle, gun defending, tax cutting, pro energy, pro life Mom with a solid supportive husband, and a son in the Army. Democrat and Independent women will crossover, Catholics who can't bear the double pro-choice democrat ticket with crossover; and evangelicals show up. Palin's pick changes everything. Obama did his thing in the Pepsi Arena—Palin is the real thing.”

The Institute for Liberty is a non-profit organization based in Washington, DC. It studies the impact of federal executive branch policies on small business and entrepreneurship. Andrew Langer is currently writing a book on these issues. Its title is, “The War on Small Business.”

My Townhall.Com Column and A Pickup in PolitickerMD

2008-07-01T20:34:00.002-04:00

I guess I hadn't shared with many of you, but a little over a month ago, I was asked to start writing a column on Townhall.com . That link can be found here:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AndrewLanger

I've gotten some great feedback for my most recent column, on the Supreme Court's decision in Heller. Some of the comments:

http://renaissanceguy.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/why-dc-v-heller-is-important/

Langer makes the very cogent point that the 9th and 10th Amendments are the key to understanding the rest of the Bill of Rights. They state that certain rights might still exist that aren’t specifically stated in the Constitution and that all powers not assigned to the central government are retained by the people or the states. That is why you and I have the right to privacy, although it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

From Bill Frist's Blog:

Andrew Langer has an article in Townhall called “The Supreme Court – Reaffirming the Founders’ Brilliance.” It is an interesting analysis of what the Founding Fathers intended, that is that the Constitution is a document which limits powers and doesn’t confer rights.

http://ivablogger.blogspot.com/2008/06/dc-v-heller.html

I had moment of clarity today when reading a Townhall article by Andrew Langer. I have known the importance of the President's power to appoint Supreme Court Justices but I just didn't understand the breadth and the depth of how important it is until today...
The well written Andrew Langer article is below.

----

On the McCain front, I got this pickup in PolitickerMD:

Langer to coordinate McCain’s Eastern Shore efforts

By Danny Reiter

Category: President, LocalTags: Justin Ready, John McCain, Andrew Langer

The John McCain 2008 presidential campaign will be adding Andrew Langer to its list of volunteer staff. Langer will be coordinating Maryland's eastern shore efforts, though the campaign has not given him an official title as of yet.

Langer is the former president of the Institute for Liberty and worked for the National Federation of Independent Business. He worked on former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign during the Republican primary and wrote Giuliani's small business policy.

In an interview with PolitickerMD.com, Langer, who hasn't begun working with the campaign, said that "talking about Senator McCain's story" would play a key role in selling McCain to voters in a state that widely trends Democrat. He also expressed the importance of deciphering "what change means to Barack Obama and what change means to Senator McCain."

Langer explained that part of his job will involve getting Republican Party leaders together to "strengthen and grow the apparatus," and "making the equation" between Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-Baltimore) and Obama. Langer explained that comparing "O'Malley's tax hikes" with Obama's policies would play a key role in the get-out-the-vote effort.

State GOP Executive Director Justin Ready told PolitickerMD.com that he supported the McCain campaign's decision to bring Langer on board. In a state that many observers call inevitably blue, Ready said Langer "can really appeal to a wide swath of Marylanders."

-----

Thanks, Justin!

I left a comment regarding the fact that the IFL gig is my current one. And on that subject - IFL's new website is up! Check it out here!

- Andrew Langer

New Logo, New Website, New Political Gig.

2008-06-19T20:07:00.006-04:00

Things have been going fairly crazy for me on this end. I've been doing lots of press for IFL (on tankers, gas prices, small business and the election), I'm giving a speech at a hearing on the DC Taxicab Meter issue tomorrow. And I've got three political projects, one of which I'm going to talk about tonight.

But first - IFL has a new logo:

Lots of discussion on this - and the general concensus was that this worked. Thanks to Saban designs. They did excellent, fast, and eminently reasonable work.

Item the 2nd:

IFL's new website is up. I now have a working understanding of HTML as a result. It continues to be a work in progress, but I think it is a substantial step in the direction Kerri and I want to take the organization. Website is still at the same address:

http://www.instituteforliberty.org

Item the 3rd:
Last Saturday, I was asked by the McCain campaign to be their Eastern Shore Regional Director. Yes, I know you're all as stunned as I was. I am honored, and when the campaign for your party's standard-bearer's calls for your help, you have to say yes. Plus, I've gotten to know the Maryland State Director rather well in recent months, as well as a number of the county directors.

So I accepted. This is a damned important election - and the other major election out here on the shore is important as well. I see this as an opportunity to help State Senator Andy Harris win his election, too.

That's about it. Lots going on!

- Andrew Langer

Noise and the Problem of Pre-Existing Uses...

2008-05-27T10:18:00.004-04:00

Being a small business advocate, I tend to look very carefully at the factors surrounding a small business' success or struggle. I've taken a particular interest in the small business climate in my wonderful, little town, and the general county itself. The little coffee shop, the Spot, that we loved and supported enthusiastically, just closed its doors - the result of a combination of many different things.

There are four sit-down restaurants in our town. One really fancy, and three very casual. Doc's is our favorite--it had been a pub/biker bar when we moved in, down near the banks of the Corsica River, in our town's historical "Wharf" area. But about a year ago, it was sold, and the new owners spent a great deal of time, energy, and resources transforming it. They've been quite successful, but success always breeds challenges - this time from a few discrete neighbors, unhappy with the uptick in traffic (and the associated noise).

The problem, of course, is that for as long as just about anyone can remember, this spot has had a bar/restaurant on it. Before it was a restaurant, it was a foundry, serving the industrial businesses that were in the wharf area. The town's unofficial historian can speak volumes about the noise of the metal kegs that were rolled down the street to the waiting ships at the wharf.

Now, I sympathize with the property owners - they want to enjoy their property. But my sympathy is minimized by the fact that they bought these houses knowing that there was a restaurant/bar within earshot. It is further minimized by their tactics, which have been (by my reckoning - and a review of the record) harassingly intransigent. Or instransigently harassing. Take your pic.

Anyhow, they're pushing for our Town Council to amend the local noise ordinance, and there was a hearing in that regard last week. I couldn't attend (we're working on some fun things with regards to state public policy), but I did send a letter. Here it is:

May 22, 2008

Frank Ogens, President

Centreville Town Council

Dear President Ogens:

I am writing to voice my support for Doc’s Riverside Grille, and the proposed changes to the town noise ordinance being suggested by Bo Oristian. I regret that I cannot be in attendance to speak on this issue personally, but I had a prior commitment. I will reiterate some of the points that I raised in the informal meeting held several weeks ago with Town Manager Bob McGrory when the initial hearing on noise issues in town was canceled.

As you may know, not only am I a Centreville resident, I am also, by profession, an advocate on small business issues, and have been for a number of years now. I specialize on the impact of laws and regulations on small business, and speak to small business owners around the country about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. I am a nationally-recognized expert on these issues, have testified before the United States Congress on them nearly twenty times, and am currently writing a book called “The War on Small Business” which lays out these challenges in detail and offers a number of solutions to them.

Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. There are, literally, millions of small firms out there, 90% of whom employ fewer than twenty employees. They provide nearly 2/3 of all new jobs in our nation. And they are the hardest hit when it comes to regulations – regulatory costs are higher for these small firms (nearly 50% higher in most cases). This is largely because they are the least equipped to handle new or unclear mandates from government at all levels – they have neither the expertise, nor the time necessary to become experts in regulatory compliance.

Because small business owners are generally doing business in the communities in which they also live, they have a genuine desire to be in compliance with the law. But what they equally desire is clarity and simplicity in those laws. This is the crux of the problem facing Bo Oristian and Doc’s Riverside Grille – an unclear, and what might seem at times like an arbitrary law, and a law that is apt to be abused by those who are unhappy with the success of Mr. Oristian’s restaurant, and the impact of that success on the surrounding neighborhood.

This is why I support Mr. Oristian’s proposals (with two suggested changes). He offers an objective standard that takes into account the realities of living within Centreville, as well as a few procedural changes that offer a realistic balance between those who wish to continue their business, while protecting those whose personal lives might be slightly impinged by the business’ operations.

If I were to make any additional suggestions, I believe that the ordinance ought to reflect the reality of the situation, such that the decibel level reading ought to be taken from inside the home of the complainant, with the doors and windows closed. Such a noise ordinance is designed to preserve the peaceful nature inside one’s home, to allow someone to relax and in all likelihood sleep. This, the validity of any complaint should hinge on the noise levels inside the complainant’s home.

I also believe that some measure ought to be taken to sanction anyone found to be leveling meritless complaints against a specific target. Any person, a small business owner or individual, who has to defend him or herself or his or her business against a complaint of this nature, expends considerable personal time and resources. A disgruntled neighbor cannot use such an ordinance with impunity, and there ought to be consequences for someone found to be abusing such an ordinance.

These are tough times for America’s small businesses. They are facing tremendous challenges: potentially declining customer bases; increasing energy and materials costs; and pressure from the government in terms of taxes and regulation. In light of these challenges, I hope that you will seriously consider what I have written here, and craft changes to the ordinance that are fair, equitable, and small business-friendly.

Once again, I apologize for not being able to be there, but I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion to you.

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Andrew Langer

Big News, Big Pick-Up...

2008-05-11T07:39:00.002-04:00

First, the pick-up...

I ran into Holly Robichaud, political consultant and commentator for the Boston Herald, in DC on Wednesday. I met Holly a few months back, and we've traded ideas a few times. I happened to share with her some of the work we've been doing at IFL, and she blogged about it on her "Lone Republican" blog for the Boston Herald:

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/lone_republican/

Excerpt: "I have been in Washington the past three days meeting with people regarding the 2008 elections. I had the opportunity to visit with the President of a new organization called the Institute for Liberty. They focus on policies that impact small business and entrepreneurship. ...I wish them the best of luck in enlightening the American public to these government burdens and getting some Congressional action on cutting needless regulations and paperwork."

Thank you, Holly! Really appreciate the note of encouragement!

But the big news?

Coming on the heels of my recent writings on the importance of the electoral college in the American system of government, I got a number of questions on how electors themselves are selected... and I didn't have ready answers. Well, now I do. Why?

BECAUSE I'M NOW AN ELECTOR!!!!!

Yesterday, I was elected by the Republicans of Maryland's 1st Congressional District to be one of Maryland's 10 Republican Electors in the upcoming presidential election this fall! I am amazed, and humbled, and tremendously honored that they've placed this trust in me.

It was a really exciting process - we gathered into our separate congressional district delegations at the Maryland Republican Convention, and I ran against three others. Each of us had to give an impromptu stump speech, and then there was immediate voting.

So, I might be able to actually truly cast a direct ballot for the President this fall!

Thanks to all who voted for me!

- Andrew Langer

LEAVE US ALONE!!!

2008-04-27T16:39:00.002-04:00

My friend, colleague, and sometime advisor, Grover Norquist, has written a fantastic book. Called Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government Off Our Money, Guns, Our Lives, it's now available from your nearby bookseller. Essentially, it's the blueprint for the vision of an America true to its limited-government beginnings.

I was fortunate enough to attend a BookTV event for Grover several weeks ago, and CSPAN has now shown it several times. I asked Grover about my Tax Day idea, and got a great response from him.

The event itself is now available at C-Span's BookTV website (link embedded there). You can find my question about 45 minutes into the presentation.

- Andrew

Happy Belated Tax Day!

2008-04-16T21:55:00.004-04:00

Busy day yesterday - so I apologize for not posting anything. But IFL had a great day, policy-wise. But don't just take my word for it. This is from Jeff DuFour, who writes the Yeas and Nays Column for the Washington Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/x-73-Yeas_and_Nays~y2008m4d16-Dear-taxpayer-thank-you-the-IRS

Dear Taxpayer, Thank You - The IRS

POSTED April 16, 12:24 AM

Would you feel better about sending your hard-earned cash to the government every April 15 if you got, say, a thank-you note in return from Uncle Sam?

Andrew Langer, president of the Institute for Liberty, suggested at a Tax Day news conference on Monday that the government do exactly that.

“We believe that the government ought to provide a receipt to each taxpayer in October of every year — a note of thanks detailing the total amount in federal income taxes paid by the filer for the prior calendar year,” Langer said. “If Americans are to really exercise their oversight roles, then the federal government has its own obligation to ensure that the populace knows exactly what they are paying. And saying thank you is, frankly, just good manners.”

He said the measure is an alternative to moving tax-filing day to October to coincide more closely with elections — an idea that has been popular on the right for some time.

As for the idea gaining any traction in Congress, Langer said his organization is going to start pushing members on the matter.
------

We did this at the Americans for Tax Reform annual Tax Day Press Conference. Here's my statement:

Statement of Andrew M. Langer, President

Institute for Liberty

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Happy filing day. I’m Andrew Langer, President of the Institute for Liberty, and with me at the podium is Kerri Houston, IFL’s Senior Vice President for Policy. IFL is an advocacy organization focusing on combating the tyrannies of government, especially as those tyrannies harm small business and entrepreneurship in America.

The power to take private property has always been regarded as, “the despot’s power.” And as income is the property of the person who earns it, the power to tax is part and parcel of that despotic power: apt to be abused and requiring the utmost care, attention, and oversight by the people.

For small business, taxes (both the complexity of the code and the amounts taken) continue to be of grave concern. The same holds true for taxpayers generally, but their ability to exercise their personal oversight is blunted by the withholding process. Withholding blunts the sting of taxation, and clouds the overall impact.

Some have called for filing day to be moved to the fall, to better link the payment of taxes with the exercise of one’s franchise rights. Perhaps if the idea of what one pays in taxes were fresher in the minds of Americans when they step into the voting booth, then many Americans who vote without a care for their tax burden might think more about the relationship between the candidates they support and what they are paying each and every year.

IFL agrees with that sentiment, but has an idea that might not be as complex as having to move filing day. If the “tax faction” truly believes that taxes are the price for living in a civil society, and ought to be the grateful obligation of a nation’s citizenry, then perhaps a note of thanks to the populace for fulfilling those obligations might be in order.

We believe that the federal government ought to provide a receipt to each taxpayer in October of every year – a note of thanks detailing the total amount in federal income taxes paid by the filer for the prior calendar year. If Americans are to really exercise their oversight roles, then the federal government has their own obligation to ensure that the populace knows exactly what they are paying. And it ought to be thankful – it’s just good manners for a thank you note to be issued.

Thank you again for coming out this morning. We would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

-----

And here is the Press Release:

Advocacy Group Calls for Federal Tax Thank You Note

“It’s Just Good Manners”

Washington, DC – At a press conference held this morning, the Institute for Liberty called on the federal government to issue a thank you note six months after taxes are filed, saying that the government ought to be thankful that the citizenry are fulfilling what many believe to be the price of citizenship.

“We believe that the federal government ought to provide a receipt to each taxpayer in October of every year – a note of thanks detailing the total amount in federal income taxes paid by the filer for the prior calendar year,” said Andrew Langer, the institute’s president. “If Americans are to really exercise their oversight roles, then the federal government has its own obligation to ensure that the populace knows exactly what they are paying. And saying thank you is, frankly, just good manners.”

IFL is an advocacy organization dedicated to what it terms the “petty tyrannies” of government, specifically those that impact small business and entrepreneurship. Its motto is “Defending America’s Right to Be Free.” Taxes remain a primary issue for small business owners and entrepreneurs, both with regards to the complexities of the tax code and the sheer burden of what they owe each and every year.

“As income is the property of the person who earns it, the power to tax that income is part and parcel of the other powers to take private property,” Langer further explained. “The power to take private property has always been regarded as ‘the despot’s power’…apt to be abused, and requiring the utmost care, attention, and oversight by the people.”

IFL believes that by furnishing people with an accounting of what they have paid in the previous year, and doing so in the weeks leading to federal election time, that individuals will be more cognizant of their federal tax burden when going to the polls. Having that burden fresh in their minds would lead them to make choices that are more “tax friendly.”

IFL is a 501C(4) advocacy organization based in Virginia.

--30--

The Republic Explained: The Electoral College

2008-04-13T22:16:00.002-04:00

I have been asked by the Queen Anne's County Republican Central Committee to pen a series of articles on American civics. I'm calling it, "The Republic Explained". The first was published last week in one of the local papers, and I'm working on the follow-up piece right now (Super Delegates). I'm thinking about going through the Bill of Rights, and a few selected amendments (the 17th, for instance), as well - and I'm also open to suggestions.

Here's the first one:

When envisioning the Republic, the Founding Fathers were mindful of a number of different things, balancing powers most especially. The founders were distrustful of centralized power, and recognized that competing interests would require that the demands of a majority group be weighed against the impact of those demands against the rights of a minority group (political or otherwise). Thus, we are not a pure democracy, but a representative republic—and, the American Electoral College was born out of those precepts.

One of the challenges to the Republic, the founders knew, would be the inherent conflict between the interests of rural Americans and those who lived in cities. Different things are important to people living in farming communities than to those who live within urban centers—there are different public policy priorities, at the very least, and possibly different sets of values and societal mores. But in a pure democracy, regions with the highest populations would drive the public policy agenda, potentially sacrificing the interests of those in rural or desolate regions on the altar of the regions with the most people.

When it comes to the Chief Executive, in charge of enforcing the laws passed by Congress, it becomes that much more important. The founders didn’t want the selection of the President to be by “urban center fiat”, so they devised a mechanism to level the playing field. It is akin to how the World Series is played: it isn’t decided in one single game, or which team scored the most runs in a series of different games. It is broken down into a “best of seven” contest, leveling the playing field by allowing each time numerous chances to score incremental victories.

As initially envisioned, each state gets a number of votes equal to the sum of the number of House members plus the number of Senators. That way, even the states with the smallest population have a minimum of three votes, and are thus equalized. Moreover, when combined, the electoral votes of these smaller or less populous states could challenge or overcome the electoral votes of larger and more populated ones. Thus, the common interests of more rural states could be effectively aggregated, and their rights protected.

Each state is allowed to select its electors in its own way. Generally, states assign electoral votes based upon who wins the popular vote in each state (I’ll leave the complexities of voting for individual electors, faithless electors, etc, for another time). In recent years, some states have considered changing their procedures, some opting for an approach which divides electoral votes based upon the percentage of the popular vote – so instead of a “winner take all” method, one candidate might get two thirds of the electoral votes, another candidate only one.

Because of the 2000 election, and the possibility that a candidate who wins the popular vote might still not win the presidency because he failed to attain the electoral college votes needed, some individuals (and their states) are pushing for comprehensive reform. Some want to move to a purely popular vote, and some, like Maryland, want to move to a system in which the state assigns their electoral votes to the person who attains victory in the popular vote on a nationwide level.

Both, however, would undo the protections laid out by the founding fathers, and ultimately harm, rather than protect, the citizenry. Maryland is but one state of fifty in the union, and like every other state is unique in its character, history, and citizenry. Our state has different priorities, even from its neighbors on each and every side. Sure, we have a great deal in common, but we have tremendous differences.

It is because of those differences that we might wish to place our votes differently than Virginia or Delaware or Pennsylvania, not to mention California, Utah, and Washington state. We ought to have a right to make our voices directly heard in the process, not simply caught up in the din of 100 million votes cast!

The fact is, in the 2000 election, the mechanism laid out by the founders worked precisely as they envisioned that it would. There was a stark contrast between the issues of import to urban Americans and the issues that were important to rural Americans, and their electoral choices can be seen on maps identifying county-by-county how Americans voted. Ultimately, the rights of those rural Americans were protected by the Electoral College

In Liberty,

Andrew Langer

Honoring The Conscience of a Movement

2008-04-10T21:20:00.002-04:00

Andrew Langer with RJ Smith

Everybody involved in politics and policy needs people who stand behind them. And I don’t just mean for support – I mean people who sit there and question what they’re doing, the positions they take, the issues they either work or don’t work on, how far they’re willing to push. A Jiminy Cricket, in essence.

For me, one of those people has been Robert J. (“RJ”) Smith. RJ is, in my opinion, the academic dean of the property rights movement. The movement has its firebrands, like Chuck Cushman. It has its tacticians, like Ron Arnold. It has its field commanders, like Mike Hardiman.

But RJ has been the movement’s historian, the conceiver of many of its tenets, the engineer of the bedrock principles. And I was fortunate yesterday to attend a ceremony honoring RJ for his years of service to the movement. The event, sponsored by CEI, the Heritage Foundation, and the National Center for Public Policy Research, took the opportunity of “Private Conservation Day” to bestow upon RJ a lifetime achievement award.

Of course, Private Conservation Day is a holiday conceived by RJ himself. Recognizing the near-monopoly on environmental philosophy that the statist-left has, and how April’s Earth Day perpetuates that near-monopoly, RJ thought that the time had come to create a day that would recognize the essential role private property, and private property rights, play in environmental protection. The day he selected was April 12 – the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, one of the first proponents of harnessing the power of private property rights in both preserving and conserving our natural heritage.

Rather than give you a bland recitation of RJ’s history (which would pale in comparison to the stirring recount given by Myron Ebell at yesterday’s event), I’d rather give a testimony as to what RJ Smith has meant to me.

I first met RJ while I was a fledgling member of the property rights movement, working as a reader for Roger Marzulla, a blind attorney and one of the best property rights lawyers in the country. It was pure serendipity that I came to be in Roger’s service, as what I learned while working for him set the stage for what was to come in my life down the road.

We were working on Endangered Species Act reform then, and when I went to work for Defenders of Property Rights, I started working with RJ more directly on a host of other issues as well. RJ was one of the people who taught me about the destructive nature of the ESA, and how that law’s backwards principles actually serve to harm more species than they help.

It was when I started working at CEI that we began to really discuss the future of the property rights movement more directly, voicing concerns about a host of internal and external pressures that could have had a devastating impact on that important force for change. RJ conceived of Private Conservation Day, and I set about to write a resolution for members of Congress to sign (the one signed by the late Congressman Helen Chenoweth Hage was on display yesterday).

But it was after I let CEI that RJ had his greatest impact on me. I had been contemplating putting together a working group on property rights in DC, to strategize for both the near and long term. Because of my relatively-new job, I’d put that working group on the back burner. But RJ became seriously ill, and that moved me into action. I knew that any working group’s success would hinge in no small measure of the counsel of RJ, and so we needed to put it together. And we did. Some of the work of that group is still being used by Congressional staffers, from the “Omnibus Property Rights” bill concept, to smaller portions of that (like the call for a full inventory of federally-owned lands, again being considered by Congress this spring).

When other things took precedence over the property rights issue on my agenda, RJ was constantly there, pushing, in that inimitable way that only RJ Smith can. For all his academic vigor and his western upbringing, sometimes the brusqueness of his New York tenure can shine through (and those of you who know him know the off-color phrase to which I refer). “Langer,” he would say, “I hear you’ve abandoned us.”

Of course I hadn’t. And RJ knew it. But he knew that property rights are one of my greatest passions, and that I needed a bit of a nudge from time to time to bring me back.

Yesterday, RJ inspired me once again. He mentioned one of my pet issues, something I haven’t written or spoken on in several years (take a look at my speech to the Property Rights Foundation for America’s Conference in 2003, I believe): the Private Lands Pledge. Much like the taxpayer protection pledge conceived by my friend, Grover Norquist, and put out by Americans for Tax Reform, this would be a resolution for elected (and, frankly, executive branch officials) to sign, stating that there would be “no net loss of private lands”.

I’ll write more on this later, but to summarize, while I want us to consider disposing of certain public lands (after we get an inventory, we can get a real handle on exactly what we owe), at the very least we have to stop acquiring new lands. Or if we’re going to acquire new lands, then we need to dispose of a commensurate amount, acre for acre.

This will be an issue the Institute for Liberty will work on. No two ways about it. I could honor RJ with more flowing praise here, but for him, deeds have always been louder than words. And this way, he knows that I haven’t abandoned the movement.

Congratulations, RJ. Thanks for doing what you do, thanks for doing what you have done, and thank you for providing us with the inspiration to carry on your hard work for years to come.

- Andrew Langer

Godspeed, Charlton Heston.

2008-04-06T15:41:00.003-04:00

One of my favorite movies when I was a boy was "Planet of the Apes." Actually, I was a fan of the entire series - I used to love it when WABC (Channel 7 in New York) would run "Planet of the Apes" week on their 4:30 movie (anyone remember the 4:30 movie? Here's the intro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2es-lfRSDOI)

So, it's with great sadness that we note the passing of Charlton Heston - fighter for conservative causes, champion of individual rights, and actor in a number of my favorite films.

I'd never seen "The Omega Man" until a few years ago, but it remains high on my list of favorite campy 70s movies. Yes, I do like those post-apocalyptic forays (Road Warrior, The Postman, The Stand, etc) - and Heston's "Robert Neville" is an intellectual zombie-slayer of the highest order (played very differently, but no less-admiringly, by Will Smith in the recent remake).

Heston's earnest, optimistic, anti-luddite Neville could be thought of as an allegorical representation of modern conservatism, pushing hard against the forces trying to undo centuries of progress. Perhaps he's the ultimate "rugged individualist"?

In any case, if you haven't seen "The Omega Man" - do so. Here's the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBRjWl9CRA

Safe travel, Mr. Heston.

Defending America's Right To Be Free

2008-04-02T21:51:00.003-04:00

I promised a big announcement late last week.

Here it is:

After 6 years, I'm leaving NFIB at the end of this week. Yes, it's true. Some of you have heard the rumors, other have heard it directly from me. It's been a wonderful run, but a great opportunity was presented to me, and I simply can't pass it up.

Jason Wright, founder of an organization called the Institute for Liberty, approached me a little while ago, along with my old friend, Kerri Houston. Jason, who has written a number of books (one of which is being turned into a movie), was cycling out of IFL, and Kerri had shared with him some of my thoughts about needed entities in the policy world. So we sat down and chatted, and Jason asked me if I would like to take over as President of IFL.

How could I not?

IFL has, up until now, been largely focused on tech policy. We're going to be refocusing and rebranding the organization, dealing with what I call the "petty tyrannies" of government: the little things that add up to very big things over all, and impede, frustrate, and kill small businesses in America. IFL will be about the intersection, mostly, of federal executive branch policy and small business and entrepreneurship, building on the work that I have been doing for the last 6 years at NFIB. It is a perspective that is very much needed in this community, and I hope to lend it.

For those of you who know me, you know that I have relished my job at NFIB. Fighting on behalf of America's small businesses at NFIB is a real passion for me. At IFL, I will carry on that work, dealing with a wide variety of issues, including what I call the "incremental nature" of regulation, something few, if any, are talking about.

Here is a mock-up of the logo. We're still tinkering with it. The motto is right up in the title: defending America's right to be free. We're also working on a website rebuild. If you want to see what we have right now, the url is http://www.instituteforliberty.org

What's great is that I can get back to, in my guise as President of the Institute for Liberty, of updating my blog on a regular basis (you'll notice, by the way, that while we're still langrrr.blogspot.com, I have changed the blog title to "Langer's Liberty Blog". That was a conscious decision.).

I'm also writing a book, "The War on Small Business" (and looking for great stories from real small businesses).

So that's what's been happening. To me, this is a big change. I've loved my time at NFIB, but am really excited about the challenges of running this organization.

And I look forward to sharing a lot of it with you.

- Andrew Langer

Changing Politics As Usual

2008-03-30T08:17:00.003-04:00

There's a local blog out here on the Eastern Shore, the Sentinel Whispers (source: a great quote from my favorite of Shakespeare's plays, "Henry V"). I won't comment on the substance of the blog, but it is very much reader-driven, and the "Gatekeeper" will post just about anything. That blog can be found here:

http://www.sentinelwhispers.com/

Recent discussion about speed cameras in Maryland. As you can imagine, I'm not a big fan (I've written about my lead foot before), and I think they're a bit of a cheat (incidentally, I'm developing this theory about anti-radar detector laws being a potential violation of the 4th Amendment, but more on that as I flesh it out).

Anyhow, my local state senator, EJ Pipkin, voted against the cameras (good for you, EJ!), and there were some comments about it. John Morony wrote in, there were some comments in opposition, and, well, here's my response...

Gatekeeper -

Two attempts have been made to deflect the defense of Sen. Pipkin by ignoring the substance of the post, and instead to diffuse it by calling into question the motivation of the author based on who he is married to.

That's "politics as usual" - to not engage in the actual issue, but instead to play this game of personal character assassination.

There's a logical fallacy in that (actually several, but let's focus on the primary one). It's called "argumentum ad hominem" (argument to or against the man) - a personal attack in an attempt to discredit that person's argument.

If the posters have issue with what John Morony (or Mr. Brandt from Centreville) have said, then they ought to focus on what they _SAID_, not who they _ARE_ or, even more ridiculous, who they are _RELATED TO_!

Andi and John Morony are my good friends and neighbors. And for the record, Andi Morony has never been on the Republican Central Committee (RCC). She is President of the Queen Anne's County Republican Club, and active in a variety of other Republican organizations both here on the shore and in the state generally.

And the operative phrase in that sentence is _ACTIVE_.

My friend and colleague Bob Foley hits it on the head: now is the time for those who talk the talk to walk the walk.

If you want to change "politics as usual" then you need to get involved. It isn't going to change simply because you wish it to be so. You have to make a commitment, get involved, and work hard to see those changes made.

We have a vibrant Republican presence in Queen Anne's County. We just had John McCain's Maryland Chair out for a presentation on the campaign, we're working on having Grover Norquist from Americans for Tax Reform out to talk about his new book, "Leave Us Alone", and we've got social events scheduled for the spring and summer.

And we're looking for people who want to do that hard work to join us.

- Andrew Langer,
Centreville, MD

Small Business And Energy

2008-03-29T14:44:00.003-04:00

As I mentioned the other day, I get asked to participate in a lot of debates in my job. Very frequently, the subject is energy and the environment. Unless my debate opponent and I know each other and have done a debate before, I'm invariably surprised by something my opponent says (no doubt they're surprised by something I might say, too).

A lot of times, these surprises come because the person really doesn't understand the difference between small and large businesses, or really doesn't understand the practical impact of what they're proposing in the real world.

I talk to small business owners. A lot of them. About a lot of different things. And these days, energy is on a lot of their minds. I got a phone call just the other day, for instance, from an AMISH small business owner, about the concerns he's having regarding energy costs. Let me tell you, if a member of the Amish brethren is so concerned about a subject that he or she actually goes to the trouble of making a phone call, then there's really something going on.

So I get a bit troubled when people discount the impact of policies that will drive up the cost of energy, or people who don't think that such policies will harm small business owners.

But my position can be summed up in this clip from Northeast Public Radio. I come in at 3:12.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1243308

I'm on for about a minute of the 4 minute piece.

Come And Watch Me!

2008-03-28T06:51:00.003-04:00

As mentioned, I've got a couple of multi-media pieces online now. A few weeks ago I was invited to address the national Regulatory Fairness Hearing put on by the SBA's National Ombudsman for Small Business. I've done this several times before, and am always honored to be asked. The Regulatory Fairness Program is one of the most valuable tools in the small business arsenal, and I think too many people are unfamiliar with it (which is why I'm always talking it up).

The entire hearing can be found here:

http://www.sba.gov/aboutsba/sbaprograms/ombudsman/OMB_LIVE_BROADCAST.html

But I edited my portion out, and that can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEmdtbxVUuc

Hope you enjoy it!

Oh, and more preparations are being laid out in advance of my bid announcement next week... Stay Tuned!

- Andrew

A Question About Federalism...

2008-03-26T21:42:00.002-04:00

Watch this space for upcoming news. Big announcement in just over a week. In the interim, I've got a couple of links to offer (a speech I gave a few weeks ago, for instance, as well as an interview on the EPA's new ozone regs). I'll give those over the next few days.

As many of you know, I do a lot of speaking. And one of the great joys in my job is when I speak to student groups. Since 1999, I've done several debates a year for a group that brings in Jewish high school students to DC, and I've started doing debates for the CloseUp foundation, which I'm enjoying. I had a great time at the Students for Liberty conference last month, and plan on getting more involved with that organization.

I've also had the privilege of hosting student groups at my office, to discuss lobbying, small business, and my limited-government views on public policy. Frequently, I've heard from a number of these students afterwards - several of whom I've become a mentor to. I'm happy to give advice, even to students whose political views diverge sharply from my own, and answer questions from them.

I was pleased when I got such a question today from a student who had been a part of one of these seminars a few weeks ago. She'd mentioned her own libertarian views, and asked some fundamental questions about her own discussions in school, and honestly I had so much fun putting together a response today that I wanted to share it with you all.

Here was her question:

Hello Andrew,

As far as your inquiry about the
problems I have experienced in school, most of my problems arise when
discussing the Constitution and big government. I am of the personal
belief that the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government only
certain powers and those powers are enumerated in the Constitution.
However, many people that I go to school with believe that the federal
government can do whatever they please as long as it is not explicity
forbidden in the document. I believe that this infringes on people's
rights and the government is overstepping its bounds. In my opinion,
the federal government has become too big and is constantly in
everyone's business - this kind of conversation leads to some pretty
heated debates at school! However, I do enjoy the debates and I learn a
lot from them, but it is always nice to be surrounded by someone who has
similar views to myself because I have constantly been in the minority
at school. I won't bore you with other debates that I have encountered
throughout my educational career, but that gives you a sense of what I
am dealing with. I'm curious if you ever had to deal with similar
situations while you were in school and how you handled them because any
advice I can get to alleviate some of my frustrations would be most
appreciated! :) - Rachel H.

My response:

Rachel:

It's funny - I was actually saying this at the Students for Liberty
conference (and I don't know if they have a website - they do have a
facebook group). I envy college students who are certain of their
libertarian/limited government beliefs and are so knowledgeable about
them. I didn't really understand my views of government until a few
years after college - I had vague understandings of freedom and the
protection of rights, and was always a bit hawkish, but I didn't really
have a name for those libertarian values until later.

And William and Mary was an odd place because, at the time, many of the
students were conservative/anti-statist/jeffersonian.

But in the end, in those debates that you're having in school, rest
assured that you're in the right. Though there has been an expansive
interpretation of the federal government's powers under the commerce
clause over the last 150 years, in the 90s the Supreme Court began to
sharply rein in those powers (take a look at the Lopez and Printz
decisions, as well as the high court's decision in SWANCC (Solid Waste
Agency of Northern Cook County)). And my favorite, of course, is New
York v. United States, a 1992 Supreme Court federalism case.

The Constitution lays out the specific powers of the federal government.
The founders thought it important to reiterate the limitations on
federal power by appending the Bill of Rights. And it is all summed up
in the 9th and 10th Amendments: all that is not surrendured by the
people is retained, simply because certain rights are not enumerated
doesn't mean that they don't exist, and anything not ceded to the
federal government is reserved to the states or to the people
respectively.

The High Court says that the 9th and 10th Amendments are "tautologies" -
a reiteration of something that's already understood (again, from New
York V. United States).

One of the debates I've gotten into recently (and I've been doing
debates in front of high school students on the traditional "liberal
versus conservative" ideologies, though I tend to frame it as a "big
government versus small government" debate), is this issue of whether or
not "the government is us". The idea is that as conservatives or
libertarians attack government, they forget that government IS the
people, so in essence they're attacking themselves.

My response is two-fold:

a) when government gets too big for the people to effectively control,
it no longer is reflective of the true will of the people. It is an
entity unto itself, with too many individual players serving to build
their own fiefdoms of power, power that has a direct impact on some
segment of the real "people". The High Court is no longer the check on
unfettered government power that it once was (with a few key exceptions
- several mentioned above), and in fact has endorsed an expansive
interpretation of deference to federal agencies. So while the "people"
may have one interpretation of "navigable water of the United States" in
mind, the agency has deference to interpret that to mean that a patch of
dry land in Nevada can be considered a "navigable water of the United
States" (of course, what they can regulate _WAS_ ultimately curtailed by
the high court. On the other hand, the EPA has been looking for ways
around that decision).

A big, uncontrollable government is prone of mischief, no matter which
party is in power. Is the Patriot Act that much different from the
COINTELPRO of LBJ/Nixon?

b) And even if the people demand that the government grow, the
Constitution lays out strict rules that are supposed to be followed.
The people could demand that private property be seized from landowners
and redistributed, but the Constitution says that power is limited.
Private property can be taken, provided that it is for a legitimate
public use, that due process is accorded to the property owner, and just
compensation is paid. The people could demand that a law be passed
outlawing the burning of the American flag, but the Constitution says
"no."

Just because the people want something doesn't mean that it has to be
done. "The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions." -
again, New York v. U.S. (yes, I love that case. It's all in there.).

-------------------

Just wanted to share all that with you.

- Andrew Langer

Merry New Year!

2008-01-06T11:10:00.001-05:00

So, when last we left things, I was commenting on Paul Feiner's race to be Greenburgh Town Supervisor once again - specifically, the typos in his campaign literature. Mr. Feiner's been back in the news recently, and I'm going to dedicate a specific post to that (the fact that Greenburgh has the 3rd highest property tax rates in the nation is worthy of comment by itself. Mr. Feiner's response to the problem of retirees with huge tax bills makes it an imperative.)

But I thought it was important to give a brief update. I was at a wedding this weekend, and was taken to task by a number of friends who have been disappointed with me for not updating my blog more regularly. I explained why, but promised to do what I can to be more regular about it.

In any case, before I start talking about what's going on, I want to wish all my readers the Happiest of New Years, the Merriest of Christmases, The most hallowed of Hannukkahs, the Koolest of Kwanzaas, and the fabulousest of Festivuses.

And now, the update:

1) I was up on the Hill again, submitting testimony. I can't go into direct details, but more can be found here:

http://tinyurl.com/2wbuv3

The testimony itself can be found here:

http://tinyurl.com/2csqfg

And here's a pic....
In other news... well, well let another picture speak first:
Many of you know that I've been on board with Mayor Giuliani's campaign for quite sometime (nearly 18 months). As a native New Yorker, it seemed like a natural fit, and I've been a fan of the Mayor's since he spoke at Fieldston many years ago. I think he represents the best chance of victory for the GOP in November of 2008, as he's one of very few candidates who can cut across party lines and make the GOP race for the White House a national one again. He makes the Democrats fight in places they haven't had to fight for in just sometime.

I've been advising the campaign, raising money, wrangling bodies. It's been a tremendous amount of fun, and I've been eager for the primary season to really kick into high gear.

More on all that as it develops.

I'm also working with my good friend, State Sen. EJ Pipkin, with his primary race in Maryland's 1st CD. His information can be found here:

http://www.pipkinforcongress.com/

Well, my plane's about to leave, so I'll stop here.

I want to wish all of you a wonderful 2008!

- Andrew Langer

Object Lesson #435… Campaign Materials and The Importance of Proof-Reading

2007-09-17T11:07:00.001-04:00

Yes, I know it’s not the 435th object lesson on this blog, it’s the 2nd, but I didn’t want to draw attention to the fact that I’ve only had two object lessons here on the blog.

That being said, I’m not going to go back and re-hash the importance of object lessons – the point is, the more hands-on, personal, and experiential the lesson is, the more it will be driven in.

Today, we’re going to talk about campaign materials. The most important lesson I’ve ever learned about campaign materials (no, it wasn’t an object lesson) was from a woman named Megan Owen, a close friend from William and Mary who later went on to be one of the youngest Democratic political strategists in Virginia history (she may have been the youngest person to ever manage a House of Delegates Campaign).

Megan’s lesson to me one late-summer day, as we were driving through Northern Virginia and looking at the veritable seas of campaign signs, was all about the point of those signs. Generally, they’re to be used where people are driving by, and their entire purpose is to hammer in name recognition. So, they’re not to be cluttered with text, and should simply have the name in the biggest, boldest, most-legible letters possible (preferably with high contrast).

That lesson comes back to me around every election season, because I invariably see a sign that violates these rules. Either there’s too much text, the name is too small, there’s no contrast, etc… In any case, the message isn’t delivered…

For instance, one of my favorites was for a local candidate on the shore, Carol Fordonski. The way her signs (including her bumper stickers) were done, it looked like her name was Carol, and she was running “for Donski” – as though “Donski” were elected office, and Carol was her last name.

There’s also the issue of being careful with your message and your rhetoric – you never want to say something so, well, impolite would be a soft way of putting it, strident might be better… that if something were to go horribly wrong, that message wouldn’t come back to haunt you.

A good example (and I wish I had a copy of it handy) was a piece of literature sent out in opposition to Senator Paul Wellstone’s position on the estate tax (better known as the “death tax”). This piece of literature happened to have an image of a tombstone on one side (symbolizing the death of the “death tax”) and a picture of the senator on the opposite side.

And it happened to be dropped in the mail the day before the late senator’s plane crashed, killing him. So as the state was in mourning over their loss, thousands of people received this piece of campaign literature in their mailboxes. That organization had quite a bit of ‘splaining to do as a result.

Finally, there’s the most basic issue of campaign literature – and it’s the lesson we were taught when we were first having to write book reports for school: proof-read your work! We’re exhorted to assiduously check resumes for typos, because nothing stands out more or makes a resume more certain to be tossed than a glaring typographical error. It’s especially true when you’re someone making a point about education (like the time the DC Teachers’ Union paid for an ad on the sides of busses that contained a glaring grammatical error).

I was home in New York over the weekend, and happened to notice that there’s a fairly tense race for control of the Greenburgh Town Board happening. Paul Feiner, the 16-year incumbent, is in a contentious fight to remain Town Supervisor, and there are dueling signs all over the place: Feiner’s “I’m With Paul” signs in green, and his opponents’ “I’m with so-and-so, and they’re with me…” signs in red.

And because I’ve got an academic interest, I picked up the latest pamphlet sent out to my parents from Mr. Feiner… and I was aghast as I picked up a typo. Then another one. Then a third, and a fourth (and my wife’s keen eye found a fifth).

I’ve scanned in the pamphlet – and here it is (click to enlarge):

I’ll admit that the typo in the 4th paragraph is probably a bit nit-picky on my part, but the others? Well, to me there are a couple of messages that this sends to the voters:

- Possible desperation (ie, the race has been so taxing that this last-ditch piece of material had to be sent out quickly and couldn’t go through the right review);
- A lack of caring for detail (that the voters wouldn’t be savvy enough to notice);
- That Feiner is too tired, or has been in office for too long to either notice or care.

All in all, none are good messages to send.

Neither is this one, for that matter. It’s not a typo, but I circled it because I found it both outrageous and foolish: “We will fairly evaluate every decision – welcome your input and vote our conscience.”

It seems to me that if you’re going to fairly evaluate every decision and welcome the public’s input, then voting your conscience shouldn’t even be an issue. In fact, it says to me that what you’re going to do is ignore the input of the voters, or at the very most give it a cursory glance.

I believe Edmund Burke (as well as countless others) was cast out of office for that very admission: if you’re not going to listen to the voters and “vote your conscience” then you run the risk of being voted out of office in favor of someone who will.

Listen, I’m not immune from typos (a number of people have pointed them out here). Nor am I immune from making stupid statements. But when the stakes are highest, I do take the care to check my work—and it’s a lesson that veteran pols should know all too well. Campaign pieces such as this are akin to resumes - and if you're trying to impress someone to either hire you for a new job or retain you in your current one, then double-checking your work is of the highest priority.

And if they don’t, they’re foolhardy if they think the voters won’t notice, or care.

- Andrew Langer

Allez Cuisine!!

2007-08-26T08:59:00.000-04:00

This morning's nice anonymous note reminded me that I wanted to post about my recent victory... I am now "Iron Chef: Eastern Shore Sweet Corn"!!!!

We had our Republican Club picnic last week (in addition to being on the Central Committee for Queen Anne's County, I'm also treasurer of the Republican Club). The QAC Republican Club has been tremendously active in the past year - doing at least one event each month (generally alternating between the purely fun and social and the fascinatingly fun and educational), working to strengthen and grown the base.

This month, it was the Summer Picnic, which was a great success. We had a bunch of people gather in Mowbray Park on Kent Island, we had a roast pig (from It's The Pits, which is, as far as I'm concerned, the preeminent barbecue outfit in the region. The pig was fantastic, and I think their brisket is the finest north of Texas), we had a bluegrass band.

And we had an Iron Chef competition. This is something we'd been discussing for a few months - and Deanna Couch and I have been trash-talking (in a fun way, obviously) since we decided that this was going to happen. The "secret" ingredient was Eastern Shore Sweet Corn - which had to arrive onsite in the husk.

Barb Pivec also joined in the fun.

What complicated things, obviously, was that all of this had to be done in the great outdoors, which meant I had to schlep my key kitchen tools from the house, plus get a portable stove and a new small grill.

Here's the pic:

It actually was a fairly straightforward proposition -we had the picnic table as the prep area (corn to be husked and broken down at the far end, meats to be prepped at the near end, plating on the opposite side of the table). You can see the corn at the far right of the picture, and below the cooking table is my cooler bag.

I'd given a lot of thought to what I could make. I've got this great corn fritter recipe that I love, and had considered a corn/crab fritter napoleon BLT (actually, the more I think about that, the more I like the idea...). I'd also considered a corn and heirloom tomato gazpacho. But sometimes the fritters can be tricky - especially with a new stove. As I'm fond of recounting - what happens when you add corn to hot oil? It pops. And I've gotten some serious burns from not being as cognizant of that possibility as I ought to be.

And I dismissed the gazpacho, because I didn't know what the electricity situation would be.

So, I decided to pull from my repertoire. I've been making this really fantastic creamed corn dish for the last year or so - very simple (6 ingredients, including the corn, and the most amount of time in the recipe is spent frying bacon and prepping the corn). Speed is crucial in this competition, and so simple and quick is better. I decided to supplement the dish with andouille and MD blue crab meat, and make it into a cajun creamed corn dish called "Maque Choux".

The theme for my dishes would be "Red, White, and Blue": red for the heat, white for the sweet corn, and blue... well, in this dish the blue was the blue crab.

I'd initially considered making it with cajun tasso (a spiced ham), but couldn't find tasso in the DC area. Andouille would have to do.

The second dish was a little more complicated, but not much: Pork and Corn Tacos al Pastor with an Ancho Mole Barbecue sauce. This dish required a few extra steps: rubbing and grilling the boneless, country-style pork chops, letting them rest and cool, then chopping them up into a small dice, sauteeing them with their barbecue sauce (which was made on the stove). Then I had to put them in blue corn tortillas (see? That's the blue in this dish!), and fry those up.

But it all came together - I even got the dishes plated and done with three minutes to spare. If I had to do it all over again, I probably would have omitted the blue crab meat from the maque choux - honestly, it was a bit distracting. And I might not have gone through the trouble of finding the blue corn tortillas (which were a real pain the patoot to find...).

And I won!!!! It was a squeaker, to be sure - Barb Pivec made this great corn salad, and a corn chowder with corn fritters (she had a bit more control over her's than I've had with mine). And De Couch made a very elegant and basic grilled corn, as well was an even-more-elegant, but more complicated "individual clam bake". It was very cool - each foil pouch had a clam, a shrimp, a piece of corn, and a slice of kielbasa. There was a wine-broth steam source, and each pouch was wrapped and steamed on the grill.

As I said, very cool.

Here I am serving up my dishes to some of the attendees. On the table is the saute pan with the Al Pastor meat. You can see the blue corn tortillas on a plate in front of the cast iron pan. And the remnants of the maque choux are in the pan on top of the grill.

You might notice that I'm wearing a uniform shirt from Ben's Chili Bowl (I need to see if I've ever dedicated a post to Ben's...). One of my buddies, Nizam Ali, was kind enough to loan me one of the staff shirts for my competition. It brought me the good luck that I'd hoped it would.

It was a great deal of fun, overall. I'd love to do it again.

If you want the recipes, let me know...

- Andrew Langer

- Andrew Langer

It's Been A Very Long Time...

2007-06-30T16:42:00.000-04:00

Wow. The Liberty Blog's 2-year-anniversary came and went, and yes, I know it's been three months since I've updated.

Here's the deal. Many of you know that for the first five months of the year, my wife was deployed overseas. That meant that I was here, single-dadding if for my kids.

As you can imagine, my time was at a premium. With a full-time job to contend with (they were great about it), plus my associated activities, it left precious little time for me to work on the blog.

Why didn't I bring this up earlier? Well, for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which was operational security. I simply didn't want to mention, even obliquely, that my wife was away.
I felt it was simply better to leave things be, and explain later on.

In the interim, a lot has happened, and I'll bring you up to speed:

1) I got promoted at work. I'm not going to say much, but suffice it to say, they're very happy with me;

2) I'm now on the Queen Anne's County Republican Central Committee. For my fans who kept score regarding the election last summer, this means that I ultimately prevailed. Here's what happened -after the initial candidates' forum last summer, and seeing the various factions involved in the election, I decided to sharply curtail my campaign activities.

Even doing very little with regards to campaigning, I managed to get 300+ votes.

I then decided to throw myself into doing the hard work of party-building anyway. I was asked to serve as Treasurer of the Republican Club, and attended all of the Central Committee meetings anyway, offering my comments when appropriate, and volunteering to assist in a myriad of ways.

When two spots opened up on the Central Committee, I applied. Due to my background and demonstrated hard-work, I was asked to serve.

3) I was nominated, and appointed, to the Board of Governors of the American Biofuels Council. This is an opportunity that came up this past spring, and I jumped for it. I've become very interested in the biofuels debate, and again given my background, experience, and expertise, felt that I have something to add to this group. Essentially, my purpose in joining is to focus the attention of the biofuels community away from biofuels derived from foodstuffs, and towards biofuels derived either from waste materials, or, more importantly (and of greater interest to me) towards biofuels derived from algae. Great strides are being made in the realms of both algae-based ethanols and algae-based bio-diesels.

That pretty much sums it up. My wife's back, safely and soundly. My kids and I survived the five-months. In fact, it was a wonderful way for me to get even closer to my kiddos.

I do apologize, as always, for the absence. And I'll be honest - I'm not sure how frequently I'm going to be updating the blog from here on out. I've got one post for the pre-4th of July festivities that I'm going to do, but my time is at an even greater premium now.

But I do know that you understand.

- Andrew Langer

Hannukah and Christmas

2007-03-13T11:01:00.001-04:00

Back in January, I happened to mention that I'd had a busy "Christmas Season". This prompted someone to comment, asking about whether or not I "supported" both Christmas and Hannukah - as though the two holidays were in conflict. I'm not sure what was meant by "supporting" the holidays, but I did talk about celebrating both of them, because I do. This prompted the following question:

"Don't know how you can celebrate X-mas and Hanukkah. Are you Messianic? Confused?"

I'd written out a comment, but decided that it was long enough to put it up here. To answer:

I'm neither messianic nor confused. You make that statement as though the two holidays are contradictory or in conflict, which, in fact, they really aren't.

Both holidays celebrate historical events. Hannukah commemorates the rededication of the Temple, and the "miracle" of the ceremonial oil lasting for 8 days when it should have only lasted for 1. This took place around 165 BC, following the defeat of the Selucids by Judah and the Maccabees.

Christmas, of course, commemorates the birth of Jesus Christ. While there is some speculation as to whether Jesus was actually born in December, it is undisputed that he was born and that he lived in Judea.

If you recognize that Christianity descends from Judaism, and that Hannukah as a celebration pre-dates the birth of Christianity as a holiday, then there is no conflict. Hannukah doesn't deny anything in Christian faith, nor does Christianity deny the celebration of Hannukah. The same holds true with other Jewish holidays: I have a number of Christian friends who celebrate Passover by participating in a seder (after all, the last supper was a Seder), and have done so for many years - some long before I knew them and some who started after having Seder with my family.

I could see some concern were I truly celebrating Saturnalia - the Roman Winter Solstice festival giving thanks to Saturn. Historically, there is a theory that the Christians chose that time to commemorate Christmas - and, in fact, there are many similarities between the Saturnalic rituals and Christmas: work and educational holidays, the decoration of evergreen trees inside homes, the exchanging of gifts. Much in the same way that modern Jews elevated a minor holiday like Hannukah (which isn't one of the big four religious holidays on the religious calendar: Purim, Passover, Rosh Hashona and Yom Kippur). The Christians wanted to have a holiday surrounding something familiar to many - likewise, modern Jews wanted their children to have a celebration like their Christian friends.

In the end, Christmas is about, as Linus Van Pelt (yes, of "Peanuts" fame) put it best: Peace on Earth and Goodwill Towards Man. See the picture above from the "Charlie Brown Christmas Special" (not "Holiday" special: an important point).

Who doesn't support a sentiment like that?

And don't underestimate the seminal importance of that special. Much like "Schoolhouse Rock", that cartoon taught a lasting lesson to the kids of my generation.

As for me, and this might be more information than I might be normally willing to share, I was raised in a multi-denominational environment where we were taught to learn about and respect other faiths. I currently live in a multi-denominational environment as well.

Knowledge and respect leads to understanding and friendship. Ignorance and disrespect lead to conflict and hatred.

So, does that answer your question?

And because we're starting in on "reading books" in our household, I have some questions for you, in "reading book" format:

1) Do you now understand why there is no conflict between Christmas and Hannukah? If not, where do you see a conflict?

2) What are the author's reasons for recognizing both holidays?

3) Tell us a bit about your faith. What holidays do you celebrate, and how do you celebrate them?

- Andrew Langer

YAAAAAAAWWWWNNNNNN!!!!!

2007-01-18T18:23:00.000-05:00

Yes, I'm alive.

No, I haven't abandoned my blog.

No, it isn't defunct (though I know there's at least one person out there desperately hoping it is).

I'm just doing my part to keep the state from upending the republic - along with all sorts of fun things on the personal front (it was a busy Christmas season).

Watch this space for an important post from Andrew Kessler, the Leftist Southpaw.

In the meantime, here I am:

Oh, and to that person who is praying that my blog is defunct, I have the following thing to say: don't think that you can operate with impunity. As I've said to you before, you might consider finally heeding your own promises and simply leave me alone.

- Andrew Langer

So What Really Happened On Tuesday, Andrew?

2006-11-10T16:07:00.000-05:00

Well, it’s been quite a week, hasn’t it?

I’ve been trying to find time to sit down and write this, but, frankly, there hasn’t been a lot of that. Time, I mean. So, it’s taken me a few days longer than I would have wanted.

Let me say at the outset, that as disappointed as I am (and, let’s face it, this isn’t good), I am actually excited, and optimistic, and not nearly as despondent as a lot of people are, and think I ought to be.

So let’s just do a quick outline here. I’m going to lay out what happened, ie, why we lost, then offer up what I consider to be some “silver linings” of this whole mess, and then make some suggestions as to where to go next.

Why am I not despondent? Well, as I’ve been saying to most of the folks who’ve called me, either to commiserate or offer condolences, it would be one thing entirely if America had woken up on Tuesday morning and had all of a sudden believed in the liberal Democratic agenda (or, should I say, the “statist” Democratic agenda). If the Democrats had offered up some sort of a “Contract with America” of their own, laid out a roadmap to getting there, and had any sort of possibility of delivering on those promises, _AND_ Americans had bought into it, then I’d be concerned.

But for the vast majority of Americans who went to the polls and “pulled the lever” (and isn’t that a metaphor in danger of disappearing from the American lexicon?) for Democrats, this isn’t the case.

No, the GOP’s losing both houses this year (and I’m going to focus on the congressional races, frankly), was entirely of their own doing. Just like it was Al Gore’s own fault that he lost in 2000 (in that case, he squandered the overwhelming popularity of a Presidency, ran a lackluster campaign, and put himself in the position of having a relative few thousand votes [and Ralph Nader’s campaign] destroy his election), in this instance, the GOP did it to itself.

What’s good about that is that we can learn from our own mistakes. It’s a tough lesson – a lesson I’d hoped we wouldn’t have to learn, but that I’d been saying for quite a long time we needed to. What do I mean by that? I mean that for the last three election cycles I’ve been saying that our elected officials couldn’t count on saying one thing and doing another, and simply hoping that the lack of a Democratic agenda and a lack of Democratic organization would carry them through. Eventually, either a smart Democrat (Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama, etc) would develop an agenda, the Democrats would organize a la Grover Norquist’s Wednesday morning meeting, or the electorate would get so pissed off that they’d either stay home or out and out vote for the Ds.

Turns out, it was this last thing that happened. The Ds simply let us hang ourselves – and they didn’t need to better organize or come up with an agenda to do it.

As I said, this is a lesson we can learn from. And _THAT’S_ why I’m optimistic. There will be more on this in a moment, when I talk about silver linings.

But let’s talk about what happened first. Essentially, the election broke along four major areas:

1) Moderate to Conservative Republicans lost to Conservative Democrats—This is the key demographic, the one that we’re talking about when we’re talking about Republicans who crossed party lines out of anger and frustration with the GOP. This is the key switch – the GOPers who want to change course in Iraq or feel like those in Congress are spending like… well, like drunken pirates back from a season at sea.

This is also why we continue to have a conservative/anti-statist Congress (or at least, we should) –and also plays into the adage that, “When we act like us, we win. When they act like us, they win. When we act like them, we lose.”

2) Candidates Credibly Painted With the Corruption Brush Were Knocked Out—I don’t mean that the candidates themselves were actually corrupt, merely that their opponents tried to paint them that way. Pombo, for instance, didn’t lose because his constituency didn’t agree with his views on the environment (though the environmental groups are trying to claim that it was). He lost because the environmental groups ran ads that connected him to Jack Abramoff, as if merely accepting a campaign donation from Abramoff was a crime. Northup and others lost because of this as well.

Furthermore, John McCain is going to have to answer for the candidates that lost merely because they had accepted Indian tribe monies. Carlo had to answer for Sonny getting whacked on the causeway (more on this at a later time).

3) Candidates Who Ran Incompetent Campaigns Lost—George Allen. Here’s a cautionary tale for you: never run for your next office before you’ve secured your current one. I had someone question whether or not it was Allen or the campaign who was incompetent, and I answered him this way: if Senator Allen had been focused on Virginia early on, he would have never had been put on the defensive and lost his 16 point lead. Once that vanished, it was catch-up all the way. It was up to his campaign to focus him.

4) RINOs Were Kicked Out: When we act like them, we lose, pure and simple. Republicans cannot out-left the left, even if your name is Lincoln Chafee.

Clearly, there are races that didn’t fall into these four main categories. Michael Steele, for instance, fought a valiant uphill battle and came damned close. I make no secret that in the waning days I thought he might actually win. But Democrat votes outnumber Republican votes in MD by 2:1. Just consider how well he did.

Some silver linings:

There are some silver linings to all this, in the end:

1) As I said, we didn’t lose because of any inherent sea change in what Americans believe, policywise. The Polling Company’s numbers are demonstrating that, in fact: America’s want victory, they want a limited government, and they want fiscal responsibility. They were getting frustrated because those in power weren’t living up to their promises. That can change;

2) We will have staff turnover on the Hill, and what will be left will be better. About a thousand staffers will leave the Hill as a result of this, several hundred of whom will find good jobs in DC. Those who stay will be a hardier bunch of people, and those who try to go to the Hill to get jobs will be more committed to the cause.

The importance of this cannot be understated: today’s GOP superstars: Ed Gillespie, Ken Mehlman, Marc Lampkin, Mike Zarrelli, Horace Cooper, Lampkin, Wilkes, McBurney, Dennis, Roger, etc (and yes, you all know who you are…), came of age on the Hill (or off) when we were in the minority. They know how to toil – and how to keep the Majority flummoxed.

3) It’s over, it’s done, now we can move on. Now the Democrats have to deliver, they’re going to have to have some votes, they’re going to have to get on the record with something, and those so-called “Blue Dogs” are either going to have to vote their principles or vote with the caucus.

And where do we go?

Well, at it’s most basic level, we need to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and move forward. It would be cliché to say that ’08 started on Wednesday. In all honesty, for me, the race for 2008 started a long time ago. But here’s what has to happen:

1) Someone will emerge as the standard-bearer for the party.

2) This person needs to articulate a goal – something clear, something positive, something that goes beyond merely wanting to regain the House and Senate (and these are do-able).

3) This person needs to articulate a roadmap for getting us there: setting the agenda and laying out the complete strategy.

4) This person then needs to spend time in the individual districts, not laying the groundwork for the primaries, but instead recruiting candidates for all levels of offices.

This, too, cannot be ignored. One of our big problems this year was that we have, basically, no bench, especially in the Northeast. No depth of candidates to counter well-recruited Democrats. New York was a disaster for the GOP. While I liked John Spencer on a personal level, he couldn’t match Hillary Clinton, even as a sacrificial lamb. Pirro had her problems, too. And what kind of party can’t capitalize on a completely fractured Connecticut State Democratic party?

We need to be like the Yankees and work on rebuilding our farm system, especially for our bullpen.

I think it will take 3+ cycles of concerted effort for us to rebuild and recapture the House and Senate. Much less for the Senate, obviously, as the margins are closer, but we can make significant gains incrementally for the House.

So, I’m optimistic. I’m excited at the prospect of rebuilding. We are at the crossroads of an opportunity here, and as the great Yogi Berra said, “When you come to the fork in the road, take it.”

Wanna come down that fork with me? Please do.

- Andrew Langer

So, How's By You?

2006-10-15T07:58:00.000-04:00

Yes, I know that I've been lax in updating the blog - I've been commenting when there have been comments, but haven't posted anything new. Part of it's because I've been traveling, and part of it's because I've been thinking about whether or not I want to revamp the blog. Focus it, perhaps, or provide content in a different manner.

For instance, I thought about offering up an audio blog, with a commentary done each morning on my way in to work. I thought that would be unique, until I found out there was someone who lives out where I do who is doing exactly the same thing.

In the interim, here's a link (and I'm being purposefully oblique here) to something fun:

http://media.bonnint.net/wtop/4/448/44804.wma (you can download it or play a streaming version).

- Andrew Langer

You Know You're Having A Great Day in DC, When...

2006-09-26T16:54:00.000-04:00

Sometimes when you're working in DC, you have good days and you have bad days (like working anywhere else, of course). Sometimes you have great days.

You know you're having a great day when a member of the US Senate, testifying before a House committee, directly quotes stats you offered in previous testimony to the House - and not just stats, but uses the same verbiage.

I was sitting in a hearing a few hours ago when Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) used some research that I'd done for my hearing in July on paperwork costs in his testimony. This was the same subcommittee - the House Government Reform Committee, Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, and the hearing was on a bill regarding the waiving of penalties for first-time paperwork violations, where the violation doesn't result in any "harm".

You might recall, when I testified in July, I offered some figures on the costs of paperwork overall, on an annual basis, for the economy as a whole. I then compared these costs to other things in the budget - like how that amount we spend as a nation on federal paperwork compares with what the Feds spend on cancer research, homeland security, defense, etc.

So I perked up when Senator Vitter started citing my figures, even using my verbiage (ie, when talking about the overall numbers, Vitter said "$410 billion dollars. That's 'billion' with a 'B'," just like I said. ).

I was quite pleased, to say the least.

Thanks, Senator Vitter (and thank you to the staffers who prepared his testimony!)!

- Andrew Langer

Horace Cooper: Democrats Will Miss In November

2006-09-25T21:26:00.000-04:00

As I promised last week, here is GMU professor Horace Cooper's cogent piece on the possibility of the Democrats retaking either house of Congress in November (and for the uninitiated, the vaulter in the above picture is about to hit the bar - not clear it).

Democrats Will Fall Short
By Horace Cooper
September 25, 2006

The fall campaign is heating up in earnest and a pattern is repeating itself -- one that should look familiar. It's a pattern of Democrats preparing for their big win only to come up short on Election Day. Yet this reality has yet to dawn on Democrats. Today most Democrats still believe that they are likely to retake either the House or Senate. And perhaps they could afford this indulgence since so many in the media have repeated their boastful claims for much of the spring and summer. Tellingly, however, this reveals more about the media's political preferences than any political acumen.

On the surface it would seem the political environment is ripe for success by Democrats. But due to key strategic failures Democrats won't be able to take advantage of fallow electoral ground. And this shouldn't be too surprising. Even after losses in 2000, 2002, and 2004 Democrats refused to reconsider their political strategy.

Here are five reasons why the party of Jefferson and Jackson will come up short this November:

You can't go it alone: Unlike the privileged circumstances that Democrats have had for much of the 20th century, they're no longer the majority party in the 21st. During much of the last century party leaders had the luxury of knowing that if they simply got all of those who called themselves Democrats to the polls they could win elections handily. Today not even 40% of Americans self-identify as Democrats. But you wouldn't know it however based on the strictly partisan agenda they're campaigning on. As the last Presidential election demonstrated -- even with enthusiasm and elevated turnout -- Democrats can't win without help from independents and Republicans. Conversely, the GOP has proven again and again that it can win and even expand simply by appealing to Republicans and conservative independents. Even though their partisan message may very well mobilize Democrats this fall, once again that message will turn off Republicans and many independents. At best this strategy will only increase the margin of victory for Democrats in safe districts and at worse it could actually excite the opposition. Unless your party comprises at least half of the electorate or more, energizing your party's base while alienating independents and Republicans is a classic strategy for failure.

You can't get ahead while you're trying to get even: Going after Joe Lieberman because of his position on the war in Iraq is precisely the type of political mistake former House Leader Dick Armey warned against. Instead of using their resources against vulnerable House or Senate Republicans, leftist bloggers and other liberal activists in the party chose to settle scores. This is wasteful in terms of campaign resources and political energy. Instead of sweeping three GOP House seats in Connecticut, Democrats will be lucky to take one. And worse, instead of being available to campaign and fundraise for vulnerable incumbents or challengers in red states, Joe Lieberman is forced to stay home to fight for his own seat. And finally, despite the party's strategy of trying to minimize its anti-war faction in the public eye, this fight brings the anti-war activists front and center once again reminding the public of the party's remarkable ambivalence about promoting America's national security. This is especially destructive behavior in the wake of September 11. Settling scores that divert your party's resources and remind the public of your party's Achilles Heel is doubly harmful and thus is a strategy that limits the party's chances for success.

Races tighten in the fall: One of the strongest advantages that election analysts have had in making the case for a major win by Democrats this fall has been polls showing a generic preference for Democrats over Republicans. But this indicator is quite fleeting. Since 1998 Republicans have headed into the fall campaigns facing a deficit in the generic polls with a number ranging between 6-10 pts. In 2002 a year Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate, both Gallup and Time initially had Republicans behind as much as 9 points before the race tightened. Then as now the generic numbers tightened. Additionally contrary to conventional wisdom, the voters who decide late increasingly are increasingly just as willing to vote for incumbents as they are for challengers. Absent a gap greater than 5 pts on election day, Democrats will not be able to overcome redistricting gains made in 2002 or overcome red state Republican preferences in states like Virginia and Tennessee. Moreover since Republicans will remind voters that elections require that a choice be made between two parties, anti-Republican sentiment alone won't lead to victory. Additionally significant declines in gas prices and a dazzling upsurge in the stock market will dramatically attenuate the anti-GOP mood as November draws near. A strategy predicated on a double digit voter preference on Election Day for Democrats will yield disappointing results.

There isn't an anti-war majority in America: Democrats have misread surveys of Americans' opposition to the war in Iraq. As a result they've allowed the party to become closely identified more with its John Murtha -- Michael Moore "surrender first" wing. Notwithstanding the constant media barrage reporting every negative news story involving our troops and Iraq, the truth is that the growing anti-Iraq sentiment reflected in surveys is actually a convergence of two groups: traditional anti-war liberals who oppose all wars and pro-war hawks who believe that the war has been bungled because our troops are hampered by politically correct rules of engagement. A far better measure of American sentiment is a recent Fox News Channel poll showing that half of the public (51 percent) thinks the country's response to the 9/11 attacks was at the right level and a third saying the response was not strong enough. Only 13 percent think the United States overreacted to the attacks. While disturbingly high, anti-war Americans are only between 1/5 and 1/3 of the overall electorate. And although self-described Democrats make up a disproportionate number of this group, even all Democrats don't share the anti-war impulse of the party's base. For this reason even when Democrats alone are asked, they fail to identify the war in Iraq as the primary issue in the fall elections. A strategy which assumes that most Americans share the anti-war sentiments of party activists will alienate the voting electorate and won't even keep all Democrats on board.

You can't win while you're losing: Without a doubt perhaps the greatest reason that Democrats will fall short this November is that success requires wins across the board. In order to take over the House and the Senate they need the political equivalent of an inside straight. To succeed Democrats must defeat 6 Republican senators and at least 15 House Republicans. And if any of their own incumbents lose, then they would be forced to defeat even more GOP incumbents. In 2002 and 2004, elections in which Republicans made notable gains, GOP challengers swept nearly all of the competitive House and Senate races while the party as whole kept losses to a minimum. Today, Democrats face serious Senate challenges of their own in New Jersey, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington State. And in Georgia, Texas, Louisiana and Illinois Republican challengers are giving House Democrats a serious run for their money. A GOP win in any of these races will all but eviscerate any hopes of a Democrat takeover. And when combined with the GOP's phenomenal $30M GOTV (Get out the Vote) program Democrats run a serious risk of actually losing ground on Election Day. A strategy which fails to ensure that incumbents are secure before reaching out for gains is shortsighted and could leave the party worse off than it started.

In conclusion, Democrats aren't likely to takeover the House or Senate this fall and could even see losses. Without addressing their fundamental shortcomings, America's oldest political party competes in this election cycle burdened by strategic handicaps. In the 2004 Presidential election -- one in which the party's nominee received more votes than any Democrat in history -- Democrats had press, enthusiasm, and financial resources on their side and still failed to win. This year talk radio, right-leaning bloggers, state of the art GOTV efforts, flush campaign coffers and a changing political landscape will more than offset any advantages that Democrats have today. Indeed, the strategic failings that saddle the Democrats have turned what could have been a bumper crop election into what will very likely end up being a drought.

----------

Horace Cooper is an assistant professor of constitutional law at George Mason University

The Start of Prediction Season Is In Full Swing...

2006-09-20T21:27:00.000-04:00

Well, I guess it's been in full swing for a while.

A note on my absence - life's been a bit insane. Lots of speechifying, a couple of trips up to the Tri-State Area, all sorts of stuff.

In any case, we've talked about the '06 races already here on the Liberty Blog, and I'll offer more of the perspective from Professor Horace Cooper later this week (I offer the Carnac photo in his honor). Today, however, I want to offer the learned opinion of my old friend, Dr. Patrick Brandt, who teaches political science at UT Dallas. Pat and I went to William and Mary together, and he remains one of the best "go-to" guys that I know.

Anyhow, I've been consistently saying that when it comes to the mid-terms, my predictions are that the GOP is going to hold onto both the House and the Senate, with a net loss of 9 seats in the House and 2 in the Senate. I haven't gotten into specifics, but as the weeks go by I will. Admittedly, there have been times that I've been less certain of those numbers, but a few factors are making me more certain:

- The Presidents numbers are up. Yes, this could change, but for right now, they are where they are;
- Gas prices are down. I'm someone who follows gas prices religiously - not for any political purpose, but because that's the kind of thing I think about. And I know that other people do, too. Gas prices are going to continue to drop;
- The numbers for the GOP base are up, substantially. This is the important number. Though the core GOP numbers were down as low as 70%, they're now back up in the mid-80s.

Now, fast-forward to what Dr. Brandt's been up to. The American Political Science Association does a contest for political science professors wherein they predict the House outcome. Pat and his partner on this, Dr. Thomas Brunell, have their's up on a website. They're predicting a net GOP loss of 12, but hedge their bets with the President's approval numbers - Bush's number go up, and they theorize that the GOP net-loss will go down.

What's more, their data are current thru June 2006, so we've got several more months to noodle through.

The paper can be found here:

http://www.utdallas.edu/~pxb054000/USHouseElectionForecast2006/HouseForecasts2006.html

And their summary is as follows:

We estimate a set of forecasts for the House seats won by the president's party. Using monthly data from January 1948 to June 2006, a Bayesian state-space model is employed to generate the out-of-sample forecasts. Our point forecast shows that the Republicans should win about 220 seats in the November 2006 election -- a net loss of 12 seats from their November 2004 total. We also quantify the probability of this outcome and the associated uncertainty of this estimate. Further, we demonstrate that inter-election increases in presidential popularity have a sizable effect on the number of House seats won by the Administration party. For November 2006, we predict that a 10 point swing in the president's popularity between now and Election Day could result in 4 fewer seats lost by the GOP.
---end quoted material---

So, I feel confident that I'm right in Drs Brandt and Brunell's ballpark.

- Andrew Langer

The Ballots Are IN!!!!

2006-09-13T15:44:00.000-04:00

OK, so no, I'm not equating yesterday's MD primary with the Iraqi election - but I wanted something nice and fun and inspiring to put up there to represent the democratic process.

Yes, my election was yesterday. I lost, but I'm not disappointed (not in the slightest). I'd expected it, in fact.

What's amazing to me is that I got 310 votes! That means that 309 people other than me voted for me.

That boggles my mind.

I want to thank each and every one of you who voted for me for doing so. And I want to thank everyone else who came out and voted for doing so. Primary elections generally have low voter turnout, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time out of your schedules to come to the polls.

Now, the hard work of helping to bring the disparate elements of the GOP in Queen Anne's County back together again. The two factions who have been bloodying one another. The hard-workers who lost but whose help is absolutely essential. Those who labored within both camps for total victory, only to see half-measures gained.

All of us will need to come together in the next six weeks to ensure the victory of our candidates.

Thank you all again.

- Andrew Langer

Baldwin and Churchill: Dissent, Appeasement, and Victorious Resolve

2006-09-02T09:09:00.000-04:00

I was over reading Andrew Kessler's "Southpawspot" blog - http://southpawspot.blogspot.com, and he's got a post up regarding a Keith Olberman editorial that was televised the other night in response to SecDef Rumsfeld's American Legion speech. In his editorial, Olberman tries to compare this government to the government of Neville Chamberlain in Great Britain in the years preceding World War II, and, by extension, make the War on Terror and the War in Iraq into some sort of bizarro "appeasement" situation - and, by further extension, turn the anti-war activists into bizarro Winston Churchills.

Anyhow, Kessler reposted the editorial, and I responded to it there. But I thought it was worthy of its own post, right here on the Liberty Blog. What's interesting to me is that it was over a year ago that Kessler and I had our first online altercation over a year ago, and it centered on my use of a Churchill quote here on the Liberty Blog about solidarity in the face of terror (actually, more directly, it had to do with my linking that post to the online bulletin board for the public school that Kessler and I were classmates in).

But on to the issue of Olberman:

To me, what's amazing is that Olberman could use that analogy and come to a completely opposite conclusion than Churchill's.

I rewatched "The Gathering Storm" last weekend while I was flying home from Texas with the fam. For the uninitiated, that was HBO's amazing Winston Churchill biopic - taking place in the years of Churchill's pre-war decline.

The most basic that Olberman gets wrong is proclaiming that it was Chamberlain who tried marginalizing Churchill by isolating him and keeping a monopoly on the facts. It wasn't - it was Stanley Baldwin, Chamberlain's predecessor.

This isn't just nitpicking, as Baldwin's actions are almost more damning than Chamberlain's appeasement, and far more apropos to the situation we find ourselves in today. Baldwin was a pacifist, raised to the highest elected office in England because of his deep committment to peace and his antiwar views - views shared by a great many in England at the time.

In fact, if there is any lesson to be learned from the Baldwin versus Churchill incident, it's that it is profoundly dangerous for a government (and a people) to be so enamored of pacifism that they ignore very clear and very real threats to their existence.

Churchill's very point - his driving passion that brought him out of decline, that allowed him to confront Baldwin directly, that convinced others to risk everything to provide him with the facts that ultimately won the argument, that put him back in as Lord of the Admiralty and eventually as Prime Minister, was that there are some people who simply cannot be negotiated with. That the only response to such people is fierce determination and the force of arms.

It is, in fact, a cautionary tale that ought to be weighing heavily in the minds of the people this election season. Does America have real enemies? Are those enemies moving against us? What will happen to America if we do nothing? Worse, what will happen is we move backwards or retreat? Can these enemies be negotiated with, and for what? At what cost, ultimately, to our nation? What has history taught us about the honor and trustworthiness of our adversaries? What has history taught us about what our adversaries do after negotiations are completed?

Yes, America faces a choice - a choice other nations have faced in the past. We can appease, or worse, retreat from the battlefield. Or we can stay resolved - resolved that freedom is better than slavery, that prosperity is better than poverty, and that hope is better than despair.

There is no doubt in the end - dissent and disagreement with government _is_ the life's blood of human freedom. And one can criticize the prosecution of the war and still be supportive of that war's ultimate goals. But Olberman was wrong to use Churchill's courageous stand to support his arguments, when, in fact, it teaches us just how wrong Olberman is.
----

And, allow me to add, how wrong appeasement is. There are no half measures to be had here. We must be victorious - for, as Churchill said, "You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival." (Blood, Sweat and Tears Speech, May 13, 1940)

- Andrew Langer

Katrina At One Year - A Recap...

2006-08-31T15:37:00.000-04:00

Back in February, I posted segments of an article from Popular Mechanics, which I thought was one of the most balanced analysis put in layman's terms of how Katrina and its aftermath were handled. That post can be found here: http://langrrr.blogspot.com/2006/02/popular-mechanics-on-hurricaine_20.html

What I'd like to do today is repost a portion of that for all of you:

POPULAR MECHANICS
Published in the March, 2006 issue.
Now What?
The Lessons of Katrina

....
GOVERNMENT RESPONDED RAPIDLY

MYTH:"The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history."--Aaron Broussard, president, Jefferson Parish, La., Meet the Press, NBC, Sept. 4, 2005

REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors.

In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.

Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day--some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, "guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways," says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops inthe Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.

These units had help from local, state and national responders, including five helicopters from the Navy ship Bataan and choppers from the Air Force and police. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries dispatched250 agents in boats. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state police and sheriffs' departments launched rescue flotillas. By Wednesday morning, volunteers and national teams joined the effort, including eight units from California's Swift Water Rescue. By Sept. 8, the waterborne operation had rescued 20,000.

While the press focused on FEMA's shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success--especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state.

NEXT TIME: Any fatalities are too many. Improvements hinge on building more robust communications networks and stepping up predisaster planning to better coordinate local and national resources.

PM PRESCRIPTION

Improving Response

ONE OF THE BIGGEST reminders from Katrina is that FEMA is not a first responder. It was local and state agencies that got there first and saved lives. Where the feds can contribute is in planning and helping to pay for a coordinated response. Here are a few concrete steps.

Think Locally: "Every disaster starts and ends as a local event," says Ed Jacoby, who managed New York state's emergency response to 9/11. All municipalities must assess their own risk of disasters--both natural and man-made.

Include Business Help: "Companies realize that if a city shuts down, they shut down," says Barry Scanlon, former FEMA director of corporate affairs. During Katrina, many companies coordinated their own mini relief efforts. That organizational power can augment public disaster management. "If 10 Fortune 100 members made a commitment to the Department of HomelandSecurity," says Scanlon, "the country would take a huge leap forward."

Prearrange Contracts: Recovery costs skyrocket with high demand during a crisis. Contracts with local firms must be signed before disaster strikes."You know beforehand that everyone is ready to move," says Kate Hale, emergency management director of Florida's Miami-Dade County during Hurricane Andrew in 1992. "The government blows the whistle and the contractors go to work."

Mugged By Mideast Reality

2006-08-30T21:15:00.000-04:00

I was home sick today (with the entire fam, in fact - we all picked up a bug either in Texas or on our way home). I ventured out to pick up some heavy-duty decongestants and happened to catch NPR's "Talk of the Nation". One of the guests was a scholar, novelist, and Fordham law school professor named Thane Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum is a progressive, much in the vein of classmates of mine from Fieldston - and one who, for many years, held the belief (some might call it naive) that the Israeli-Arab conflict could be solved by talk, negotiation, and compromise.

But Rosenbaum has had a change of heart - and I have to respect him for his intellectual honesty and willingness to come to terms with the reality of the situation. Anyhow, I want to post a recent opinion piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008788) :

Red State Jews
Mugged by Mideast reality.

BY THANE ROSENBAUM
Sunday, August 13, 2006 12:01 a.m.

This is a soul-searching moment for the Jewish left. Actually, for many Jewish liberals, navigating the gloomy politics of the Middle East is like walking with two left feet.

I would know. For six years I was the literary editor of Tikkun magazine, a leading voice for progressive Jewish politics that never avoided subjecting Israel to moral scrutiny. I also teach human rights at a Jesuit university, imparting the lessons of reciprocal grievances and the moral necessity to regard all people with dignity and mutual respect. And I am deeply sensitive to Palestinian pain, and mortified when innocent civilians are used as human shields and then cynically martyred as casualties of war.

Yet, since 9/11 and the second intifada, in which suicide bombings and beheadings have become the calling cards of Arab diplomacy, and with Hamas and Hezbollah emerging as elected entities that, paradoxically, reject the first principles of liberal democracy, I feel a great deal of moral anguish. Perhaps I have been naive all along.

And I am not alone. Many Jews are in my position--the children and grandchildren of labor leaders, socialists, pacifists, humanitarians, antiwar protesters--instinctively leaning left, rejecting war, unwilling to demonize, and insisting that violence only breeds more violence. Most of all we share the profound belief that killing, humiliation and the infliction of unnecessary pain are not Jewish attributes.

However, the world as we know it today--post-Holocaust, post-9/11, post-sanity--is not cooperating. Given the realities of the new Middle East, perhaps it is time for a reality check. For this reason, many Jewish liberals are surrendering to the mindset that there are no solutions other than to allow Israel to defend itself--with whatever means necessary. Unfortunately, the inevitability of Israel coincides with the inevitability of anti-Semitism.

This is what more politically conservative Jews and hardcore Zionists maintained from the outset. And it was this nightmare that the Jewish left always refused to imagine. So we lay awake at night, afraid to sleep. Surely the Arabs were tired, too. Surely they would want to improve their societies and educate their children rather than strap bombs on to them.

If the Palestinians didn't want that for themselves, if building a nation was not their priority, then peace in exchange for territories was nothing but a pipe dream. It was all wish-fulfillment, morally and practically necessary, yet ultimately motivated by a weary Israeli society--the harsh reality of Arab animus, the spiritual toll that the occupation had taken on a Jewish state battered by negative world opinion.

Despite the deep cynicism, however, Israel knew that it must try. It would have to set aside nearly 60 years of hard-won experience, starting from the very first days of its independence, and believe that the Arab world had softened, would become more welcoming neighbors, and would stop chanting: "Not in our backyard--the Middle East is for Arabs only."

It is true that Israel has entered into peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan that have brought some measure of historic stability to the region. But with Israel having withdrawn from Lebanon and Gaza, and with Israeli public opinion virtually united in favor of near-total withdrawal from the West Bank, why are rockets being launched at Israel now, why are their soldiers being kidnapped if the aspirations of the Palestinian people, and the intentions of Hamas and Hezbollah, stand for something other than the total destruction of Israel? And if Palestinians and the Lebanese are electing terrorists and giving them the portfolio of statesmen, then what message is being sent to moderate voices, what incentives are there to negotiate, and how can any of this sobering news be recast in a more favorable light?

The Jewish left is now in shambles. Peace Now advocates have lost their momentum, and, in some sense, their moral clarity. Opinion polls in Israel are showing near unanimous support for stronger incursions into Lebanon. And until kidnapped soldiers are returned and acts of terror curtailed, any further conversations about the future of the West Bank have been set aside.

Not unlike the deep divisions between the values of red- and blue-state America, world Jewry is being forced to reconsider all of its underlying assumptions about peace in the Middle East. The recent disastrous events in Lebanon and Gaza have inadvertently created a newly united Jewish consciousness--bringing right and left together into one deeply cynical red state.

Mr. Rosenbaum, a novelist and professor at Fordham Law School, is author, most recently, of "The Myth of Moral Justice" (HarperCollins, 2004).

My Top 10 Anti-Statist, Pro-Liberty, Pro-Freedom Songs

2006-08-29T12:38:00.000-04:00

I’d been meaning to put this list together for some time – along with my list of top pro-freedom, anti-statist films out there. The National Review came out with their list of top “conservative” rock songs (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE=). I agreed with some of the entries – but their list was: a) limited to what they considered “conservative;” and b) to rock songs.

Obviously, music is a medium that effectively communicates the passionate beliefs of both the singer and the songwriter – more effectively, perhaps, than any book or pamphlet or even TV. Now, it goes without saying that I don’t look to artists for my political cues, but that being said, I like a good protest song.

And to me, I’d rather see a list of songs about freedom, and the struggle for freedom against the forces of tyranny and statism. So, I diverge from the potentially-schizophrenic “conservative list”. What’s more, my list isn’t confined to traditional “rock” music – it includes folk, a show-tune, and a rap song. I share some artists with the NR list, and one song (but more on that in a moment)…

10) Freedom Is A State of Mind (Peter Udell - The Shenandoah Soundtrack)

This is a song I’ve had in my head since I was a kid going to Fieldston camp when I was five. I didn’t know until a few years ago where it came from – all I knew was the truism, “Freedom’s in the state of mind!”. Yes, it was 1976, and yes, a song like this was par for the course that summer, nevertheless, it was a lesson that Fieldston ought to keep teaching, over and over again.

Incidentally, that summer of 1976 was an important one for me, politically, as I began to learn those important lessons as to who we are as a people and why. If you’re not into seeing “Shenandoah”, then I recommend another great musical in this vein (and a better one, as far as I’m concerned): 1776. It’s the story of the crafting of the Declaration of Independence, set to some very stirring music.

9) Philadelphia Freedom (Elton John)

Again, in the Bicentennial vein – though this single was released in 1975, it became very relevant the following year. Yes, it’s kind-of a disco tune, but how many disco songs have lines about living and breathing freedom?

8) The Patriot Game (authored by Dominic Behan, I prefer the version by the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem)

You don’t much more stirring or passionate songs about liberty than those written about Northern Ireland’s struggle against the British. I write more about the Clancy Brothers’ Carnegie Hall album below, but I single out “The Patriot Game” here. If you’re looking for a freedom-loving lullaby for the kids, this one’s a winner.

7) Find the Cost of Freedom (CSNY)

There were a number of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young songs I could have put on this list (Ohio and Long Time Gone come immediately to mind), but “Cost of Freedom” sticks for its simple message: Freedom is a constant and self-sacrificing struggle.

6) Sunday, Bloody Sunday (U2)

New Year’s Day, Pride, and a number of other U2 songs come close, but if we’re talking about the hardest-hitting, hardest-rocking song of the modern-era struggle in Northern Ireland, Sunday, Bloody Sunday stands head-and-shoulders above the others.

5) Free Will/Tom Sawyer/New World Man (Rush)

Ok, so I break my promise here and choose not to select one Rush song. Why? Because all three of these songs stand together as representing Rush’s commitment to individual rights. Though “Free Will” probably has the best pro-liberty lyrics of the three (“If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”, “New World Man” and “Tom Sawyer” are somewhat better songs.

4) Biko (Peter Gabriel)

The couple of times I’ve seen Peter Gabriel in concert have stood out for a number of reasons, but probably the most singular moments have been the live performances of this song. People get to their feet and raise their fists in honor of the memory of Steven Biko, who died in the struggle for freedom in South Africa in 1977. The “eyes of the world” did watch, and liberty was eventually won.

3) Freedom (Richie Havens)

Maybe some others wouldn’t put this impromptu, singularly simple song near the head of their list, but I do. At a time when liberal statists were duking it out with conservative statists trying to keep hold of power, Richie Havens reminded his brethren that in the end, it wasn’t about some nebulous idea of social justice, it was about freedom.

2) Fight The Power (Public Enemy)

When I did my radio show, I liked to juxtapose the quiet folk music of Bob Dylan with the thunderous rap of Public Enemy. Dylan and Chuck D are both poets, with similar messages, but severely contrasting methods. Scary as it might be to some, Chuck D hits the nail on the head: for an oppressed minority, opposing the power structure is the only way to transform society. And America is a nation where the power of the majority is held in check by the rights of individuals.

Perhaps I should put this song together with it’s sibling from the “Fear of a Black Planet” album, “Welcome to the Terrordome”. The two songs go hand-in-hand, inasmuch as Terrordome makes it clear that this struggle is an intellectual and mental one, not a violent one (“When I get mad I put it down on a pad…”).

But while Chuck D directs this message at people of color, it’s a message for all of us who fight the same struggle: too much power in the hands of any one group, especially the government, is a bad thing, and we must oppose it at all turns.

1) Won’t Get Fooled Again (The Who)

Alright, so this is where the NR list agrees with mine. But I will say that “Won’t Get Fooled Again” has been at the top of my list forever, long before the NR even contemplated making such a list. If The Who are the greatest rock band of all time (and in my estimation they are), then “Won’t Get Fooled Again”, as the Who’s best song, is the greatest rock song ever.

It has everything: great music, thunderous guitars and drums, it tested the bounds of musical technology (for its time), and it’s got a hard-hitting message.

The “Lifehouse” concept from which the song, and the album “Who’s Next” emerged, is one of several artistic endeavors into the subject of the individual versus society (Rush and Styx had their own versions, for instance, discussed below). “Baba O’Riley,” “Going Mobile,” “Pure and Easy,” and “Join Together” were further reflections on this theme.

But “Fooled Again” is at the pinnacle – with its celebration of freedom and its dire warnings against trusting politicians, it continues to stand the test of time.

Close, But Purposely Left Off:

1) Mr. Roboto (Styx)
Styx, The Who, and Rush have all written rock operas (or, at least, made concept albums) about the concept of tyrannical states destroying individual rights (generally as regards the public’s right to rock). In Styx’s iteration, Kilroy Was Here, the hero, Kilroy, evades capture by the statists by hiding in a robot. But instead of simply railing against an evil central state’s abuse of the public’s rights, Styx takes it a step further, turning Mr. Roboto into an anti-technology anthem.

In the end, it’s the same statist, liberal dogma: we’ll gladly exchange one overbearing, statist government for one made in our image.

A Whole Album To Check Out:

Really, if you want an entire album to get your pro-freedom blood pumping, I recommend The Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem’s “In Person at Carnegie Hall”. From start to finish, the album contains gem after gem of pro-liberty music. Johnson’s Motor Car is an anthem about rapidly responding to a British attack on Irish rebels. And even the Childrens’ Medley takes a turn at instilling the importance of freedom in wee-ones.

Other folks have been working on their lists, too. Russell Roberts’ “Café Hayek” blog has his list of “Classical Liberal” folks songs (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/02/folks_songs_for.html ) - like him, I love the song “Joe Hill”, despite the fact that it’s a labor-organizing song. And Bryan Caplan has his list of “Punk Songs for Classical Liberals” on the EconLog blog: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/02/punk_songs_for.html

Yes, I probably could have had some Clash, Ramones, even a Dylan tune – and there are some that are close to that top 10. But I’ll leave it here, and look forward to some recommendations from others.

- Andrew Langer

My Campaign Ad

2006-08-18T22:16:00.000-04:00

This will be going into the Queen Anne's County Update next week, for their special election issue:

The reason I make note of not being a "member of any slate or faction" is because the election in QAC is fairly divided - there is a group of 7 (including 5 of the incumbent members of the Central Committee) who are running as a slate - the QA7. Then there are a group of others who are running in direct opposition - an anti-development faction.

I was asked to run. I'm not entirely certain that the people who asked me to run understood just who I am when they asked me. Apparently, given my work on expanding Centreville's Town Council, which to me is a good government initiative, left some people with the impression that I'm somehow much further to the left than I actually am.

In the coming weeks, I'm going to offer up some short blurbs about where I stand, philosophically. Most of the faithful readers of the Liberty Blog already know this - know that I'm pro-property rights, that I want to sharply rein in government, know that I approach public policy from a rational and analytical perspective. But some of the folks who are going to be reading my blog are going to be learning all this for the first time.

The point is, I don't wanting people making any assumptions about me moving into this election. I don't want people assuming that because I'm not part of the QA7 slate that I'm ardently anti-growth. I don't want people assuming that because I haven't been endorsed by the "Citizens Alliance" that I've got conflicts of interest preventing me from serving.

It's that last point I'm going to touch upon as well. It's become abundantly clear from looking at how things play out politically here that folks seem to confuse the idea of having a "special interest" with having "conflicts of interest". This is symptomatic of a greater perception problem nationally as well - it's tied into the same misconceptions that people have of "lobbying" and lobbyists".

As you can imagine, I've got something to say about that as well.

Anyway - I'd put the ad up last night, but thought I'd add to the post as well.

- Andrew Lan ger

Energy Policy and the "March Against Terror"

2006-08-17T13:43:00.000-04:00

Did an interview yesterday with my friends, Kerri Houston and George Landrith, on their net-broadcast radio show "March Against Terror" (http://www.marchagainstterror.org/index.html).

Thought I had a picture of me and Kerri, which I would have put here. Unfortunately, I don't.

It was a fun interview. You can download the mp3 of the broadcast here:

http://rightalk.listenz.com/060816-SP.mp3

I'm at about the 26minute, 45-second mark, and on for about 12 minutes.

- Andrew Langer

Dallas!!!!

2006-08-16T15:54:00.000-04:00

As promised, I have pictures from my trip to Dallas last week. My buddy, Dr. Patrick Brandt, PhD, teaches at UT Dallas (he's an exceptionally gifted political scientist). I don't have any pictures of our trip to the Ranchman in Ponder (nor of the CFS [chicken or country-fried steak] served there), but I have pictures of our visit to Dealey Plaza. No political junkie can miss this trip.

Here I am behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll. What's fascinating is that I'm facing the railroad switching tower (which is in the middle of the parking lot that is bordered by this fence) where the switchmen claimed to have seen the 2nd team.

This is just in front of the spot where the first shot hit Kennedy (as marked by the X in the road).

On the Grassy Knoll with the Schoolbook Depository in the background.

It was a really hot day, and as Pat and I were leaving Dealey Plaza in search of a cold drink, I spied a billboard advertising a new "sports drink" - touted as a hangover cure. I didn't really need a hangover cure, but did need something to drink, and frankly, I was intrigued. Yes, you're reading that bottle right - it's a bottle of "Pickle Juice" sports drink, and I had just had a sip.

It tastes like pickle juice. Seriously.

Those of you interested in my low-carb diet (and low-carb diets of your own) will be happy to learn that the bottle only contains 2 carbs per serving (2 servings per bottle). However, those of you watching your sodium intake as well as your sugar intake will be dismayed to learn that each serving of "Pickle Juice" contains over sixteen hundred milligrams of sodium (that's right 3200 milligrams per bottle!).

I had a bottle of cold water instead.

- Andrew Langer

The Business Journals On The Dudley Nomination

2006-08-15T12:04:00.000-04:00

This has been in The Washington Business Journal and some of the other papers in the Business Journal chain...

http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/extraedge/washingtonbureau/archive/2006/08/14/bureau2.html?market=kansascity

Business likes new regulatory czar; others don't

Business groups praised President Bush's nomination of Susan Dudley to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which reviews new federal rules before they are issued.
Prior to her nomination, Dudley directed the Regulatory Studies Program of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Much of her work has focused on the cost of federal regulations.

Andrew Langer, who heads regulatory policy for the National Federation of Independent Business, says Dudley "understands the tools that will be required to bring the regulatory state under control."

Langer says that's a key issue for small businesses, which pay much more per employee to comply with regulations than large businesses do.

Dudley will build on the work done by John Graham, her predecessor at OIRA, to improve new regulations by measuring their costs, comparing these costs with the benefits of the rules, and determining whether other priorities are more important, Langer says.

"We can have better and smarter regulations," he says.

Consumer advocacy groups, however, contend that OIRA under Graham weakened regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

"If Dudley is confirmed by the Senate, she will further strip them of their ability to stand up to government secrecy, politicization and corporate interests," says Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. "Throughout her career, Dudley has consistently fought against government safeguards and advocated a radical, hands-off approach to regulating corporations."

Robert Shull, director of policy at OMB Watch, calls Dudley "an anti-regulatory extremist."

"Corporate special interests are about to have the best friend they could have wished for installed in the White House office that oversees regulatory policy," Shull says.

For more information on Dudley, see www.mercatus.org

Where Have I Been?

2006-08-14T11:55:00.000-04:00

It's August. One would think that this being DC, things would have slowed down some. Not true. The Susan Dudley nomination has picked things up quite a bit, among other items that have conspired to keep me from writing on the blog (more on that nomination later).

I was in Dallas last week - great hotel, but with (insert appropriately derogatory term here) internet access. Seriously - bad WiFi, but just as bad hard-wired 'net access. I'd planned on updating the blog down there, but it just wasn't happening.

Saw my buddy, Patrick, down there (met his girlfriend). Pat and I did a dinner at Nobu, lunch at this great tex-mex place where I had some fantastic brisket tacos, and then the three of us went out to Ponder, TX for country-fried (also known as chicken-fried) steak. Unbelievably good.

There will be more on this, too - including pictures of our expedition to Dealey Plaza, where I got my picture taken on the grassy knoll.

I got home, and in addition to dealing with election and county fair stuff, found that our three-year-old laptop had managed to flummox itself again - this time really doing it. No, no "blue screen of death". In this instance, a loose power adapter toggle finally broke off. They are unsure if it can be fixed.

So, no laptop over the weekend. At least, no laptop with high-speed internet access. I spent a good portion of the weekend trying to resurrect my 7-year-old no-name laptop. Because it doesn't have Windows 98 "SE", I'm having a devil of a time trying to get various things installed on it.

Options are numerous, and include taking a laptop of my youngest brother whose age (the laptop's, not my brother's) is roughly equivalent of the one that's currently in the shop. Also, buying a new laptop is on the table, though we hadn't wanted to do this for a few months.

Anyhow, I need to start posting on issues again. In the interim, let me offer a restaurant recommendation: Shin Chon, a Korean restaurant in Ellicott City. Had lunch there with the fam yesterday. Excellent.

- Andrew Langer

Bush Names Recognized Scholar As Regulatory Czar

2006-07-31T21:18:00.000-04:00

I was at an NFIB function when I received word that the President had officially nominated Susan Dudley, Director of the Regualtory Studies program at the Mercatus Center to be the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the OMB. Essentially, OIRA's Director is the arbiter of all things regulatory within the federal executive branch - the nation's Reg Czar.

Susan is an old friend and colleague - and the perfect person at the present time to direct OIRA. OIRA's most recent Director, Dr. John Graham, put OIRA on a solid course, ensuring that the twin bedrock principles of sound public policy (benefit-cost analysis and comparitive risk assessment) underpinned OIRA's mission. Susan can carry on that legacy, ensuring the OIRA's draft guidelines on comparitive risk assessment are fully implemented, and invigorating such tools as regulatory budgeting within OIRA's function.

Whoever heads OIRA must understand the full-measure of the regulatory state - the pervasiveness of federal regulations in our daily lives, the cost of those regulations per person, the cost of paperwork - and how those costs ought to be compared to the benefits such regulations may or may not create.

Susan Dudley is not only one of a very few people in the United States who understands this - but she is also one of those very few who can carry that understanding into public policy implementation.

There will be more on the Liberty Blog about this nomination as things progress. Congratulations, Susan! Best of luck on the confirmation process!

- Andrew Langer

A Victory In Battle, But The War Wages On...

2006-07-27T14:46:00.000-04:00

We won a hard-earned victory yesterday in the war over eminent domain power. The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously found in favor of the property owners in the Norwood case. More details on this will follow - but in the interim, I got a request from my friends at the Castle Coalition. They need your help...

Friends:

I emailed earlier with a request to help turn the tide in a poll being conducted by the Cincinnati Enquirer about the landmark Ohio Supreme Court decision issued yesterday. We're starting to narrow the gap, but we need you to keep voting! We're still far from showing the massive outrage against the abuse of eminent domain we know exists across the country. Don't allow cities and developers to use this poll to justify land grabs in the future.

If you've voted, please vote again. If you haven't, please do so now.

Tell them you AGREE here:
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060726/NEWS01/307260029/-1/all

We thank you all.

Sincerely,

Steven D. Anderson Castle Coalition Coordinator Institute for Justice

---end quoted material---

Will do, Steve. Congrats on the victory!

- Andrew Langer

A Reponse from Thomas Lee Elifritz

2006-07-26T06:43:00.000-04:00

Well, one would have thought that given his entreaties that he wanted to stop interacting with me on Usenet, Thomas Lee Eliftiz would have simply left well-enough alone - or at least he would have responded to my post here on the Liberty Blog.

But rather than do that, and (I assume) because he knows I'm loathe to post to Usenet again without a very compelling reason for doing so, he responded to me there. I further assume he did this because someone named "Phil Hays" accused me of being a liar when I mistakenly stated that I was finished posting to usenet, and Elifritz wanted to drag me back there and thus put me in the position of having to defend my decision to come back.

The epithet "liar" is one that gets thrown out a lot on Usenet - with increasing frequency, in fact. For my purposes, when I would say that someone lied, it was because the following definition applied:

- someone stated that something was incorrect;
- that person knew that the statement was incorrect before he or she stated it;
- that person made that statement with the intention to misrepresent the facts.

In other words, that person lied, under the classic understanding of what a lie is.

Now, I'd been accused of being a liar before (a professional liar, a shill, etc). But to this day, nobody has _ever_ proved me to have lied online.

Anyhow, with that being said, here is Mr. Elifritz' response, purporting to defend his actions in calling me the "n-word":

From: Thomas Lee Elifritz cos...@lifeform.org
Newsgroups: sci.environment,alt.global-warming,sci.physics,sci.space.policy
Subject: My Response to Andrew Langer's Blog
Message-ID: QwAxg.3055$nL.2469@fe06.lga
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:34:24 MST
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:32:58 -0500

Hi Andrew, thanks for the free advertising. I just knew that would work.
The mere thought of you returning to the usenet permanently was just too
horrible to bear. Let me tell you how it is. I live on an Island in the
Atlantic Ocean. In the old days, sometimes I was the only 'white nigga'
within 100 miles. Them homies called me 'whitey', in fact, they still
call me 'whitey', and you know what, nobody cares. We're out there in
the bush and on the water, and under the water, day in and day out, and
we have to scream at the top of our lungs just to be heard, over the
wind, the waves and the music. Once a week, when we'd go to the village
to go to church or pay our respects to the elderly, and maybe buy a
little food, we'd very often have to be reminded, usually by little
children, to 'clean it up'. You'll just have to take my word for it,
that the only racism I embrace, is that of anti-science bigotry.

I'm not proud to be an anti-science bigot, in fact, I'm ashamed to be an
American in an anti-science America. I'll take Bahamian Baptism over
Southern Baptism or Christian Fundamentalism any day of the week.

You really need to get out of your cubicle and into the real world.
You're a professional liar, Andrew, it's time to face up to the truth.

There is one thing I've learned living in the Atlantic : Truth Rules.

Andrew Langer : http://langrrr.blogspot.com/

Nature Boy : http://cosmic.lifeform.org
----end quoted material---

1) If the thought of my returning to Usenet permanently was "too horrible to bear" then you should probably have left well-enough alone, not continued to post about me, and certainly not posted an ill-conceived explanation for your inexcusable choice of words;

2) The fact that you did so, in my opinion, undercuts your claims that you didn't want me to return to Usenet - either you want me to engage you there, or you don't. If you don't, then don't continue to instigate with me there;

3) There is no reasonable explanation for using that particular racial epithet. First of all, you didn't call me "nigga" (white, science, or otherwise). You called me "nigger". Even if we were to agree that there were a difference between the two words, you didn't use the former. You used the latter.

That is deplorable, regardless of your irrelevant personal history with the word. The fact that you spent time in and out of the water, were called "whitey", deigned to give blacks in your community a bit of your paternalistic time and largess, these do not excuse your use of the word in the forum of sci.environment in 2006.

The fact that you attempt to defend your use of the word, don't see anything wrong with it, and believe you are somehow entitled to use it, similarly undercuts your denials that you don't embrace racism. In fact, the subtle change in your rhetoric, from "nigger" to "nigga" evinces an attempt to soften what you said, a seeming recognition that what you said was wrong.

So take the next step and admit it.

4) When used today, such words are aimed at provoking a response - generally a negative one. We call that "race baiting". And, in point of fact, you admit that you were "race baiting" by using that term when you said in first defending your use of the term, "It got rid of Andrew Langer in a hurry, The thought of him returning to the usenet permanently, literally put the fear of God in me again." (Elifritz in message PZ9xg.128$Eo7.67@fe07.lga, again undercutting his claims).

5) What I'm really thinking is about sharing your particular choice of words with a few scientists who happen to be African-Americans, to see what they think about your defense, your claims of America being anti-science, and whether or not the right insult to hurl at someone who you believe to be anti-science would be to call them a "science nigger" (your term, not mine).

But let me ask you: what do you think an African-American would say about your using that term in 2006?

6) As for my "getting out of my cubicle and into the real world", I live in the real world everyday. I work on behalf of very real people living in the real world. I'm out talking to members in their businesses, I'm hearing from them on a constant basis--my reason for doing what I do professionally is to help make their lives better.

So, unlike your paternalistic visits to "the village", I'm spending every day, day-in and day-out, neck deep in the real lives of real people eking out livings in this country.

Finally, you call me a "professional liar"? Well, nobody has ever proved me to be a liar online - so you're offering up nothing more than conjecture. On would think that in the 8 or so years I was posting to Usenet, and in the 13 months that I've been blogging, just one of the people who had made this claim (Don Ferry, Scott Nudds, Devin McAndrews/Chive Mynde, or the Queen Kook herself) would have caught me in an out-and-out lie. Never happened.

On the other hand, we know that you're a racist, despite your lame protestations to the contrary. Not only a racist, but an unapologetic, unrepentant racist, on par with America's Dixiecrats, segregationists, and historic race baiters.

My, you must be so proud.

- Andrew Langer

Why I Stopped Posting To Usenet....

2006-07-24T12:00:00.000-04:00

As the regular readers of the Liberty Blog know, I used to do a lot of writing on the text-based side of the internet called "Usenet" - mostly on environmental issues, generally about the intersection of environmental policy and individual rights, as well as common-sense approaches to environmental policy. A lot of discussion about libertarianism, too.

Well, we all know about the "Queen Kook" (who shall remain nameless at this time), perhaps my biggest fan, who up until late last month continued to spew venom about me online. But I haven't talked about some of the other "fans" I'd gained (and yes, I use that term facetiously).

As I said, the tenor and tone and general lack of any sort of civility in discussion ultimately made me decide that spending my free time on Usenet was probably not a good thing to do. I had made some good friendships online, and had great discussions with people, from which I learned a great deal. But those moments, and those discussions, had grown few and far between.

Taken in turn with a few episodes on par with what Jeff Goldstein recently experienced on his "Protein Blog" (check out http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/07/a_new_low.html for a summary), and I decided enough was enough.

I still occasionally read Usenet - sometimes I look to see if anyone's mentioned me or the Liberty Blog, and it happened that yesterday I came across a post:

http://tinyurl.com/ka7oo

It was written by a guy named "Donald Ferry" one of my original fans. Donald, well, Don's got issues. I don't want to dwell on his background, but suffice it to say that once I learned more about him, the more I decided that he had to be treated differently. Let me put it to you this way - Don spent some time in Southeast Asia in the late 60s, early 70s, and it left him, well, missing a few puzzle pieces upstairs.

The point is, Donald has some very real reasons why he doesn't quite understand English - I honestly feel badly for him. The problem is, Donald tends to write as though he does understand everything, and he tends to get things very wrong as a result.

The post that Donald was commenting on was my recent one on Evolution - a post clearly poking at the extreme creationist newsletter I received, and demonstrating (quite plainly, I thought), that I am a firm believer in evolution.

Now, one of the things I'm never happy about is being misrepresented - especially when that misrepresentation is purposeful (ie, a lie). In this case, I chalked it up to Don Ferry's "special circumstances" - but because it was "out there", I felt a correction was in order. So I broke a 13-month hiatus from posting to Usenet, expecting it to be a one-time thing. My correction is here:

http://tinyurl.com/kjqmu

I had hoped that would be the end of it. But within minutes some (insert colorful negative metaphor here) named "Thomas Lee Elifritz" pops in with a truly obnoxious and uncalled-for remark - including a somewhat homophobic insult that I won't repeat here. Now, as clear as I can tell, I'd only had one or two interactions with Mr. Elifritz in my previous participation in Usenet, and that was when he placed me on a "crank list", despite the fact that he and I had never interacted online.

I wrote him off then, and let him know that I hadn't given him any thought in the last three years. Rather than leave that alone, he continued to prod.

So I gave back, calmly and cool-ly, including posting a link to the article from the Hill on the transpartisan summit (illustrating that I am, indeed, interested in having meaningful discussions with people I have widely divergent viewpoints). Rather than resigning, he continued to prod, leading up to these gems this morning (from this post: http://tinyurl.com/holtq ):

"There is no debate science nigger."
"But here you are again, posting on the usenet. Notice any contradiction there science nigger?"
"Right, science - it's a vast commie conspiracy, isn't it nigger?"
" I know you're a motherf--king science nigger. "

(emphasis added - and text edited for family viewing)

As someone who believes in equality, who believes in freedom, who believes in civility and civil society, I cannot condone such phrases - they are patently outrageous and their use is indefensible. Even if he wasn't using them as "racial" epithets, they're nevertheless dehumanizing, insulting, simply beyond the pale - in fact, even if he wanted to try and defend the statements as somehow an attack on me as being anti-science (which I am not -- as the son of a PhD environmental scientist and an epidemiologist I've spent too many hours learning from my parents to be anything of the sort), that penultimate statement doesn't reference science at all.

In the end, I repost them for two reasons. First, to demonstrate why I stopped posting to Usenet - it's people like Thomas Lee Elifritz who are working to debase society, to end civil discourse, and to prevent real solutions to real problems from taking shape. They are impediments to problem solving, and should be scorned and shunned by all.

Second, I post them to demonstrate just how bereft of intellectual validity such extremists are. They are wholly incapable of engaging in real discussions. Moreover, like so-called progressives who preach the destruction of classically-liberal, freedom-loving institutions and nations, statements like those show their true colors: their racism, their insensitivity, the overall hypocrisy of their positions.

The only difference between Thomas Lee Elifritz and any other outspoken elitist preaching a paternalistic, I know what's better for you and am going to make your choices for you, keeping the world's poor and ignorant in squalid darkness for their own sakes, statist philosophy is that at least Mr. Elifritz wears his insensitive, racist, paternalistic persona on his sleeve.

I have no use for such people. There is no constructive dialogue to be had with them.

But if you wish to find Mr. Elifritz and let him know what you think of his remarks, his modus operandi generally, or his ultimate goals, you can find him as follows:

cosmic@lifeform.org
http://cosmic.lifeform.org/
http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/rocket.htm
http://www.lifeform.org/
http://www.lifeform.net/news.php
http://www.lifeform.net/talkshop/

- Andrew Langer

A Lasting Legacy for The New SBA Chief

2006-07-23T15:57:00.000-04:00

I've got a backlog of things to post in the next few days - the podcast of my testimony, some of the pics from the testimony, pics from a debate I attended between Fred Smith and Leo Hindery on corporate social responsibility, put on by the Center for American Progress.

But it came to my attention that an article I was interviewed for by Jeff Gangemi of Business Week was published online at the end of the week. Here it is:

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jul2006/sb20060721_338385.htm?chan=search

Small Biz

By Jeffrey Gangemi

The New SBA Chief's Honeymoon Period

The small business community offers Steven Preston advice on what to tackle first as he starts his job as head of the Small Business Administration

Steven Preston, a former executive vice-president at ServiceMaster (SVM )—a conglomeration of franchised-based lawn care businesses—and a former investment banker at Lehman Brothers (LEH ), was recently sworn in as the new administrator of the United States Small Business Administration. He succeeds Hector Barreto, who resigned on April 25. Preston was confirmed by the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent, despite grumbling within the small business community about his lack of related experience (see BusinessWeek.com, 6/29/06, "Mr. Small Biz?").

By all accounts, Preston has a tough road ahead of him. The SBA, whose main role in the federal government is to grant guaranteed loans to U.S. small-business owners, has faced budget cuts of up to 40% in the past five years (see BusinessWeek.com, 1/27/06, "Is the SBA Hurting Small Business?").

"DOGGED FOCUS.".

Some opponents of the agency have called for the its disbanding, arguing that its programs often stunt growth and that the private sector would be at least as effective in granting needed loans to small businesses—and require less waiting and red tape (see BusinessWeek.com, 12/19/06, "A Talk with a Small Biz Heretic"). Preston is upbeat about his post, which he assumed on July 10. During his confirmation hearing, he emphasized the importance of sophisticated financial management, operational responsiveness, and a customer service culture at the SBA. "None of this happens by accident. It requires dogged focus to move the ball forward each and every day," Preston said in a statement. BusinessWeek.com asked three leaders in the small business community how they would they advise Preston to rebuild the SBA. Here's what each had to say.

FOR THE PEOPLE.
Carl Schramm, president and CEO of the Kauffman Foundation, an entrepreneurship and education foundation, says Preston should examine the SBA's core competencies, then redefine its purpose. "I'd first clarify my mission," says Schramm, who calls the SBA a lending organization for small businesses, not a financier of dynamic entrepreneurship. "The presumption [when the SBA considers a loan recipient] is that they're local, low-growth enterprises, they're lifestyle businesses. That's not the same thing as an entrepreneur. The SBA has nothing to do with it and shouldn't. It's for small and low-growth businesses."

Schramm's second piece of advice to Preston is to start a sweeping program to improve the human capital within his organization. Today, Schramm says, the SBA's small business counselors lack firsthand experience from the trenches and are often bureaucrats who have transferred from other government posts.

EXPERIENCE COUNTS.

"People who go to work for the government don't go there after a successful career in small business. Maybe their first job was at the post office, then they did an interagency transfer, and before they knew it, they were a 'small-business counselor.'" That inexperience doesn't serve the country's small-business owners, he believes. "If we're helping people develop plans for their business, our advice ought to be tested by practical experience," says Schramm.

The example of small-business counseling organization Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) is instructive, says Schramm. "I'd encourage Preston to hire people who are experts in running their own businesses, mimicking the idea of SCORE." Schramm proposes a reform of the SBA's hiring practices where it wouldn't accept transfers from other branches of government, and requiring that 50% of the employee base be 55 and older, with experience running a business.

Another important task for the SBA is to recognize its limitations—it's not the only lending organization for small businesses and may not best serve every entrepreneur or small business. "I'd encourage Preston to make an alliance with all the banks that are recently discovering small business," says Schramm.

HUMAN CAPITAL.
Loan advisors could then be trained to recognize when to recommend an SBA-backed loan and when to refer a client elsewhere. "If [an entrepreneur] needs the money quickly and the differential cost is low, then why not refer them?," asks Schramm.

Giovanni Coratolo, the executive director of the Council on Small Business at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, works closely with the SBA. His first piece of advice, like Schramm's, is for Preston to focus on human capital. "They've been embattled with last year's natural disasters, and morale is probably at an all-time minimum," says Coratolo. Besides hiring more good people, Coratolo says it's just as important to make sure the SBA's existing employees are invigorated with "new spirit, new enthusiasm." To do that, Coratolo recommends making some "new hires, internal promotions, and overall things that will give people reasons to enjoy what they're doing." Preston's experience in the private sector should help with this task, adds Coratolo.

ON THE SCENE.
Next on Preston's agenda: prepare for uncertain times. Previous SBA chief Hector Barreto encountered bureaucracies and slow loan processing post-Katrina, but still claimed to be doing more with less (see BusinessWeek.com, 05/11/06, "The SBA's Iffy Future"). "The benchmark [Preston] is going to be compared with is how well he does is in a crisis situation--how he performs in a natural disaster," says Coratolo.

While Preston tries to mend fences along the Gulf Coast, he can't neglect the need for a game plan going forward. "He's not in the business of saving lives; he's in the business of reconstruction. [When a disaster hits], the SBA has to be there early, interfacing directly with those in need," says Coratolo. To get on the ground most effectively requires an existing network. Coratolo recommends fostering more involvement with state and local chambers of commerce, bankers in local areas, as well as faith-based groups. "You have to have avenues of outreach, and you have to have horizontal ties to resources to direct people to other resources," says Coratolo. "

OPEN AND ACCOUNTABLE".

Andrew Langer, the manager of regulatory policy for the National Federation of Independent Business, a Washington D.C.-based small business advocacy organization, says the first step to a good legacy for Preston is to accept accountability for his agency's shortfalls—then move forward. "Overall, it's important to be open and accountable for the mistakes that have been made in recent years, especially when it comes to disaster preparedness," says Langer (see BusinessWeek.com, 2/2/06, "The SBA Chief Comes Out Swinging").

Next, Preston should bolster funding for the Office of Advocacy, which is the group that pipes-up for small business when the federal government's legislative and rule-making processes stand to affect them adversely.

GATEWAY PROGRAM.

"Preston should make a specific line item for the Office of Advocacy to safeguard against budget cuts for future generations. For every dollar [the Office of Advocacy] spends, it saves hundreds of dollars for small business. It gets great bang for its buck," says Langer. The Office of the National Ombudsman, which assists small businesses with unfair and excessive federal regulatory enforcement, also must be strengthened, he says.

If Preston wants to have a lasting legacy, says Langer, he should enact a proposed program known as the Business Gateway Program to minimize paperwork and simplify regulatory compliance for small businesses. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that paperwork increased by 441 million hours to 8.5 billion hours over the past year, with much of the impact absorbed by small businesses.

SHAPE OF THE FUTURE.
Business Gateway would simplify the process of compliance and minimize paperwork through an online tool available to all small businesses. "Imagine a system where small-business owners can go online, type in a few key pieces of info, and the system spits out every regulation they need to comply with, two-page instructions on how to do it, then walks them through how to do it all online," says Langer.

"If Steve Preston wants a legacy, he should make this a priority, put staffing and funding behind it, then make it simple for us to do. It's a sweeping project, but it's a lasting one," says Langer. Today Steven Preston is set to shape the future of the SBA. Critics and supporters of the agency are back in their corners for now, asking the question: How will Preston perform?

---end quoted material---

Gangemi did a great job.

- Andrew Langer

Playing For Keeps, and Looking 'Em Square In The Eye

2006-07-20T14:06:00.000-04:00

Well, the press has finally picked up on the transpartisan conference I attended last month. Washington, DC's The Hill had an article yesterday - it got it largely right, but some of the things were incorrect (I didn't have dinner with the Gore's every night, and my mother grew up in Berkeley, but didn't attend/graduate from UC Berkeley [that distinction belongs to her brother, my uncle, a life-long Republican]). Oh, and I wouldn't necessarily call the Inn at Gold Lake "lush" - it's a former girl's camp, and while it is nice (and small), it's not the Greenbriar, or whatever that fancy-schmancy place is down in Colorado Springs.

Anyhow, I've gotten some fun comments regarding this...

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/071906/gore.html

Conference offers partisans time out from election rancor
By Jim Snyder

Al Gore and Fred Smith represent two sides of the global-warming debate. At a recent retreat at a lush resort on a Colorado lake, they also formed half of a Samoan circle.

Gore, the former vice president whose movie about climate change is the surprise hit of the summer, and Smith, the head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a right-leaning, free-market think tank, were among a group of political leaders, environmental activists and scientists who participated in a "transpartisan" conference on energy security and global warming held at Gold Lake Spa and Resort last month.

The retreat is part of a larger effort sponsored by the Democracy in America Project - run by a former self-described "very conservative" congressional candidate and a hippie midwife he had met after a series of personal setbacks. The project aims to create a "safe place" where the "left, right and center" can get to know one another through Samoan circles and other relationship-building exercises.

In addition to Gore and Smith, other participants in Colorado included Gore's wife, Tipper; Grover Norquist, the anti-tax, anti-regulation director of Americans for Tax Reform; Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club; Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, co-founders of MoveOn.org; and Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition. In all, 32 people attended the retreat.

Though the meeting didn't yield concrete solutions to the issue of climate change, participants described the event as provocative and said it did seem to break down barriers between the two sides and open up a dialogue that has continued.

In sharing personal stories as part of trust-building exercises, some participants broke down in tears, sources said.

On the last day, attendees held hands and watched a sunset during the last day of the conference, Smith said. He added, however, that one participant drew a line at that, saying conservatives "don't hold hands."

"Everybody here plays for keeps, and there's not necessarily anything wrong with that," said Andrew Langer, who directs regulatory policy at the National Federation of Independent Business. [emphasis added]

At the conference, though, the two sides had the "opportunity to look each other squarely in the eye and open up a dialogue," Langer said.

The conference is the brainchild of Joseph McCormick, a former top graduate in his Virginia Military Institute class and Army Ranger officer who ran as a Republican in 1998 for Georgia's 2nd Congressional District, a targeted race that received some publicity because it was one of only a handful where Republicans test-marketed TV ads that hammered on the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

"I lived in a world of us versus them," McCormick said. He lost the race to Rep. Sanford Bishop, a Democrat still serving.

The election loss was followed by more profound setbacks: a painful divorce and the death of his sister. The turmoil left McCormick to reevaluate his life, he said.

Traveling south from Washington, McCormick made a spur-of-the-moment decision to turn off at Floyd, Va. He retreated to a rural enclave, living in a cabin without electricity for a year and a half.

"I had no commitments in my life at all," he said. "I had none."

The area he stumbled upon turned out to be a community of hippies. It was there, McCormick said, that he first began to question his previous political assumptions. He had judged liberals as insincere but found that his new neighbors "walked their talk."

Wanting to reenter the political debate without fighting the "red-blue war," McCormick eventually left North Carolina to retrace the steps of Alexis de Tocqueville, in order to take a measure of the modern American political scene.

He determined that what was most needed was a new way for people to communicate with one another.

"In Washington, the process doesn't allow for conversation," he said.

With Pat Spino, whom he met in Virginia and helped counsel back from the brink, McCormick founded the Democracy in America Project. The group, funded by the Setzer Institute, has sponsored three conferences. An upcoming one will held on the war in Iraq.

At the June conference, William Ury, who has directed negotiations among the bushmen of the Kalahari and clan warriors of New Guinea, and Mark Gerzon, another professional negotiator and author of Leading Through Conflict: Transforming Differences Into Opportunities, facilitated dialogue among the group.

The getting-to-know-you process included the Samoan circle, a negotiating tool where a small circle of, in this case, four people who represent two sides of an issue discuss their views as a larger surrounding circle listens.

Members of the outer circle come down and join the debate when they have something to say, but only people in the smaller circle can talk. When a person on one side says something, the person on the other must repeat it before offering a contradictory comment.

McCormick said he shared his own story to encourage other participants to be open to share their experiences.

Participants also voted on their core values using keypad technology, the same used by the audiences on "America's Funniest Videos" to choose which video is most deserving of the prize money.

Actual policy results might disappoint Washington veterans, battle-hardened by late-night conference committees fueled not by facilitators but by caffeine and political realities.

The Reuniting America website can seem a bit New Agey: "Tremendous success was found in the subtle yet profound building of relationships between individuals."

What agreements there were related to improving the efficiency of the electric-power grid and making the air traffic control system more efficient to cut energy waste, Smith said.

"We didn't solve anything," McCormick acknowledged.

The process is not "transactional" but "transformational," he said.

Langer, who sang the event's praises, said he ate dinner every night with the Gores. He was impressed that, despite the success of "An Inconvenient Truth," which has introduced the Gores to the likes of "X-Men" actor Hugh Jackman, they stayed for all three days.

Langer said he told Al Gore that his mother was a Peace Corps volunteer and Berkeley graduate. "The vice president got a big kick out of that."

Gore was unavailable to comment for this article.

The CEI's Smith said he talked a lot to Tipper, telling her, for example, that he liked her husband's slide show better than the movie, which he felt had been overly dramatized in parts.
He acknowledged that there were some moving moments during the retreat but noted the higher proportion of left-leaning participants: "They hug and squeeze a lot more than we do," Smith said.

But he added that one participant's defense of his side's free-market philosophy reminded him of John Wayne at Iwo Jima. Smith said there weren't many dry eyes afterward, even among conservatives.

"Most people realized we could be Catholics, we could be Protestants, and we could get along with one another," Smith said.
----end quoted material---

I don't particularly remember anyone breaking down in tears. But then again, I didn't know that I was in something called a "samoan circle".

- Andrew Langer

The Testimony... My First... Podcast?

2006-07-18T22:12:00.000-04:00

Well, let's try this. Not sure how the audio quality will come through, or if YouTube will allow me to broadcast the MP3 file, but here's the link:

[link deleted]

If this doesn't work, I'll try something else.

- Andrew Langer

[editor's note: It didn't work. I think I'm going to have to try rapidshare, or something of that nature. Have to do this later on, as someone is wanting some chocolate milk.... AML]

The Magic Power Of Vagueness

2006-07-18T16:21:00.000-04:00

Pictures will follow, as well as (hopefully) the audio of my testimony. It went well - I got some nice feedback from congressional staff.

In the interim, here's what I said:

Chairman Miller –

It is an honor to once again be invited to testify before you on the subject of regulatory impacts on small business, specifically the burden that small businesses face from federal paperwork.

I have to tell you, I’ve been working in Washington, DC for over a decade now, and like most people who’ve been in DC for some time, I’ve developed a certain blasé attitude towards government reports.

But every once in a while, something comes across my desk which is patently astonishing, something that simply takes my breath away. So it was when I received the Information Collection Budget from the White House several weeks ago.

It, too, is fairly blasé. In fact, I think government reports have to be dispassionate, no matter what information they are conveying.

But one cannot be blasé about the basic facts being conveyed in this report. It starts off with a simple-enough precept: America’s paperwork burden rose an unremarkable 5.5% last year.

Unremarkable, that is, until one realizes just what that’s 5.5% of. It’s 5.5% of eight billion hours! That’s right, BILLION, with a B. 5.5%, or one-twentieth of that, is an astonishing 441 MILLION hours.

When I see a number like that, especially on a Friday afternoon, it sits with me for some time and I give it a lot of thought. In this instance, I pulled out my calculator.

Several years ago, NFIB’s Research Foundation did a study on paperwork, and after surveying small businesses, came to the conclusion that paperwork costs just under $49 per hour. Some paperwork costs far more, some paperwork costs far less – obviously, it depends on the length, the complexity, the technical skills involved, but the average is about $49 per hour.

So just looking at the average costs from a macro level, paperwork cost Americans about $410 Billion last year – that’s right, billion, with a b. The increase alone was just over $20 billion.

Now, just dealing in abstract numbers doesn’t help – without context, it’s hard to gauge their meaning. All we really can see is that these numbers are huge. It’s when we compare them to other things we spend money on that we see just how huge they are.

NFIB pulled budget numbers, and the results are startling. Let’s start with the low-end of the spectrum: medical research. AIDS, for instance, is recognized as a serious health threat, one very much worthy of public study. So worthy, that the NIH’s Office of AIDS Research had a dedicated budget of $2.9 billion.

But what about cancer, one of the greatest killers? The entire budget of the National Cancer Institute pales in comparison to what American’s spend on paperwork: a paltry 1%, or $4 billion.

Certainly, though, Americans are spending far more on our most pressing public policy issue: the War on Terror? Sure they are – just not in comparison to what must be our greater public policy issue, making sure that we fill out forms for the federal government. The Department of Homeland Security’s spending in 2005 was $40 billion – Americans spent ten times more on paperwork.

It’s Defense that costs more than paperwork – but not by much. DOD spent $475 billion in FY 2005. Sadly, this is only about 15% more than Americans spent on paperwork.

A system that hemorrhages resources on paperwork in this manner is doomed to collapse – it cannot perpetuate itself, and will eventually run out of steam. And while I know that my colleagues on the left attempt to minimize this problem, even if we were to agree that the problem is a quarter of what it is, a system that focuses $100 billion each year on paperwork is not doing much better.

All of the tools that I have discussed previously are important – fully funding OIRA and the Office of Advocacy at the SBA, putting greater emphasis on reviewing regulations and the paperwork burden they impose, sunsetting regulations that aren’t reviewed – all of these are essential tools in getting a handle on this problem.

But one of the things I’ve only touched upon in the past, is the role that Congress plays. Legislation is driven by constituent demands, and is crafted in a fashion which can exacerbate this problem. Every time Congress passes a law which is vague and overly complex, it hands federal agencies the tools with which to do much mischief. Vagueness gives us regulations wherein dry land is magically transformed into “navigable waters of the United States’. Vagueness changes a pickup truck used for local landscaping into an interstate federal motor carrier. Vagueness turns “recycling” into “toxic releases”

If Agencies are given laws with holes big enough, they will drive trucks through them – holes that they will backfill with enough paperwork that American’s simply cannot undig themselves. I’d ask that as you consider how to deal with the agencies’ propagation of paperwork that you would also take time to consider how best to address Congress’ role.

And I’d like to reiterate something I spent a great deal of time talking about in March – an area on which there is apparent agreement between myself and my colleagues on the left.

In October, we will see the next iteration of the Business Gateway, a computer system which will be of a tremendous help to small businesses, both in understanding their regulatory responsibilities, and in completing and submitting their paperwork.

NFIB continues its steadfast support of this program. Recognizing that more and better resources available via the internet is a good thing, we know that this will greatly help in reducing these burdens. We continue with our mantra “simpler is better” – plain English, easily searchable, easily readable systems are what is needed.

We do continue to caution, however, that technology is not a panacea. We cannot make technology use mandatory – we have to recognize that some businesses will not, nor will they ever tech-savvy. In fact, I recently learned that NFIB has a number of Amish members, who are incredibly concerned about federal mandates regarding the use of technology.

We know that the Business Gateway is an ongoing process, and thankfully that journey is well on its way. It takes time and effort and resources to move a paper CFR to the web. More time to make it searchable. More time to make it simpler. More time to put compliance resources together with the regulations that they address. More time to put voluntary paperwork options on the web.

We know these things, which is why we continue to support this program, and ask that you do the same.

There are no easy solutions, that much I’ve said before. This is a problem that we have let get out of hand – and it cannot be dismissed out of hand. It is too large to ignore – the immensity of it makes that impossible.

Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I look forward to any questions you might have.

Live, On Tape From the NFIB Member Summit!!!!

2006-07-12T16:47:00.000-04:00

Just got stopped by someone in the hallway, letting me know that my interview on Small Business Television is up on the web. SBTV was at the NFIB Member Summit last month, and they interviewed me on regulatory and eminent domain issues.

It can be found here (along with the rest of the NFIB interviews)...

http://www.sbtv.com/?cid=55&segid=931

- Andrew Langer

Is This For Real?

2006-07-11T10:17:00.000-04:00

I got the following in my e-mail box this morning (and have already forwarded it to some of you). Rarely do I reprint e-mails verbatim, but this was just too good. I thought about replying, asking if the senders of this e-mail were serious, but then I thought better of it. There is a part of me that simply cannot believe it's a real newsletter - it's almost a parody of creationists...

Darwinism-Watch.com
11 July 2006

A report titled “Here’s looking at you, chimp” was published in the 24 December, 2005, issue of New Scientist magazine. The report carried details regarding the studies to decipher the chimpanzee genome. New Scientist, which has adopted as a dogma the scenario of humans and chimpanzees separating from a common ancestor 6 million years ago, suggested that comparative analyses of the genomes of these two life forms would illuminate the details of the fictitious evolutionary process.

However, the idea that humans and chimpanzees separated from a common ancestor is a myth maintained solely as a result of blind devotion to the theory of evolution. The supposedly scientific statements issued in support of this myth consist of prejudiced interpretations based on various similarities between the two, and a very widely dispersed and insufficient fossil record. >>>

SUPPORT FOR THE SUPPOSED EVIDENCE OF FICTITIOUS EVOLUTION FROM VATAN NEWSPAPER

The Turkish newspaper Vatan carried a report titled “The Fossil That Has Confused the World,” taken from the 7 April 2006 issue of the journal Nature. The article claimed that a fossil discovered in Arctic Canada was “the missing link in the chain of life from water to land.”

This report ignored a great many scientific facts, and was obviously prepared with the aim of spreading classic “evolutionary propaganda.” As they have done so many thousands of times before, evolutionist paleontologists again rely on a few bone fragments and engage in totally imaginary interpretations, completely devoid of any scientific foundation. Furthermore, this is now being attempted to be passed off as “a significant discovery in the name of evolution.” >>>

THE EVOLUTIONIST CLAIM OF A TRANSITION FROM WATER TO LAND IS A LIE TIKTAALIK ROSEAE: ANOTHER MISSING LINK MYTH

Darwinist media organizations have embarked upon a new wave of propaganda aimed at portraying a fossil recently described in the journal Nature as a missing link. The fossil in question is that of a fish, discovered in Arctic Canada by the paleontologists Neil H. Shubin and Edward B. Daeschler in 2004. Given the scientific name Tiktaalik roseae, the fossil is estimated to be 385 million years old. Evolutionists looking for possible candidates for their tales of a transition from water to land are putting the fossil forward as an intermediate form by distorting its “mosaic” features.

However, the claim of a transition from water to land is no more than a dream, because the physiological gulfs between terrestrial animals and fish cannot be overcome by any of the fictitious mechanisms of the theory of evolution. The latest attempt to make Tiktaalik roseae fit this scenario, which is supported out of blind devotion to the theory of evolution and rests on no scientific evidence whatsoever, is based on preconceptions and intentional misinterpretation. The facts the Darwinist media have concealed in their Tiktaalik roseae propaganda are set out below. >>>

EVOLUTIONARY DISTORTIONS FROM CBT

The Turkish magazine Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik (Cumhuriyet Science and Technology) carried a report titled “The 10 Most Important Scientific Events” in its 7 January, 2006, edition. The article listed the advances described as the most important scientific developments of the year by the American magazine Science. The CBT sub-caption read “Important findings have been obtained regarding the way that populations diverge in order to establish new species,” and the section regarding the theory of evolution appeared under the heading “Evolutionary mechanism discovered.”

These statements by CBT are completely unrealistic. When one examines the text under the heading one sees that no concrete facts are provided at all, and that the claim made in it is utterly groundless. >>>

DAN NEIL’S ERROR: RECONCILING DARWINISM WITH RELIGION

On 27 November, 2005, Los Angeles Times carried an article by Dan Neil. Titled “In God and Darwin We Trust,” (God is beyond all this), the article considered the evolution/creation debate in terms of the situation in Chile, and sought to construct common ground between Darwinism and belief in God. Neil maintained that evolution is a scientific theory and that for the religious believers in Patagonia see no reason to oppose Darwinism. However, he ignored a number of very important facts.

The main error of those who seek common ground between Darwinism and belief in God is that they make do with only the superficial aspects of what is expressed by means of the theory of evolution and fail to properly appreciate God’s might. In their view, evolution means nothing more than biological change in nature, and they think that there is no religious reason not to regard this as God’s form of creation. Indeed, the words “I don’t care if I’m descended from a monkey or a mouse.” in the article are a reflection of the superficial nature of this approach. >>>

----

Just so's you know I'm not buying into this, I'm offering the following cladogram. It's from the American Museum of Natural History - since I was a boy, they've redone their exhibits on evolution to more clearly show the evolutionary process can be charted:

And I've gotten an e-mail back from one of the folks I sent the newsletter to. He's one of the best scientists I know, and wanted to offer the following by way of perspective:

"'Everything in the universe exists through a combination of chance and necessity.' This paraphrased statement was made by Jacques Monad in his book "Chance and Necessity,"... Monad is a Nobelist in medicine."

Always nice to have a bit of fun on a Tuesday morning.

- Andrew Langer

Three Pieces of News...

2006-07-09T15:41:00.000-04:00

This summer is quickly becoming a much busier one than anticipated. That's not a bad thing, either. We did manage to hit the beach yesterday, and since it didn't get too sunny until mid-afternoon, it was a very pleasant day.

I'll start with an update. Those of you who have been closely reading the blog know that I've become involved in the movement to expand our local town council from three members to five. You've seen my various writings on the subject, and know where I stand.

Well, Thursday was our first meaningful public hearing on the subject - we expected it to either not be voted on, to have it voted down, or to have it tabled indefinitely and a committee appointed to study the matter (as per the writings of council member Norman Pinder). Surprisingly enough, a 4th option presented itself.

The meeting was incredibly well-attended. So many people attended, in fact, that I quickly ran out of my handouts (which summarized our position, reprinted my published op-ed, and offered contact information).

But council president Mary McCarthy (http://www.marytmccarthy.com) announced at the outset that the council had met in closed session earlier, and had voted to allow the referendum initiative to proceed without interference from the council - and directed the town attorney and town manager to meet with the referendum initiative leaders. The reason being that the council recognizes that the issue is important enough that:

a) the public, not the council ought to decide it;
b) that if the public wants to decide on it, they ought to have the opportunity to do so;
c) that the process ought to procede.

Regardless of what ultimately happens, I consider this a victory - while we certainly want to see the council expanded, in the short term this is how things ought to move forward.

I let Jerry Schram and Tim McCluskey speak before me - they're doing the heavy-lifting on this effort - and I filled in some of the blanks in my three-minutes. The opposition presented few new arguments, essentially falling into three categories:

1) that the council works fine as it is now, and doesn't need to be expanded;
2) that having more than three council members will complicate things, and will make matters worse (the "County Commission" argument);
3) that expanding the council will be expensive, isn't a priority, and will have unforeseen consequences.

The last argument is the most interesting - it is substantive, and worth further discussion and debate. In fact, it was presented by two of the opposition's strongest voices.

There will be more discussion of these issues in the coming weeks - in the meantime we're going to meet with town officials, circulate the petitions, and embark on an effort to educate the public. I'm hoping we're going to have some more open meetings/debates - possibly moderated by the League of Women Voters.

This leads me into my next bit of news:

I am now an official candidate for elected office.

A week ago Friday, just as I was leaving my favorite haunt, Ben's Chili Bowl (there may be news about Ben's in the coming weeks - you heard it here first), I got a call from a local GOP activist, recruiting me to run for a position on the Queen Anne's County Republican Central Committee. I thought about it over the weekend, talked about it with friends and family, and decided to go ahead and do it.

The Republican Central Committee is the governing body for the GOP of our county, and I believe there is a great deal I have to offer to this board: namely, my background, my years of experience as an activist and advocate, and my professionalism. There will be more on this later on as well.

There are 19 of us running for a seat on the committee, with a number of incumbents standing for re-election.

The election itself is part of the primary on September 12 - so I've got just over two months. There will be a candidates' forum at the Centreville Public Library on the night of July 20th - I will remind you all of this.

Finally, and still in the vein of that activist experience and politics, I've been invited to testify before Congress again. On Tuesday, July 18, I will be testifying before the House Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs. The Subcommittee recently received a report from the Office of Management and Budget on paperwork burdens, noting a sharp increase in that burden, and I will be offering the small business perspective on that.

I'll be interested in seeing if Robert Shull, my counterpart at OMBWatch, will be testifying. Shull testified on the same panel with me at that congressional hearing in March (http://langrrr.blogspot.com/2006/03/info-from-reg-affairs-hearing-now-live.html) - and in OMBWatch's recap of that hearing (http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3346/1/308?TopicID=1), they spent some time taking potshots at NFIB for our stance on regulatory review, while taking sole credit for talking about a program called "The Business Gateway," which is a computerized tool for assisting small businesses in figuring out which regulations apply to them and how they ought to comply.

The problem is, I've long been a champion of the Business Gateway, testified about it at this hearing, and, in fact, talked about it longer - both in my oral and written testimonies - than Mr. Shull did. In fact, I've been talking about the importance of this system, and it's predecessor (the Business Compliance One-Stop) for years:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Langer+%22Business+Gateway%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Langer+%22Business+Compliance+One-Stop%22

So, it'll be a nice opportunity to set that record straight.

Yes, lot's going on. Happy July!!!

- Andrew Langer

Yahoo and Freedom: The China Conundrum

2006-07-05T21:12:00.000-04:00

Knowing my interest in liberty and communism, and the discussions here on the blog about China's schizophrenia when it comes to individual rights, a reader of the Liberty Blog e-mailed me about a project she's involved in: Yahoogulag.com (http://www.yahoogulag.com).

A long time ago, I engaged in a lengthy chat on Usenet regarding the precarious nature of totalitarian regimes, and how no matter how financially prosperous a system might seem (ie, systems that appear to be free-market in nature, but engage in massive control over individual rights), a government that negates individual rights on a fundamental level cannot endure.

The ChiComs recognize this, but seem incapable of reconciling their desire for continued economic growth with the harsh reality that with it comes the demise of Maoism (and thank goodness for that).

So, in order to prolong it, they frustrate the liberalization by placing tremendous conditions on those who choose to do business there. And one would hope that those whose business is in no small measure based on the principles of freedom and equality (like those in the internet business) would resist those conditions, perhaps even considering not doing business there.

And this is the crux of the debate over businesses like Yahoo and Google, who are agreeing to censor their services as a price of doing business in China. According to YahooGulag.com, Yahoo is the worst, ranking them the most strict, or "worst censor in China".

Anyhow, you ought to check it out.

- Andrew Langer

Freedom: A State Of Mind

2006-07-04T20:29:00.000-04:00

Good weekend - up in New York for the first part (took a nice trip to Rye Playland), then back home for the 4th. Actually, we were down on the lower Delmarva at a friend's place - simply beautiful.

Last year on the 4th, I posted the Declaration of Independence. Could have done that again, but I decided to do something a little different.

When I was four or so (maybe five), I went to camp at Fieldston (some of you know this). Lots of vague memories - but one that stuck with me for years was the performance by some older kids of a song about freedom - with the refrain, "freedom is a state of mind!" Didn't know where it was from for the longest time, but eventually found the source on the internet. It's from a show called "Shenandoah".

Freedom ain't a state like Maine or Virginia
Freedom ain't across some county line
Freedom is a flame that burns within ya
Freedom's in the state of mind

(Chorus)
Freedom, freedom,
Freedom, freedom
Freedom is a flame that burns within ya
Freedom's in the state of mind

Freedom ain't a boat that's leaving without ya
Freedom ain't a place ya float to find
Freedom's in the how ya think about ya
Freedom's in the state of mind

(Chorus)

You can't get to freedom by riding on a train
The only way to freedom is right on through your brain

Freedom is a notion sweeping the nation
Freedom is the right of all mankind
Freedom is a body's imagination
Freedom is a state of mind

Freedom, freedom
Freedom, freedom
Freedom is a notion sweeping the nation
Freedom is a body's imagination
Freedom is a full-time occupation
Freedom's in the state of mind
----

Happy 4th.

- Andrew Langer

The Pinder Letter

2006-06-30T14:26:00.000-04:00

I'm having problems posting it - I'll get it on here as soon as I am able...

Answering Norman Pinder

2006-06-30T13:18:00.000-04:00

Above, I have posted a letter from Norman Pinder, member of the Centreville Town Council, regarding the town council expansion. Because I've had my letter to the editor recently, I can't respond there - so I'm responding here, and on some Centreville and QAC-oriented websites.

Here it is:

Today, Norman Pinder "stated his position" on expanding the Town Council in the Record Observer. Because I've already had my letter to the editor in, I thought that I would respond to his letter here.

The issue of council expansion is not new. Mr. Pinder says as much when he states that he has discussed this issue over the years with Centreville residents. Those conversations, he says, did not impart a "sense of importance". The fact that these discussions have been ongoing undercuts his stated belief that acting on the current proposal would be a hasty gesture - if, indeed, these conversations have occurred, then there has been plenty of deliberation over the years.

In fact, the reasons why this is important, and important to do now, (and why it was important to do yesterday), have been thoroughly aired: the issues of potential liaiblity for council members, the dangerous situation of having two council members constitute a majority, the growing population and growing responsibilities of council members and how two more sets of eyes and ears would be helpful. Those are substantive issues, and yet Mr. Pinder responds to none of them.

Instead of focusing on the merits, Mr. Pinder tries to tar-and-feather the effort. He talks about this as a possible "attempt to place people on the council" who are part of a "special interest group" trying to derail the wharf development.

Mr. Pinder has no basis on which to make this accusation - it is being done so to play on the fears of some Centreville Residents, and to once again fram an issue as "us versus them". It is part and parcel of the demands made by Council Member Roby in questioning Jerry Schram as to the source of his recommendations: don't talk about the merits, shoot the messenger instead.

I can only assume that the "special interest group" to which he refers is the Citizens for a Greater Centreville, or CGC. Well, as someone who has continuously advocated for this governmental change, written about it, spoken in public about it, taken time out of my schedule to work on it, I can say for certain that when it comes to me, I have no relationship to the CGC. I couldn't even tell you who the CGC is, who's in it, what they do, etc.

Besides, if this were about the Wharf, then the group of individuals working on this would be focusing their efforts on the Wharf instead.

The only issue of substance he raises is that of a perceived fear by some that this would undercut representation, and he again tries to feed this fear by talking about the expansion of the County Commission. This, too, is a red herring.

The problems faced by Queen Anne's County generally when it came to electoral politics was one of balance - balance of population versus a balance of geography, a real issue when you are talking about large areas of land. It's one the founders of our nation recognized as they were organizing our government, which is why we have the House and Senate organized differently, and why we have an electoral college to smooth out those population concentration differences when it comes to electing a president.

But for a town like Centreville, a close-knit community, such risks are, in fact, alleviated by expanding the council. First of all, having more people representing a proportionally lower number of citizens means better representation of those people, not less. Think about it, if you have a school that has 100 students and 4 teachers, and the school then decides to add an additional teacher, are the individual students going to get more attention, or less?
Second, the risks of not being adequately representated (presumably because the person elected doesn't live in whichever neighborhood the concerned citizen lives in) exist already - in fact, they're even greater, considering that each election cycle the voters only get one shot at selecting a council member of their choice.

So, in fact, expanding the council alleviates that risk.

I was honestly surprised by Mr. Pinder's statement that he has had, "many conversations with numerous people... who have expressed concerns with an expansion of the council." In the months that this issue has been discussed and debated in town, in conversations on front lawns and porches, in backyards and over meals, while standing in line at the grocery store, none of us who has been working on this issue have heard such concerns expressed.

In fact, reactions have been largely the opposite, wondering when this will happen, saying what a great idea it is, and asking why it hasn't it happened sooner.

It's too bad Mr. Pinder's letter didn't address more of the substance of the proposal, and instead played on the fears of some Centreville residents. In doing so, Mr. Pinder plays the politics of division (a nasty game) and keeps us wallowing in past conflicts.

This proposal isn't about the past or about division. It's about the future - the future of a united community that deserves better.

- Andrew Langer
http://langrrr.blogspot.com

A Young Man Learns To Be A Critic...

2006-06-29T11:09:00.000-04:00

There was a bit of an unhappy confluence of events - today, as I was getting ready to send in my annual donation to Fieldston, I got an e-mail from two of my classmates letting me know that Bill Bertsche, Fieldston's Middle School Principal had passed away. Bill started at Fieldston while we were students there, and was a young man, things that give me pause.

Anyhow, after sending in my donation, I was looking at the Fieldston website and noticed that they've put past Founders' Day speeches online. For the uninitiated, every year Fieldston celebrates its founding with a half-day event down at the Midtown Society for Ethical Culture building (which was used for the interior "trial" shots in "Scent of a Woman" starring Al Pacino) - the head of the Society speaks, Fieldston's Principal speaks, there's a keynote, and then the outgoing and incoming student government presidents speak.

As you can imagine, being Fieldston, the student speeches are generally very good - and one in particular really stood out. They don't have the speeches from 2006 up yet, but last year, outgoing president and senior, Ryan Dieringer, gave a self-reflective speech on discovering his own capacity to be a critic (or, more accurately, how a close friend helped him discover it). As someone whose own political philosophies didn't quite jibe with the majority at Fieldston, often, I found great kinship with his sentiments (the entire roster of speeches can be found here: http://www.ecfs.org/forms/foundersday/foundersday_2005.pdf )

The wonderful thing about the mornings in this room is they call to mind not
just a few of the more poignant memories of what has occurred here in the
past, but a whole history of Founder’s Days stacked neatly on top of each
other. We get to check in on a parade of our younger selves. Evaluate how
we’ve grown, who we’ve become, and how Fieldston and its Founder has
been a part of that.

To preface my remarks today, I’d like to sift to the bottom of the stack, to the
days when I was a sprightly youth fresh from The Elisabeth Morrow School,
and just beginning to adjust to life at Fieldston. I arrived an avid reader with
a Salingeresque older brother who would stack my shelves with books like
The Communist Manifesto and On the Road. I would come in every few
weeks with a new book and preach the word of Socialism, the Beats, Islam or
whatever the day called for, usually to my best friend, Ben Ehrlich. One day
Ben decided to respond honestly to my musings and said something to me
that changed my life.

“Dude, you believe everything you read.”

Ben taught me then what would emerge as the central theme of my education
at Fieldston: the evolution of a critical mind.

It is this very lesson that a 13-year- old Ben Ehrlich taught me that I believe
to be not only the highest calling of the Ethical Culture Fieldston School, but
its greatest strength. The ability to criticize: not only literature, but the world,
one’s community, and ultimately oneself is that which I respect most deeply
in Fieldston’s students, and the subject I wish to speak about this morning.
What makes Fieldston such an inspiring place is that it is full of critics. When
I use this word, criticism, I mean it in its purest, most innocent form: to call
into question everything around you, and to seek with all your powers of
curiosity the discernable truths that exist in our world.

A critique, in this sense, of your community is the noblest of considerations,
and what makes the Fieldston community so strong. Fieldston, like the rest
of the world, is not without its flaws. It rightfully warrants the whole gamut
of criticisms. However, today I am not going to point out the flaws that exist,
but rather celebrate how acutely aware the student body is of them.

It seems that recently, given perhaps the changing face of our school, Fieldston
students have awoken to an age of question. In my time at Fieldston I have
never seen such an outpouring of skepticism about our progressive creed,
commitment to diversity and tolerance, whatever it is, wherever we err short
of perfection, there are some Fieldston students that are ready to let their
community know about it. I think to the multicultural club, SUME’s, inspiring
work on a documentary shown on Martin Luther King Jr. Day assessing and
critiquing the status of diversity in our school. I think to this year’s PAC
elections, and the fiery poise with which candidates stood in front of their
school and laid out their qualms with the status of administrative
communication, a faltering commitment towards progressivism, lack of proper
venues for community service. And, lastly, I think to Lorenzo Krakowsky
and a group of students’ brilliant work on this year’s MAD on progressive
education, when the entire student body came together as one to assess the
goals and weaknesses of our school’s mission.

From where do Fieldston students draw such a capacity for criticism, such
awareness of their community? In the outstandingly progressive classrooms
at Fieldston. Ironic, being as though this very thing, progressivism, is that
which seems to be receiving the brunt of our criticism lately. It begins in
David Swartwout’s classroom, where any critique of world affairs is always
coupled with a personal reflection on ones own relative privilege and prejudice.

It begins in Bob Montera’s classroom, where his course on African Studies is
directed not merely as a seminar on the history of a continent but more
importantly as an unveiling of our own biases against a people. Furthermore,
it begins in this room, where Felix Adler once stood and preached to his
students, “I do not ask you to accept my religion, I ask you to consider the
practical directions for the conduct of life which follow from it, and if, having
tested them, you find them valid in your experience, then they will be of use
to you.” It is precisely this man’s legacy, therefore, that I wish to honor today.

The real issue is whether or not we make our criticisms personally livable;
whether or not we can apply the ethical truths we demand of our community
to how we live. In the Buddhist religion one’s ethical life is broken up into
three parts: view, meditation, and action. The view is one’s vision of the
perfect world, one’s goals for how one attains ethical perfection. This view,
however, is nothing without meditation, a way of harnessing and training the
mind to naturally embody these goals. And most importantly: action, the
incorporation of this learning into everyday life. Felix Adler had a similar
message in mind when he said,

“Deeper, fresher, thinking on the ever lasting problems
[should be] challenged, in order that the conduct, the
doings of men might become nobler. Action without
thinking is blind, thinking without action to test it is
footless…Is what you think as to the meaning of man’s
existence true? The test is: your philosophy: is it
livable?”

Holy is not the ground where people meet to recognize the highest in their
community, but rather where they meet to seek it in themselves.

The highest lesson of Adler’s legacy is self-awareness. To look inside
ourselves and criticize where what we’re doing wrong. It inspires us to make
an effort to personally embody that vision of a perfect community that we see
beneath the surface of our own imperfect one. It teaches us to separate our
true priorities from our illusions. Ultimately, it offers us the most valuable of
skills: to be able to challenge our own egos, live ethically and with love and
compassion for those around us. Without this ability, the otherwise critical
mind is useless to its community, and prey to apathy and pretension. This is
the opportunity Fieldston gives its students; this is the vital challenge that is
issued.

When I walked away from Ben that afternoon, I didn’t feel enlightened by
his comment. I felt angry and confused. But, on this Founders Day, I stand
before you in the spirit of gratitude. Today when you walk out these doors,
may that same gratitude accompany each and every one of you down the
sacred steps of this institution. And wherever those steps lead, be it right
back where they started, or, seniors, those bigger and better places that lie
before us, may we walk deliberately and patiently.

Let us greet the coming world with humility and faith. Let us confront the
rigid walls of our minds and truly embrace the challenge set forth by our
Founder. Let’s come together, bid farewell, and perhaps somehow find an
answer to our questions.

Thank you.

Now’s the day to ask ourselves, “who do we want to be when we return to
this place” and “how will our community have changed as a result?”
------

Just some thoughts for the day. I don't know you, Ryan, but I have to say, "really well done!"

With that in mind, if you're a Fieldston alumnus and you haven't given, do so. The end of the fiscal year is tomorrow.

- Andrew Langer

Scott Bullock on the Kelo Anniversary

2006-06-28T14:06:00.000-04:00

Before I post something detailed about IJ's recent Kelo Anniversary reports, I thought I'd offer the following, by way of introduction. It's a piece Scott Bullock, IJ's senior attorney and the principal arguer of the case before the High Court that appeared on June 24 in the Wall Street Journal:

The Specter of Condemnation
By SCOTT BULLOCK
June 24, 2006
Wall Street Journal

When I got the call from the Supreme Court clerk's office telling me that the court had decided Kelo v. New London -- and that the city had won -- I and my colleagues who had worked on this case from the trial court up to the Supreme Court sat together in stunned silence.

First I felt shock at the damage done to the Constitution; then I winced at what the decision meant for people who had fought so hard for their rights. Susette Kelo could lose the dream home for which she had worked so hard; 87-year-old Wilhelmina Dery might be evicted from the only home she had ever known. Finally, we all shuddered at what this decision meant for home and small business owners across the country.

What a difference a year makes. Kelo is the most universally despised Supreme Court decision in decades. And it touched off a nearly unprecedented, grass-roots backlash against eminent domain abuse -- where land is taken, not for a traditional public use like a road or a public building, but from poorer folks and given to wealthier folks, all in the name of "development."

Americans are virtually united in opposition to this practice. Polling on this matter is off the charts. Consistently, 80% or more of the people are opposed to the Kelo decision and want something done about it. The opposition cuts across the usual political divides that separate Americans today. Property owners in blue states oppose eminent domain abuse just as much those in red states. Republicans such as Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. James Sensenbrenner stand shoulder to shoulder with Democrats such as Bill Clinton and Reps. John Conyers and Maxine Waters.

Indeed, about the only people who support the abusive practices are those who stand to benefit from it: local political officials, including big city mayors such as New York's Michael Bloomberg; and planners and developers. What these beneficiaries lack in numbers, however, they more than make up for in political muscle. The result is a massive struggle in state legislatures.
The stakes are high. In the five years between 1998 and 2002, more than 10,000 properties nationwide were threatened or condemned for private development through eminent domain; in just the past year since Kelo, more than 5,700 properties have been similarly threatened or taken. Unless the laws are changed, these unconscionable practices will continue.

So far the results have been encouraging. Legislatures in 25 states have responded to public outcry by restricting eminent domain in a variety of ways. Three other states passed similar legislation, only to have it vetoed by the governor. Six states -- Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- have constitutional amendments to reform eminent domain that will go before voters this fall.

Importantly, last year the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill that would prohibit federal economic development funds from going to state and local agencies that use eminent domain for private commercial development. The Private Property Rights Protection Act (HR 4128) could make a big difference -- if the Senate Judiciary Committee would only allow it to be voted on by the full Senate.

The new state laws vary in the level of protection they provide. Still, even modest reforms would have been impossible before Kelo put a national spotlight on the disgrace of cities taking homes, small businesses and churches all in the pursuit of more tax revenue and an improved local economy.

Although the tide is turning, a great deal remains to be done. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warned in her prescient Kelo dissent, "the specter of condemnation now hangs over all property." Since Kelo, cities have pushed out motels for commercial development and replaced small businesses with upscale hotels; bulldozed houses to make room for shopping malls. There's an even stronger and uglier trend: Towns and cities are taking modest-sized houses from their owners and handing them over to the builders of trendier, more upscale homes and condominiums (whose new owners will pay higher taxes).

Meanwhile, agricultural land has been taken by eminent domain to make room for retail establishments, and members of congregations have been forced out of their houses of worship to make room for businesses that yield taxes to municipalities.

In addition to political changes, it is still vitally important that courts do not roll over and play dead. Even the majority of the Supreme Court recognized in the Kelo decision that, regardless of the U.S. Constitution, state courts are free to interpret their own state constitutions to afford a greater measure of protection to citizens against the reach of eminent domain. And many state courts, after years of neglect, have strengthened protections for people challenging eminent domain abuse.

Although most of the litigation will be directed toward state constitutional claims in the near future, I am confident that one day, perhaps in the not-too-distant future, the Supreme Court will reconsider and overturn its disastrous Kelo ruling, consigning it to the same fate as other discredited decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson (which upheld "separate but equal" treatment of the races) and Korematsu v. U.S. (which upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II).

Meanwhile, in New London, where this battle began back in 2000, folks there are still fighting to keep their homes. Wilhelmina Dery passed away in March of this year but she was able to do so in her home, a few feet from where she was born the year World War I ended. Susette Kelo's little pink Victorian house -- now a symbol of the fight against eminent domain abuse nationwide -- still proudly stands.

The political officials and their big business allies who benefit from eminent domain abuse will not give up their power without a fight. This is a fight that must be faced squarely. But if it is, we will, in the end, all be more secure in our homes, small businesses, farms and churches.

Mr. Bullock, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, argued the Kelo case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Happy Anniversary!!!!

2006-06-27T15:53:00.000-04:00

Yes, that's right - today marks the Liberty Blog's first anniversary. It's been an interesting year, all-told, and a learning experience for me (to say the least). I was right about a few things, wrong about others (no, Bruce, I'm not going to turn this into another Gale Norton love-fest), attracted some new fans, attracted some new "fans".

We spent a lot of time talking about eminent domain, and on that score things seem to be moving. We've got legislation moving through various states, the House has passed a decent bill, the Admininstration is going in the right direction. We're waiting on the Senate, but then, isn't that true of a lot of things? It's taken us 130+ years to get where we are on property rights, and we're not going to solve the problems immediately. But I am more confident today than I was a year ago that things are getting better.

Let me engage in a bit of self-censorship here: I had actually written a few paragraphs about one of those "fans" (no, not Andrew Kessler), and their recent activities (without mentioning their name). But I decided that there was no point in leaving those paragraphs in - so they've been excised. If I've learned anything over the course of the last year, it's that sometimes it's best to err on the side of caution. I've long-exhorted the phrase "discretion is the better part of valor", and perhaps I ought to exercise that maxim right now.

And in the end, I realized that I hadn't made good on one thing (alright, a bunch of things - yes, I know I need to be better about posting). I haven't said enough about food!!!! So, I'll leave you with a recipe that has planted itself firmly in my repertoire these days: grilled cabbage. This is a recipe that I got out of a book that my sister-in-law and her new husband gave me.

I love grilling, and over the years have honed my grilling skills - in fact, at a lot of friends' parties, you'll often find me in the job of "grill jockey". It's funny, because you'll frequently find folks who are good "kitchen chefs" don't do well in front of the fire, and vice-versa. But I've taken some of my kitchen skills outside. Yes, my Dad and brother make fun of my for how anal I can get - but it causes me physical pain when someone pokes and prods a piece of meat over the fire, and cuts into it before it's had time to rest.

No, don't confuse this with a lot of recipes that grill wedges of cabbage. This is a dramatic dish that while it takes some time to cook, it's well worth it when you bring the whole head of grilled cabbage to the table - in fact, the blog "Armida Cooks" has some pictures - I've tried copying some of them over here, but without success. The link is here: http://armidacooks.blogspot.com/2006/02/grilled-cabbage-with-bacon-and-bbq.html )

1 Medium Head Cabbage
1 medium onion (yellow, spanish or white), diced
4 strips bacon, preferably thick-ish.
1/4 cub Barbecue sauce
1/2 stick butter

If you have leaves that are falling off the cabbage head, pull them off. If there are some loose ones, don't worry about them. They're going to char anyway.

Wash the head of cabbage, then core the bottom, leaving a hole about 2.5 inches across and about as deep. Make a ring out of some tin-foil to use as a stabilizing base for the cabbage, both on the counter and on the grill. Place cabbage on ring, cored-side up.

If you haven't gotten your charcoal ready, do so now (you should have done this 1/2 hour ago!). If you're using a gas grill (like I do) light it now.

Snip the bacon into 1/4" pieces and sautee in a frying pan. When the fat begins to render, stir in the diced onion. Cook until bacon nears done and the onion in translucent.

Drain the bacon grease from the pan and set aside. Off-heat, but while the pan is still warm, stir the barbecue sauce into the bacon and onion mixture.

Take bacon drippings and rub around the outside of the cabbage. You'll probably have some left over. Then take bacon/onion/barbecue sauce mixture and spoon into cavity where the core was.

Cut butter into small cubes and place on top of the now-filled core. Take left-over butter cubes and place around the top of the cabbage. Use salt and pepper on this exposed cabbage and butter.

Take prepared cabbage head out to your grill. If using a charcoal grill, build an indirect fire by pushing coals to one side of grill. If using gas, turn burners under cabbage down to medium.

Place cabbage on grill grate, stabilizing it with the foil ring.

Then turn the cabbage 90 degrees every 15 minutes. Cabbage will probably be ready in an hour to an hour and a half - if it's soft to the touch, it's done (or darn near it).

Make sure your guests/spouse/witnesses/others see it when you bring it in. Trim the charred leaves from the outside (they should come right off) and then cut the cabbage into wedges for serving.

It's awesome.

- Andrew Langer

Kelo At One Year... President Signs EO

2006-06-25T15:10:00.000-04:00

Tried posting earlier, but the laptop overheated. So, let's try this a second time.

It's been a busy week - NFIB had it's biennial summit early on. Lots of time with our members, which is always exhilerating. It's also a great time to connect with some of the NFIB'ers from the far-flung regions of the US. I gave a lecture at CEI for their interns, then did some serious TRI work. I was up in New York for a quick family-related trip, and now we're back.

As I was traveling, I got word from folks at the White House that the President, in honor of the Anniversary of Kelo (one year ago on Friday) and in light of continued recalcitrance on the part of the Senate to pass post-Kelo legislation, was signing an executive order (details to follow). This is good - hopefully, it will give the US Senate a much-needed kick in the pants to pass something on the order of what the house passed, and maybe it will send a signal to the legions of municipalities that are going gangbusters that maybe they ought to ratchet down the private-to-private eminent domain.

There will be more on this in a day or so. IJ has released a report demonstrating a sharp uptick in the kinds of eminent domain upheld by Kelo - a serious increase, all designed to capitalize on Kelo before the public has a chance to do what needs to be done.

Here's the official word from the White House:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release June 23, 2006

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

PROTECTING THE PROPERTY RIGHTS
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall:

(i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

(b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:

(i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and

(ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

(b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;

c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;

(e) acquiring abandoned property;

(f) quieting title to real property;

(g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;

(h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or

(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH
---

It's a step - it's certainly better than where we were while Kelo was being argued.

- Andrew Langer

Yankees! Haya Doin'?!!

2006-06-17T07:35:00.000-04:00

Alright, I'm going to dispute the Washington Post's account of last nights Yanks versus Nats game. The crowd wasn't chanting "Ber-nie, Ber-nie". They were chanting "Ber-nie-Will-yums" in a 1-2 cadence. Much like the omnipresent "Let's go Yan-kees!" chants up at The Stadium (for all intents and purposes, there is only one Stadium. Even when they tear The Stadium down, there will still only be one).

Actually, I was rather surprised at how vocal and loud the Nats fans were - I've gotten so used to seeing the Yanks at Camden Yards that I've come to expect a majority of the crowd at a game down here to be Yankees fans. Then again, I'm forgetting the fact that O's fans tend to stay home when the Yanks are in town.

Hadn't expected to go to last night's game - the original plan was to go tonight. But a wrench got thrown in the works (a series of them, in fact), and I decided to go with my youngest brother to Friday night's game - after all, it was the first time the Yanks had set foot in DC (apart from meeting the President following their championship runs) since 1971.

I actually went home to grab my Munson throwback and Yankees cap (Thurman Munson, the legendary Yankees catcher, remains one of my childhood heroes - his death in 1979 remains a singular event from my youth. Yes, I can tell you exactly where I was when I learned about the plane crash.)

Thurman Munson

"The Captain"

It was a fun game - the Nats did surprisingly well, answering the Yankees early on and having a two run lead going into the 8th. But the Yanks rallied, with the Nats walking in the game-tying run, and then took over with a blast from Bernie Williams.

Posada Congratulates Williams

(Photo Courtesy of Newsday)

As I just e-mailed someone, when Posada stepped in and Rivera got on the mound, all felt right with the world.

I'm almost sorry that I've given away my tix to Sunday's game...

- Andrew Langer

Centreville, MD: The Time For Expansion Is Yesterday

2006-06-15T21:23:00.000-04:00

This is an op-ed that may or may not be being published in the Queen Anne's County Register (our local paper). Essentially, our town is struggling with certain issues of growth and government, and some of us have come to the conclusion (as is clear) that the Town Council ought to be expanded from three to five people.

Here it is:

The Time For Expansion Is Yesterday
By Andrew Langer

As one of the “small group of citizens” working to expand Centreville’s Town Council, I thought it would be a good idea to lay out just some of the reasons we not only believe this to be a good idea, but why it needs to be done sooner, rather than later.

It would be cliché to say that Centreville is at a turning point – and not entirely accurate, either. In fact, Centreville’s turning point was reached several years ago, when local elected officials (and some unelected) decided to greatly expand the community by approving a series of large development projects on the edges of town. Controversial or not, the reality is that Northbrook, Symphony Village, and all the rest of these new housing areas have made Centreville a much larger town.

That alone calls for consideration of an expansion of the council.

But population concerns aside, there are some fundamental “good government” reasons why the council needs to be expanded.

As the most basic level, there is a fatal flaw in any government body that allows a motion to carry simply on its being moved and seconded, as is the case currently. Having two members constituting a majority gives the Town Council the ability to govern without any discussion or debate over the issues being considered, effectively stifling the democratic process. It creates serious “balance of power” issues, inasmuch as the rights of a concerned minority are at risk of being thwarted.

Second, the Town Council (and therefore, the town of Centreville) faces serious liability from having only three council members – and not in the abstract sense. As has been demonstrated time and time again, any time two members of the Town Council talk to one another outside of public meetings, they are in violation of Maryland’s open meetings laws. There have been numerous violations of this found by the state, and allegations are happening on an almost weekly basis.

And who can blame the Town Council members for this? They are put in a ludicrous position – having to effectively put all their interactions in front of the public, when, in fact, they ought to be able to informally talk to each other out of the public eye. It puts Town Council President Mary McCarthy in the unenviable position of being unable to seek counsel from her fellow council members on an individual basis, without being in violation of the law.

This, of course, manifests itself in the current dysfunction of the council, a level of acrimony not seen in many years, according to some longtime Centreville residents. Any political leader ought to be able to talk to fellow elected officials, one-on-one, in order to solicit private advice and move towards consensus. Without that ability, the people of this town lose out (no matter who presides over the council).

Finally, as the town has expanded, so have the issues facing the town grown more complicated and time consuming. Centreville has seen time and again issues that required more man-hours than our council members could possibly give. Expanding the council by two more members would allow for greater delegations of responsibility, two more sets of eyes that could keep watch over the issues so vitally important to the town’s residents.

This is not so complicated a decision that it requires months of study. Public input has been and will continue to be ongoing – in fact, Mary McCarthy has made gathering that input a priority, and scheduled a hearing on the issue. This will allow for the citizens of town to come together, voice their concerns, learn (hopefully) from those whose views do not match their own, and reach some sort of accord on the subject. That public airing (and subsequent council meetings in which the resolution will be raised) will allow for the full public debate the issue requires.

All too often, people confuse prolonged deliberation with action. While sometimes this is true, in many instances deliberation is merely a masked desire for inaction - in other words, a delaying or stalling tactic. Expansion of Centreville’s Town Council cannot and should not be delayed. For legal reasons, for ethical reasons, for public policy reasons, we need to expand the Town Council as soon as possible. It’s a change that should have been done yesterday.

Andrew Langer is a resident of Centreville

An Introductory Report on Colorado From John Caldara

2006-06-13T20:42:00.000-04:00

I'm piecing together my thoughts on Colorado, but rather than completely reinvent the wheel, I thought I'd offer up what the Independence Institute's Jon Caldara had to say by way of introductory remarks:

Al Gore and Me:

You're not going to believe this one. For the last three days, I've been with Al and Tipper Gore at a mountain retreat here in Colorado. Before you disown both the Independence Institute and me, allow me to explain.

I was invited to be one of only 24 participants in a Left/Right dialogue entitled "Reuniting America." In a search for common ground on energy policy, organizers brought together political movers and shakers such as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to meet with others like Al Gore, Carl Pope, the head of the Sierra Club, and the founders of MoveOn.org. As you can imagine, it was pretty fiery.

The organizers of the event are promoting something they call "Transpartisanship." The idea is to improve the dialogue between the Left and Right on major issues. Did we make progress? Indeed we did. What kind of guy is Al Gore? On a personal level, he is incredibly engaging, very thoughtful and sincere. No, I didn't say he was right about his views on global warming, but I'll tell you, he strongly believes it. More about this interesting retreat later.
---end quoted material---

I'll add my two cents later on.

- Andrew Langer

Horace Cooper - No Rogue Wave

2006-06-12T11:49:00.000-04:00

No Rogue Wave
By Horace Cooper
June 7, 2006

Ever the optimists, Democrats remain convinced that they are riding a wave to victory in November. If Tuesday's California special election results mean anything then the wails and screams that ultimately come in the wake of any so called November tsunami are more likely to come from the Capitol Hill offices of Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emmanuel than they are from the Republican leadership.

Even after Francine Busby's loss to Congressman-elect Brian Bilbray in California's 50th Congressional District last night the so-called election experts are spinning wildly to proclaim what an achievement it was to have come so close. But close doesn't matter. To quote Vin Diesel's character in the movie The Fast and the Furious, "Ask any racer, any real racer. It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning's winning." At the end of the day control of Congress will be decided, not by how close the elections are, but by how many seats are actually won. For example, in 2004 Republicans exhibited an audacious power-play by re-electing every single incumbent in Congress. What statement are Democrats expressing with this pattern of consistently coming up short in clutch races?

Not withstanding the losses, Democrats say they still expect the political equivalent of a "rogue wave" to overthrow the Republicans and install their party in power. Once dismissed as a nautical myth, oceanographers now claim that freakish or "rogue waves" do exist and can rise as tall as ten-story apartment buildings in the midst of otherwise calm ocean settings. In many instances these freaks of nature are able to destroy even the sturdiest of ships. Democrats would have us believe that even without any obvious signs we can rest assured the rogue wave is coming and this November Republican majorities in the House and Senate will be washed out in its wake.

But there's little hard evidence to prove their case. While rogue waves in the ocean can be tracked by geostationary satellites orbiting the globe, where is the evidence of a subterranean storm of apocalyptic strength brewing in the political arena? In fact doesn't the latest setback demonstrate just the opposite? Not if you're a true believer. Proving Dick Armey's axiom that "Conservatives believe it when they see it, and Liberals believe it when they believe it" Democrats and their amen choir in the mainstream media are absolutely positive that despite this latest loss, a cataclysmic victory awaits them in November.

If you follow their explanation, nearly winning in the very seat where the former incumbent is the actual convicted criminal -- Duke Cunningham -- is strong proof of actual wins of seats elsewhere in the future. Just last week, former House Democratic Whip Tony Coelho crowed, "This is a psychological race. If the Democrats won it's a foregone conclusion" of a House takeover in November. He added, however, "If they lose closely, it will continue the paranoia among Republicans to separate themselves from President Bush." Salon magazine contributor James Verini boasts, "If a liberal women's studies professor can win a congressional seat in this conservative bastion, November could be a GOP nightmare." Not to be undone Gary Jacobson, political scientist at the University of California, San Diego predicted, "If Republicans lose a district that is this Republican, they ought to be real worried." And even the candidate has bought into the hype. In an interview in the closing days of the race, Francine Busby exclaimed, "If I get close, then we've made the point that this is no longer a safe seat." Hype or no, a loss is still a loss.

Amazingly, this is the same script they delivered after their last two special election losses. Think back to Ohio last year. You may recall that in that race Republican Jean Schmidt beat Iraq war veteran and Democrat Paul Hackett in southwestern Ohio 52-48%. The seat which opened up when Rep. Rob Portman (R) resigned to become U.S. trade Representative was to be the opening salvo for Democrats in their efforts to retake the House. What you may not recall is that it was Paul Hackett who was the first to campaign against what he labeled the "the Culture of Corruption." In Paul Hackett's case he was using it as a description of the Ohio Republican party. And like many others who shared the high hopes at the time, Huffington Post contributor and Professor Steve Burt crowed then that "If a Dem can win here, Dems can win anywhere." But that's just the point, they didn't win.

And let's not forget last fall's open seat race in California created when Chris Cox resigned his House seat to join the Bush Administration. In the run up to the race, Daily Kos' website proclaimed that a victory would "send a California sized Earthquake through the Republican Leadership and energize The Netroots and traditional Democratic channels!" Memo to Markos, we're still waiting. Earthquake or not, the Democrat in the race barely managed to finish second in a 3 way against the Republican victor and a one issue anti-immigration independent candidate.

But astonishingly, this no agenda, no vision strategy to fight the "culture of corruption" which failed in Ohio has been adopted lock stock and barrel by the Washington Democrats and it is their theme for November. It must come as a major disappointment that ethical stalwarts Cynthia Mckinney, Robert Kennedy, Robert Mollohan and William Jefferson have made that cry ring even more hollow than it might otherwise.

For the realists it should be getting increasingly obvious that there is no there, there. For a refresher in knowing what signs evince an actual political tsunami consider the 1994 Republican election. In the run-up to November of that year Republicans ousted Democrats in two special elections in Oklahoma and Kentucky. And ultimately they went on to defeat 34 incumbent Democrats.

Then Republicans in opposition had both a unifying vision and a plan called "The Contract With America." And instead of waiting to manifest itself on election day, its noteworthy to recall that the pro-GOP tailwind appeared on the political radar screen as much as a year before. It revealed itself first with the run-off victory of Paul Coverdell in the Senate race in December of 1992 and gained steam with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's win in Texas and Richard Riordan's mayoral win in Los Angeles in June of 1993. The romp in the off-year state races by Christie Whitman in New Jersey, George Allen in Virginia, and Rudy Giuliani in New York set the stage for 1994. And notably the best selling non-fiction hardback book that year was "See, I Told You So" by Rush Limbaugh. In November 1994, Republicans would gain 52 Seats in the House and pick up 8 seats in the Senate.

Today Democrats have no string of wins against Republican incumbents, no unifying platform or agenda to take to the American people and on the night of their latest election loss, Markos Mousilitas' book "Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics" was ranked 996 by Amazon.

Rogue wave, I doubt it.
----------
Horace Cooper, who worked on Capitol Hill in 1994, is a law professor at George Mason University

On "This Week" this... errr.... week.

2006-06-11T16:53:00.000-04:00

I apologize for the quality of the screencap - taken, as it was, using a digital camera pointed at my TV.

Anyhow, yes, I was one of the "fortunate" few to be caught on film by ABC's cameras when they came to visit Grover Norquist's weekly "Wednesday Meeting" back in January. The "b-roll" footage was used this week for an interview of Grover done by George Will on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".

You can find the interview at http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/ - it's in the area marked "This Week -- 6.11.06". The segment is called "Voices: George Will gets Grover Norquist's take on taxes and the Republican Agenda"

You can see a shot of Suhail sitting to Grover's left when he comes in to start the meeting earlier in the segment. My shot, of me handing a paper back to someone else, is about 1:52 into the just-over-three-minute segment (I was sitting directly across from Grover at that big conference table).

Enjoy!

- Andrew Langer

Hey! Wha' Happen'????

2006-06-11T09:47:00.000-04:00

In the immortal words of former-child-actor Mike LaFontaine, "Hey! Wha Happen??!!!"

Well, it's been a long month. Ever since I got back from Morocco, things have just gotten busier and busier. I know, a blog is only as good or as relevant as the Blogger-in-Chief makes it, and the BIC has to update it frequently to make it's readership worthwhile.

Anyhow, lots to discuss. I've gotten involved in some local political issues - this may or may not be a good thing. I know that there's a tremendous time commitment here. Understand, I try not to spend any more time than absolutely necessary away from my family, and tend to budget one late night per week. And when I am home, I want to be as engaged as possible.

So, what happened?

I helped a neighbor run for Town Council. She lost, largely through a failure of imagination (it was textbook - many of her supporters just assumed she was going to win, so they didn't turn out). But it opened up these other issues - a citizen's initiative which I will discuss later this week. Working on these issues is taking several nights per week - the town council meets in public every other week, there are near-constant conversations. But I think it's important to get this town on the right track.

We fought the TRI battle in the House once again, which was a surprise to just about all involved - very intense couple of days as we hashed very complicated regulatory issues out.

And I spent the first part of last week in Colorado, attending an energy and environmental policy summit designed to bring leaders from various points along the political spectrum together to talk about the issues. There were 25 of us at this secluded location - well, I'm planning on republishing the Independence Institute's John Caldara's account. Suffice it to say - I was there with some of my fellow free-marketeers (Fred, John, Ken Chilton), along with some traditional statist, big-government types (Al Gore, Carl Pope, Joan Blades from MoveOn, etc).
It was a fascinating experience -I learned a great deal, they learned a great deal.

And it all capped off with a speech at IJ's Castle Coaltion Activist Conference yesterday.
So, up this week:

- Horace Cooper's analysis of the pre-midterm Special Elections;
- John Caldara's piece about the Energy Summit
- CQ's Discussion of the TRI debate in the Senate
- My opinion piece on the expansion of the Centreville Town Council

Onward and upward!

Oh, and if I'm not mistaken - it has now been over a year since I've written anything on Usenet. So, I'm sure it would surprise just about anyone if I were being written about over there.

I know it would surprise me.

- Andrew Langer

A More Critical Look At Jones v. Flowers

2006-05-10T21:34:00.000-04:00

Something hasn’t sat quite right with me since I wrote about the Jones v. Flowers decision two weeks ago. While I stand by my initial analysis of the decision (and the Liberty Blog was among the first to break it down), inasmuch as the Court did the right thing by limiting the state’s power and ensuring that the due process rights of property owners are properly protected, I've come to some more critical conclusions regarding Chief Justice Robert's opinion.

To sum up – after not paying taxes on the property of his estranged wife, the State of Arkansas sent Mr. Jones a registered letter informing him of his intention to take the property. Mr. Jones, not being an occupant of that property, didn’t get the letter. The state then put a notice in the paper, which Mr. Jones didn’t see. Eventually, Mr. Jones found out about the taking, and challenged. The High Court said that when the state learned that Mr. Jones hadn’t gotten the registered letter, they knew that he hadn’t been “actually” informed of the potential taking, and thus shouldn’t have proceeded.

That’s a good thing. But it’s what the Court also did that hasn’t sat right with me. The Court reaffirmed their earlier decisions, which stated, “Due process does not require that a property owner receive actual notice before the government may take his private property,” citing a case called Dusenbery.

That stark phrase simply takes my breath away. Kind of defeats the entire purpose of due process, doesn’t it? The whole concept of due process, in my opinion, rests on the idea that one is treated fairly and justly by the hands of government (which is, after all, why we have a Constitution – to lay out the rules whereby government is supposed to operate, delimiting powers specifically to protect things like the rights to due process).

But the Chief Justice doesn’t stop there. That was merely the first sentence of the first paragraph of the second section of the opinion, that which presents the underlying basis for the legal reasoning behind the decision. And while he does roundly, and rightly, chastise the state for their actions once it became clear that Mr. Jones hadn’t received his letter, he then takes what I consider a dastardly step.

He actually let’s the state know how they could get around this!! In order to satisfy due process, Chief Justice Roberts suggests, “One reasonable step… would be for the State to resend the notice by regular mail, so that a signature is not required.”

This is a wonderful precedent that the Chief Justice lays out – with one hand, he has roundly slapped the state for engaging in egregious conduct (I consider the violation of fundamental civil liberties by the state to be egregious). But with the other hand, he’s offered them an out, a legal “get out of jail free” card.

Much like they were no help in chastising the state, the dissent offers no help here, essentially holding the state blameless. One would hope that the same justices who stood so rightly in protecting Susette Kelo might have been a bit more helpful in this instance. Unfortunately, no.
So, as I rethink this, as good as the Jones decision could be, ultimately, I’m really not too happy about it. Mr. Chief Justice, the state really doesn’t need your help. Your guidance, yes. A firm hand when they do something wrong? Certainly. But they don’t need you to tell them how to skirt around the rights of the citizenry.

They’re doing that job just fine by themselves, thank you very much.

- Andrew Langer

Do Object Lessons Work? A Shift From the High Court.

2006-04-26T15:38:00.000-04:00

In a number of speeches and in a number of pieces I've written, I've talked about instances in which the High Court does an abupt shift, and how this is the nature of the landmark decision. Specifically, I talked about this within the context of Kelo and the legal construct of stare decisis - basically, how it would have been landmark for the court to find on behalf of Susette Kelo and undo 70-odd years of eminent domain precedent.

With the changes on the High Court, I'd been waiting anxiously for the first property rights decisions to trickle out. There was some question as to where Chief Justice Roberts' philosopies on property rights might lie, though much less doubt when it comes to Justice Alito.

And so here we are with one such decision - this one having to do with the "notice" aspects of the government's requirements under "due process". It gives us an opportunity to see just how well "object lessons" like the "Lost Liberty Hotel" project have fared when it comes to putting public pressure on the Supreme Court, too.

When taking private property, government has to do three things essentially: the taking has to be for a legitimate public use, there has to be some form of due process (generally, government actually letting the property owner know that his property is being taken and giving him an opportunity to make a plea to the government not to take his property), and just compensation has to be paid to the property owner.

A lot of times, people focus on the first and third aspects - whether the use is legitimately public (cf, the Kelo case) or whether the compensation is just. But the due process component is how a great many of these cases are litigated - whether or not the substantive or procedural due process rights of the property owner have been adequately protected or if they've been violated.

One of the instances I've talked about is the old New York system wherein they wouldn't have to give actual notice to the property owner that the government was considering taking the property (or actually taking it). All they would need do is put a notice in the paper for two consecutive weeks, and the property owner would have to be scanning the paper in order to keep abreast of his own due process rights.

This, obviously, led to a great many instances where a property owner in New York would come home to find the deed done, with the government shaking its head and saying, "What, you didn't read the tiny notice in the back of the classified ads two weeks ago?"

This was upheld, too, by an earlier court. In fact, it took several attempts by the New York State legislature to change this, Governor Pataki having vetoed the first try.

It is this issue of notice that came before the High Court in this instance. In the past, the Supreme Court has given government quite a bit of a pass when it comes to protecting the due process rights of people whose property is being targeted - but today's decision in Jones v. Flowers reins in those expansive powers sharply.

The facts of the case are simple: Mr. Jones paid the mortgage on his wife's home after they separated and he moved away. The property taxes were paid out of an escrow fund through the mortgage. Once the mortgage was paid off and Mr. Jones ceased being involved financially with the property, nobody was paying the taxes on it.

The state of Arkansas sent a certified letter to Mr. Jones, but since he didn't live at that home, he never got the notice, and it was never picked up. The state got back the letter marked "unclaimed". Then they published a notice in the newspaper, which Mr. Jones never saw. They entered into a negotiation with Flowers, who bought the property... even though the ex-Mrs. Jones and her daughter were still living there.

It was Jones' daughter who informed him that this was happening, and thus the litigation began.

Though the lower courts found the State's behavior just and reasonable, and well-within their responsibilities as respecting the due process rights of Mr. Jones, the High Court did not. In a departure from precedent, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Majority, said:

"When mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, a State must take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property, if it is practicable to do so."

This is good. What's more, Roberts said that if the state knows that their attempts to notify the property owner were unsuccessful, then they are specifically informed that their responsibilities under due process have not been satisfied.

While the majority's decision can cut both ways (they still say that "actual" notice isn't required, and that the state can hedge their bets by not sending out registered letter), it's always nice to see a state's ability to take private propery slapped in some way, shape, or form.

What's also interesting is who joined Roberts in the majority here. It wasn't the usual suspects. Instead, it was Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer who joined in (and you all doubted me when I said that object lessons actually brought about results). Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy dissented on this, focusing on the reliance on precedent.

Clearly we need to do some work there.

The whole opinion can be found at:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-1477

- Andrew Langer

Barreto Out - Steven C. Preston to be New SBA Head...

2006-04-25T15:42:00.000-04:00

No comments on the dearth of posts.... here's a scoop:

Hector Barreto is leaving his post at the SBA. The President will nominate Steven Preston to be the new SBA Administrator.

Here's his official bio:

Steven Preston is Executive Vice President of The ServiceMaster Company.

Steve leads the Strategic Services team, including IT, Six Sigma, Strategic Sourcing, Strategy and Acquisitions. He served previously as the Chief Financial Officer of ServiceMaster, the Senior Vice President and Treasurer of First Data Corporation, and as an investment banker at Lehman Brothers.

Steve serves as Vice Chairman of the Board of Visitors for the Northwestern University Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences and as the co-chair for the Wilson Society, the leadership giving effort for the college. He also serves on the board of the Hinsdale Hospital Foundation, and on the advisory boards for Tri-Artisan Partners, a boutique merchant bank, and for Concentric Equity Partners, a buyout fund focused on the services industry. He has served on a number of boards of philanthropic organizations that support various children and inner city causes.

Steve has been recognized in CFO magazine in "The Next Wave - Finance Executives Who Will Make a Difference in the Next Decade".

He received his bachelor's degree in political science with highest distinction from Northwestern University, and received his MBA from the University Of Chicago Graduate School Of Business. He also studied at the Ludwig Maximillian Universität in Munich, Germany.

---end quoted material---

Best of luck to you, Hector. And I look forward to working with you, Mr. Administrator-designate.

- Andrew Langer

Pics from the Morocco Trip...

2006-04-13T15:05:00.000-04:00

I know I've been derelect - but as you can all imagine, things have been crazy. I wanted to put up some of the pictures from the Morocco trip...

First up is a picture of one of the entrances to the Medina in Rabat, Morocco's capital. This was taken at about 6pm on a Sunday night, and as you can see, there were throngs of people.

This is a picture from inside the Medina (or bazaar). An unbelieveable amount of leather goods - and as you can see, the crowds were intense.

This is the Kasbah in Rabat - built in 1195AD.

There are people living in the homes within the Kasbah - many of which were built after the 12th and 13th centuries. This is a typical "street" within the Kasbah. A lot of the homes have the years they were built etched over the doors - routinely we saw ones that were built in the mid-14th century.

This is a shot of the Andalusian Gardens, right up against the southern wall of the Kasbah. The air was redolent with the fragrance of the orange trees in the garden.

This is a Patton-esque map that hangs in the conference room of the Director of Morocco's Central Bank. It is dated circa 1950s. Got to have my picture taken just after we met with the senior officials of the Central Bank on the first real day of my trip.

This is Hamad Kassall, President of the Moroccan Federation for Small and Medium Enterprises, the Moroccan equivalent of NFIB. He and his wife were gracious enough to host our delegation in their home for dinner one night in the middle of the trip.

There are more pictures, and lots of stories, but I'll leave it here for now.

- Andrew Langer

Yes, I'm Alive!!!!!

2006-04-06T12:34:00.000-04:00

I've started writing two posts, but have had to abandon them for the sake of time. I've already got 200-odd pictures, and by the time I've gone through them, selected the ones that I've wanted to post, edited them for size, and then gotten my Moroccan net connection working.... it's time to go to my next meeting.

This is an amazing country - beautiful, and a lot more green than I've anticipated. And the food is just wonderful. FSVC is keeping us tres busy - we're out of the hotel around 9, and then in meetings pretty much all day, then working dinners at night. I've managed to squeeze in some sight-seeing and shopping, and do have some good stories. I got a Medina shopkeeper to come down about 40% in the price of a lamp yesterday, and I'm fairly proud of that.

Last night, we had dinner at the home of the head of the NFIB equivalent here in Morocco, and it exceeded the expectations. Moroccans are known for their hospitality, and if you're invited into someone's home, you're in for a treat. I arrived on Sunday, and had missed the dinner at the home of a leading small business owner here, but apparently that was a very fun, very long evening - starting at 8:30, dinner at nearly 11, and then folks departed close to 2AM.

I leave it there for now. Oh, and for anyone trying to call me either at work or on my cell - I've been having problems calling out. Thus far, I've only been able to call home or receive calls from home or Janice's cell... and then, only after 11PM local time. But I can receive e-mail via my NFIB account on my PDA - that seems to be working perfectly.

So if you're trying to reach me, e-mail me.

See you all next week!

- Andrew Langer

Calling All Eminint Domain Warriors!!!!

2006-04-01T07:44:00.000-05:00

A last post before I go on my trip. Incidentally, it really hasn't sunk in that 24 hours from now, I'll be in Africa. With any luck, this will help me fall asleep while I'm on the plane.

Anyhow, got an e-mail from the folks at the Institute for Justice and their Castle Coalition. They're engaging in a membership drive. I'll post the text of the e-mail in its entirety - what I hope is that you'll sign up (and yes, put my name in the "additional comments" section - I'd love to get a t-shirt!).

We're at a critical stage when it comes to fighting this issue. As those of you who are more politically-aware know, it takes a while for hot-button political issues to turn from theory into legislation. This can be a good thing, in that it allows for well-crafted legislation to be enacted (it's bad to enact legislation in the midst of a perceived crisis).

But the down-side is, by the time the hot-button issue gets to the point where the legislation is being considered, the momentum to have it enacted has largely been lost.

That's where we are right now - lots of states considering serious eminent domain reform, and a lot of legislators asking where the proponents are.

Thus, the following message:

Friends:

The Castle Coalition is currently holding a membership drive. By increasing our membership, we will be able to activate, motivate and train greater numbers nationwide to take legislative and grassroots action against eminent domain abuse. But we need your help!

For every 20 new members you recruit to sign-up for the Castle Coalition, you'll receive an official Castle Coalition t-shirt. If you would like to participate, reply to this e-mail and we'll send you sign-up sheets, brochures and stickers. Take these to your next coalition meeting or community get-together. Canvas your neighborhood. Ask your friends, relatives and co-workers to join. Share with them how eminent domain abuse has affected you, and why it’s important to take action against this growing abuse of power. Let them know that membership is free, and we will keep them posted on legislative and grassroots efforts, events and conferences in their state. When you’re done, mail the sign-up sheets back to us in the enclosed stamped envelope.

You can also forward this message to your friends and ask them to sign-up on-line at http://www.castlecoalition.org/join/index.html. Under "additional comments," ask them to enter your name. We'll keep a tally of your new on-line recruits as well.

With your help, we’ll be able to stop tax-hungry governments and land-hungry developers from seizing private property for their own private purposes. And more members for us means more help for you, both for activism and legislative efforts. And together, we can look forward to a day when once again, every man’s home is his castle.

Thank you for your continued efforts in the fight against eminent domain abuse!
----

So, I hope you'll heed their call. Canvass, e-mail, volunteer. This is a fight for the most basic and fundamental of our individual rights, our property rights.

- Andrew Langer

I've Been Meaning To Tell You...

2006-03-30T11:06:00.000-05:00

I've been meaning to tell you all about this trip that I've mentioned.

About two weeks ago, I was approached by a group called the "Financial Services Volunteer Corps" about the possibility of joining a delegation heading over to Morocco. After getting permission from the appropriate parties (namely my bosses at NFIB and my wife), I agreed.

The project is funded by the US Agency for International Development and is looking at ways to reform the political, legal, and economic systems in Morocco to improve the climate for small and medium enterprises. Morocco is apparently the most westernized of islamic and North African nations (given its history and proximity to Europe), but its economy is fairly middling.

This isn't surprising when you consider the close ties it has historically had with France. No, this isn't an excuse to beat up on the French. Merely that if you've been watching the news and reading the papers lately (especially the Washington Post), you know about the economic struggles France has been having.

Considering that most businesses within an economy are small businesses (90% of businesses in the US are small), and considering that small businesses are generally accepted to be the engines of innovation and job creation (notwithstanding the "research" of AEI's Veronique DeRugy, which I will devote a separate post to), then if a system wishes to boost its economic vitality, it has to look at what is going on with its small and medium enterprise sector. Thus this trip.

My role will be to lend the perspective on property rights and regulatory issues and their impacts on small business. Apparently the Moroccan bureaucracy and the legal systems are quite something to behold. The Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom has this to say:

"[T]he inefficiency of the judicial system is holding back economic development.… [T]he courts move too slowly in dealing with cases, bankruptcy protection and liquidation procedures are inefficient and the courts often fail to enforce legal rulings.… [M]any of those working in the judiciary had inadequate expertise…. [T]he courts have [an estimated] backlog of 600,000 cases." A survey among businesses by the American Chamber of Commerce in Morocco revealed that corruption in the legal system is regarded as one of the main impediments to doing business...

"Regulations and bureaucracy remain significantly burdensome despite the government's attempts at reform... According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, "Even in areas where the regulations are favorable on paper, there are often problems in practice. Government procedures are not always transparent, efficient or quick. Routine permits, especially those required by local governments, can be difficult to obtain."

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Morocco

I leave this Saturday, and will return the following Saturday. The trip will take me to Rabat and Casablanca (but not, unfortunately, Fes or Marrakech).

I'll try to post messages (and pictures) while I'm gone, but I can't promise anything.

- Andrew Langer

Hokey Smokes, Bullwinkle!!!!!

2006-03-26T17:11:00.000-05:00

GEORGE MASON WON!!!!!!

Great law school, great regulation wonks, great economists....

Truly great basketball...

Sorry all you UCONN fans.... (kinda.... ;-D )

- Andrew Langer

The Inn at Little Washington (And other Travels)

2006-03-25T07:38:00.000-05:00

Whew! What a week! Sorry I haven't posted since Friday, but there's been a lot going on. Birthday weeks are always like that - and you throw a business trip into the mix, and it makes for a whirlwind.

First, a bit of news - I'm going to Morocco! I'm going to give the details in a separate post, but really couldn't hold off on telling everyone. It was up in the air a few weeks ago, and got cemented the week of the 13th, really. I'm going as part of a USAID-funded trip to consult with the Moroccan government on improving their economy by reducing regulatory burdens on small and medium enterprises (that's a mouthful!).

So, I got shots on Thursday. This, after a quick turnaround trip to St. Louis to give a speech on eminent domain. Really hit some culinary extremes this week - the Inn at Little Washington early on to grabbing some belly-bombs at a White Castle in St. Louis on my way to my hotel. Thank you again to the hotel shuttle driver who graciously agreed to my request (and the request of another shuttle passenger) to stop.

I don't indulge in White Castle's very often - especially since they moved out of DC and now out of Philly - but you want to talk about sense memories?

But really, this post is about my trip to the Inn at Little Washington. My wife arranged this for my birthday, and got us a table in the kitchen. I'd done this once before as the guest of an inn regular, but this occasion was tremendously special - for reasons not the least of which was that Chef Patrick O'Connell was in the kitchen that night.

There's nothing like being in the presence of greatness, and it was somewhat overwhelming. But here is a picture of me with Chef O'Connell at the end of the meal:

What's amazing is how calm the Chef's kitchen is. Mondavi called him, "The Pope of American Cuisine" and this kitchen is his cathedral (complete with gregorian chants). The staff works seamlessly, without the clanging and yelling that you find in a lot of other kitchens.

The meal started with a rosewater hand-washing ceremony, taken straight from Moroccan custom. Upon telling our waiter about my upcoming trip, he went straight over to the Chef, who returned to our table to talk about his travels to Morocco, one of his favorite places.

The meal itself was amazing from start to finish. You start with two small snacks of tempura green beans and some parmesan crisps. The green beans come with this asian dipping sauce - and the first time I tried it, I was taken back to some distant memory. I'd had this sauce before, but couldn't quite place where.

Eventually, I realized that this was really similar to the dipping sauce my friend's mother, used to make. It was Boze Casten's birthday one year that his mother, Judy Casten, had some of us over to make spring rolls - and I had the task of helping her make the dipping sauce.

From that course, we went to an amuse bouche course, with five tiny bits - a tiny barbecued rabbit empanada, for instance, and a tiny ham biscuit. Then our first courses. I had a trio of seafood appetizers - tuna tartare, a ceviche, and a lobster maki, all just a few bites themselves. My wife had the "fire and ice" -sashimi grade tuna, seared and sliced, arranged in a ginger-soy-daikon sauce, with a dollop of cucumber sorbet masquerading as wasabi.

Then there was the white bean soup, served in tiny tea cups, for just a few sips. The intermezzo course was stunning -my wife had the signature scallop dish that can now be found on Chef O'Connell's new cookbook. I had the sauteed squab lettuce wraps - and had the treat of watching one of the chef's debone and chop up the squab in front of us.

Dinner. Sigh. Truly amazing. While my wife had the sea bass in an incredible broth, I had veal done two ways, pictured at left. That's braised veal cheek at the 11 o'clock position on the plate, unctuous and perfectly tender. At the 2 o'clock position is a roasted veal tenderloin, succulent and flavorful. Below the veal cheek are two virginia ham ravioli (one of the reasons I got the dish in the first place). The sauce was based on a veal stock that takes three days to make, and you'll notice that there are a variety of different mushrooms throughout the sauce. Those mushrooms have the dish a woody, almost rustic quality. And take a good look at the carrot cubes - these were sauteed, and marvelously carmelized on one side.

And then dessert. It was a tought choice, complicated by a wonderful surprise...

As we were sitting there, having ordered our dessert choices, all of a sudden our waiter signals to the Chef, and there appears this intricate spun sugar cage. With a flourish and a smile, the Chef lifted it up to reveal a perfect present inside.

The present was a gold-infused fondant ribbon-festooned chocolate ice-cream cake. Below, you can see what was revealed when our waiter cut it in half: there is a checkerboard of vanilla and pistachio ice creams within.

But dessert didn't stop there. I tried uploading the video, but still haven't worked out the kinks. My preferred dessert is pictured at left - it's a white chocolate ice-cream sundae with a warm dark chocolate sauce. It is delivered with a disc of white chocolate covering the top, and the waiter pours the warm chocolate sauce on top of the disc.

As you can see, as the warm dark chocolate reaches the edges of the white chocolate disc, the heat from the sauce melts the white chocolate below, and the two fall delectably on top of the white chocolate ice cream below.

All in all, it was a truly spectacular meal. The breakfast the next morning was incredible as well (at some point I'll have to write about the perfectly-cooked cubes of potato that were served as minimalist home-fries - heck, I'll explain now. Eight cubes of potato, stacked into pyramids of four, with perfectly-crisped exteriors and unbelievably creamy interiors. The secret, according to our server, is that they are cooked in duck fat, and not turned en masse by spatula. Instead, using kitchen tongs, each tiny cube is turned individually, by hand. The result is perfect home fry control.).

My first meal at the Inn last year was, at that point in time, the finest I had ever had. Chef O'Connell outdid that memory, and then some.

Of course, Nizam Ali at Ben's Chili Bowl made Friday's lunch meal a perfect bookend to the week. Sometimes a man can be amazed by a tiny cube of duck fat-cooked potato. Sometimes he can be amazed by a grilled half smoke and an order of chili-cheese fries.

- Andrew Langer

As Predicted Here on the Liberty Blog...

2006-03-17T20:45:00.000-05:00

Governor Dirk Kempthorne

The Next Secretary of the Interior

At the top of my list the other day was Dirk Kempthorne, former Senator, Governor of Idaho and now the designee for Secretary of the Interior. There had been some talk that it might be Ben Nighthorse Campbell, but that didn't come to pass (clearly).

Here is what the AP had to say:

Idaho Governor Named Interior Secretary - Friday, March 17, 2006
(03-17) 02:17 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, a pro-development Western Republican, will be President Bush's chief advocate for more oil and gas drilling from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska's North Slope if confirmed as the nation's next interior secretary.

Kempthorne's chances of getting the post are greatly increased by his six years as a senator from 1993 through 1998. The Senate, which must approve the nomination, rarely turns down one of its former members for the Cabinet, and Republicans hold the majority with 55 of 100 seats.

"Dirk is a strong nominee," Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Thursday following Bush's announcement. "He's an outspoken advocate for America's parks and has a wealth of public service experience at both the state and federal levels. I look forward to his swift confirmation by the Senate."

One Democrat, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, said she welcomed the appointment. "He understands the Northwest and a lot of Interior issues," she said, adding that Kempthorne had "stood up to the administration" over nuclear waste cleanup at a federal facility in Idaho.

The League of Conservation Voters, the main lobbying arm for environmental groups, said its scorekeeping shows Kempthorne hostile to their interests.

"During his career in Congress, Governor Kempthorne earned a paltry 1 percent lifetime LCV score. Enough said," declared Tony Massaro, a senior vice president of the group.

Kempthorne, 54, would replace departing Interior Secretary Gale Norton. He would take over managing areas as diverse as the Grand Canyon and the Gettysburg battlefield. Norton announced her resignation last week after five years of running a department that manages one-fifth of the nation's land.

"Dirk has had a long and abiding love for nature," Bush said as he announced the appointment.

The president said Kempthorne has broad experience needed for managing the 388 parts of the National Park system, 544 wildlife refuges and more than 260 million acres of multiple-use lands located mainly in 12 Western states.

"Dirk understands that those who live closest to the land know how to manage it best, and he will work closely with state and local leaders to ensure wise stewardship of our resources," Bush said.

Kempthorne promised to be "a responsible steward of the land and the natural resources with which our nation has been blessed."

On a new interior secretary's agenda is the administration's desire to open 3.6 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling over vehement objections from the president's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. He also would push the administration's campaign to allow oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

After his one term in the Senate, Kempthorne was elected governor in 1998 and easily won a second term in 2002 with more than 55 percent of the vote in his reliably Republican, conservative state. He spent the past year pushing for more state parks and improving and expanding the state's roads with money raised from bonds.

Two days before Bush took office, Kempthorne sued to block the Clinton administration's plan to reintroduce up to 25 grizzly bears over five years into the Bitterroot wilderness of Idaho and Montana. Norton withdrew the plan five months later.

Kempthorne also was part of a four-state salmon recovery effort, working with Indian tribes and the Northwest Power Planning Council to try to help the endangered fish without removing dams or curtailing hydroelectric power output.

--------

Here is a picture of Kempthorne with the President in the summer of 2005.

- Andrew Langer

It's Deja Vu All Over Again...

2006-03-15T22:04:00.000-05:00

I've said it here before, abusive eminent domain is particularly hard-hitting on those least able to defend themselves: the poor, the elderly, the elderly poor, etc. Think about the disproportionality - invariably it is older, less-valuable pieces of property that are targeted for private-to-private eminent domain, and these are invariably inhabited by those who can only afford those pieces of property, or have lived in those properties for lengthy periods of time.

Nevertheless, it hits me right in the gut when Susette Kelo's scenario is repeated over and over and over again.

Like today. In Cincinnati.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/14098523.htm

Magistrate says city can take 80-year-old woman's property
LISA CORNWELL
Associated Press

CINCINNATI - A magistrate ruled Tuesday that an 80-year-old woman will have to give up the house she's lived in for almost half a century to make way for a road project.

City officials say the project is in the interest of public safety, but Emma Dimasi argued the real reason the city wants her house is to help a nearby hospital with its expansion. She has said taking her home violates a one-year ban in Ohio on seizing property that will end up in the hands of another private owner.

Good Samaritan Hospital is contributing $1.28 million toward the $4 million project, which will give the hospital more room for its $122 million expansion. The hospital also gets whatever land is left over after construction for $1.

Cities and states have the power to take private property to give to another private owner. But the U.S. Supreme Court also has said states can enact stronger rights for property owners.
Hamilton County Common Pleas Magistrate Richard Bernat ruled that the city did not commit fraud or abuse its discretion when it took the land.

Dimasi's son and attorney, Vincent Dimasi, said he would file an objection with Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Melba Marsh within two weeks.

Dimasi said his mother was upset, but he had been preparing her for the possibility that the ruling could go against her.

"She's 80 years old and has lived in that house most of her life," Dimasi said. "She's always been adamant about maintaining her own independence for as long as possible, and this is difficult for her."

The son, who owns adjoining property that is also being taken, said if Marsh does not overrule the magistrate, the decision cannot be appealed to a higher court.

"The presumption in these cases is that the city has the right to take property under eminent domain, and it's very difficult for an individual to overcome that," he said.

Dimasi said there are important legal issues beyond trying to help his mother keep the small brick home she moved into in 1959.

"The hospital has essentially purchased the city's eminent domain power to use for its own purposes," Dimasi said.

City officials haven't denied the project's connection with the hospital expansion, but city spokeswoman Meg Olberding said the hospital's plan came along at a time when it helped both the city and the hospital. The city has been concerned about safety issues with car and foot traffic in the area, she said.

"It's a project that does have beneficial impact to the general public and to the expansion of the hospital, but the hospital was going to do the project whether or not the road was relocated," said Timothy Burke, the attorney representing TriHealth Partnership, which includes Good Samaritan. "This project is not economic development."

Gov. Bob Taft signed a law last year that put a hold on eminent domain actions for economic development while a state task force studies the issue, but Cincinnati City Council adopted the ordinance to take the Dimasi properties before that ban took effect.

The Ohio Supreme Court is considering whether Norwood, a Cincinnati suburb, can take residential property by eminent domain and give it to a developer for a shopping mall.

---

- Andrew Langer

Some Cool New Blogs...

2006-03-15T16:50:00.000-05:00

I was over at CEI this afternoon trying to track down Wayne Crews and John Berlau, in lieu of returning a phone call. Neither of them were there, but I got to talking to a few people, and was asked if I'd seen CEI's new blog.

No, I haven't. Neither have you, I'm certain.

Well, now you can:

http://www.ceiopenmarket.org/

Also, though I haven't met her, Richard Morrison told me about one of the new CEIers who, of course, has her own blog, Brooke Oberwetter. Funny stuff - check out the pics of Hermione, and the commentary:

http://www.brookeoberwetter.com/

And moving away from the CEI vein, I had been meaning to post about a blog started by one of the Liberty Blog's faithful readers.

http://beltwayblitz.blogspot.com/

Enjoy!

- Andrew Langer

Info from Reg Affairs Hearing Now Live and Available

2006-03-14T21:50:00.000-05:00

The House Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs has put up the info on last week's hearing, including my testimony. I've been wanting to post my oral testimony, but haven't had it handy.

The link to the webpage is here:

http://reform.house.gov/RA/Hearings/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=40574

My testimony is here:

http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/0240_001.pdf

In lieu of my oral testimony, I'll post the press release:

http://www.nfib.com/object/IO_27131.html

NFIB Recommends Improvements to Paperwork Reduction Act
03/ 08/ 2006
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The National Federation of Independent Business testified today before a congressional committee in support of improvements to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

In testimony before a subcommittee of the House of Representatives' Government Reform Committee, NFIB made the case to update, strengthen and improve the 25-year-old law. Manager of Regulatory Policy Andrew Langer represented NFIB, demonstrating the ongoing paperwork burden small businesses face and offering several recommendations for improvement.

"NFIB members want to be in compliance with the law. They want to keep their workers and their communities safe and secure, and the last thing they want is for a government inspector to show up at their business and fine them for some transgression. Unfortunately, the current regulatory state is so complex that it is next to impossible for any small business to be in compliance with 100 percent of the law 100 percent of the time. The system is broken and needs to be fixed," said Langer.

The NFIB Research Foundation's most recent member poll on the subject of paperwork was in December of 2003. It found that the cost of paperwork averages nearly $50 per hour, with tax and accounting costs at nearly $75 per hour, maintenance and repair paperwork at about $36 per hour, and other costs such as licenses, permits and personnel in between.

Regarding tax paperwork in particular, Langer said, "Tax paperwork accounts for a staggering 80 percent of the paperwork burden. Congress must revise the conditions upon which the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs approves information collection requests associated with the collection of taxes."

Other recommendations for improvement include:

- Full funding for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is a gatekeeper for new regulations.
- Development of the "Business Gateway" system proposed by the Small Business Administration, which would allow businesses to access, via computer, a single site containing all of the forms they must fill out based on their size, type of business, etc.
- Limit the number of "Information Collection Requests" an agency can make in any year. This would force all agencies to prioritize use of ICRs.
- Regulatory sunsetting. NFIB testified that "every federal regulation be reviewed for its impact and effectiveness within 10 years of its implementation and for a regulation to remain in place, its existence would have to be justified."

- Andrew Langer

And No, It's Not Because She's Being Appointed to the High Court

2006-03-10T14:19:00.000-05:00

...yet.

Because I know if I don't say anything, I'll get a flurry of e-mails asking me why (much in the same way that I got a flurry of e-mails asking me if I'd heard). Yes, I heard. I got the e-mail from Interior six times.

Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior, has resigned, effective at the end of this month...

"After five years of leading cooperative conservation efforts and responsible energy development, Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton today announced she will leave the President’s Cabinet at the end of March. In a letter to President Bush, Secretary Norton thanked the President, “for inviting me to be part of your Administration for a meaningful and rewarding five years.”

Norton was the first woman to head the Interior Department, having had a distinguished career serving the public, both in official office and doing public interest law. She succeeded my former boss, Roger Marzulla, as the head of Mountain States Legal Foundation, and in 1991 became Attorney General of Colorado. She was CO AG until 1998, when she made an unsuccessful bid for the US Senate.

There was some talk that Norton might run for governor of Colorado, but that never came to pass (and I assume, it being March already, that it's too late). And yes, the rumor circulated, started right here, that Norton ought to be considered for the high court.

Who knows what could happen should another vacancy come open this spring?

Anyway, Madam Secretary, it has been a pleasure to work with you. The best of luck to you in your future endeavors.

Possible successors?

- Former Sen. Dirk Kempthorne
- Lynn Scarlett, currently Deputy Secretary
- James Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality
- Judge Craig Manson, head of Fish and Wildlife

I'm open to other suggestions.

Report: Today's Testimony...

2006-03-08T20:50:00.000-05:00

It really couldn't have gone any better today - well, except that there were five votes called just after I gave my testimony and Rep. Lynch didn't return to the hearing afterwards. I wanted to answer some of his concerns about TRI reform.

As it was, I was on a panel with, among others, Robert Shull from OMB Watch, and he and I had a bit of back and forth as we answered questions from Chairman Miller.

The Arizona Republic reported on the hearing, too:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0308paperwork.html

Feds assigning 9.5 billion hours of homework

U.S. takes new swipe at reducing red tape

Jon Kamman The Arizona Republic Mar. 8, 2006 12:00 AM

About 9.5 billion hours.That's how much time the public is expected to spend this fiscal year providing information to the federal government for anything from an income-tax return to a report of an injury to a whale.In all, the nation will devote the equivalent of nearly 1.1 million years of round-the-clock work to completing the 8,459 forms, reports, applications, questionnaires, surveys and assorted detritus required under federal regulations.

"Enough!" Congress cried in 1980, when federal collection of information was consuming a little more than 1 billion hours of the public's time.That year, lawmakers passed and President Carter signed a package of would-be restraints known as the Paperwork Reduction Act. Today, with clear evidence that the act and a major overhaul in 1995 aren't working, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Reform will hear ideas for curbing the seemingly insatiable federal appetite for collecting information.If the annual demand were spread equally among the nation's 298 million people, fulfilling it would consume about 32 hours per man, woman and child. The burden includes time spent figuring out what is requested, gathering data, making calculations if needed and, perhaps easiest, actually filling out forms.

...

Efforts to cut paperwork are inseparable from the perennial campaign to eliminate many regulations themselves. Andrew Langer, manager of regulatory policy for the National Federation of Independent Businesses and a witness at today's hearing, said he will emphasize the need for "regulations that make sense" and efficient ways of reporting.

...

The burden hits small businesses especially hard, and laws passed in 2002 to give relief have been slow to make much difference, Langer said.

The Small Business Administration calculates that for a business with fewer than 20 employees, the cost of regulatory compliance is about $7,750 per employee per year. How much of that is attributable to fulfilling reporting requirements isn't broken out, but Langer said it remains a major drag on productivity.

Langer said one of his appeals in testimony will be for a computerized system consolidating all rules applying to to various kinds of businesses and allow electronic reporting of data. Forms filled out for one agency could be routed to others that need parts of the information, he said.A computer gateway is now in operation at the business .gov Web site, but it is only in its earliest stages, he said.

"This is 2006, and we should be able to do this," Langer said. "We've got to get serious about this and have the leadership needed to get it done."

----

Walking over to Rayburn

On the stairs in Cannon

Me with Jim Miller, former OMB Chief and first head of OIRA

Behind us is Sally Katzen, who was OIRA director under Clinton

Testifying