0

Police knew of child in ‘murdered mom’s’ car

Police with guns drawn surround Miriam Cary on Oct. 3, 2013

Police with guns drawn surround Miriam Carey on Oct. 3, 2013

WASHINGTON – A former member of the Secret Service Uniformed Division has revealed he heard a radio transmission inform officers there was a child in the car of Miriam Carey before officers shot her to death.

The former officer told the Carey family attorney he was on duty and in the officers’ locker room at the time he heard that radio call, and that he heard a number of other radio reports, until the chase ended with the shooting of the unarmed woman.

If Secret Service officers were aware Carey’s infant child was strapped into the backseat of her car when they chased and shot her to death, that would add to the list of the violations of their own policies, as recently documented by WND after obtaining the secret documents.

Carey was the single mother from Stamford, Connecticut, who drove to Washington, D.C., with her infant daughter strapped into the back seat on Oct. 3, 2013. She drove up to a White House guard gate, apparently by mistake because she immediately tried to make a U-turn to leave, but was chased by uniformed Secret Service officers and U.S. Capitol Police officers and shot dead about two blocks from the Capitol.

Miriam Carey

Miriam Carey

WND obtained the official police report on the Carey shooting and detailed it in a five-part series. That report said four officers fired shots at Carey, two from the U.S. Capitol Police and two from the Secret Service Uniformed Division.

WND also obtained the secretive policy on vehicular pursuits in the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division Operational Procedures manual and the guidelines on the use of deadly force in the Homeland Security Legal Division Handbook, and detailed how officers violated their own rules by shooting and killing Carey.

If Secret Service officers were aware of the child in the car when shooting at it, that would add another serious violation.

Under the heading “General Policy” in the U.S. Secret Service Operational Procedures guidelines on “Vehicular Pursuits,” it states:

“Whenever it becomes evident that injury to citizens or members of the Force, or unnecessary property damage may result from a vehicular pursuit, that pursuit shall be immediately discontinued. Safety is the first priority, not arrest.”

Carey family attorney Eric Sanders told WND, “Certainly, since the officers had no authority to pursue them, they cannot establish authority to use deadly physical force against Miriam or her minor child.”

As WND previously reported, at least one officer immediately knew there was a child in Carey’s car, and he got on the police radio as soon as she left the White House guard post.

That indicates that all of the officers should have known they were shooting at a car with an infant strapped into the back seat.

The account from the White House guard in the police report includes this statement:

“As she got to the next set of barracks she made a U-turn and came back towards us. At this time she came to a stop or slowed down to an almost stop, I tried to open the front driver’s door but it was locked. I noticed that there was a baby in the car.”

He then added, “A look was broadcast as the vehicle traveled west on Pennsylvania Ave.”

Sanders, a former New York City Police officer, told WND a “look” stands for “be on the lookout for,” when used in radio transmissions.

The guard apparently did report the presence of the child in the car during his radio transmission, because the former Secret Service officer who spoke to Sanders confirmed he heard the mention of the child in a radio report.

Additionally, officers seemed to get a clear look inside Carey’s car, as seen in the video below, when she momentarily stopped at Garfield Circle, just below the Capitol.

Sanders said it was inconceivable that officers would not have seen the infant strapped into the child seat in the backseat.

But, for some reason, officers may have been surprised to find the child in the car after they shot and killed Carey.

The account from a Capitol Police officer who witnessed the crash of Carey’s car at the end of the chase read:

“Officer (redacted) said when the shots stopped he ran towards the suspect’s vehicle and noticed a small child in the back seat in a car seat. Officer (redacted) said the driver was unresponsive and he signaled to the other officers there was a child in the car. Officer (redacted) said he broke the car window and pulled the child from the car. Officer said the child was covered with glass and blood. Officer (redacted) said he wiped the child off and checked her for any injuries. Officer (redacted) said he rushed the child indoors and had a nurse treat the child. Officer (redacted) said he rode in the ambulance with the child to Children’s Hospital.”

The shots that stopped Carey’s car and presumably killed her were fired from behind her car, through the rear window, with her infant daughter strapped into a child’s car seat in the backseat.

The Justice Department claims officers fired their guns because Carey drove in reverse toward an officer at the end of the chase at Maryland Avenue and Second Street, but an eyewitness in the police report contradicted that claim.

That witness, a woman who apparently was working at the nearby Supreme Court, told police, as Carey’s “vehicle was backing up and before it struck the police booth, there were no police officers near the vehicle.”

It is possible officers did not hear about the child before they shot because of communication lapses between the Secret Service and Capitol Police, and because of the Reagan-era radio system still in use by police at the time of the Carey chase.

In March 2014, Roll Call reported Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., grilled Capitol Police Chief Kim Dine as to whether the antiquated radio system had hindered the department’s response to the Carey incident.

U.S. Capitol Police Chief Kim Dine holds news conference after Carey shooting on Oct. 3, 2013

Schultz said some police officers had said the radios used during the chase and shooting were not capable of communicating with Secret Service officers.

Dine said two emergency channels and a mutual aid radio system allowed the two agencies to communicate.

If that were true, would not officers have known of the child in the car?

And, if that were true, why did they shoot?

Such questions are why the killing of Miriam Carey is still a mystery, almost two years after her death.

Even long before WND uncovered all of these additional details, once he heard the basic facts of the case in December of 2013, famed civil libertarian Nat Hentoff said from all of the evidence he had seen in WND’s reports, which he called very thorough and easily corroborated, “[T]his is a classic case of police out of control and, therefore, guilty of plain murder.”

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth

0

‘Emerging Diseases’ takes on MERS, Ebola, more

ebola_virus_model

Whooping cough, smallpox, measles and tuberculosis, once enough to send American communities into paroxysms of fear through their very mention, are essentially exterminated, right?

And the U.S. is largely protected from exotics like Ebola, Chikungunya, Chagas disease, Dengue fever and others by distance and time, correct?

Not really, as Jane Orient, M.D., explains in the new free e-book from WND, “EMERGING DISEASES.”

“The dreaded infectious diseases of the past may be forgotten,” she writes, “but they are not gone, and diseases that are new, at least to the United States, are emerging.”

One of the newest is MERS, the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, which was first found in the Arabian Peninsula but already has spread to at least 20 other nations, including the United States.

Before that, it was Ebola, which is blamed for killing thousands horrifically on the African continent. It spread fear throughout America and the rest of the world.

There also was a recent measles epidemic, worries about the side effects of vaccines, rare diseases brought into America by illegal aliens, and ominously drug-resistant strains.

Orient, president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, warns there’s danger in letting such issues “drop off our radar.”

“Unfortunately, much of our public heath establishment has been diverted into protecting us against sugary soft drinks, rather than infectious disease threats,” she writes. “And public trust is being eroded by politicization of the issues and conflicts of interest.”

Orient’s special new e-book – titled “EMERGING DISEASES: Protecting Your Family from Pandemics, Viral Threats, and Rogue Vaccines” – is being made available FREE, exclusively to WND News Alert subscribers. A subscription to the free WND service will also give you access to other valuable free products like this one, plus all future giveaways – and we have many in store. So if you’re not yet subscribed to WND’s free news alerts, do so now and get instant access to “EMERGING DISEASES.”

The e-book discusses the threats right now from Ebola, Chikungunya, Dengue, Chagas, tuberculosis, smallpox, whooping cough, measles, and more.

“There is ultimately no substitute for the traditional public health methods of identification, isolation and contact tracing,” she writes.

Disease32

Suggestions for individuals?

“Keep on your shelf some older medical textbooks. You might be the first to recognition a condition that your physician has never seen or even heard of,” she advises.

And, importantly, “Find a physician you trust who is open to innovation and to individualized assessment of risks and benefits of vaccines. A physician needs to be working for you, not for an Obamacare ‘accountable care organization’ (ACO), a managed care organization, or a big institution such as a hospital.”

Orient earned undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona and her MD from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. She’s been in solo practice since 1981.

 

0

‘You hurt a lot of people, but I forgive you’

Dylann Roof

Dylann Roof

A magistrate judge in South Carolina has set bond at $1 million on a weapons charge for a 21-year-old man suspected of murdering nine people during a church meeting on Wednesday – but the hearing had shades of revival meeting embedded as family members of the victims used a victims’ impact statement time to forgive the alleged killer.

Dylann Roof was making his first appearance on the charges on Friday, and was in front of a camera in a tiny locked room in the jail near the courthouse. Two armed officers stood behind him during the hearing, which lasted only a few minutes.

Roof, wearing prison garb with a packet of papers in his shirt pocket, appeared subdued, answered the judge’s questions about age and address briefly, and appeared to show no emotion. His hands remained cuffed during the hearing.

The judge, James Gosnell, said he was not authorized by statute to set bond on murder charges, so Roof would remain behind bars no matter any other ruling on Friday.

He set Roof’s next court appearance for Oct. 23, and a subsequent hearing on Feb. 5, 2016.

Read “Redeemed Unredeemable: When America’s Most Notorious Criminals Came Face to Face With God” by Thomas Horn and Donna Howell.

In a move that was out of the ordinary, the judge himself made a statement before beginning the hearing.

“Charleston is a strong, very strong community,” he said. “We have big hearts. We’re a very loving community. We’re going to reach out to all victims … and we will touch them. We have victims, nine of them.”

But he also noted the victims on the “other side,” those members of Roof’s family.

“We must find it in our heart that at some point in time not only to help those who are victims but to help his family as well.”

The judge read the charges, and asked representatives of the victims’ families if they wanted to make statements. Several declined, but others came forward.

The daughter of victim Ethel Lance said, “I will never be able to hold her, but I forgive you. … You hurt me. You hurt a lot of people, but I forgive you.”

A relative of victim Myra Thompson appeared to address Roof directly, “Take this opportunity to repent. Repent. Confess. Give your life to one who matters the most, Christ, so that he can change you.”

A family member for Tywanza Sanders said, “May God have mercy on your soul.”

Several others said they were determined that, although it appeared hate prompted the crime, they would not allow hate to reign.

One said, “We are the family that love built. We have no room for hate. We have to forgive … [but] I thank God I won’t be … around when your judgment day comes with Him.”

See WND’s extensive coverage of the Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre:

Big List of Drug-Induced Killers

Charleston shooter ‘wanted to start a civil war’

Big radio talkers react to church massacre

Charleston church shooter: ‘You rape our women’

Obama: America must ‘do something’ about ‘gun violence

Hero of 1993 church attack calls for being armed

Source: Charleston church shooter confesses to massacre

0

Those Who Shape Us, the Lives We Touch

By Sandy Ikeda

Earlier this month, my 67-year-old sister, Virginia Ikeda, “Ginger” to me and my family, died peacefully after a long illness. I rarely write here about my personal life, let alone family matters. But I feel moved to share some thoughts on Ginger’s passing with you because of the impact she had on my beliefs and my career.

Those Who Shape Us

As far as economic lineages go, my pedigree is solid. The founder of the Austrian school of economics, Carl Menger, is my intellectual great-great grandfather. One of Menger’s most important students, Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, taught Ludwig von Mises, who, after coming to the United States, had Israel Kirzner and Hans Sennholz as two of his most outstanding students. (The third is Murray Rothbard.) And I had the privilege of having both Kirzner and Sennholz as my teachers — who then are my intellectual fathers. (You might say that I had two Austrian daddies!) But I’m almost certain that none of this heritage would be mine were it not for my sister.

More than anyone in my life, she opened my eyes to unseen worlds and to some radical ideas.

Ginger was not only the oldest of five kids; she was also the most upbeat and adventuresome of us, even as we grew older. I’m pretty sure that without her love for music and performance, for instance, neither I nor my siblings would have pursued music as far as we did, or even at all. It was Ginger who first went off to university — neither of our parents had a chance to do so — and it was Ginger who exposed us firsthand to the counterculture of the 1960s and to some of the stranger lifestyles then emerging.

She rode across country alone on a motorcycle, joined a progressive-rock band, ran a candle business, played percussion in the Phoenix Symphony, and worked as a paralegal in a prestigious law office in Los Angeles. She wrote poetry and music, became a savvy computer programmer, and hosted her own radio talk show on technology. (No doubt she also did some “interesting” things that I’ll never know about.) She made friends easily with her openness, cleverness, and dry humor.

You Got What for Graduation?

And it was Ginger who, when I was 14 or so, nurtured my deepening interest in Buddhism, my family’s religion. She introduced me to her Buddhist friends, some of whom, remarkably, remained with her until her final hour.

In short, she exposed me to possibilities outside the provincial world of my hometown and to “big ideas.” That included politics, economics, and social issues.

In my sophomore year of high school (I think, though I can’t be sure), she gave me Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, which I read and studied closely. I can’t say that I appreciated its full importance immediately, but its central message — that actions should be evaluated based on both immediate and long-term consequences, not only for some people but for all — has stayed with me. She gave me Percy Greaves’s Understanding the Dollar Crisis, the book that introduced me to price theory, monetary theory, and Austrian business-cycle theory. Because of her influence, by my junior year in high school, I had decided to study either economics or political science in college.

Buddhism and Austrian economics have set the internal and external parameters of my life. And when I began writing this column for FEE more than five years ago, they merged in the name I chose for it: Wabi-sabi. We don’t use that name any more, but “wabi-sabi,” as I interpret it, nicely reflects what are for me the common elements of those two world views: that nothing is complete, nothing lasts, and nothing is perfect — and that’s okay.

I was thrilled when, as a high school graduation gift, Ginger presented me with a copy of Mises’s Human Action. Its green binding and gold lettering still adorn the bookshelf of my study, but like any much-loved text, it has become worn and marked up in the 40 summers since she gave it to me. On the endpapers, she had written:

For Sandy,

On your graduation from high school into manhood: I hope that you become and remain a strong, responsible and right-thinking man.

With love and best wishes,

Your sister,

Ginger

I don’t know how close I’ve come to fulfilling those hopes, but I do know that her gift has helped guide me on my way.

Mainly because of Ginger, I did major in economics when the time came, which in turn opened doors to graduate study that neither of us had foreseen, and that led eventually to the career I’ve found myself growing into these past 30 years or so.

The Lives We Touch

Gradually, our interests began to diverge, as those of, if I may say, reasonably smart people naturally do. As she delved ever more deeply into Buddhism, her interest in politics and social theory waned, and as my study of economics and social theory deepened, I spent less time studying Buddhism (although I do practice my faith daily). And as I gained knowledge of and confidence in the wide world she opened to me, our conversations would sometimes turn into disagreements and some of those into arguments — as often happens between people who care about ideas and principles. But the love we had for each other as brother and sister was always strong.

I moved to New York City, got married, and started a family and a career; she moved around a bit but settled some time ago in New Mexico, living, as she sometimes did, slightly off the grid. We would spend time together back home in Mesa, Arizona, over many Christmas holidays and at occasional family gatherings in between, until her health made that hard to do. The last time I saw her was shortly after Christmas last year, for two days and a night, at her home near Silver City. Though she was seriously ill, we managed to have delicious meals together, hugs, laughs, and conversations, including one fierce, hour-long argument. It was like old times, and I’ll always cherish that last visit.

I’m so grateful to have had Ginger in my life. I wish more of my friends and colleagues could have known her and felt her wit and charm. But then, it’s comforting to know that anyone whom I might touch will also be touched by her.

0

Uber Solves the Fundamental Problem of the Marketplace

By Steven Horwitz

As an economic innovation, Uber exemplifies the way creative entrepreneurs discover new methods of providing better, less expensive consumer products and services. It also demonstrates how such creativity helps people navigate around barriers to entry created by government regulations that, though designed to protect consumers, end up protecting incumbent firms.

The benefits of these innovations have prompted me to write glowingly about services like Uber — many times, in fact. As much as I had written about it, though, I’d never actually used the service.

Until this month, that is. After three Uber rides in the last two weeks, not only am I more convinced about the value that the so-called “sharing economy” is providing; I have been struck by the way technology helps to solve the fundamental problem of the marketplace.

The fundamental problem of markets is the need to establish trust among strangers. In a wonderful and unappreciated book called In the Company of Strangers, Paul Seabright explores this formulation in great depth. He argues that for markets to work more fully, we need various institutions that allow strangers to be less suspicious of one another. We need to turn them into “honorary friends,” or in my own preferred version, “honorary kin.”

For most of human history, we lived in small, kin-based bands, where the people we interacted with were all people we knew personally. Our minds have evolved to know how to deal with such situations after millennia of living that way. The modern world, however, requires that we interact with people we do not know personally — but treat them as if we do.

The fundamental problem of markets is the need to establish trust among strangers.

Think about having someone come to your house to repair an appliance. A person you do not know and who you have never seen before is asking for access to your house. You allow them in. What gives you the confidence to do that? Presumably that person arrived in a vehicle with a company name on it (say, Sears) and is wearing a uniform that also reflects that organization’s identity.

We know that the profit motive of the market provides an incentive for firms to hire reliable people, and we use the brand name, the uniform, and other markers to ascertain this stranger’s trustworthiness. If someone knocked on your door after getting out of a regular passenger car, with no uniform on, maybe not at the time you contracted for, you’d be very hesitant to let that person in.

When you think about what a taxi or Uber ride is, you can see the same process at work. After all, what makes us willing to get into the backseat of a stranger’s car? With taxis, there are the obvious markers that are designed to generate trust: yellow or green paint (in the United States, anyway), a corporate name, and the name and picture of the driver, among others. Many of those markers are possible because of the corporate structure that puts all of the drivers in similar-looking vehicles with the same company’s name.

That, of course, is not how Uber works. Not only are you getting into the backseat of a stranger’s car; you are getting into the backseat of their personal vehicle, which has no obvious marking that it is intended to provide rides to strangers. At first blush, it seems like a case similar to an apparently random person showing up at your home to do repairs.

But Uber overcomes this apparent problem in several ways that make clever use of technology. When you request your ride, you are immediately given identifying information about the driver and car, including a thumbnail picture of the driver, the color and make of the car, and its license plate. An additional way in which Uber establishes trust is by using GPS technology to show you exactly where your car is and how long (and what path) it will take to get to you. Watching the car drive up on the Uber app as you see it in front of you is a major signal of trust.

Uber also gives you a cell number for your driver, which is useful if the pickup location is ambiguous. It also makes retrieving anything you left in the car much easier. Have you ever tried to get a lost item back from a cab company?

On a recent airport pickup, my Uber driver even had an auto-response on her phone that told me exactly where to meet her and gave further details about her car.

Uber also establishes trust through its rating system, which works much like those of eBay and other online, anonymous exchange-based sites. Riders rate drivers, and the driver’s rating appears alongside the identifying information about the car. Drivers rate riders, too, so if you misbehave in a car, you are less likely to get picked up the next time you need a ride. After all, sellers also have to trust buyers!

If drivers are not trustworthy, people will not use the service, and Uber will suffer.

Finally, Uber has the profit incentive, just as our appliance repair company does. If drivers are not trustworthy, people will not use the service, and Uber will suffer. Notice that taxi companies with various forms of government protection from competition (for example, the taxi medallions in New York City) do not face the same strong incentive effects here. They don’t have to please their customers in quite the same way. And that might explain why my airport Uber had a bottle of water waiting for me in a very clean, very comfortable, and relatively new car. That does not describe most taxi rides in most cities.

Of course, Uber isn’t perfect, as several recent allegations against drivers demonstrate. But no system is perfect, and it is not as if cab drivers have never been accused of or arrested for abusing passengers. Any such comparison must take into account all of the costs and benefits of each alternative. The flexibility and lower cost of Uber, plus the various ways it provides superior customer service, matter too, as does the fact that all transactions are credit card based. Customers and drivers need not carry cash, making them less likely to be robbed while looking for and accepting a ride.

Living out beautiful anarchy by finding ways around the state and crony-capitalist providers like cab companies requires that the alternatives, such as Uber, solve the problem of turning strangers into honorary kin. Thankfully, modern technology, such as the combination of GPS, electronic payment, and smartphones that Uber and other services in the sharing economy are using, provides effective ways of doing so and makes us willing to get in the backseats of strangers’ cars as if they were the backseat of our parents’ minivan.

0

Church wins Supreme Court case on sign rules

ChurchSign

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a town’s sign regulations must be content-neutral in order to be legal, striking down the rules that had been set up by officials in the town of Gilbert, Arizona, that targeted church signs with more restrictions than signs in other categories.

“The sign code identifies various categories of signs based on the type of information they convey, then subjects each category to different restrictions. One of the categories is ‘Temporary Directional Signs Relating to a Qualifying Event,’ loosely defined as signs directing the public to a meeting of a nonprofit group. The code imposes more stringent restrictions on these signs than it does on signs conveying other messages. We hold that these provisions are content-based regulations of speech that cannot survive,” the opinion said.

The issue was the town demanded church signs be posted only shortly before a “qualifying event” and removed immediately after, allowing very little time for the churches to let the public know of events.

The case was brought by Pastor Clyde Reed of Good News Community Church when his organization was cited for leaving a sign up too long after a meeting. His congregation rents temporary spaces each week for services, and he uses the signs to let people know where the meetings are being held.

The case was fought on his behalf by the Alliance Defending Freedom. ADF spokesman David Cortman said, “Speech discrimination is wrong regardless of whether the government intended to violate the First Amendment or not, and it doesn’t matter if the government thinks its discrimination was well-intended. It’s still government playing favorites, and that’s unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court today found.”

Get “Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws,” by Judge Andrew Napolitano for a briefing on such constitutional disputes.

The opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the town forbids any signs without a permit – but then “exempts 23 categories of signs from that requirement.”

Among the categories are “Ideological Signs,” “Political Signs” and “Temporary Directional Signs Relating to a Qualifying Event.”

Those “events” are any “assembly, gathering, activity, or meeting sponsored, arranged, or promoted by a religious, charitable, community service, educational, or other similar non-profit organization.”

Ideological signs can be 20 square feet with no time limits, while political signs could be 16 square feet and be up 60 days before and 15 days after elections.

But, the opinion said, “The code treats temporary directional signs even less favorable than political signs.”

“Temporary direction signs may be no larger than six square feet. They may be placed on private property or on a public right-of-way, but no more than four signs may be placed on a single property at any time. And, they may be displayed no more than 12 hours before the ‘qualifying event’ and no more than 1 hour afterward.”

That means for a 9 a.m. service, a sign could go up no earlier than 9 p.m., and would lose its effectiveness because of minimal traffic during overnight hours.

The church wanted to display times and locations of services, and would use signs to do that. A dozen or more with the name, location and time were posted on Saturdays and then taken down on Sundays.

The town twice cited the church for violating its sign code, specifically for exceeding time limits. Officials even confiscated one of the signs.

The town responded to the pastor’s concerns by promising “no leniency under the code,” and punishment, including the possibility of jail time, for “future violations.”

The district and intermediate appeals courts sided with the city, but Thomas wrote, “The First Amendment … prohibits the enactment of laws ‘abridging the freedom of speech.’”

He continued, “Content-based laws – those that target speech based on its communicative content – are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.”

He said, “The restrictions in the sign code that apply to any given sign … depend entirely on the communicative content of the sign. If a sign informs its reader of the time and place a book club will discuss John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, that sign will be treated differently from a sign expressing the view that one should vote for one of Locke’s followers in an upcoming election, and both signs will be treated differently from a sign expressing an ideological view rooted in Locke’s theory of government.”

His conclusion, “The sign code is a content-based regulation of speech.”

In a discussion about the case as it developed, ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco explained the real question was whether free speech plaintiffs have to prove the government intentionally discriminated against their speech.

“So what? Well, the problem with requiring proof of discriminatory motive is that motive is notoriously hard to prove. Put simply, if discriminatory intent must be proven a lot more speech will be prohibited,” he explained.

“Make no mistake, not just religious speech but all types of speech would be in serious peril if Gilbert gets its way. … The government isn’t going to voluntarily give the true reason it enacted a law that unlawfully restricts speech. Instead, it’s going to give a lot of other plausible sounding motives to explain away its actions.

“In the end, whether the government’s speech discrimination is intentional or unintentional should not be a reason to allow it to continue. And that is the principal we are fighting to re-establish in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.”

 

0

Jeb Bush slow jams news on ‘Tonight Show’

(HOLLYWOODREPORTER) — “Whoa, hold the telefono. I know you just got back from Miami, but I didn’t realize I was interviewing Governor Pitbull.”

Jeb Bush stopped by The Tonight Show on Tuesday night to “slow jam the news.”

The Republican presidential candidate made his first-ever late-night appearance in the Tonight Show’s signature bit, in which he spoke over R&B beats while host Jimmy Fallon threw in his signature “oh yeah” phrases and echoes.

“We’re a nation of immigrants, and I believe everyone should have the chance to achieve the American dream,” said the former Florida governor before repeating the sentence in Spanish “to translate that for all your Spanish-speaking viewers.”

0

She Warned the World about Hitler

By Lawrence W. Reed

Each week, Mr. Reed will relate the stories of people whose choices and actions make them heroes. See the table of contents for previous installments.

Some people can smell a rat a mile away. Others don’t notice even when the odor wafts right under their noses.

Olfactory proficiency by itself doesn’t make you a hero. But if you’re among the first to pick up the scent and warn others, and then you put your political future on the line to save society, you’ve got something that makes you heroic. As C.S. Lewis wrote in The Magician’s Nephew, “What you see and hear (and smell) depends a good deal on where you are standing; it also depends on what sort of person you are.”

Katharine Margory Ramsey combined courage and character with a great nose for rats. She had principles and the guts to stand by them.

Born of Scottish noble blood in Edinburgh in 1874, “Kitty” (as she was known to close friends) was an accomplished composer and pianist. She became the Duchess of Atholl after her husband succeeded his father as the Duke of Atholl in 1917. Author Lynne Olson, in her superb 2007 book, Troublesome Young Men (about the Tory upstarts in the 1930s who challenged their elder and leader, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain), describes her as a “diminutive woman with large, expressive blue eyes … cultured, diffident, and unworldly, with little interest in calling attention to herself.”

At the urging of her husband and former Prime Minister David Lloyd George, the Duchess stood for a seat in Parliament in 1924. She won. Only two other women had ever before been elected to the House of Commons. She became the first Conservative Party MP to hold ministerial office when Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin appointed her to a junior post in education.

Who was this Scottish Cassandra who dared so publicly to question the subsidies coming their way from the government of her own party?

The men in government assumed Atholl would be quiet and do the womanly thing: whatever she was told. Even Winston Churchill snubbed her at first, telling her directly, “I find a woman’s intrusion into the House of Commons as embarrassing as if she burst into my bathroom.” Many now think of Churchill as the sage who bravely opposed Chamberlain’s policy of appeasing Hitler, but Kitty Atholl was one of those few who worked to stiffen Churchill’s spine when it was still pliable. Churchill later came to appreciate her greatly.

As her years in Parliament wore on, Atholl’s principles deepened, and her courage blossomed. In 1935, she resigned from the leadership position of whip for the Conservative Party because of what she derisively labeled the government’s “national socialist tendencies” in its domestic agenda. She was, in her own way, a precursor to Margaret Thatcher, who was just 10 years old at the time.

The first big rat to catch Atholl’s attention was ensconced in Moscow. Less than a decade after the Bolshevik revolution, the Soviet experiment had attracted naïve acolytes in the West. Reporter Lincoln Steffens famously wrote after his 1919 visit to the USSR, “I have been to the future and it works.”

One of the worst of what Lenin would term “useful idiots” was New York Times reporter Walter Duranty, who, at the height of the Stalin-induced famine in Ukraine that killed millions, denied there was a hunger problem. The Duchess of Atholl was no such fool.

In 1931, Atholl published a 200-page book titled The Conscription of a People. It was a blistering, well-documented indictment of the savage collectivization of life in the Soviet Union. Her investigations revealed that

Russia has carried through revolution on a scale which knows no parallel, and which, even after thirteen years, is as ruthless as in its early days. She has undermined marriage and is rapidly breaking up family life. She wages ceaseless war on all religion. She is responsible for the most comprehensive and continuous experiment in the nationalization of industry, banking and trade that has ever been seen.

Atholl’s book was one of the earliest and most detailed critiques of the communist regime from a high-level British official. Forced labor, the liquidation of the kulaks, mass seizures of property, an extensive secret police network, and an unprecedented diversion of resources to the military meant one thing: the Bolsheviks were a menace to their own people and a growing threat to world peace.

The Duchess decried the British government’s extension of credit to Moscow. “Can those in any country who value liberty regard such a position with equanimity?” she asked. “Are the citizens of the United Kingdom in particular to tolerate any longer the guaranteeing by taxpayers’ money of a system so utterly repugnant to British traditions?”

The rats in Moscow were alarmed at Atholl’s denunciations. Who was this Scottish Cassandra who dared so publicly to question the subsidies coming their way from the government of her own party? (In The Fall of Troy by Quintus Smyrnaeus, Cassandra desperately tried to warn the Trojan people about the peril of a certain large wooden horse.)

After 1933, Atholl’s wrath turned against the rats in Berlin. When she read Hitler’s Mein Kampf in 1935, she entertained no illusions about where he was headed. “Never can a modern statesman have made so startlingly clear to his reader his ambitions,” she noted. She was now on her way to becoming, in Olson’s words, “the boldest Tory rebel of all.”

Even more vigorously than Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain kowtowed to the Nazi dictator. Those “troublesome young men” in his Conservative Party — such as Churchill, Antony Eden, and Harold McMillan — formed an opposition to appeasement, but at first they focused exclusively on Hitler. They sought to placate Mussolini in Italy and Franco in Spain. Atholl saw all fascist dictators the same way she saw all communist dictators: as evil men not to be trusted, let alone subsidized. She was a constant thorn in the side of men in power who wanted to cut deals with unsavory thugs of any stripe.

In September 1938, the infamous Munich conference gave Hitler a green light to forcibly incorporate the Sudetenland (a Czech region along the border with Germany) into the Third Reich. The hopelessly naïve Chamberlain famously waved the agreement on the tarmac on returning to London. “Peace in our time,” he declared. War seemed to be averted. As much of the world breathed a sigh of relief, Atholl was strongly advised by her husband and others to endorse the Munich accord. She not only refused to do so; she wrote and widely distributed a pamphlet that castigated it.

The prime minister reacted furiously. He strong-armed the local Conservative Party officials in Scotland to select a new candidate for Parliament to replace Atholl, who then resigned from the party and announced she would run as an Independent in the special by-election set for December 1938. The country’s attention was riveted on the fierce campaign that ensued. The prime minister saw to it that Atholl’s opponent received showers of cash and endorsements.

Cowed by Chamberlain, the male anti-appeasement MPs of the party wouldn’t go to Scotland to campaign for the Duchess. Churchill first accepted and then, under pressure, rescinded his approval of an invitation to speak on her behalf. As reported in Olson’s book, he at least sent a letter of endorsement that she distributed before the voting. Churchill wrote,

You are no doubt opposed by many Conservatives as loyal and patriotic as yourself, but the fact remains that outside our island, your defeat at this moment would be relished by the enemies of Britain and of freedom in every part of the world. It would be widely accepted as another sign that Great Britain … no longer has the spirit and willpower to confront the tyrannies and cruel persecutions which have darkened this age.

She lost by a heartbreakingly slim margin. Chamberlain was delighted, but after all the pressure and resources he had brought to bear against her, the verdict was no ringing endorsement of his appeasement policy. When Hitler invaded Poland less than nine months later, Kitty Atholl was vindicated. A humiliated Chamberlain sulked through the remaining few months of his tenure. Out of government, Atholl spent the war years working mightily to relieve the awful conditions of European refugees. She died in 1960 at age 85.

Katharine Atholl had smelled danger and said so, years before the elite of her own political party mustered similar courage. How different might history have been if there were more people like her?

For further information, see:

0

Wish

By Rebecca Aronson

I want to lie down like a tiny birch canoe,
sewn with red thread, afloat in the street
in the rushing aftermath

of a good spring rain. To curl in the y of a desert willow
at sundown when its pink blossoms
are a thousand distant lanterns strung

among the branches. At night
I prop my sleeping body like a shield.
I fly myself like a volley of arrows

toward the glowing eye of sleep’s center.
I circle its edges, closing in. I call sleep’s name
into closets and empty drawers and listen for its echo.

I want to lay my body into the palm
of my love’s hand and diminish there,
a chip of ice. I want sleep to vanish me

in its secret chamber, its magician’s hat,
where I’ll lie curled in the dark
like an unhatched bird, dreaming as my egg tooth sharpens.

0

How Moms Both Challenge and Confirm Standard Economic Theory

By Sarah Skwire

Last winter, I was getting ready to put insulating plastic on all of my windows to keep the cold out. I quizzed my Facebook friends to see if they could use the economic way of thinking to predict which room’s windows I would insulate first. They had some good suggestions. Maybe the coldest room? Maybe the kitchen, because it gets the most use? Maybe the room with the largest windows?

They were all wrong, and they were wrong because I don’t really do economics. I do momonomics. Momonomics is the particular kind of economic thinking engaged in by parents. (All parents use momonomics, even dads. I just think momonomics sounds better than parentonomics.) If you practice momonomics, you know that the windows that get covered in plastic first are the ones in the kids’ rooms, because you can do that in the half an hour the kids are spending watching Phineas and Ferb and then get the rest done while they’re in bed and not in the way. Also, the children are tiny and cold, and you feel sorry for them.

The factor that makes momonomics different from other economic ways of thinking is that children are the primary binding constraint.

The factor, in other words, that makes momonomics different from other economic ways of thinking is that children are the primary binding constraint. Here’s an example of what I mean.

Economics says that all goods have substitutes, but momonomics knows this is nonsense. Momonomics says that sometimes you’re going to have to turn the car around and drive two hours back to the hotel where you stayed last night in order to rescue one very special doll from the hotel laundry. (Thanks, btw, Mom and Dad. I still have her.) Economics says that a blanket may have a substitute, but momonomics says that the blanket does not. Sometimes demand curves are vertical, and price is infinite.

Economics takes preferences as given and explains why actors behave the way they do. Momonomics knows that preferences are mysterious and behavior cannot be explained, especially when the actor is under three feet tall. In fact, the job of the momonomist is often to restructure given preference sets and to alter behavior. We want you to eat your vegetables first, even if they don’t taste as good as tater tots.

Sometimes momonomics helps to reveal hidden economic secrets. We all know economics values efficiency. So some people might think that because the gas station is between the office and the day care, you should stop for gas on the way to pick the kids up. Momonomics knows this doesn’t make sense if the kids go out of their minds if they aren’t picked up at their usual time, and they really like to help put gas in the car. So momonomics schedules that trip in a way that makes momonomic sense and that, once the constraints are fully understood, makes better economic sense as well.

Economics thinks expressed preferences are important, but often mysterious. People want strawberry Pop-Tarts after natural disasters because they do. It’s not particularly important why. Momonomics can help unpack those preferences, reminding us that strawberry Pop-Tarts are a kid-friendly food that provide a burst of energy and a comforting familiarity; also, they don’t require any cooking, and they don’t make a mess.

Just as frequently as momonomics challenges economic theory, momonomics helps to confirm the practical applicability of economic thinking.

Economics reminds us that we live in an environment of scarcity. Momonomics agrees and says that because your sister finished the cinnamon Life cereal, you have to have peanut butter Cheerios for breakfast.

Economics reminds us that, just like every other resource, time is subject to scarcity constraints. Momonomics agrees, and wouldn’t sell you the hours between kid bedtime and grown-up bedtime for a gold nugget.

Economics knows that because time is a resource, sometimes the order in which you use other resources matters. Momonomics agrees. That’s why we’re having salad for dinner tonight, and frozen peas at the end of the week. And take a banana for a snack while you’re at it — they’re starting to get brown.

Economics knows that capital is heterogeneous. So does momonomics. That’s why if you don’t take the banana today, there will be banana bread tomorrow.

And when it comes time to slice up and share that banana bread, momonomics agrees with economics. You cut it up, but your brother gets to pick his slice first. (Momonomics comports to some degree with Rawlsian political philosophy). And don’t forget to wrap the leftovers in foil.

There’s a more serious point behind all this silliness. People who don’t know any technical economics use economic and momonomic ways of thinking every day to make decisions, both large and small. Lenore Skenazy is doing an excellent job of demonstrating the good things that can happen when moms start thinking about risk and uncertainty the way that economists do. And economists in classrooms everywhere are using momonomics examples to clarify arcane principles and connect economics to their students’ lives.

We would all make better decisions if moms thought more about economics and economists thought more about moms.