philadlephia tickets and merchandise

I just want to give a shout out to the following website:

http://www.nickdatic.com

If you are looking for Phillies, Eagles, Sixers, or Flyers tickets, jerseys or other merchandise Nick da Tic is your man. Prices can't be beat, and quality is guaranteed. Check it out.

the five most interesting people

So here is the question. If you could sit down and have dinner with five people from anytime in the history of the world, who would they be? I think this is an extremely difficult question. At this dinner I would want to discuss a variety of issues, and there are many diverse people whose minds I would want to pick. So let's get to my answers. Here they are, in reverse order.

5. Thomas Jefferson

The founding father and author of the declaration or independence is arguably the most influential figure in the founding of our republic. His views of personal responsibility, liberty and autonomy shape many of the ways I think today. Although he was not the most brilliant economic mind (see the embargo of British and French goods prior to the war of 1812) he was still a brilliant statesman and one of the pioneering thinkers regarding the inherent freedom of men.

4. John Locke

Locke's lasting legacy was his notion of the social contract. He was the first documented human to state that the proper role of government was a limited one, and that a legitimate government only had powers that were conferred upon it by the people it governed. It was upon Locke's guiding principles that our republic was founded, and he was the first to question the tyranny of authority that was present in all governments of human kind up until his time.

3. Milton Friedman

It is Friedman's belief in the power of markets to efficiently and fairly distribute wealth that I base almost all of my political beliefs on. He refused to accept that central planning was the path to prosperity and recognized that it is the collective wisdom of all people (consumers through the price mechanism) that determine the best outcome in almost all situations. He revolutionized modern economics and showed how humans rely on incentives, which are created through numerous circumstances including free market prices, to best determine how to allocate scarce resources. To this day, Free To Choose is the manifesto I live by.

2. Albert Einstein

Perhaps the most brilliant mind of all time, Einstein could reason on a level beyond comprehension to almost all other men. He thought of the universe in a way that was unheard of in his time and was widely criticized until empirical evidence proved his theories as correct. Thanks to his theory of relativity we now recognize that the universe is a much different place than we ever imagined and that all natural forces are most likely interconnected. Although there is no general theory of physics yet, Einstein pushed us to accept the unexpected, and revolutionized modern science in the process.

1. Adam Smith

The father of modern economics, no one has done more to improve the general welfare of humanity than Adam Smith. His revolutionary work, The Wealth of Nations, moved humanity beyond the dark ages into an age where free individuals were able to make their own choices to better themselves while at the same time bettering society as a whole. This revolutionary idea that the "invisible hand" will lead free actors to improve the life of both themselves and society as a whole was the foundation of capitalism. Thanks to Smith, human kind has advanced tremendously, and the standard of living had increased at an exponential rate. He was the first to establish a functional theory of prices, equating them to the relative value of the goods and services to both producer and consumer. In my opinion, there is no other individual in history who had more influence on the history of human civilization.

the all star break and education in america

Well it's the halfway point of the baseball season, and the world champion Philadelphia Phillies are right where they belong: in first place. Thanks in large part to a 9-1 home stand to finish the first half, they have built a substantial, but in no way insurmountable four game lead over the second place Marlins in the NL East. This team has a legitimate shot at repeating. They have the best and most explosive offense in the National League. They are scrappy both individually and as a team.

The only big question mark is pitching, both the starters and bullpen. Although the relief pitchers have been hot and cold, especially Brad Lidge, I don't think there is much they can or will do to sure up the unit. I don't think this will be a problem though. They have shown that they can succeed both consistently and in key situations (see last season), and I think they are going to recover nicely in the second half. The bigger question mark is the starting rotation.

According to reports the phils are very close to signing Pedro Martinez. Although I am not against the move because it will probably cost us very little, I don't think it is a solution. If the Phils sign him I hope I'm wrong, but I think he's out of gas and all washed up. My biggest concern is that the Phils will sign him that the front office will think that they have done enough and won't make anymore moves. In other words, they won't trade for Roy Halladay.

I am all for signing Halladay, almost regardless of cost. In a perfect world I wouldn't want to give up Kyle Drabek, but the time to win is now. This Phils have only won two World Series titles in their 125+ years of playing the game. One of those titles was last year. This is their chance; they must win now. If that means mortgaging the future, then so be it. Let's go out and get arguably the best pitcher in the game for this season and next and try to make it a dynasty. The Phils would instantly become the favorites to go to the World Series in the NL, and we would probably have the best 1-2 pitching combo in the majors in Halladay/Hamels. Amaro needs to make this happen.

On a completely unrelated note, I just want to comment quickly on the ridiculousness of public education in America. First, Texas has proposed several changes to their curriculum that is outraging many liberals (See a shortened list of changes here). For example they want to de-emphasize the historical importance of liberl icons like Thurgood Marshall and Ceasar Chavez. The only change I really want to comment on is the proposal to focus more on original historical documents rather than on texts that interpret those documents. I think this is a fantastic idea. There is no better way to learn history than to read actual account of what occurred. This way no hindsight spin can be put on historical events. Anyone who writes an account has their own agenda and biases, and whether they mean to or not they will inevitably put some kind of spin on the facts. Focusing on primary accounts can help alleviate that problem and let students think critically and draw their own conclusions based on the facts.

However, focusing on historical facts will not make a difference when the teachers themselves are biased, and once again the teacher's unions are flexing their political muscle now that Obama and the democrats control the executive and legislative branches. Thanks in large part to the unions leaning on the democrats, Obama is letting the DC voucher program expire despite the fact the DC city counsel has voted overwhelmingly to ask for the program to be extended. The union hates the program because it weakens their monopoly hold on public education funds. In reality the union doesn't care that the program has been an unbridled success, they only care about their own power and clout. They know that if similar programs are enacted around the country, teachers everywhere would start facing, get this, COMPETITION. But no, competition doesn't make the quality of output better in education they claim. That is only true FOR EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY IN AMERICA. Until we stop bowing to the teachers unions on education choice and reform, we are never going to truly bring about the needed change, especially in the country's poorest neighborhoods like Washington, DC.

obama and appeasement

Let me premise this by first stating that I was not a big fan of George W. Bush's foreign policy strategies. However, even if Bush was a little misguided, at least he believed in democracy and the strength of America to spread the light of freedom, liberty, democracy and prosperity throughout the world. He believed that the United States shouldn't compromise its values in the face of hostility from leaders abroad. Obama on the other hand seems to believe that compromise is always the right strategy, regardless of what's at stake for the U.S.

Take for instance the recent meetings with Medevedev and Putin in Russia. The U.S. agreed in principle to bilateral nuclear arms and launch site reductions. Sounds great right? Not really when you look at the negotiating situation each side was presented with at the opening of the talks. First, Russia's nuclear arsenal is aging fast, and many of their weapons will have to be retired within the next ten years. They are simply outdated and unreliable. With a GDP less than that of the state of California, Russia simply does not have the means to maintain a Cold War size nuclear strike force. In other words, they were going to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and launch sites regardless of what the U.S. did. So basically Obama gave up something for nothing. Any advocate with any idea what he was doing would tell you this is the cardinal sin of negotiating.

But wait, you say. Obama did this to build goodwill with the Russians, right? He wanted to mend the rift the was created by Bush. The problem with that theory is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOODWILL WITH THE RUSSIANS. At least that is true with the pseudo-democratic leaders who are currently in power. They are not going to budge regardless of what the U.S, does on the issues that really matter like missile defense in Eastern Europe, NATO expansion (especially to include Georgia - as an aside I just want to predict now that within one year from this date, Russia will invade Georgia again), and preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea. Putin lives by a cold war mentality, where his only goal is to weaken the U.S. at all costs. You simply can't negotiate with someone like that.

Obama's naivety has extended to his stances on Iran and North Korea as well. He still refuses to stand strong against the Ayatollah and support the dissenters who simply want the democracy that many of us take for granted. It is obvious at this point that the Iranian regime is intent on squashing any kind of dissent, and the U.S. and its allies should not recognize the government as legitimate. As a penalty for such brutality, the international community should place harsh and demanding sanction on Iran. Unfortunately, when the U.N. is running the show the best that is going to happen is that it will issue a strongly worded, non-binding resolution. As far as North Korea is concerned, Obama seems disinterested at best. He has taken no action despite the fact that North Korea has repeatedly broken international law in testing both nuclear devices and long range missiles for their potential delivery.

However, perhaps the most telling of all of Obama's foreign policy miscues is his support for ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. Now I am not one to support military coups, but the situation in Central American can hardly be called a coup. Zelaya was attempting the circumvent the Honduran constitution in order to stay in power beyond the mandatory term limit and install himself as a de facto dictator. Basically he was trying to emulate his good buddy, an American-enemy Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Chavez has been successful in destroying democracy and spreading a new form of Leftist dictatorship in his own country, and is looking to spread the model throughout the Americas. This would explain why Zelaya was attempting to distribute Venezuelan supplied ballots in order to facilitate in illegal vote where he was circumventing the Honduran legislature. The country's Supreme Court condemned the actions. Now the correct path would be for Zelaya to be arrested, tried and impeached from office, desperate times call for desperate measures. In order to protect their entire democrtaic government, the leaders felt it necessary to kick Zelaya out of the country. Its not like dictator has been put in place, instead the legislature simply elected a interim President until full elections later this year. Obama is supporting Zelaya under the guise of supporting the rule of law, but in reality he is doing it to appease people like Chavez in the hopes that he can later "negotiate" with him on a host of issues. I thought we learned that appeasement was a bad foreign policy in 1939.