So it turns out a good chunk of Warren Buffet's money is going to fund Planned Parenthood. Read about it here.

That's not really that surprising. What is a little troubling, however, is the rising productivity at Planned Parenthood. The Catholic News Agency reports:

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America recently released its annual report for 2004-05, which shows that it took in more total money ($882 million), more government money ($272.7 million) and more clinic money ($346.8 million) than ever before.

In addition, the report shows that Planned Parenthood continued to make money last year - $63 million. The additional profits for last year brings the total profits of Planned Parenthood to $649.6 million since 1987. The total net assets of the company are now at $784.1 million - $478.7 million of which are in cash or investments.

So, the money is poring in for a "pro-choice" group that is anything but supportive of choice:

Planned Parenthood also set other records last year for the lowest number of women it referred for adoption compared with the number of abortions it performed.

Planned Parenthood performed a record number of abortions - 255,015. The annual report shows it performed 180 abortions for every one woman it sent to an adoption agency.

And even if you are pro-death, you should see a problem with this part of the article:

Jim Sedlak, the director of STOPP International, a Planned Parenthood watchdog group, compiled data from Planned Parenthood’s annual reports. He said he was surprised the abortion business continued to ask for state and federal taxpayer dollars despite receiving record income from foundations and other groups.

Since 1987, Planned Parenthood has received a total of $3.9 billion in taxpayers' money, Sedlak stated.

Don't forget: UNC is an integral part of this "success." Health services and the women center refer women to planned parenthood regularly. Read about it here.

The Wall Street Journal Op-ed page commented today on the list of states with billion-dollar supluses in 2006. They were concerned that these states would spend the excess funds on new programs, leading to potential budget shortfalls similar to those experienced in recent years in the future.

Near the top of this list of winners is North Carolina with approximately $2 billion in unexpected income. What is the state doing with the money? Spending it ofcourse. As I pointed out not too long ago, UNC cashed in under the latest budget. The DTH reported on May 25:

The 2006-07 budget proposal put forward by the N.C. Senate on Tuesday would fully fund a host of major system priorities, including more than $79.2 million to support enrollment growth and almost $21.6 million for need-based financial aid...senators are backing a pay raise of 8 percent for system faculty during the next academic year and the promise of annual 6 percent increases in future years. The system's Board of Governors had requested only 5 percent.

Instead of giving taxpayers some relief, the General Assembly gives UNC more than it asked for. Not more than it needs, more than it asked for. That's pretty outrageous considering how budget requests work. Usually you don't receive all that you ask for, so you request more than you need.

"Well, maybe this will put a halt to tuition increases," the optimist might say. But the DTH editorial board aptly warned against this expectation last week:

But given the news that the UNC system doesn't face state budget cuts for the first time in years, the University and the Board of Trustees are going to have to work really hard to rationalize any tuition increases this year.

Not that they won't try. Tuition hikes at UNC have become more tradition than exception, leading to a sort of annual anti-birthday party where Chancellor James Moeser shows up and takes away students' presents.

A somewhat tangential, but nevertheless irritating, facet of this issue is the helping hand the General Assembly gave athletics boosters at UNC system schools this year. A Charlotte Observer editorial offers some incite:

If you live in North Carolina, get ready to pay $5.2 million this fall so students from other states can play sports and study at our state universities.

Because out-of-state students on scholarship are now considered in-state students, $5.2 million will be paid by taxpayers and students not on scholarship, instead of by boosters. It seems criminal that taxpayers and students should be forced to cover the costs of organizations that are not part of the "public interest." If a wealthy North Carolinian wants to donate to Carolina athletics, great. But don't make people who are concerned about education, flip the bill.

These are just some things to consider the next time there is a budget "crisis" and professors and local politicians call for higher taxes or tuition: however high the tax or large the surplus, it will never be enough. Government has an insatiable appetite for money.

Seven men have been charged with a plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago, according to a frontpage NYTimes article.

What interests me is this, a quote from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales:

"Today, terrorist threats may come from smaller, more loosely defined cells who are not affiliated with Al Qaeda, but who are inspired by a violent jihadist message, and left unchecked, these homegrown terrorists may prove to be as dangerous as groups like Al Qaeda."

Smells awfully familiar of the Taheri-azar "incident." These non-Al Qaeda terrorists are arguably more stupid and less purposeful than "real" Al Qaeda terrorists. Taheri did a bang-up job if his intent was actually to kill students, failing to even send anyone to the hospital overnight; and these Sears Tower terrorists didn't even get past the "let's pledge an allegiance to Al Qaeda for the FBI informer" stage.

I think this underscores the fact that there ought to be a distinction between institutional terrorism, and these rogue renegade types. Both are terrorism, mind you, and both are ideologically motivated. But one clearly poses a bigger "threat" than the other, and I think it serves a purpose to distinguish between the two.

I'll be interested to see how this plays out. The talking heads on CNN think the indictment is "thin," especially for a conspiracy case. It's uncertain if the FBI informer didn't bait some of these suspects into the things they're being charged with, which would be entrapment, which would mean they go home scott-free.

Mohammad Taheri-Azar said Wednesday that he intends to plead guilty to all 18 counts against him. These include nine counts of attempted first-degree murder, five counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, and four counts of assault with a deadly weapon wth intent to kill.

His next court date is September 19.

Read about it here.

Also, I assume the DTH will have something about it in tomorrow's edition. We'll see.

Thursday is the 250th anniversary of William Davie's birth. Some UNC students have been excavating his South Carolina home to try to find out more about the UNC-CH founder and former North Carolina governor. Read about it here.

Did you know that Davie:

• Was raised about 10 miles south of Charlotte in the Waxhaws, just over the state border, and the only N.C. governor buried in South Carolina -- at the Old Waxhaw Presbyterian Church in upper Lancaster County.

• Graduated from Princeton and interrupted his law studies to lead a cavalry troop against the British in the American Revolution, was seriously wounded and promoted to colonel -- all before age 25. President Andrew Jackson later said that Davie was the finest military officer he'd ever known.

• Hated the British so fiercely that he named his youngest son, Hyder Ali, in honor of the courageous Muslim warrior who fought the British in India.

• Was appointed by President John Adams as foreign minister to France in order to improve relations and avoid war. While in Paris for more than a year, Davie dined and met with Napoleon Bonaparte at the Tuileries Palace. Davie negotiated the Treaty of Mortefontaine and as "pledges of amity and union" between the two nations, Napoleon gave Davie several ancient Roman gold coins.

Read about it here.

Alex, you should like this.

I like how the article describes Rand:

The author of "Atlas Shrugged" emphasized the rights of the individual and laissez-faire capitalism.

I wonder how UNC administrators feel about this. Many of them hate capitalism, but Rand was no social conservative. So, maybe they aren't too irked.

The Charlotte Observer reports:

The buzz among callers to Monday's "Talk of Iowa -- Dr. Politics" radio program was Sunday's Des Moines Register Poll, and its surprise first-place showing for Democrat John Edwards...Edwards, who turned 53 over the weekend, continued a swing through the state by campaigning Monday for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Chet Culver in Iowa City. It was Edwards' fifth visit of the year, and ninth since leaving the Senate in 2005.

How is it that Edwards came upon this good fortune?

According to Charlie Cook, editor of the Washington-based Cook Political Report:

That's one of the advantages of not having a job -- that you can give Iowa the TLC, you know, the special attention they need.

Edwards has been giving a lot of TLC. He's been giving it to Iowans and other states that are coincidentally at the top of the primary list. Maybe this $40,000/year job is not really about poverty, but rather it is about political TLC.

Cook adds:

"The last three to four months, (former Virginia Gov.) Mark Warner has been the flavor of the month," he said. "Before that it was (Sen.) Evan Bayh (of Indiana). Edwards has had a real challenge to stay relevant. He needed a boost. And this was a good boost."

Way to go Mr. Vice-Pres..I mean Senator Ed...I mean Mr. Director of the Center on Poverty at UN...Well, whatever you are, congratulations. Enjoy being the flavor of the month. Whether you lose in the primary or in November, you'll have a place at UNC. (Well not really, since few people have ever seen you there, but you get the point.)

Read about it here.

“The federal government wants smaller portion sizes at restaurants and nutritional information listed on menus.”

This is the lead from an article that appeared in The Washington Times on Saturday, June 3, 2006. Unfortunately I cannot find a link to an online copy of it.
Here’s a summary: The FDA commissioned a report, which was conducted by the Keystone Center, to examine the eating habits of Americans. In this 136-page report, the FDA asserts that we eat more food away from home, 64 percent of us are overweight and 30 percent are obese.

Yay. Government money spent to tell us that we like food.

But what is even more disturbing than this asinine excuse to issue a report is what the FDA is calling for. The agency wants restaurants to “take the lead in cutting fat”. It wants restaurants to cut the portion sizes of the meals they serve. It also wants nutritional information displayed on the menus.
If you walk into a McDonald’s, chances are that the nutrition information will be posted somewhere in the building. If you ask, most restaurants are willing to fork over the nutritional facts of that steak and potato dinner you just scarfed down. (And you loved every bite) If you go into Applebee’s, there is a special menu for those on the Atkins Diet and Weight Watchers. So, the second suggestion is pretty much covered. Even still, the last time I checked, the purpose of restaurants was to sell food, not make sure that we eat healthy.

Call me crazy, but I have faith in the American people. Since we were born, we have had the ability to determine when we are hungry and when we are not. When we are hungry, we eat. When we eat, we get full. If we eat too much, we get fat. That is just the way it works. I guarantee that if you poll people who make New Year’s Resolutions, an overwhelming majority of them will be either: 1) lose weight, 2) eat healthier or 3) go to the gym more often.

The FDA has no legal ability to police the portion sizes that restaurants serve, but the mere suggestion of such is just another example of how the government is invading my life and my dinner table. If I go to a restaurant and order a bacon-cheddar burger with seasoned fries (my favorite!), I want that burger to be as big as possible. It’s not the responsibility of some bigwig at a government agency to tell me how big my burger should be. I consider myself responsible. I consider people, as a general rule, responsible. I consider it the right of the owner of the restaurant to determine how much food they want to serve.
Apparently, the FDA doesn’t agree with me.

Columnist Margaret Carlson reports on a new project called Unity08. It is a internet-based initiative to reform the US primary system. The idea is that there will be a Web site where people who wish to partake vote for a nominee for president. It is supposed to be bipartisan. So, if a person wants to run for president under the Unity08 ticket, they have to have a running mate from the opposite party. This way there will be a moderate candidate running for president who wasn't nominated in Iowa.

Carlson writes:

Unity08 is the brainchild of Hamilton Jordan and Gerald Rafshoon, who know how to roll a rock uphill. They upset conventional wisdom in 1976 to elect an unknown peanut farmer turned Georgia governor, Jimmy Carter. They are joined by Republican Doug Bailey, who worked for President Gerald Ford before founding ``The Hotline,'' a must-read daily online summary of everything political.

Also on board is the former governor of Maine, Angus King, who ran as an independent, and a bunch of energetic college kids, led by student council presidents from Yale and the University of North Carolina. In its brief existence, the kid brigade has signed up 23 colleges.

Dustin Ingalls has informed me that Allred is not part of this group. So, it looks like Carlson got her facts wrong. But, whoever the UNC student is that is taking part in this project, I have to comment. No, this is not pure Leftist propaganda or advocating the derecognition of more Christian groups, but I have to point out what's wrong with this initiative.

It's the same old pessimistic attitude that is promulgated by "moderates" who think they are "open minded." They continually tell us how the American system is broken and why John McCain is the greatest man alive because they want "consensus."

Well I don't want "consensus" for the sake of "consensus." And neither did the founders. Read Federalist 10 and tell me how Madison would feel about this modern notion of "consensus." I don't think he would care for it.

Blind consensus leads to mass hysteria over such myths as human induced global warming and catastophic acid rain and mass condemnation of those with dissenting opinions.