Locke and Load

Stupid Laws and Stupid Proposals

2005-12-28T18:24:00.000-08:00

A zoning ordinance adopted this month by the city of Manassas redefines family, essentially restricting households to immediate relatives, even when the total is below the occupancy limit.

[...]

Fairfax County is seeking authority from the state to impose criminal fines and jail time on landlords who rent houses to more than four unrelated people, typically immigrants.

(That's Manassas, Virginia. And that's Fairfax County, Virginia. So tell me, what the hell is wrong with Virginia, exactly? From this day forth, I don't want to hear a peep about Texas. Not from any of you. Never again. Not one syllable.)

The emphasis, by the way, in both cases? Mine. And here is your source.

My take?

Actually, I have two. First: A people who are not free to choose the number and description of their roommates are not actually free at all. No matter what the national anthem says.

Second: this is the kind of garbage legislation you get when your ideological focus is on the tax base, not on ethical principles.

Exactly Why I Seek Out Multiple Sources

2005-12-18T18:27:00.000-08:00

Copley News Service syndicated columnist Doug Bandow admitted accepting money from [lobbyist Jack] Abramoff for writing as many as 24 op-ed articles favorable to some of Abramoff's clients. Copley suspended the column pending a review and Bandow resigned as a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Source. Emphasis mine.

The Cato Institute is a world class think tank and its credentials are impeccable. A blogger might even make a career of sampling Cato's work and re-presenting it to the general public. But he shouldn't, and this sad example underscores that point very well.

Locke and Load on Ice, No Monkeyshine on Center Stage?

2005-12-15T08:46:00.000-08:00

It seems as if The Man will answer The Call. He is making noises about picking up his old solo routine No Monkeyshine and making it the bestseller it always longed to be. Surely yours truly -- Immanuel Can't -- can be a frequent, moderating voice.

Stick a Fork In Us...

2005-12-12T10:35:00.000-08:00

...we're done. Blogging just isn't our thing quite yet.

Thanks to those who stopped by, and thanks especially to those who left us a piece of your mind. We'll leave Locke and Load around for a few days, in the off-chance that some of you want to download some content or chase down a hyperlink that you found here. But by the end of the week, we plan to send this dog to the great boneyard beyond. A bona fide web journal should present its readers with at least one complete essay per day per contributor, and we've not even been able to manage a quick, daily hand genade between the two of us. Once we realized this, the rest was obvious.

Anyway: speak your mind, listen with your eyes, vote with your feet, disregard the noise, and you'll do fine. Happy surfing....

White Christmas

2005-12-11T19:35:00.000-08:00

My find this Christmas that will be a part of every Christmas from here on? Everyone knows that the definitive recording of "White Christmas" is by Bing Crosby. But while watching the TV show Monk with my wife, they played a version at the end of the episode that I had never heard before. I knew I recognized the voice and style, but I couldn't place it. So I did a search on Rhapsody and found it.

Otis Redding.

If you haven't heard it, give it a listen. And have a soulful Christmas.

The Lockies

2005-12-09T13:45:00.000-08:00

Welcome to The First Annual Lockies, where Immanuel Can't lists the top ten albums of the year. Will The Man remember his login password and create a list of his own? Will he call it The Loadies, maybe? Time will tell.

So here goes:

1. The Decemberists -- Picaresque

I know, I know. Another damn love letter to The Decemberists. How predictable. How banal. We get it already, sir: you neo-gothics love the damn Decemberists. Now can we move this thing along?

2. Mars Volta -- Frances the Mute

What a terrific year in music that Frances the Mute sits in second place at all, to anything, for any reason. In many ways this prog-metal masterpiece is the antithesis to Picaresque: loud, chaotic, indecipherable, and largely inaccessible. Of course a review such as this is supposed to christen the thirty-minute epic "Cassandra Gemini" as the centerpiece of the album, but my favorite cut is "The Widow," the only single short enough for heavy rotation and the only track recorded this year that can give me the soulsickness. Go ahead. Call me a sap. I'd agree with you.

3. System of a Down -- Mezmerize

Easily the strangest multi-platinum act in the world, SoaD can follow up a thunderous rage-against-the-war-machine protest track with a Disneyland-on-LSD joint about jumping around on pogo sticks. Mix postmoderism with punk and metal and splash with I'm-going-native and you're half the way to describing this ensemble. Buy their entire collection on your way home tonight, and listen to it in the parking lot.

(With the exception of the #10 slot, I present the rest on a "no particular order" basis:)

LCD Soundsystem -- LCD Soundsystem

Funky, witty, imperfect, and, yes, American. Sorry, U.K.

Bloc Party -- Silent Alarm

Streetwise and hip, these blokes less resemble a musical act and more a Guy Ritchie film put to drums. Dare I say it? This is what music critics mean when they say "quintessentially English."

Tarentel -- Big Black Square and Tarentel

Bay Area boy scouts Tarentel managed a grand total of three tracks on these two LPs combined, earning themselves a Lockie for that level of restraint alone. Musical purists will dispute my use of the term, but this is lowercase at its finest: silent, minimal, dissonant, and beautiful.

Explosions in the Sky -- Those Who Tell the Truth Shall Live Forever

One part spaghetti western, one part tornado, one part lowercase music, I know nothing more about EitS than this: their 2005 release was groundbreaking and breathtaking.

Battles -- EP C

A sort of league of crafty guitarists for the new generation. As is the way with the other post-rock upstarts on the list, when these guys find a groove, they keep it. Tracks are exquisitely long, impersonally digital, and utterly compelling.

10. Doves -- Some Cities

These guys are on double secret probation, hence the last rank in the list. Wandering melodies and spectral vocals all but mask the fact that Doves positively refuse to take a risk. The sound never tells a joke and never loses control, not once in five LPs. Jeff Buckley's 1994 album Grace took as many chances in ten cuts as Doves have taken in their entire career, as is evidenced by the fact that Buckley fans have inhaled not one, not two, not three, four, five, six but seven (!) full-length outtake LPs after his early death. Seven. Effin' seven. Think about it.

The Tragedy of the Tamales

2005-12-08T13:16:00.000-08:00

Earlier in the week the company president brought in a few dozen tamales and left them in the break room, for community consumption. One of our shop employees took a dozen of them home and his entire family ate them for dinner.

In spite of the fact that putting nourishment in front of his children is a father's primary reponsibility, this offends us on some hidden, nearly descriptionless basis. But why? Not because he stole them. The president left them in the kitchen for free. "Community consumption" includes "consumption by him." There was nothing to steal.

And not because he violated the terms of her gift. A gift is a gift, period. There are no terms to a gift.

And not because he deprived another employee of the tamales. The tamales were presented on a first-come, first-served basis, and no one had appeared for work based on the promise of free food. There is no substantive difference to the other employees between one man "legitimately" devouring twelve tamales on his own or "illegitimately" squirreling away twelve tamales for his kids. To those who missed out, they missed out just as much had he taken a baker's dozen or all of them. To those who secured some, the same.

It is difficult to pinpoint one's ideological revulsion to what this employee did since he did not do anything beyond acting in his own self-interest. The company president is the one who acted uneconomically. The president ignored the tragedy of the commons.

The tragedy of the commons is, although only recently minted, a universal and timeless concept that economics can apply to almost any good. Something not privately managed will be publicly mismanaged. Water given away for free (or worse: sold for flat monthly rates, regardless of usage) will be consumed indiscriminately. Roads given away for free will be cluttered to the point of disutility. Antibiotics given away for free will be overconsumed.

Had the president charged, say, a dollar per tamal, those few who wanted to eat would have eaten. Instead, she proclaimed the tamales to be "common," and a few who wanted to eat were able to eat. But instead of sacrificing something valuable for the tamales in an auction, those who found them first were able to exploit them. And this makes us uncomfortable because it values luck above effort, meaning that it violates the very definition of economics, whether we know the definition or not: "the study of how men satisfy unlimited wants using quite-limited resources."

How is the tragedy of the tamales any different than the tragedy of free water? Or the tragedy of free education? Or the tragedy of free health care? Or the tragedy of free roads? I suspect that a great many people who think the tamal taker acted selfishly would disagree that a homeowner acts selfishly when drinking free water. But the premise is exactly the same. A man acting in his own self-interest, or in the interest of his family, is given no incentive to conserve the common good, or to produce more of it.

Star (on top of the Christmas Tree) Wars

2005-12-08T06:20:00.000-08:00

I'm feeling better. Not yet feisty. Just better. Sunday was a bit muddy from all the drink Saturday night. Monday and Tuesday, I felt like I was coming down with the flu. Yesterday my back hurt, of all things. What a week. But, to say it again, I'm on the uptick. So I'll put my big toe back in the water with...

...this Y Files post. Apparently the Save Christmas (from whom?) Coalition has fixed their scope on born-again Christian and leader of the free world, President George W. Bush, of Texas:

This month, as in every December since he took office, President Bush sent out cards with a generic end-of-the-year message, wishing 1.4 million of his close friends and supporters a happy “holiday season.”

Many people are thrilled to get a White House Christmas card, no matter what the greeting inside. But some conservative Christians are reacting as if Bush stuck coal in their stockings.

“This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture,” said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Two Decembers ago, I fled permanently from the Glenn Beck radio show for this very thing, his non-stop anti-anti-Christmas whining. A few points on the subject:

1. While movements to forbid nativity scenes from public places are excessive and misguided, we must remember that public squares are the public's business. A successful ACLU suit of this nature is not a violation of individual rights. A successful ACLU suit against nativity scenes on private property would be a violation of individual rights.

2. One more point about public-sector nativity scenes. What footnote to "reduce government spending" are the conservatives reading from, anyway? Civic displays cost money to procure, assemble, maintain, disassemble, store, and reassemble next year. That money comes from tax revenue. The taxes come from the people. On any other matter, conservatives would have cut me off at the word "procure" and started howling about the redistribution of wealth.

3. It was always weird to me hearing store greeters wishing "Merry Christmas" on any day but December 25. Here's a thought: wish "Happy Holidays" on every day between Thanksgiving and New Years Day, and wish "Merry Christmas" on Christmas. Or here's another: greet customers with "Welcome to Wal-Mart" when they show up and with "Thank you" when they leave. Pure genius!

4. No matter what you think of my solution #3 above, retail greeting policies are matters of private consideration, meant to make the store more universally appealing to shoppers and, therein, meant to look after their shareholders' investment. And yes, whether you boycott these retail outlets for their private considerations is also a private consideration. To the present author, an organized boycott on this basis alone seems excessive and misguided (a common motif in holiday/Christmas matters anymore).

5. Please. The sitting president of the United States is not "capitulating to the worst elements in our culture," period. Violence, nihilism, thievery, power-lust, racism, xenophobia, intolerance of other religions? These are the worst elements of our culture (and of all cultures). Protection of minorities (albeit excessive and misguided protection of minorities in this case) is the most democratic thing I can think of.

6. As to the "loss of will" remark, no. Get some perspective. G.W. Bush proposing that the U.S. Army militarize the national response to the avian flu? Yeah. That represents a loss of will.

(this post deleted)

2005-12-06T14:38:00.000-08:00

Yeah, yeah, that was a bit much. Sorry.

Quote of the Day

2005-12-02T11:31:00.000-08:00

Actually, two:

--On Tuesday [November 29], the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation took time out of its busy schedule screwing up commerce, science and transportation to host an "open forum on decency."

...and...

--Rugged individualists in Alaska get a whopping $1.89 back from the feds for every tax dollar they send to Washington.

Source: Nick Gillespie's article here on congressional deliberations toward cable TV decency legislation.

Liberal Wanted

2005-12-02T05:32:00.000-08:00

(UPDATE What follows is an earnest offer, even if it doesn't read like one.)

To post on Locke and Load with The Man and me.

Strict deadlines, no pay, hostile work environment, little outside recognition. Posting in anonymity is its own reward. Excellent written and verbal communication skills required. Open contempt for the First, Second, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments helpful. Ability to explain Marxism, Stalism, Maoism, statism, Supreme Court Justice David Souter, and anything that happens in San Francisco a big plus.

Inquire within. ~~EEO~~IEO.

The State of Protectionism

2005-12-01T15:49:00.000-08:00

For those who think interstate trade protectionism is not a natural progression from international trade protectionism, read the following excerpt from a San Jose Mercury News piece:

Southwest Airlines Co. wasted no time in announcing Thursday that it will launch service from Dallas to St. Louis and Kansas City on Dec. 13 ... after President Bush signed a transportation bill that included a provision to make Missouri the ninth state that airlines can serve directly from Dallas Love Field.

This is the year 2005, and we actually need to pass a federal law so that an airline can serve nine states?

And the new law only allows nine?

What is that thing called that the Supreme Court uses to regulate home-grown marijuana that doesn't cross state lines? The Commerce clause? Can't Congress just invoke that?

Links

2005-12-01T15:08:00.000-08:00

It's a fairly slow news day, so I thought a review of my links would be fitting:

At Happiness and Public Policy, Will Wilkinson has posted a BBC article on the therapeutic powers of dolphins. I would be delinquent in duty if I failed to mention the fact that dolphins are creepy.

Over at The Y Files, Cathy Young weighs in on R. J. Rummel, who has admitted "that his earlier estimates of Chairman Mao's democide was too low."

Next door, The Agitator, Radley Balko draws an eerie comparison between a Reason Hit & Run post and an Onion piece. Not as creepy as dolphins, but if you reflect that Onion is made up and that Reason Magazine is not, you'll agree that it is certainly, say, monkey creepy.

Marginal Revolution: Tyler Cowen links yet another essay written in an indecipherable tongue.

At Gateway Pundit, GP presents various news pieces on World AIDS Day.

Division of Labour looks back 100 years to consider contemporary intercollegiate sports and gambling.

As to the rest of the links (and you know the ones I mean), your conclusions are your own. Happy reading!

No Comment

2005-11-30T05:19:00.000-08:00

"If abortion is not allowed [at the state level], at that point the state and nation should be required to pay at least $10,000 to $15,000 a year to the mother of the unborn child, to take care of all medical, day care, clothing, every service (food) for the child, until the child is 12 years old."

-- 8:01AM EST call from Lake Winnipesaukee, New Hampshire to C-SPAN's "Washington Journal," Wednesday, November 30, 2005

The Malkin Wars

2005-11-29T05:06:00.000-08:00

Offline yesterday, arch-conservative The Man sniffed at my use of the term "arch-conservative Michelle Malkin" in this post here. He furthermore took issue that my single-issue gripe of Malkin's work was a book of hers that I haven't read, In Defense of Internment. In my own (ahem) defense:

1. I began my description of Michelle Malkin with "serious looker." Not "arch-conservative." Priorities.

2. Clearly I meant the thing to be a silly post about a silly subject. Either someone at CNN meant to position the X over Vice President Cheney's face, and we learn nothing new about CNN, or someone didn't, and we will all take to our graves our unquenched thirst for justice. The Man knows about me something most of you do not: I do not believe the expression "arch-conservative" actually represents anything real. The term "conservative" describes a belief in a certain set of negative rights and positive obligations, and posits what we should do together to preserve those rights and obligations. Even if you could describe precisely what "conservatism is" (you couldn't, nor could you describe precisely what "libertarianism is," or what "centrism is," because the only internally complete "-ism" is totalitarianism) you could never indicate graphically its relative positions to other ideologies. I've made this point before.

But forget all that for a moment, and imagine a graphical point named "conservative." Moving too far from that point in one direction (call it "maverick") or in the other direction (call it "arch") does not make you a "maverick conservative" or an "arch conservative," it simply makes you not-conservative, since you now maintain a different set of rights and obligations, and submit different solutions for each. This takes us nicely back to:

3. The big one: Malkin's book, In Defense of Internment, which is titled perfectly: a defense of American internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. To wit:

On May 3, 1942, General DeWitt issued Civilian Exclusion Order No. 346, ordering all people of Japanese ancestry, whether citizens or non-citizens, to report to assembly centers, where they would live until being moved to permanent "Relocation Centers."

Over 112,000 residents of Japanese ancestry were subject to this mass exclusion program. Of those, approximately two-thirds were U.S. citizens by birth.

It was the "single largest forced relocation in U.S. history." Michelle Malkin herself wrote that, "There is no denying that what happened to Japanese-American internees was abhorrent and wrong." But, by her own pen:

I was compelled to write [In Defense of Internment] after watching ethnic activists, historians, and politicians repeatedly play the World War II internment card after the September 11 attacks.

[...]

If you want to read a book decrying the loss of personal freedom in wartime America, this is the wrong book. If you want to read a book about the history of institutional discrimination against minorities in America, you’re out of luck again. Bookstores, library shelves, and classrooms are already filled with pedantic tomes, legal analyses, and educational propaganda along these conventional lines.

[...]

The Bush Administration’s critics have equated every reasonable measure to interrogate, track, detain, and deport potential terrorists with the “racist” and “unjustified” World War II internment policies of President Roosevelt. To make amends for this “shameful blot” on our history, both Japanese-American and Arab/Muslim-American activists argue against any and all uses of race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion in shaping current homeland security policies. Misguided guilt about the past continues to hamper our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Emphasis mine.

With executive summaries such as these, and written by the author herself, I don't need to read any further. Simply perusing the dust jacket is enough. Do you need to read Mein Kampf for yourself to conclude that the text of the book is abhorrent?

Malkin intends to defend Bush administration policy by defending Roosevelt administration policy (and a national shame for which the government has apologized and paid reparations). Hers is a logical misstep and it is a quite un-conservative position: that of detaining sovereign men strictly on the basis of ethnicity.

Critique of the Critique, Part Two (Immanuel Can Version)

2005-11-28T19:30:00.000-08:00

(My cohort tore into Michael Huben's essay ahead of me, so I have edited my post a bit to spare you any redundant redundancy.)

Huben: [A libertarian's] isolation from normal political discourse makes it difficult to evaluate libertarian claims without much more research or analysis than most of us have time for.

This is itself an unusual, isolated claim. It is unclear why a discussion of the function of government would require any research at all. Certainly most thinking men should be able to enunciate their own beliefs on this subject without prior research.

Huben: [Libertarianism is] a mixture of social philosophy, economic philosophy, a political party, and more.

I disagree, although some libertarians might not. I would define libertarianism as the system of the ethics of governing that most emphasizes the sovereignty of the individual man.

Huben: Libertarians are ... utopian.

This is a compelling -- but ultimately inaccurate -- claim. Utopians strive for a perfect society. Libertarians strive for a perfectly free society, which the libertarian Cato Institute famously reminded us is inevitably a messy place.

Huben: Property is theft.

How so? From where I sit, this wealth-guilt, strength-guilt and possessions-guilt appears far more dangerous than any housing bubble. To say "property is theft" is not to stop at land ownership. That toaster oven you love so much? Property? The dog asleep at your feet? Property. Governments that preserve our right to private property preserve our sovereignty as individual men. And in that, protect our homes, our toaster ovens, our dogs, and, yes, our land.

Huben: Taxation is part of a social contract.

The "social contract" is nothing more than our current network of federal, state, and local laws, and laws -- as we all know -- can change.

It bears mention that -- for government to preserve rights -- a government of some description must exist and fund itself. In shorthand: taxes are necessary. Liberals often unfairly paint libertarians and free market conservatives with too broad a brush stroke. It is not taxation itself that is misguided. It is -- first and primarily -- the funding of unnecessary services with taxes in lieu of user fees that is unconscionable.

It is, second, the forceful nature of tax collection, which violates the sovereign nature of individual men. A voluntary system, or a lottery, would encourage nearly as much participation with a fraction of the bureaucracy.

And it is, third, the net negative effect of wealth redistribution. We have seen after decades of wasteful spending on wars against poverty, wars against drugs, wars against famine in Africa, and wars for the shoreline that poverty, drugs, famine and the ocean are still winning. It is not that one extra dollar that will lead us to victory against poverty. It is something more fundamental. And libertarians believe that this "something more fundamental" is the improved preservation of rights.

Lastly, it is the progressive nature of federal taxation. Earned income tax credits notwithstanding, no man should pay a higher percentage of his taxes than another man.

Huben spends the next six questions of his FAQ lingering on this "social contract" point, to which I can only answer: social contracts change. I know of no libertarian whomsoever who takes legitimate, substantive issue with the social contract. Without one, how else will government preserve rights?

Huben: [Libertarians complain that they] can't emigrate because there is no libertarian nation.

Again, did a libertarian actually write this? I must confess I agree with bits and parts of his answer until he arrives at his conclusion: "The free market of government services essentially guarantees that there is no such thing as the free lunch libertarians want. It's not competitive." This is a silly and misplaced metaphor that earns a comment all its own.

Comparing nations for possible emigration is nothing like comparing products for sale in a free market. Graphs like this one and this one clearly demonstrate this point. Most of the nations of the world have, in general terms, a No Vacancy policy. Living in the United States distorts that world view somewhat, since (at least on the bureaucratic level) we are generally welcoming toward tourists and visa applicants, and generally tolerant of illegal immigrants. Imagine a "free market" in computers wherein the bestselling laptop only allowed 73.5 percent of able buyers to actually buy.

And on the "free lunch" remark, it is impossible to reconcile this outlook with the reality of libertarian thought. A self-governing advocate wants to opt-out of social security, opt-out of the government school program, opt-out of the public health system, and -- in the hypothetical event that we find ourselves there one day -- opt out of nationalized food programs, housing programs, and medicine programs. I am unclear on how this represents "free lunch."

Questions #15 and #16 again pertain to the social contract nature of governing, which we have already addressed. Huben's answer for #17 and reads: Absolute ownership of property is fundamental to most flavors of libertarianism.

Guilty as charged. The only alternatives to "absolute ownership rights" seem to be "relative ownership rights" and "no ownership rights." The expression "relative ownership" reads like an inherent contradiction in terms, and summons memory of the recent Kelo decision. The term "no ownership rights" summons thoughts of Haiti. The subject author -- or any self-identifying liberal who stumbles upon this question -- is invited to correct me.

Huben: It is wrong to deny the validity of the current system of limited ownership of property. For example, a clear statement of such an "easement" is in the Fourth Amendment, which essentially says that the government can enter your property with a valid search warrant and not be trespassing. There are many existing limitations such as government rights to tax and to zone property, limitations to ownership of navigable waters, how far property extends to the water, etc. And sometimes new limitations are specified, such as non-ownership of airspace above property.

This paragraph simply confuses "what is current" with "what is right." Again, the bigger, more pertinent question is this: how is "relative ownership" not a contradiction in terms? And how can any erosion of "absolute ownership" not gradually, inevitably lead to Kelo-styled decisions on behalf of the Supreme Court and the lower courts?

To question #20, which is Think how much wealthier we'd be if we didn't pay taxes, Huben responds: This is a classic example of libertarians not looking at the complete equation for at least two reasons. (1) If taxes are eliminated, you'll need to purchase services that were formerly provided by government. (2) If taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and wages will change as well.

Frankly I agree with both the question and the answer. If taxes and protectionism were eliminated, men at the individual level we would be only a little wealthier. This incremental amount represents efficiencies in competition not present in government monopoly, which are, in turn, slightly mitigated themselves by their own diseconomies of smaller scale. If -- where there was formerly one public school that served my area -- there are now two private schools, competition between the private schools would keep costs a bit lower. Liberals will immediately race toward the most extreme example and write, "Public schools charged based on the value of your property, not by the number of kids you have in school. Imagine a family with ten kids: through the public system, they would pay only once. Through the private system they would pay ten times." I have to concede that point. Yes, having ten kids is expensive. That is what home schooling is for. And home schooling, my friends, is free.

At the national level, though, we would be much wealthier without taxes and protectionism. Products, individual corporations and entire industries would sell or not-sell based on utility, not political favor or disfavor. Innovation would would be fierce because competition would be fierce.

Part Three to come.

Two of My Posts Removed...

2005-11-28T19:11:00.000-08:00

...possibly permanently, pending further research into something I read on Division of Labour.

The first post, "Brain Teaser of the Week," dated 10/5/2005, posed the question, "Why is counterfeiting a federal crime while Treasury seigniorage is not?" The second post, "Money vs. Wealth," dated 10/16/2005, relied heavily on the first.

It's possible that both are a crime. From the DOL post:

The atheist who is fighting to take the phrase "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance filed a lawsuit late Thursday seeking to prevent the U.S. government from printing the national motto -- "In God We Trust" -- on any future coins or paper money.

In the suit filed with the U.S. District Court in Sacramento, Calif., Michael Newdow claims that the present use of the phrase "violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution," and he seeks to stop the government from using it on mint coins and print currency, as well as in "any act or law."

Newdow’s suit fails to challenge what’s really unconstitutional about our present currency notes and coins, namely that the US government is not empowered to issue fiat money. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to “coin money”, but not to print money. Article I, Section 10 forbids any state to "coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". No section empowers the Congress to emit bills of credit (paper money) or to declare anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender.

Read the whole thing, and follow the links here. The Cato Institute makes an excellent case that all fiat currency is unconstitutional here.

Critique Of The Critique

2005-11-28T18:12:00.000-08:00

I have checked out Mr. Huben's Critiques of Libertarianism previously referenced by Mr. Can't and feel I must comment. So here goes.

It is quite an easy thing to critique a political philosophy. These philosophies are developed over centuries, with many writers and thinkers adding their perspectives, refining meanings, applying principles. To take any one of these, or worse, parts of any one of these, and critique it as a stand-alone representation of an entire philosophical point of view is ridiculous. But quite easy.

Mr. Huben is, obviously, a liberal. Though I'm sure he would never admit to it (My philosophical ideas spring from skepticism, relativism, positivism, pragmatism, and humanism. When evaluating ideas, I work with the assumption that theories ought to match reality -- it is surprising how much theory matches reality badly. This tends to produce a preference for ideas that are valid (ie. work well) rather than theoretically correct (without working well.)). Because calling yourself a liberal means having to defend the Liberal philosophy. And if I were to take a look at the liberal philosophy as it has evolved, who would I go to as my representatives? Stalin? Mao? Castro? And, of course, Mr. Huben would indignantly deny that these people represent his philosophy, even if he did have the guts to admit what he is. And I would then pull out volume after volume of quotes and writings that concur completely with modern liberalism.

Political philosophies are nothing but a set of guiding principles by which people solve difficult problems. Modern liberals don't have this particular difficulty as their philosophy is purely pragmatic and follows no doctrine. They can ebb and flow as necessary and approach any issue as if it has never occurred before in the history of the world. They don't worry about contradictions. They know what is best.

However, most of us live by a set of broad principles that we believe explain the world around us and thereby guide our decisions. It is in the application of those principles that we encounter gray areas that must be worked out - through compromise, debate, and working solutions. Because the solution or compromise is not philosophically pure, does that mean the philosophy is invalid? Obviously not.

Having discussed Huben's main point, I would like to now take a few shots at some specifics. These are some of the most ridiculous statements I have read in some time.

The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly agreed on any one thing, let alone libertarian notions. It is well documented that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises amongst them: few agreed wholeheartedly with any particular part. Thus, looking to the founders for "original intent" is silly: it will vary amongst them.

So, what he is saying is that since every vote on every article was not unanimous, we cannot ascertain the founders' original intent and should not even try? So I guess he would agree with the other extreme of the argument and that is that the written words mean exactly what they say, no more and no less, and any question that comes before the court that is not exactly answered by these words is kicked back to the states or lower court? No. Huben thinks the courts should be able to interpret the words in any way they please, based on anything they please.

The Declaration Of Independence is a rhetorical document, without legal standing in the USA. That status was a deliberate decision of the founders, not an accident. If it is purported to reflect the intent of the founders, then we can only conclude that they changed their minds when writing the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution.

Let me tell you what was a deliberate decision of the founders. Not to live in tyranny, and to pay for that decision with their own lives if necessary. To put the Declaration into a context of what it meant to the founding of a nation that had not, and indeed likely would not, come to be is idiocy. You're right, Mr. Huben, The Declaration of Independence is not a founding document of this nation. It is the founding document.

The foremost defenders of our freedoms and rights, which libertarians prefer you overlook, are our governments.

Well, there's always that irrefutable argument.

I Learn Something New Every Day (Fellini Edition)

2005-11-27T10:48:00.000-08:00

The Italian word paparazzo (known here in its much more familiar plural form "paparazzi"), meaning "A freelance photographer who doggedly pursues celebrities to take candid pictures for sale to magazines and newspapers," is taken from a character in Federico Fellini's La Dolce Vita named Signor Paparazzo, who engages in same.

Sources: the 1960 film itself and dictionary.com.

Damn You, Huben!

2005-11-25T11:01:00.000-08:00

Arlington High School science teacher Mike Huben has an extensive anti-libertarianism page online called Critiques of Libertarianism. Note that both Huben and I use the term "-ism," which clearly distinguishes the realm of libertarian thought from the Libertarian Party itself. His is, as is mine, a war of ideas, not of politics. Politics (better said: the field of policy and politicians) represents little more than opposing teams avoiding scandals of their own, and sniffing around for scandals across the aisle.

Huben openly acknowledges that his "philosophical ideas spring from skepticism, relativism, positivism, pragmatism, and humanism," all of which is longhand for "American liberalism," so this way it seems odd that Huben has chosen libertarianism (in lieu of American conservatism) as his ten-year bête noir. There are two general explanations as to why an individual liberal might believe libertarians to be even greater ideological foes than conservatives:

1. Liberals mistake libertarians for being "even further right" than conservatives. Libertarians write of abolishing the social security system, while conservatives write of privatizing and reforming it. Libertarians speak of sending all health and human services to the state level, as conservatives speak of trimming the fat. Libertarians dream of eviscerating the departments of Education, Commerce and Agriculture, where conservatives can only hope to reduce the rates of increase in the funding of those departments.

But in such an analysis, the liberal errs in using the terms "conservative" and "Republican" interchangably. Granted, the GOP is a more conservative tent than is the Democratic Party, but political realities require that the tribe members make long and frequent trips away from the reservation. The true conservative shares with the true libertarian the wish to abolish social security, to send the HHS to state levels, and to eliminate the USDA. But the Republican is not allowed to say this. It all comes off sounding too honest. Yet totally bankrupt of any sort of functioning political party, the libertarian can simply say whatever is on his mind. Counterintuitively, this is what makes him powerful.

2. Liberals mistake libertarians for being "further left" than conservatives, and are therefore irked by the libertarian's refusal to cross the remaining distance (and adhere to a more enlightened, liberal position), if only for reasons of political expediency. The attentive reader will note that I have alleged that libertarians are neither "further left" nor "further right" than the GOP. What gives? Are they some sort of geographical oddity? Equally remote from all other other points of view?

In truth, the ethics of governing do not allow for distinctions of "left" and "right," which never meant much anyway. Maybe the most notable example is this, the question of whether or not Hitler was a leftist. Virtually no one alive would answer affirmatively, even though he wrote that "all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished," and that "all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people." Even though he demanded "the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels," that "all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out," and that government provide "extensive development of provision for old age." Even though the diminutive "Nazi" is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or, National Socialist German Workers Party.

Or take the issue of capital punishment, seen as some as quintessentially right-wing (and quintessentially American), albeit a policy used disproportionately by China and DROC. Or take the separation of church and state, widely (and very inaccurately) portrayed as an expressly left-wing issue, the misperception of which is evidenced by state-sanctioned religions in Bolivia, Costa Rica, Greece and Cambodia, to name only a few.

In short, government exists to protect rights. Those rights you believe to be inalienable, those rights you believe to be bunk, and those steps you will allow to preserve those rights you do recognize are what indicate your political leanings. Clearly there is no way to map the spectrum of rights vs. not-rights two-dimensionally, so the task is clearly futile in the one-dimensional world of left-wing vs. right-wing.

All that said, I'm glad that Mr. Huben considers libertarianism a worthy intellectual opponent. I am grateful that he has taken the time to write.

So coming up next: a libertarian reponds to Huben's Non-Libertarian FAQ.

Reuben Cantu

2005-11-23T11:59:00.000-08:00

From the Reason Hit and Run entry:

Just over a dozen years ago, Texas executed Reuben Cantu for a brutal murder committed during a robbery. Now, via TalkLeft, it seems a Houston Chronicle investigation has turned up pretty conclusive evidence clearing him.

I've been openly critical of states that still practice executions. But not for this. Although headlines such as these are indisputably tragic, mistakes and abuses of public policy are a reality of governing. You will win no converts by making policy arguments based on evidence of mistakes and abuses. Firemen make mistakes. Should we send the whole lot of them home?

It is the core of capital punishment that is in question, not the rind.

In an earlier post I wrote, "Either human life is or is not part of the purview of government.... Human life trumps all other considerations, even the life of a man who has taken the life of another."

This is Your Vice President on MDMA

2005-11-22T13:15:00.000-08:00

Or better said: this is MDMA on your vice president.

As far as Cheney's X-games go, I'm sitting this one out. Can't take it. The entire issue is too self-parodying for ~~words~~ more words. Serious looker and arch-conservative Michelle Malkin seems to conclude that the glitch was just a glitch here. Watch the video at I-Film here. Or you can e-mail somebody who cares here.

In terms of sheer gravity, I place this squarely in the same category with, for example, a senate resolution written to honor singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteen for his career and for the 30th anniversary of his Born to Run album. Thank Providence I just made up that silly hypothetical on the spot.

Wait. [Puts finger in left ear.] I'm just now getting word...

This just in. I didn't make up that silly hypothetical on the spot.

Wal-Mart Too

2005-11-22T05:19:00.000-08:00

Two headlines on Huffington Post:

Wal-Mart Puts 12 Lobbyists On Pay Roll To Defeat Employee Benefits Bill…
IN BRIEF comments (39)
Study Finds Wal-Mart Charging Customers Wrong Prices For Purchases…
IN BRIEF comments (48)

Gasp!

What's My Line?

2005-11-21T17:48:00.000-08:00

I'm confused. The current Democrat Talking Points seem to be this:

1. The President lied to the American people to lead the country into war.

2. Therefore, we need to pull out of Iraq now.

Would some nice, thoughtful, patient liberal please explain where I am wrong in my analysis of these positions?

First, which President are you talking about? The Clinton administration made repeated claims that Iraq was in development and possession of WMD. Did, in those few short years, the evidence change that dramatically? And what of all the supporting intelligence from other countries? And what of the fact that the British, the suppliers of the intelligence that lead to the "16 words", still, after an investigation, stand by their assertion? And what of the fact that Iraq had been exploiting corruption in the U.N.'s "Oil for Food" program to get around sanctions? And what of the fact that the U.N. has still not certified Iraq as "disarmed" because they have not even been able to account for the weapons Iraq had already claimed?

Second, our government is built on a series of checks and balances. Where was congress when this maniac president was doctoring intelligence to whip up support for the war? Where was the oversight? Ok, the President doctored the intelligence before sharing it with the American people. Did he doctor the intelligence the Senate Armed Services Committee saw? The Senate Intelligence Committee?

And as for pulling out now, I have yet to hear a single Democratic proposal on what to do in the aftermath or what that would mean to the overall war. And we are in an overall war. If you don't accept that, then you are either hopeless, or must have been on a desert island on 9/11. And if you accept that, how can you possibly make the case that Iraq is not the current front of that war? Iran and Syria, the two biggest supporters and exporters of terror, are both supplying fighters and weapons for the war. If we pull the troops out, what do we do? Allow Iraq to become the new Afghanistan? Regardless of your conclusions on Talking Point 1, to pull out now is to fall back in a war in which we should be on the offensive.

And finally, the entire rhetoric represented by both Points, unless supported by proof (#1) or an alternate strategy (#2) is cowardly, unpatriotic, and undermines our fighting men and women while they are in the field.

If you are a liberal, or know one you can direct here, please help me to understand this. These are serious questions in serious times. Please help before the Christmas parties start so I can at least understand the conversations.

Swofford is the New Orwell?

2005-11-21T15:37:00.000-08:00

A loud film in a crowded theater. The audience is all in uniform. Their hair is the same, to a man, and their eyeglasses are the same, for those who wear glasses. They all shout exactly the same way, making cruel and dehumanizing remarks at the enemy on-screen. The music is booming and nationalistic. Some of the attendees are visibly overcome with emotion and fall into a swoon. Clips of friendly fire onscreen bring cheers of encouragement. Clips of enemy fire bring violent jeering.

The film version of 1984?

The new documentary shot inside North Korea?

What if I told you that the production was Jarhead, a combat film with no combat, and that the film the marines were watching was the quintessential anti-war picture Apocalypse Now? Ironic? What, then, if I told you that the thunderous music in question was Richard Wagner’s "Ride of the Valkyries," widely considered, and unfairly, to be brownshirt music? Even more ironic?

Welcome, as the tagline says, to the suck.

The source material for the film is the war journal by the same name, written by Lance Corporal Anthony Swofford, who fought for the U.S. Marines during Operation Desert Storm. Whether the filmmakers used some poetic license for the scene indicated above, or whether they transcribed it literally and faithfully from actual events, this is irrelevant: Jarhead is clearly a 2005 film. In an early fit of expository dialogue, Kruger (Lucas Black) chides his fellow recruits with the facts of the U.S. armament of Saddam Hussein. In another scene, Swofford himself parades poorly-maintained battle equipment in front of his Staff Sargeant and broadcast journalists, therein assuming a macabre delight in his own peril. And for the money shot, Swofford explodes with rage and nearly shoots a fellow enlistee. Think the “dance, motherfucker!” scene from Platoon. Think the Russian roulette scene from The Deer Hunter. Those who lament that war films do not address the sheer boredom and anxiety of these human, all-too-human soliders need no longer lament.

And indeed, that other Vietnam apocalypse film makes a cameo appearance in Jarhead as well. One of the marines receives a letter from his wife, and a tape. The jacket reads The Deer Hunter, but the tape itself is in reality a home movie of the marine’s wife coupling with the neighbor. As his wife signs off, she alludes to some off-screen indiscretion of his, for which the present tape is only cold revenge. She shoots him the finger, one of five, and the audience gets it at once: soldiers at war in some far-off land play Russian roulette in its cruelest, most immediate form when they show up for mail call. The first words of the next letter may just as well be “Dear John.” Or worse than that, “Fuck me, John.”

Fitting, then, with all of these nods to earlier, better war films, that as the skies start to blacken with burning oil, Swofford is soon to hear the opening lines to The Doors’ classic “Break on Through:” “The day destroys the night. Night divides the day.” He tries to write the tune off as anachronistic ("that's Vietnam music, can't we get our own music?"), but this is Jarhead’s finest paradox: the insanity of war is timeless, and of limitless time. All wars are one war, and there is no way to turn this machine off once you have it started. This way it is inevitable that snipers Swofford and Troy (Peter Sarsgaard) are inconsolable when their order to kill an officer of the Republican Guard are overturned, it is inevitable that Fowler (Evan Jones) –- bored and hungry for action -– defiles a blacked Iraqi corpse that he has found in the sand, and it is inevitable that Troy turns up dead after his tour is up. My co-contributor The Man has an interesting take on this theme, that the warrior fire is inextinguishable. I hope he will share it in a future post.

The only problem with all this (aside from the political one) is that –- if all wars are one war -– all war films are also one war film. So as for a single gear in an eternal machine, this one is small, poorly-greased, and much too dependent on the rest.

"Every day about 155,000 people die. They die in Europe too."

2005-11-19T05:52:00.000-08:00

I love this point that Tyler Cowen makes. "We could spend the Laffer-health-maximizing percent of our gdp on health care and these people still would die, sooner or later. Most would still die sooner."

Some scattered musings on health care:

1. You are a nation of one and your health care system is in your hands, and yours alone. Everyone knows (yes, everyone, no matter how much money the food companies spend on advertising) that a calorie-restricted diet with heavy emphasis on vegetables, whole grains, some fruits, and very lean meats is the optimal diet. Everyone knows that -- to a point that most of us will never reach -- more cardiovascular exercise is better than less. This is the "universal health care system" that John F. Kerry was afraid to talk about. You can keep yourself well by treating yourself well. And before you come unhinged....

2. Yes, some people live healthy lives and still get sick anyway. And for those unfortunate souls -- and for those who do not live healthy lives -- we have a health care industry. (Not system. Industry. Our health care industry is not the fourth branch of government.) Putting aside individual property rights for the short-term gain of a few is not a valid function of government. And it will stifle development, which will pose a long-term detriment to many.

3. "But Canada...! But France...!" When dealing with different cultures, we cannot only compare longevity this to dollar-spent-per-extra-year-lived that. This is like comparing apples to Apple Jacks. We are more violent and shoot each other more. We love our cars and choose them over planes and trains whenever possible, even though cars are more dangerous. We have more residential swimming pools and spend more time intoxicated around them. We eat ourselves to death more because we are more free to do so. We do not wear motorcycle helmets to a man. This is only my speculation, but I imagine that we do not obey the law as much.

4. Tyler Cowen is right. The poor will still fall toward the left end of the bell curve and receive below-the-bar treatment. Remember Katrina? The most scandalous bipartisan fumble in memory? It is logic, not political affiliation, that says a disenfranchised few will always slip through the cracks. Remember the reason article that estimated how Kerry might spend $1 trillion on Medicare without improving the coverage of one person? When I find the article, I will update the post.

5. Lastly, people will still die. If there is no meaningful end result between the socialized systems of Europe and the still somewhat-capitalist health care industry here, doesn't that by default score an intellectual victory for the still somewhat-capitalist health care industry here? If all else is equal, isn't "successful and free" preferable to "successful and not-free?"

Wal-Mart

2005-11-18T10:58:00.000-08:00

Over one hundred suspected illegal immigrants were caught building a new distribution center for the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart.

Let me sort this one out for you.

Wal-Mart does not hire its builders at the individual level. Prime contractors bid for the construction work and hire sub-contractors to put the building up. Sub-contractors hire the builders at the individual level. This is not only not a Wal-Mart scandal, this is not a Wal-Mart scandal twice removed.

If you believe that you have a principled, objective grievance against Wal-Mart, stick around. Let's talk for a while. We're both "principle guys" and can surely reach some common ground.

If you have already decided that Wal-Mart is the Prince of Darkness for the reason listed above and that reason alone, please sign off of this web log and never return.

I write this with all due professional courtesy for those for whom the subject of illegal immigration is an acutely emotional issue. I am not one of those. To me the coming-together of free men trumps most things.

Yet at the same time, no, even as a self-governing advocate, I admit that we will never have "absolutely open" borders. Nor should we.

UPDATE:

Celebrity circle-jerk Huffington Post -- not exactly a Seal the Borders site either, but always poised for a strike against corporations of unusual size -- has posted about this story. Check out the comments section:

If you shop at this sweatshop, you are part of the problem. Am I willing to pay more for fair trade and employment practices? YES I AM. ... Posted by: JeffDeVore on November 18, 2005 at 03:27pm

And who's the biggest supporter of illegal imigration and slave wage labor in America? That's right! George W Bush. Posted by: Ohio on November 18, 2005 at 04:25pm

Why not fine the contractors 1 million dollars per alien, suspend their business license, and fine Walmart in addition to deporting the aliens? ... Posted by: djt on November 19, 2005 at 05:57pm

At the risk of boring you with repetition: this is not a Wal-Mart scandal. Wal-Mart's building contract (which governs all sub-contracts issued by the prime contractor) would require the prime contractor to obey all applicable codes and statutes, including federal requirements for documenting workers. The moment an illegal immigrant appeared for work at the construction site, the prime contractor and responsible sub-contractor were in breach of contract. Wal-Mart has been wronged, here. In precisely the same way that you believe you have.

But Red Is Still, In The End, Just Red

2005-11-16T18:04:00.000-08:00

As a follow-up to my Comrade's post on some parents' idiocy regarding Che Guevara, there is a striking similarity between Guevara and something I heard on Rush's show today. Compare this statement from Guevara

To build communism, you must build new men as well as the new economic base.

to this statement by Judge Stephen Reinhardt in his unanimous majority opinion in a case involving sex education:

We agree [with the previous ruling], and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding ~~religious~~ ~~cultural~~ ~~social~~ ~~political~~ sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. [emphasis Reinhardt's].

Creating people in the State's image is what they want. Make no mistake, the leftists are not simply another political viewpoint - they are the enemy within who would destroy America as we know it because they hate it and everything it stands for. Namely capitalism and freedom. It's unbridled personal freedoms that allow the peasants to squander their lives instead of living them more productively. It's economic freedoms which allow the Robber Barons to exploit the poor for their own obscene economic gains. And they truly believe they are patriots because they see themselves as saving America - from itself.

It's as easy as Roger Hedgecock, Rush's guest host, explained to a caller on another matter:

Freedom is good, tyranny is evil.

Think about it, people. It really is that simple.

Red is the New Black

2005-11-16T05:38:00.000-08:00

~~Read here and here for Radley Balko's take on the newest Hollywood "fashion statement. [Jose "Che" Guevara's] image has a rock 'n' roll edge to it that we're looking for."~~

UPDATE

OK. Now let's try that again:

Read here and here for Radley Balko's take on the newest Hollywood "fashion statement. [Ernesto "Che" Guevara's] image has a rock 'n' roll edge to it that we're looking for."

Good Lord. "Jose Guevara" is the nickname of a friend of mine. "Ernesto Guevara" is Commandante Che. Thanks all for not flaming me in the meantime.

"Culture Of Inaction"

2005-11-15T18:55:00.000-08:00

I knew very little of John Bolton during his confirmation battle in the Senate for U.N. Ambassador, and the whole thing never really made it onto my radar screen. I mean this was for Ambassador to the U.N. BFD.

But this is the best take on the U.N. I have ever heard. This guy not only has that place pegged, but has the right attitude about how to deal with it. First, what it is:

"It's exactly what I expected," he said. "It does move in many ways that lead you to think it's caught in a time warp, with discussions they could have had in the '60s, '70s, '80s."
Referring to obsolete mandates and bodies, he said: "Even though the Cold War is over and many of these issues are over, frankly, the mind-set in the U.N. complex hasn't changed much. I don't think that it's a philosophical point of view. ... There is a culture of inaction."

And what to do?

During a luncheon with reporters and editors at The Washington Times, U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton said repeatedly that the Bush administration requires nothing less than "a revolution of reform" at the world body, encompassing everything from U.N. Security Council engagement to management changes to a focus on administrative skills in choosing the next secretary-general.
The United Nations, he said, "has got to be a place to solve problems that need solving, rather than a place where problems go, never to emerge."
He added: "In the United States, there is a broadly shared view that the U.N. is one of many potential instruments to advance U.S. issues, and we have to decide whether a particular issue is best done through the U.N. or best done through some other mechanism.

In other words, stop opposing everything we want or we'll work around you.

And this really sums it up from the American perspective:

Mr. Bolton said yesterday that the United States pays 22 percent of the regular U.N. budget, yet has only one vote out of 191 cast.
"We have one-half of 1 percent of the total [votes], meaning we pay 44 times more than our voting power," he said.
"My priority is to give the United States the kind of influence it should have. Everybody pursues their national interests. The only one who gets blamed for it is the United States."

At least for this American.

Game On!

2005-11-14T05:04:00.000-08:00

Alito rejected abortion as a right

I can feel the left's looney meter edging toward hysteria. How can they let this man be confirmed? I say it gets ugly, and I don't think we've gotten past a possible filibuster yet. But here's the money quote which shows that, even in the Washington Times, it's still Washington:

Judge Alito sided with abortion proponents in three of four rulings during his 15 years as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, usually based on existing law and technical legal issues rather than the right to abortion itself.

No. You mean he decided cases based on the law and not what he thought should be? That's no good. Subpoena his personal diary and let's find out how truly evil he is.

Texas 66, Kansas 14

2005-11-13T05:38:00.000-08:00

As the only Longhorn graduate in existence who doesn't watch college football, I can only gauge Texas wins and losses by how quiet (or not quiet) the haters are on Monday morning. And they've been awfully quiet this season.

But it seems that they're going to be absolutely mute tomorrow.

Some other briefs before I close:

-- Brussels-based Center for a New Europe ... finds, "6,600 people die every day in the world because of the trading rules of the European Union (EU). That is 275 people every hour." Think of it like crashing a Boeing 747 filled with people every hour, 24 hours per day.

-- To clarify a point I made a few posts ago, drug use in America is a good sign, but not a good thing. The statistics, however reliable they are, signal that we have arrived. Just as there is no bulimia in places with no food, bulimia is a dreadful thing-in-itself, something you would never wish on your populace. But as a sign that food is abundant here? That we manufacture more calories than we need to consume? Can anyone out there make the case that -- as an indicator alone -- bulimia is a bad sign?

-- My post the other day (Immanuel Does His Best Impression of The Man, Vol. 1) implied that I thought that the global warming set was completely discredited. While the tone of the post matches The Man's opinion almost exactly, my own words might read something like this: "the global warming set is mostly discredited." Either way, the science should not concern itself with comparing actual empirical data to historical estimates of cycles with 100,000 year spans. Science should concern itself with two questions: "What should world governments do about global warming?" And, "What should the free market do about global warming?" Of course, the answer to the first question is, "Absolutely nothing."

-- Speaking of comparing empirical data to blind historical estimates, the following quotation from reason is -- to say the very least -- a compelling read:

Average annual global per capita income fell, in real dollars, from $445 in 1 A.D. (yes, that's the first year after the birth of Christ --Immanuel) to $436 in 1000 A.D. By 1820 it had increased to $667, and by 2001 it was more than $6,049.

Assuming that the source data is all mostly accurate, what happened in 1820?

Recent source: December 2005 issue of reason ("Escape from Poverty" by Ronald Bailey, pg. 14)

Original source: January 11, 1999 issue of The Wall Street Journal ("Poor Until 1820" by Angus Maddison)

And, by the way? Hook 'em Horns!

San Francisco

2005-11-12T10:47:00.000-08:00

What better example to illustrate how closely respect for our military and the concept of personal responsibility are related than San Francisco. San Francisco is a cesspool, and this is a disgrace:

San Francisco voters this week passed what could become the nation's strictest gun ban when they outlawed not only the sale of guns in the city, but required almost everyone who is not a cop, security guard or member of the military to surrender their handguns to police by April 1.

Where is the ACLU? Those vaunted protectors of civil liberties? I guess some amendments just count more than others.

And this is the proper response:

...some gun owners say they'll either have to store their weapons somewhere else, or accept that they'll be criminals.

Except I say fuck finding somewhere else to store them.

And the second part of the San Francisco story, the move to discourage military recruiting, is dwarfed in the media by comments made by Bill O'Reilly. Though I am not an O'Reilly fan, he is exactly right in what he said.

First, "college not combat" (is that not a perfect leftist bullshit bumper-sticker name for a proposition?)

Proposition I, also known as the "College Not Combat" initiative, does not ban the military from recruiting soldiers on campus — that would require schools to forfeit federal funds — but it does encourage school officials to offer students alternatives to the perks that come with military service, like scholarships and job training.

According to CollegeNotCombat.org, a "yes" vote for Proposition I implies the voter would "want it to be city policy to oppose military recruiters' access to public schools and to consider funding scholarships for education and training that could provide an alternative to military service."

I cannot, as I sit here, believe this is happening. Forget where. How is it that at a time of war, a few years after the second-worst attack ever on American soil, with soldiers in the field, a major American city is doing this? At times like this, I fear that although common-sense people are still fighting the political skirmishes, we've really already lost the war.

So O'Reilly says:

"...If al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

Why is this out of line? You are not willing to send your sons and daughters to fight for the country, yet you want to be able to dial 911 for federal assistance whenever you need it? I'll go a step further: I say the Federal Government should suspend all payments of federal money to the city of San Francisco immediately.

Leave the leftists of San Francisco to fend for themselves, without even the most basic means of self-defense. Good luck in Utopia.

Anti-American

2005-11-11T20:40:00.000-08:00

Glenn Reynolds has an excellent post on Bush's speech, anti-war dissent, and the ridiculous fools in the Democrat party. Also, be sure to check out this post on all the hate mail.

Immanuel Does His Best Impression of The Man, Vol. 2

2005-11-11T19:20:00.000-08:00

In Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith, why do the principal characters blather on about democracy? George Lucas is very clear on several occasions that the galactic government is a republic.

Maybe lines like this:

Obi-Wan
Anakin, my allegiance is ... to democracy!

Sounded a bit creepy when first written like this:

Obi-Wan
Anakin, my allegiance is ... to republicanism!

We can't even get mention of lowercase "r" republicanism in a movie about a republic, at least not without some focus group going into a full panic about the uppercase "R" Republican Party. Now that, my friends, is a PR problem.

Veteran's Day

2005-11-11T19:12:00.000-08:00

Well, I have to post on Veteran's Day. Even though when I look out there, all I see is the politicization of one front in a war against people who have attacked us; who know no country, border, or sense of humanity; who murder and kill their own with more frequency and brutality than Westerners. The whole thing turns my stomach.

However, I take stock in the fact that in the midst of this insanity, there are those who sense a calling to protect and defend the rest of us. Even those of us who look at them with disdain or outright hatred. Thank God for the men and women who serve their country with such pride and dignity in this environment.

And I think that my respect for the military and their job is tied in to my respect for Susan Buxton and the millions out there like her.

A 67-year old woman who found an intruder in her home. With her daughter on the phone to 911, the whole episode was caught on audio tape (HT Blogs of War). A licensed concealed carry, she shot him in the leg with her .38 revolver.

She did nothing to bring this on. Neither did the passengers on flight 93. But thankfully there are still some people willing to stand up to evil when attacked. To fight back.

Those who have sacrificed greatly to do it on behalf of all of us are called veterans. Humbly thank one. And if you're reading this and you are one, then please take this as mine.

Immanuel Does His Best Impression of The Man, Vol. 1

2005-11-11T18:47:00.000-08:00

Apparently The Man has a touch of laryngitis this week. I'll do my best to lob hand grenades in his place.

So here goes:

When the last glacial period ended 10,000 years ago, what reversed the trend?

Better said, what warming phenomenon reversed global cooling?

Think hard.

Was it the SUV? Cow methane? Factory emissions? Keep in mind, this is 10,000 years ago. The Toyota Prius had not been invented yet. Was it too much pork barbecue in one concentrated spot? Propellants in our hair spray?

Paris is Burning Answering Surveys

2005-11-10T05:42:00.000-08:00

The riots in France have begged the question of the differences in immigration, assimilation, culture, and lifestyle between France and the United States. At first glance, the two countries appear quite similar: our republics are roughly the same age, our national values read from the same book, our immigration policies closely resemble one another, and both nations have deep cultural pride and employ -- to some degree, for better or worse -- cultural protections and subsidies.

To this end, I have put together the following statistics comparing France to the United States. I have foregone lengthy explanations and all editorial content altogether; more than on any other post, I have simply linked each statistic to each source and kept comment to a spartan minimum.

More succinctly put: your conclusions are your own.

Very proud of their nationality
U.S. 77%
France 35%

Corruption
U.S. 2.5
France 3.1
"Ranges between 0 (highly clean) and 10 (highly corrupt). Includes police corruption, business corruption, political corruption, etc. Data for 2003."

Asylum Seekers Acceptance Rates
U.S. 43.9%
France 20%
"Definition: % of asylum seekers accepted between the years 1990 and 1999."

Civil and Political Liberties
U.S. 6
France 5.5
(7 indicates "very free" and 1 indicates "not free." The final rating is an average of the civil and the political scores.)

Economic Freedom
France 2.45
U.S. 3.2
(0 indicates "very free" and 4+ indicates "not free".)

GDP Real Growth Rate
U.S. 2.4%
France 1.2%
(December 2003)

Female Ministers
U.S. 7.1%
France 5.3%
(In 2000)

Child Poverty
France 7.9%
U.S. 22.4%

Healthy Life Expectancy
France 72 years
U.S. 69.3 years
(At birth in 2002)

Health Spending Per Person
France $2,288
U.S. $4,271
(In 1998)

Public health care funding per person
U.S. $2,051
France $1,785
(In 2000)

Unemployment Rate
U.S. 5.5%
France 10.1%
(July 28, 2005)

Far Left Political Orientation
U.S. 10%
France 26%

Far Right Political Orientation
France 12%
U.S. 18%

Working Time to Buy a Car
U.S. 1,459 hours
France 1,600 hours
(In 2001)

Wine Consumption Per Year
France 47 litres
U.S. 7 litres
(In 2002) (And what the fuck is a litre?)

Amphetamine Use
U.S. 0.7%
France 0.3%
(Data is very mixed; see linked article for specifics)

Trust people
U.S. 44%
France 23%

Tax Contribution by poorest 30%
U.S. 6.3%
France 8.7%
("Mid-1990s")

Military Expenditures
France $46.5B
U.S. $276B
Current as of July 28, 2005

Stately bow to the stellar -- if not slightly leftist -- site NationMaster.

UPDATE

OK, fine. You win, Gentle Reader. I can't resist a comment or two.

If you have surfed in, or have cased me out in the comments section at another web log, and are presently exploring my worth for survival/extermination, let me toss out a few things in my own defense:

1. This is not a "See? America wins!" post. Granted, in 14 of the above 19 criteria, I have listed the U.S. first, as if to say, "Given only this criterion and all else being equal, I would rather live in the U.S. than in France." For example:

Unemployment Rate
U.S. 5.5%
France 10.1%

Call me a capitalist pig-dog, but I would rather live in a country with 5.5% unemployment than 10.1%.

All that said, I did not go data mining. I did not seek out 14 consecutive ways that the U.S. would surpass France, then pitch in 5 counter-examples to artificially appear fair. This is not The O'Reilly Factor. This was a curiosity-driven experiment, not a results-driven one, and in many cases I picked the criteria completely at random. And I confess that some of the results surprised me: our percentage of children who live under the poverty line is one. Our apparent aversion to wine is another.

2. The following needs explanation:

Health Spending Per Person
France $2,288
U.S. $4,271
(In 1998)

Public health care funding per person
U.S. $2,051
France $1,785
(In 2000)

In the first statistic, the lower-paying country "wins." In the second, the lower-paying country "loses." This seems inconsistent. What gives?

Let me tell you how I read these. The first criterion, "Health Spending Per Person," means precisely that. At the individual, governmental, and charity level, we made every heroic attempt to keep ourselves healthy and alive at a total x cost. In France, that cost was $2,288 per person. Here in the U.S., that cost was $4,271. In other words, the expense of staying health and alive is inflated in the U.S. over France, for some reason or reasons of some description. Lower costs are better than higher costs.

The second criterion, "Public health care funding per person," refers to the various government payments from tax coffers spent on keeping their constituencies healty and alive. Of the x cost we established above, the government has elected to cover y amount of that cost.

It my sound paradoxical, a self-described libertarian celebrating tax-and-spend statism, but nothing could be further from the truth. I bemoan the welfare state as much as the next guy. But given the welfare state -- the "tax coffers" I mentioned above is another criterion entirely -- I'd like to see my own medical bills covered in full. To hell with yours, his, hers, and that guy's over there: if I'm paying taxes, pay for my health care. Or my mortgage payment. Or my disaster insurance. Make sense?

3. As to the following:

Amphetamine Use
U.S. 0.7%
France 0.3%

The U.S. "wins" because our rate of amphetamine use is more than double that of France? Absolutely. The pursuit of happiness is still crowded and frenetic, and no one can explain it better than Andrew Sullivan, so let's let him explain it here.

Google Print...

2005-11-08T05:34:00.000-08:00

...does not pass the 17 U.S.C. 108 test. I'm sorry. It's true. As overwhelming a force for positive change that Google has been (to wit, the web log that you're reading literally right now), it needs to set aside its ambitions to scan copyrighted books.

From 17 U.S.C. 108:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if—

(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage...

And from McGraw-Hill et. al. v Google Inc.:

Google ... proposes to (a) store, in perpetuity, one or more of the resulting digital copies on Google's computer services, (b) offer to the public the ability to search, and have access to, the copies of the books stored on Google's servers and to retrieve excerpts of those books and (c) publicly display the excerpts of the books to any person in the world whose search, through Google, has retrieved that book. All of these steps are taken by Google for the purpose of increasing ... advertising revenue.

France: Leader Of The Free World

2005-11-07T18:20:00.000-08:00

To really get a feel for what is happening in France, you need to read this column.

The police union Action Police CFTC called for curfews to be imposed in all riot-hit areas to combat the "civil war that spreads a little more every day".

The union also urged the government to send in troops to defeat the trouble-makers, mainly mobs of young people from poor estates dominated by Muslim families whose origins are in France's former colonies in north and sub-Saharan Africa.

And apparently I'm not the only one who sees Chirac as lacking intestinal fortitude.

Twenty-four hours earlier, a belated and much-criticised intervention by President Jacques Chirac, his first since the violence began, was followed by the worst night of rioting so far.

More than 1,400 vehicles were destroyed, two policemen were injured by birdshot and petrol bomb attacks were launched on schools, churches and public buildings.

Mr Chirac, who had spoken of a French republic resolved to show itself "stronger than those who want to sow violence or fear", made more conciliatory comments in a private meeting yesterday.

Left Hooker

2005-11-07T11:08:00.000-08:00

If reading scandalously incomplete and misguided articles is your thing, click here for a scandalously incomplete and misguided article about prostitution.

The hyperlink -- if you choose to accept it -- will take you to Kerry "Howler" Howley's interview of "Author Tracy Quan [who] delves into this earnest debate through the unlikely medium of chick lit. Quan, whose work has appeared in Lingua Franca, Congressional Quarterly, and The Boston Globe, spent 15 years hooking in London and Manhattan before turning exclusively to writing."

Funny, but for a libertarian magazine, Reason's take on prostitution is surprisingly chintzy with words like "consent," "freedom," "liberty," "tyranny," "agreement," or "contract." And by "surprisingly chintzy," I mean to say, "none of these words are addressed, not even once."

And don't bother pasting the article to Word and performing a CTRL+F search. I've done just that.

Instead, the article dwells on such ideological flashpoints as "corporate-corporation" (three mentions), "business-economy-economic" (six mentions) and "zone-zoning" (nine mentions). That's right, the secret corporate cabal, directing evil transnational capital to pay bribes to screw hookers out of their Fairness in Zoning rights, next at Reason.

If it pleases the reader, let me re-write the entire article. I'll be brief:

Prostitution -- meaning the act of uncoerced sexual consent between two adult participants -- is not within the purview of the state, except in the case of breach of contract. Any attempts by the state to otherwise regulate, adjudicate or eliminate this agreement -- or any other uncoerced agreement between two adult participants -- is tantamount to tyranny. To some, freedom still means something. Personal liberties still mean something.

Intelligent Interior Design

2005-11-07T05:42:00.000-08:00

With all due admiration and reverence to my red state co-saboteur, who might believe that only the liberals extend their politics so far beyond matters of policy so as to create a sort of blue state culture....

Exhibit A that this is not the case, the following letter to Angie's List. That's right. To Angie's Friggen List. With a Dallas circulation of 4,500.

...I did not approve of the September [2005] cover. We get enough of that malarkey from other sources without getting it from you. It is almost like you are endorsing atheism. You might have evolved from a monkey, but keep it to yourself.

The September 2005 cover? "The Evolution of [handy] Man."

As soon as I can find a picture to upload, I will.

I've posted my thoughts on the science of Evolutionism (capital E), Creationism (capital C) and Intelligent Designism (yes, "ism" and yes, capitals I and D) here. I don't think I could have been any more plain: none of the above are untainted science. All of them spill into the realm of doctrine.

And as to the culture of Evolutionism -- or, at the very least, those who feel compelled to write letters such as the one above -- give it a rest. Both sides. Please. Speaking of the evolution of the handy man is no more an endorsement of atheism than speaking of the creation of the internet is an endorsement of evangelical Christianity. Or of Al Gore.

This is my last post for a few days. Special assignment. The Man? Clean up on aisle seven?

Plame Shame

2005-11-06T18:05:00.000-08:00

...for a "covert" agent, Plame and her husband were sure thrusting themselves into a hot political debate. Then it's a big surprise, a crime, and a cover-up when the people on the other side of the issue try to find out who Joe Wilson is and how he ended up in Niger?

Posted by yours truly on October 30. On November 6, someone with a little more experience in these matters fleshes it out for me:

Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after "Why did the CIA send Wilson?" was "Who is Wilson?" After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's "wife" suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals "Valerie Plame" as Mr. Wilson's spouse.

Who's Who? What a fucking joke. It sounds to me like if you looked up CIA in the phone book, Plame's picture was beside it. With the shades, of course.

Chirac Taking Charge

2005-11-06T17:46:00.000-08:00

"The Republic is quite determined, by definition, to be stronger than those who want to sow violence or fear," Chirac said after a special domestic security council met to respond to the latest violence in which 1,300 vehicles went up in flames.

"The law must have the last word," Chirac said in his first public comments since the riots started in the poor suburbs, noting the importance of the respect of all, the law and the equality of chances.

I bet that put the fear of Allah into 'em.

Good Citizen Gymnasts

2005-11-05T06:26:00.000-08:00

In an earlier post I claimed that, "The advocacy of public education falls into two general arguments: that of the great financial burden necessary to educate a child through grade 12, and that of the good citizen." Cato addressed the first argument, and I will address the second.

The "good citizen" argument sounds something like this exchange, which I have lifted from the October 28, 2005 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. All apologies in advance to those who can't stand Mr. Maher:

---

Bill Maher (Host)
I just think that this is what happens a lot of the time when we hear about somebody that's home schooled. It means, they come from a home where the parents didn't want any outside influences. They just wanted to lift up the kid's head and pour the bullshit right in.... This is why I think home schooling is so dangerous.

Billy Connolly (Actor)
Usually when yor hear they're being home schooled, the mother's just drowned them in the next room.

Maher
Or that, yes. [Someone in the crowd moans.] What? That happens.

Nadira Hira (journalist, Fortune Magazine)
I think when your cattle brand is a swastika, you're already born to that family, things are going to be rough. But: I do agree that public school is supposed to build citizens. School, period, is supposed to socialize you in a way that's positive: not so much possible when you're in the rural Crazyland--. [Interrupted.]

---

When Maher speaks of "this is what happens," he's talking about Prussian Blue, a musical duo often heard referred to as "the Olsen twins of the white separatist movement." It seems the girls were homeschooled.

Their song lyrics (available on the above-linked page) are abhorrent, no doubt about it. And no doubt that these two girls were raised in a dubious home environment.

But should a single example of homeschooled bigots sink the entire homeschooling movement?

To hear Bill Maher tell it ... yes. Round them up, yank them out of their homeschools by the hair, throw them on the bus, keep them safe from intellectual harm in Mrs. Johnson's sex-ed class.

Ridiculous? To hear Bill Maher tell it ... no. Anything short of this is "dangerous."

There is no ideological difference between the U.S. pulling a kid out of home school to make her a good citizen and China pulling a kid out of her home to make her a good citizen gymnast. Individual citizens do not exist to serve the community: quite the reverse. School terms are not prison terms. Children are not required to attend "public schools," only "school" itself, in the general form of the word.

My co-conspirator The Man said it even better. (I'm paraphrasing. Probably badly.) "Maher's implication seems to be that parents who homeschool are somehow brainwashing the kids, and that the state has some sort of obligation to remove them from homeschool, raise them, and impart state values. He has his verbs out of order. It is the parents' obligation to raise their own kids, and to impart values. In a free society, a state does not have values to impart. But in a misguided society like ours where a state actually does, this is a pretty fair definition of brainwashing."

William Jefferson Maher? Consider yourself served.

12:15 a.m., a year ago today

2005-11-05T00:15:00.000-08:00

It's my son's birthday today. Happy day, kiddo. You do an amazing job watching after me.

(ily,d)

"Riots"

2005-11-04T15:37:00.000-08:00

Rampaging youths shot at police and firefighters yesterday...
What are these "youths" doing with guns in France? I thought they had gun control. I thought France had cured the problem of gun violence.
The riots started Oct. 27...

By Wednesday night, violence triggered by the deaths had spread to at least 20 Paris-region towns...

Nine persons were injured in Seine-Saint-Denis and 315 cars burned...

...youth gangs set fire to a Renault car dealership and burned at least a dozen cars, a supermarket and a local gymnasium.

Traffic was halted yesterday morning on a suburban commuter line linking Paris to Charles de Gaulle airport after stone-throwing rioters attacked two trains overnight...

Now that, my friend, is a riot.

Mr. de Villepin's major political rival, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said yesterday that the riots in several Paris suburbs over the previous night were "not spontaneous" but rather "well organized," Agence France-Presse reported. "What we saw in the department of Seine-Saint-Denis overnight was not spontaneous, it was perfectly organized. We are looking into by whom and how," Mr. Sarkozy told French news channel I-Tele.

Nah, it's just a riot. In 20 towns. Shutting down commuter trains.
The unrest has highlighted the division between France's big cities and their poor suburbs, with frustration simmering in the housing projects in areas marked by high unemployment, crime and poverty. The violence also cast doubt on the success of France's model of seeking to integrate its large immigrant community by playing down differences between ethnic groups. The country's Muslim population, at an estimated 5 million, is Western Europe's largest. Rather than feeling embraced as full and equal citizens, immigrants and their French-born children complain of police harassment and of being refused jobs, housing and opportunities.

Yeah, I think we need to look to France for guidance.

Pursuit of Happiness

2005-11-02T21:46:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I introduced Will Wilkinson's single-issue web log, "Happiness and Public Policy."

It's already my favorite philosophical place online.

To wit: this brutal and terrific exchange, between author Wilkinson and a few redistributionists. Their position reads something like this:

Taxes on the wealthy should be raised far beyond where they stood in 2000. They should be raised closer to where they stood 50 years ago, when the top marginal rates approached 90 percent.

[...]

Redistribution isn't the zero-sum game it appears. In fact, wealth redistribution may be a winning proposition for rich and poor alike.

[...]

Increased choice often enables people to do better by some objective measure -- say, better healthcare outcomes. But it also makes them feel worse, perhaps badly enough to overwhelm the initial improvement in welfare. Among other things, this proliferation of choices may be contributing to the three-fold increase in clinical depression that has occurred in the United States over the last 25 years (as documented in a 2003 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association).

[...]

The significant implication of this news, both for individuals and for policy makers, is that wealth -- which is what increases the choices available to people -- is not a reliable proxy for welfare, at least beyond a certain point. In fact, if people already have more choices in life than they can handle, then adding wealth only exacerbates the problem. Conversely, it should be possible to make the rich better off by reducing their wealth. And by redistributing that money to the poor, we can expand their highly limited choices and make them better off as well.

Emphasis mine.

Of course I have lifted this from Barry Schwartz's snotgram over at TNR. Schwartz is the mastermind behind The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less (ISBN: 0060005688), which he has effectively summarized here. "The rich aren't happy with their wealth, the poor aren't happy with their poverty, it's a match made in Heaven!"

I could have saved Wilkinson the headaches with something resembling the following:

It is not government's charge to foster happiness. It is government's charge to protect the natural rights of men.

Think about it: if I steal a computer from you, I have caused you some quantity of unhappiness. But keep thinking: I have caused myself an equal and opposite amount of happiness. If government's charge is to foster happiness, then the governed neither win nor lose in net terms. It does not matter if the law tracks me down and arrests me or not.

But if government's charge is to protect rights, and I have just violated your sovereignty by stealing your property with impunity, the governed will lose in net terms, because the very system of governing has failed.

PS: Of the title. How do you like what I've done with the place?

Democrat Implosion

2005-11-02T05:12:00.000-08:00

I never thought I'd say this, but I feel a little sorry for the Dems. They can't win an election, their allies in the media have lost their monopoly (not to mention credibility) and the Republican conservative base is energized like never before. And they're imploding. The hissy fit yesterday in the Senate is only the beginning. Wait until the Supreme Court hearings begin, and the Dems have to carry the message of the kook fringe that has become the mainstream of the party.

But when I saw this, I knew it was all over for them:
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican. Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

And later in this story, we get the sad truth of the Democrat Party:
"Party trumps race, especially on the national level,"
Yes, party trumps race. Sell out one of your own for the good of the party. Because power trumps all.

Bring It

2005-11-01T19:24:00.000-08:00

I've read differing views about how hard the Democrats are going to fight Alito, but I told Mr. Can't before the retirement of O'Conner that the next fight would make Anita Hill look like a low-budget soap opera. I stand by that now.

This is the fight I expected over Roberts, but since he was replacing Rehnquist, the Dems didn't really see the need. They let him slide, like a batter watches the first fastball go by and glares at the pitcher with a "now bring it" look. And Bush blinked and threw the curve. But the conservatives were having none of it. Welcome to the fray Judge Alito.

I was prompted to think about this when I saw this on Powerline:
Far-left groups like People for the American Way, NARAL, etc. have raised tens of millions of dollars to oppose President Bush's judicial nominations. While I don't think it is clear that Senate Democrats have to fight Alito's nomination to the death, there is no doubt that the left-wing pressure groups do. They decided, for the most part, to take a pass on John Roberts' nomination, and are still sitting on the huge war chest their partisans contributed to fight Republican judges.

Man, this is going to be fun. We are going to get to see the far-left wackos at their absolute wackiest. Bring it on.

New Link

2005-11-01T13:33:00.000-08:00

Cato policy analyst Will Wilkinson has a new single-issue web log called Happiness and Public Policy.

This is the Cato Institute we're talking about, so I don't imagine the author lends much credence to the whole Statism = Happiness line. (All apologies to any Lou Dobbs zealots out there.)

Czech it out.

Less is Maher

2005-11-01T05:27:00.000-08:00

On several occasions now, economist Milton Friedman has famously written variations on his theme that "the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.”

Keep that in mind when you read the following exchange -- and most notably, Tony Snow's hobbled ~~defebse~~ defense of this theme -- taken from the October 28, 2005 episode of Real Time With Bill Maher:

---

Bill Maher (host)
The other thing I want to talk about this week: the oil profits … Regular, Unleaded and Bend Over. Look, I’m someone who’s always supported higher gas prices, but I think that that should be in the form of a tax that goes to lessening our dependence on these people, not into the coffers of Exxon-Mobil. And by the way, when you read all the names of these oil companies, somehow they’re all names of oil companies that have been joined together: Royal Dutch-Shell, Chevron-Texaco, Conoco-Phillips. Does that tell you something? It tells me something. It tells me there has to be collusion going on here.

Nadira Hira (journalist, Fortune Magazine (!!!)) nods, audience applauds.

Bill Maher
Because how can you make ten billion dollars … in one quarter? Meanwhile, this is all the time they’re saying, “This is a terrible time for the oil companies.” All this horseshit about Saudi Arabia, how we don’t have enough refinery capacity, all this bullshit. You know? I’m not an economist, but I think when you make ten billion dollars profit – profit – in one quarter, this is something way more than you would be able to if you had competition. Is that not right?

Nadira Hira
That’s reality. And they keep it so quiet – all the statements that are made, are like you said, it's, “Things are very difficult,” and it’s all couched in this Katrina talk. The reality of it, though, is: it is a business, and they’re doing very well. [To Tony Snow.] You can’t argue with that.

Tony Snow (journalist, FOX News Channel)
You want more oil, you want lower prices? Well, where do you think the profits go?

Bill Maher
I think they go into the head of Exxon buying a big boat.

Tony Snow
The vast majority of it does get – like any company, even HBO – they will take profits and they will plow back into, what? Production. So, look–. [Cut off by audience jeering and snickering.]

Bill Maher
Oh, I wish they would.

Audience laughs.

Tony Snow
The point here is, look, it looks terrible, and they’ve got a big PR problem.

Bill Maher
PR problem? You see, that’s how the conservatives think. “Oh, it’s a PR problem.”

Tony Snow
It’s one of those things, you’ve got a big industry, but on the other hand, you’ve got profit margins that are relatively low if you look at industries around the country. I know, it’s a nerdy fact, you don’t want to hear it.

Bill Maher
A “nerdy fact?”

Tony Snow
It’s a nerdy fact.

Bill Maher
It’s a crazy fact.

Nadira Hira
It’s a sales record, also. One hundred billion in sales is-.

---

She was cut off, mercifully. It is totally unclear what point she was about to make.

Tony Snow fumbled his one opportunity to remind the audience that "record profits" is cause for celebration, not for a witch trial. A publicly-traded company with the phrase "increase shareholder equity" in its mission statement will -- more often than not -- increase shareholder equity. That other social benefits ride its wave of growth are only serendipitous footnotes: the executives become millionaires and spend their earnings in the marketplace, the front-line employees become wealthier and fewer live off of the public dole, the tax base is expanded, jobs are created, "production" is enhanced. Shareholder equity is both the means and the ends.

Funny how no government, media outlet, or cultural movement demands of banks to use individual savings accounts for social progress. A share of publicly-traded stock is simply another form of savings: nothing more exotic or mysterious than that. So why do governments, media outlets, and cultural movements demand that publicly-traded corporations use these unique forms of individual savings accounts for social progress?

Somehow Friedman's message is all the more relevant today: "the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.”

As an aside, to Maher's claim that, "when you read all the names of these oil companies, somehow they’re all names of oil companies that have been joined together: Royal Dutch-Shell, Chevron-Texaco, Conoco-Phillips. Does that tell you something? It tells me something. It tells me there has to be collusion going on here." Merger-heavy industries are those industries that are heavily regulated. Monopolies and oligopolies do not form without government interference. Don't believe me? Look in your phone book for a landscaper. Or go shopping for a laptop.

UPDATE

Defebse?

Yes, defebse. Yes, it's a word, and yes, that's my story.

Private Eduation Worldwide

2005-11-01T05:03:00.000-08:00

The September/October 2005 edition of Cato Policy Report is out, and the cover story represents a sizzling first pitch.

Titled Private Schools in the Poorest Countries and written by James Tooley, the article dicusses Tooley's early findings on school choice in places as poor as India, Kenya, and China. The advocacy of public education falls into two general arguments: that of the great financial burden necessary to educate a child through grade 12, and that of the "good citizen." Tooley absolutely savages the first argument, and leaves the second one unaddressed. This is where Cato is strongest: the charts, the graphs, the spreadsheets, and the research. I will handle the "good citizen" argument myself, in a subsequent post.

Many public education advocates graciously admit that the free market can educate our kids more effectively and more economically, but that lower class and lower-middle class parents simply can't afford to pay such high costs. One imagines a parallel universe in which the government has, for the last century and a half, provided free housing to all citizens, and where a select few pay stratospherically high boutique rates to stay in their own place. An analogous debate sparks up between two camps: the "home vouchers" movement and the "no tenant left behind" movement. Those opposed to home vouchers (itself a thinly-veiled and incremental ploy to, in time, privatize all housing) might say, "the free market can house our people more effectively, but the lower class and lower-middle class tenants simply can't afford to pay the high costs of these boutique apartments."

Tooley seemed to sense this intuitively, as he traveled to India: "I first discovered for myself the phenomenon of private schools for the poor while consulting for the International Finance Corporation, the private finance arm of the World Bank, in Hyderabad." He continues, "I’d just published an argument for privatization of education, Reclaiming Education, and was wrestling with the criticism from even sympathetic readers that what I’d argued might be good for the middle classes, or richer countries, but what about the poor, especially in poor countries?"

What he found is simply revolutionary. "In each of the poor areas studied in detail, we’ve found that a large majority of the schools serving the poor are private, with either a large majority or a substantial minority of poor parents taking the private option."

The statist will reply curtly that, while a little charity goes a long way in India, it doesn't go nearly as far here in the U.S. But Tooley continues, "the majority of private schools are run not as philanthropic endeavors but as businesses. Those private schools are created largely by local entrepreneurs responding to the needs in their communities. In general, after studying the reported income and expenditure of the private schools, we can see that they are profitable institutions —- which of course helps explain why there are so many of them —- with the vast majority of income coming from school fees rather than, as some might expect, philanthropic donations."

Granted, "Teachers in private schools are paid considerably less than are teachers in the government schools. Yet the private schools do not in general suffer from teacher shortages, suggesting that the market rate for teachers is considerably lower than that set by teachers’ unions in the public schools." So there it is: central planners have set the price, and have set it wrong. Sound familiar?

Even to a dyed-in-the-wool self-governing advocate, all of this sounds like a recipe for exceedingly low quality. Whence the author's next point: "The pupil/teacher ratio is lower in the private than in the public schools—with the unregistered private schools usually having the lowest of all—and school facilities such as libraries, toilets, and drinking water are usually better provided in the private than in the public schools." And of the three R's, "the private schools substantially outperform the public schools in mathematics and English."

Tooley's conculsions are inevitable. So much, in fact, that the attentive reader hardly needs me to type them at all: "the research evidence from developing countries can put the American experience into a wider context, further undermining the claims of those who seek to portray the school choice movement as the bastion of only the privileged. Innovative models from around the world of the way private education enhances choice and improves opportunities for the most disadvantaged."

Recall, though, that "innovation" is hardly within the scope of any government: "poor in Asia and Africa don’t sit idly by, dispossessed and disenfranchised." Rather, "the most disadvantaged people on this planet engage in self-help, vote with their feet, exit the public schools, and move their children to private schools set up by educational entrepreneurs from their own communities to cater to their needs, without any outside help." As a parent in Kenya put it, "If you go to a market and are offered free fruit and vegetables, they will be rotten. If you want fresh fruit and vegetables, you have to pay for them." This mirrors one of my frequent battle cries almost exactly: "I've no problem with government providing government cheese, as long as those eating it know they aren't getting Roquefort."

Wiki Rights

2005-10-31T15:21:00.000-08:00

Wikipedia is fast becoming my favorite source for matters of political philosophy.

As I posted earlier, their Common Good entry said in one page what I could have barely hinted at in ten. Wikipedia summarizes libertarianism better than any libertarian could, including -- as my co-seditionist would surely find interesting -- an unexpected dialogue concerning the rights of an unborn child and the role of the state in enforcing/not enforcing those rights. There's an interesting page on Michael Moore (it turns out that Eminem the Large worked for Nader ... who knew?), an even better page on Ann Coulter (she got her start during the Paula Jones mess?!), and if you didn't follow Wikipedia around during the Katrina aftermath, you just weren't even human.

Fitting that their coverage of rights is impeccable.

Before you ask the nature of rights, you must first answer: "the nature of what rights?" From the source article:

Human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction, and likewise other localizing factors, such as ethnicity and nationality.

Inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of absolute rights that are endowed by God, not awarded by any human power and not capable of being repudiated or transfered to another power. The phrase is most famously used in the United States Declaration of Independence, where "unalienable rights" are said to include "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Natural rights exist as inherent ethical realities permitting persons to do certain things. Natural rights are based on natural law.

Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all citizens by law.

Contractual rights are those based on laws agreed upon between persons for whom those laws are valid.

The emphasis I've used is faithful to the original.

Following the thread to natural rights, which is the foundation for much of modern American ethics:

Natural rights are rights derived from natural law. In most historical discussions they are limited to humans, and thus derive from human nature. John Locke argued that these rights are integrated with the very definition of what it means to be human. Many philosophers and statesmen have listed what they believe to be natural rights; almost all include the right to life and liberty, as these are considered to be the two highest priorities in human nature. R. M. Hare has argued that if there are any rights at all, there must be the right to liberty, for all the others would depend upon this.

It all begs an uncomfortable question: "I have seen nature at work, and there is nothing orderly or humane about it." Again, the events following Katrina's strike at the Mississippi Delta come quickly to mind. The natural law entry is little help:

Thomas Hobbes instead founded natural law on what all men could agree upon: what they sought (happiness) was subject to contention, but a broad consensus could form around what they feared (violent death at the hands of another).

Great. Murder is wrong because I don't like the idea of being murdered. I also don't like the idea of encountering stiff competition on this hard-bid proposal our company has coming up. Can I get the government to intervene there, too?

Natural law proponents will respond that I have not read the paragraph completely: "a broad consensus could form around what they feared." I alone fear certain competitors on this proposal, it is not a broad consensus. But this leaves us in a worse position than before: that of "majority rules." We have seen in Zimbabwe and Venezuela (which, incidentally, share a president) what "majority rules" can do.

Alas, I don't have answers today, only questions. Does nature herself bestow man his rights? Or does an explicit social contract? And under a democracy, how easy is it to re-write that social contract? And isn't that precisely what we're doing now, with the understanding of our constitution being a living, breathing document?

Much more to come.

"A Failure Well-Done"

2005-10-31T09:04:00.000-08:00

Jon Henke writes here that "The Libertarian Party is dead; it is a conceit libertarians can no longer afford. But those disaffected Neolibertarians who are still willing to take the intellectual and political field can save libertarianism itself."

This is close to what Milton Friedman meant when he said, "I am a libertarian with a small l and a Republican with a capital R. And I am a Republican with a capital R on grounds of expediency, not on principle."

In other words, libertarianism: small tent or big tent?

My co-defendant The Man (who has been exceedingly busy this weekend) would answer something like this: "Big tent. Very big tent. Join the Republican Party, specifically, the Republican Liberty Caucus, and exact change from within an already-entrenched movement. From within a group that knows how to gather and wield at least some power, because the LPA, my friend, doesn't."

My wife -- as big tent and pragmatic as they come -- shocked me with her answer, which went something like this: "Small tent. Very small tent. Stake out an ideological turf that you could fit into a phone book. The Republicans reaching out to gays with one hand and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage with the other is what rids them of their credibility. The same is doubly true for the Democrats, who are the party of illegal aliens, unions, and environmentalists, somehow all at once."

Indeed, there isn't a third party quite like LPA. Be it Ayn Rand, who -- based on the fact that she could pinch herself and realize that she existed -- used this goose as the foundation for an astonishingly complete system of ethics, right down to how novels should be written. (Her novels were terrible.)

Or be it Alan Greenspan, possibly the most powerful libertarian the movement will ever know, who subtly expressed his ideology one quarter-point at a time.

Or be it Neal Boortz, a successful libertarian radio host who -- according to the source article -- nearly earned himself a boo-off for his "divergent views" on "foreign policy."

In a time in which some Green Party footsoldiers are questioning whether nuclear power might be key, and in which the Reform Party features both Pat Buchanan and Jesse Ventura, the unspoiled and unwavering terrain staked out by the LPA is a breath of fresh air.

Clean-up On Aisle Six Continues

2005-10-30T19:27:00.000-08:00

As I continue to clean up the mess left by UNESCO, it looks like France has a more serious threat to it's culture than Big Macs:
Clichy-Sous-Bois opened its first Muslim-Themed 'Beurger King' earlier this year to serve halal burgers- meaning burgers made with meat slaughtered according to Islamic dietary laws.

Plame Game II

2005-10-30T19:01:00.000-08:00

This is something that Rush has been hammering on from the beginning of this story, and something I meant to include in my post:

Assuming that Valerie Plame was some sort of genuinely covert operative -- something that's not actually quite clear from the indictment -- the chain of events looks pretty damning [for the CIA]: Wilson was sent to Africa on an investigative mission regarding nuclear weapons, but never asked to sign any sort of secrecy agreement(!). Wilson returns, reports, then publishes an oped in the New York Times (!!) about his mission. This pretty much ensures that people will start asking why he was sent, which leads to the fact that his wife arranged it. Once Wilson's oped appeared, Plame's covert status was in serious danger.

The part of this that Rush has been hammering on is that the bureaucracy of the CIA, State Dept. and others are trying to undermine Bush and Bush is trying to clean things up. What I had intended to talk about was the fact that, for a "covert" agent, Plame and her husband were sure thrusting themselves into a hot political debate. Then it's a big surprise, a crime, and a cover-up when the people on the other side of the issue try to find out who Joe Wilson is and how he ended up in Niger?

Batman Begins

2005-10-30T08:13:00.000-08:00

In 1997, Joel Schumacher (Flatliners, Dying Young) singlehandedly ruined the Batman film franchise with Batman & Robin, a two-hour circus of cartoon stunts, sitcom jokes and one-sentence morality. The characters of Poison Ivy and Dr. Freeze were hobbled permanently, and that of Bane was absolutely ravaged (to say nothing of the short-term outlook for George Clooney). The sterile camp that passed for action was an offensive waste of the ticket price: never have so many fight scenes yielded so litte dirt under the fingernails.

It was all so noisy and blinding, such a deep transgression from the promise of Tim Burton's inauguration of the series, that once -- before Batman & Robin was even released -- a caller asked Howard Stern if the rumors were true: if Stern was in line to play Scarecrow in the next Batman installment. Stern was furious and unequivocal: there would be no next installment. In fumbling two of the four Batman outings, Schumacher had seen to it personally.

Wrong about absolutely everything else, Stern was nearly right about this.

Eight years later, Christopher Nolan (Memento, Insomnia) has returned Batman to celluloid, dirt under the fingernails and all.

The title role is Christian Bale's first after nosediving in weight to take on the failed film The Machinist, for which he lost 63 pounds, subsisting on a single can of tuna and an apple a day. Fitting, then, and a little ironic that the themes of obliteration and reconstruction run thick through Batman Begins, in which Bale appears to be in the best, most chisled-granite shape of his life. On obliteration, the opening scenes find Wayne bottomed-out in a Chinese prison. We learn later in the first act of the picture that Wayne -- still sick with grief over the murder of his parents -- had concluded as a much younger man that the most effective way to follow criminals is to follow the criminal way. And since this is the path he chose, and took a bit too far, he landed himself a term in a dirty GULAG in Asia. The leader of a fascist ninja sect finds him in this state and takes him in, teaching him to fight and master his fear. When -- during the final moments of his months-long training -- Wayne refuses to kill a man who has not been given a trial, he is forced to declare war on his master, and flees back to Gotham City, where he will use his new skills to fight crime.

Like the first Spiderman film, we watch a gradual and fascinating transformation from ordinary man to superhero. But unlike Spiderman, we believe every tiny, advancing step, no exceptions. And like that other superhero film, the early Batman costume is silly and incomplete. Without an aerodynamic cape, he leaps off of buildings and only soars far enough to crash down fire escapes. Without the extruded Batman mask, he looks like a common criminal. Without the spring-loaded this and repelling that, his combat is all mano-a-mano. Wayne's knowledge of the Inspector Gadgets (equipment that is odiously present in other four films) builds gradually, just like his ninja abilities did in the first act: a forgotten military division of his father's company Wayne Enterprises acts as his own, personal try-it-before-you-paint-it-black supply depot. The Batsuit begins as over-engineered military armor, which was shelved when the Pentagon took a glance at the price tag. The Batmobile begins as a small, infinitely manueverable tank. In this way, the audience is not watching a Batman movie, per se, but a Discovery Times biography of a rich man who -- overcome with grief, overfilled with physical talent -- chose to take the advertisements at face value become an Army of One. That the result was a crimefighter named "Batman" is the key difference: this is not a Batman movie.

I won't ruin it for you by writing any further. It is almost a spoiler itself, just writing that the principal antagonists in this chapter are all-too human gangster Carmine Falcone and spooky chemist archvillain Scarecrow, both of whom keep the film grounded and plausible, tucked far and safely away from the choreographed flamboyance of Jim Carey's Riddler, or the imported psychedlia of Jack Nicholson's Joker. (Remember that the Scarecrow's primary offense is a chemical that induces horrific visions; in this way the second half of the film recalls quite nicely the "fascism employs fear" summary of the first half. It is an overbearing and unsubtle point, and it nods too transparently to modern American politics, so it is therefore the movie's only major flaw. But by now I have said too much.)

This is Batman's finest hour on-screen by a stretch, be it film, television, or animation. Mr. Can't says, "Czech it out."

Supreme Court

2005-10-29T10:05:00.000-07:00

This is a pretty concise point that conveys my feelings on the next Supreme Court appointment:
I don't see that state-sponsored executions are a left-right issue. The issue is the interpretation of our constitution, a matter of the courts and for the courts, which should apply principles, yes, but should be above the -- sometimes quite petty -- distinctions of liberal and conservative.

You could insert any issue in place of the death penalty, and the same statement would apply. Which is why it's a shame the debate has been framed by the terms "liberal" and "conservative. Also why it's a shame that Bush's screw-up with Miers resulted in the Republicans framing the debate as all about abortion.

The court's job is to interpret and apply the law. Which is why it is so ridiculous for the court to quote foreign law as some sort of source or precedent when no such consideration went into passing the law. The legislature is elected by, and responsible to the people who elected them, not the French. The law, and the constitution, should be interpreted based on the law and it's original intent. And if the legislature, or in this case, the founding fathers, didn't intend to grant a right to abortion, they didn't. Did they mean for the "right to privacy", sometimes correctly construed, to allow a woman to kill her unborn child? If you want a law that grants that, then get it passed.

Don't Worry, The U.N. Is On It

2005-10-28T21:58:00.000-07:00

And from the same story mentioned below, there is this gem:

At the United Nations on Friday, the Security Council issued a statement saying it "condemned" Mr. Ahmadinejad's remarks. The original text, introduced by Britain, included the word "strongly," but it was dropped because of objections from Algeria, the sole Arab country on the 15-member panel.

Plame Game

2005-10-28T18:49:00.000-07:00

Okay, just like the Harriet Miers story, this has taken a while to hit my radar screen. Maybe it was the glee in the reporters voices that kept me away. Or maybe the fact that it was all just supposition based on supposed leaks. Maybe it's just been a tough week. But the Plame Game finally has my attention.

As for Miers, I hope Bush nominates the most conservative, most highly qualified person - male, female, black, white, brown, off-white with a touch of beige - with the most verifiable background, that can possibly be found. Then I hope he looks at the Republicans in the Senate and says "Here you go, now you get her approved". After all, this is already only about Roe v. Wade, as the Republicans helped frame the debate. The conservative voice of the Republican Party has been heard. Will the spineless take heed?

But about the Plame Game, I'm pretty much just pissed off. This whole affair began as an investigation of whether the White House outed Ms. Plame, a "covert" CIA agent, as retribution on her husband Joe Wilson. After almost two years, we get an idictment against Cheney's Chief of Staff for perjury.

NOT the outing of a CIA agent, which Fitzgerald waxed elegantly about in his news conference. To the point that I later heard a news reporter put it just that way. Perjury. In a case where apparently no crime was committed. After all the crap he said about saying nothing about anyone not charged, I guess once you charge them with something you can accuse them of being a child molester too. If he broke the law then charge him for it, or shut up.

And to you anti-war libs trying to make this part of your case against Bush's "illegal" war - you are contemptible maggots. You just made the Vice President's Chief of Staff resign over some trumped up crap in a time of war. Your rhetoric is reprehensible, your support for our military is non-existent, and your behavior is infantile.

And to my point, on the same day this hits, this story is in the news.

Yep, a banner day in the cesspool of D.C.

San Antonio, Taxes

2005-10-28T12:30:00.000-07:00

I'd be kicked out of the Libertarian Party if I didn't, but that's not it. This is it: I do believe in the Laffer Curve, because I've actually seen it in action.

Simply put, the Laffer curve plots tax revenues against tax rates, and follows a predictable, upward trajectory as more basis points added to the tax rate yield more tax dollars piling up in treasury coffers.

To a point.

What happens beyond a certain, optimal point is that, counter-intuitively, any additional increase in the tax rate actually cannibalizes tax revenue. Tax rate increases to the "left" of this point will yield more tax revenue. Tax rate increases to the "right" of this point will yield less, in absolute terms.

The interesting question is why. Explanations are nominally varied, but -- in their essence -- represent the same thing:

1. Public redistribution of private wealth is inefficient and, therefore, an economically-depressing factor.

2. Taxes make money itself more expensive and stifle investment. .

3. An underground economy, built on cash and barter, flourishes as individuals try to recoup their buying power lost in a tax increase.

But my favorite variation of this theme is:

4. In what has been called a simple but fundamental human response, workers resent the fact that a higher percentage of their efforts be pledged to the tax-collecting body and, therefore, opt not to work.

The last one is a sort of Wink, Wink explanation, even one that an economist might find quaint. Isn't it obvious? We all have to work. We have to feed our wives, to feed our children, and to feed our all-too human hunger for relevance. Even if the tax rate is 85%, we work.

But no one in his right mind -- especially given the mobility of capital anymore -- would ever move here from another country, as long as our tax rate was that high.

This first occurred to me when a friend was considering a move to Europe. He worked for Northern Telecom, which has offices everywhere. His one requirement was that he not move to Germany. With the tax rate at the time, doing so would have effectively earned him a $25,000 salary cut.

I was astonished, for two reasons. First: in an instant, the Laffer Curve was transformed from ghostly theory to fleshy reality. And second: if I had taken a salary cut of that amount, I wouldn't have received a paycheck anymore.

The Laffer Curve is real. And even more than that, the "simple but fundamental human response" is real.

Of course, none of this graphical wizardry really means much. Results-based fiscal policy is as ideologically sound as some (purely hypothetical) results-based development program in New London, Connecticut might be. High taxes are not unjust because they exceed some unknowable but optimal rate. High taxes are unjust because they are morally wrong.

As an interesting aside, Ayn Rand once told Playboy, "I believe that taxation should be voluntary." Economists likely treat this as another Wink, Wink explanation. "Yeah, sure. Voluntary taxes."

It isn't unheard-of, though. Again, I have a real-life example. Me.

Mrs. Can't and I live in the sticks, about 25 miles north of North Dallas. We have no city fire department, only a volunteer force. There is no system of taxation for the volunteer firemen, only an optional tag-on to our water bill.

Nonetheless, I elect to pay the optional tag-on. Wouldn't you?

No Comment

2005-10-26T18:39:00.000-07:00

Bush hasn’t abandoned conservatism; he’s modernized and saved it.

Source.

The Man arrives with a disgusted look...

2005-10-24T19:59:00.000-07:00

Ok, ok. I'll try to be serious.
“The US is a multicultural society that fully supports the diversity of cultural expressions at home and abroad. We are committed to free trade and we regret that the convention reflects the efforts of some countries to advance an agenda of trade protectionism under the disguise of protecting cultural diversity."

The lone superpower boasting the most liberal economic, political, religious and personal freedoms needs to make this statement?
Vigorously championed by France and Canada, the diversity convention is held up by supporters as a vital tool for combating English-speaking cultural standardisation.

Hahahahah! Whooooo! That's good.
For the French government — which has successfully fought to keep cultural items such as films, music and publishing exempt from the general drift towards freer trade — the text is an important international marker ahead of a new round of talks at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Cultural diversity. Uh-huh. Right.
But defying a near total international consensus, the United States refuses to see the convention as a force for cultural variety — but instead as a charter for governments to put up new trade barriers and suppress the free flow of information.

Ummmm, because it is?
“America’s honeymoon at the UN’s culture arm didn’t last long,” said the Wall Street Journal, recalling that it was Bush’s wife Laura who represented the United States in the 2003 re-entry ceremony. Washington now contributes 22 percent of UNESCO’s budget.

What the fuck are we doing there?
However in Paris the press could hardly contain its glee at America’s isolation in the 60 year-old forum, which was set up after World War II to promote peace via the interchange of ideas.

Peace via the interchange of ideas? Yep, that'll do it. We all know the world is all about the interchange of ideas - unless those ideas are freedom and democracy.
“They have reaffirmed loud and clear that culture is not just another commodity."

That, madam, is where you are wrong.
Canadians widely regard their culture as heavily influenced by the US economic behemoth, with which it has a free-trade agreement.

Yeah, what a shame. Influenced by all that American money. Poor bastards. Send us a bill. And we'll apply it to your Canadian Defense Account.
“Canada’s rich diversity, its two official languages and its aboriginal heritage, which are key to the country’s common identity, have nurtured numerous and varied cultural expressions that give meaning to what it means to be Canadian."

Yeah, cultural expressions like the near secession of Quebec.

The rest of the world can take their namby-pamby, touchy-feely, cultural diversity and shove it up their ass. It's not our fault your people like Big Macs and Star Wars better than the shit you're putting out.

And one other thing. If you want a prognostication from all this, here it is:
Israel was alone in joining the United States in opposition...

Paging The Man. Paging The Man. Clean-Up on Aisle Six, Please.

2005-10-24T15:56:00.000-07:00

I'll have to let my co-saboteur handle this one.

I can't. I just can't.

Most of the world’s countries adopted a convention on cultural diversity prompting an embittered and isolated United States to deride the document as protectionism in disguise.

The “Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions” — widely seen as a buffer against US cultural domination — was voted through by an overwhelming majority of the 191 member states at UNESCO’s biennial General Conference.

"Some Kind of Pasta"

2005-10-23T08:29:00.000-07:00

Once I asked a coworker what his last death row meal might be, on the afternoon of his execution. And that was his answer, "I don't know. Some kind of pasta." Abysmal.

My answer at the time was veal medallions with vodka, lemon and butter sauce, garlic new potatoes, and grilled asparagus. You don't want something too heavy. You want more Parisian portions, so that you aren't already satiated by the time you take your last bite. There's no shame in heading to the electric chair with a bit of an appetite left.

I'm gradually becoming a filet mignon guy. Today my answer might be a medium-rare 10oz filet, a grilled poblano and zucchini medley, and whipped potatoes with butter. But, obviously, persistently, your death hangs out there a few hours away. So why not raw oysters on the half shell? Or puffer fish sashimi? Steak tartar? I understand that cattle brains are indescribably delicious, but the cholesterol and the BCE keep all but the most suicidal (or most uninformed) of us at bay. Yet with the impunity of imminent death, isn't the issue taste, and taste alone?

By the way the wife and I had Smith & Wollensky last night. The portions are brutal, but the steak is (ahem) to die for.

Whence my fixation with last death row meals in general? No idea. When I start reading again, I'll read Last Suppers: Famous Final Meals from Death Row. From the linked page: "A dozen steamed mussels, a Burger King double cheeseburger with mustard, mayonnaise, lettuce and tomato, a can of Franco-American spaghetti with meatballs, a mango, half of a pumpkin pie with whipped cream, and a strawberry milkshake -- all that went down the hatch of killer Thomas Grasso on the eve of Oklahoma's giving him the needle."

I should never forego the opportunity to criticize the 38 states that still incorporate the death penalty into their criminal justice systems (and most notably my own home state, Texas). Either human life is or is not part of the purview of government.

But even if it is, let's throw a couple hundred peasants into a GULAG system and get a few decent roads up here where I live.

My dad likes telling the story of how my -- now arch-conservative -- mom was liberal when they first met. His proof? "She didn't even believe in the death penalty." This is the alpha and omega of his argument. She didn't even believe in the death penalty. Terrific.

And believe me. She does now.

I don't see that state-sponsored executions are a left-right issue. The issue is the intepretation of our constitution, a matter of the courts and for the courts, which should apply principles, yes, but should be above the -- sometimes quite petty -- distinctions of liberal and conservative. To me it is quite conservative to believe that human life trumps all other considerations, even the life of a man who has taken the life of another.

For a fascinating Randian dialogue offering both sides (!!!) of the death penalty debate, click here.

28%

2005-10-21T13:55:00.000-07:00

Being the percentage of movie critics who rated the film release of Doom three out of five stars or better, as counted by Rotten Tomatoes.

What can I say? I'm heartbroken.

For point of reference, though, The Fog received an 8% rating on RT.

There was a time when the video game by the same name was actually scary. Folks would gather their Pentiums (remember those?) , collect en masse at the most poorly-lit house, wait until dark, throw together an LAN network (remember those?), and play Doom until, literally, all hell broke loose.

The first-person shooter thing was absolutely revolutionary, the colors were vivid and rusty, and I've nearly pissed myself before taking an unexpected fireball from the blind side. Doom creators id Software upped the ante with Quake, replete with a stellar Nine Inch Nails soundtrack and a creepy grain that gave the whole affair a sort of photojournalistic vibe. I didn't like Quake as much as Doom. My world was already rocked.

But if you give a shit, even a little bit, you already know all this.

What you may not know is that my favorite 2005 film is Serenity. No, it isn't that libertarian. It's libertarianish. It's just that, you know, new father and all. I barely make it out of the house anymore. Serenity is just the best of what I've gotten the energy to go see.

Bad Boys, Bad Boys, Watcha Gonna Do?

2005-10-20T05:41:00.000-07:00

"Dallas [police are] considering non-response or verified response, whichever you want to call it. Sometimes, like in Fremont, Calif., stripped budgets simply don't allow for responding to unverified alarm signals."

The article isn't clear and -- from all the furor around my office -- I'm not exactly clear, either, but what I take this to mean is that your residential monitoring company would no longer be allowed to call the police on your behalf. You'll have to do it yourself.

Bottom line, and the much smaller question, is whether or not the local police should respond to calls of emergencies at your home not placed from within your home? I mean, I can't order you a pizza. Why can I order you the fuzz?

But the bigger question is what interests me, and has nothing to do with "stripped" budgets. The City of Dallas has acknowledged that policemen are a limited resource.

The homeowners fighting this non-response policy argue that police are the common good.

I still have a difficult time with the phrase "the common good," which to me is as meaningless as the term "the canned good." Which canned good? Peas? Garbanzo beans? One must speak in terms of "a canned good," "a common good," not "the." When someone says to you, "the common good," it is your duty as a consistent thinker to say, "which one? Peas? Garbanzo beans? The military? Which one?"

Policemen are clearly limited resources. Like I discussed in the above-linked post, a limited resource is a thing that can "run out." A common good is a thing that cannot run out (at least not without artificial interference). Freedom is a common good. For all intents and purposes the military is a common good. (We can't really telephone it out of availability, like we can the police.)

Radio spectra are not common goods. Television spectra are not common goods. The next time I hear that the "airwaves" belong to the "people," I might just drop the "e," if you get me.

Policemen are not common goods. If I send out a false alarm because I can't work my keypad, I've just kept the police from (potentially) responding to another, more valid call.

You know? A valid call like busting a grandmother for driving 2 miles per hour above the speed limit. Like arresting an inner-city kid for selling some smoke. Like giving a presentation to a class of fourth-graders on underage drinking. You know, the valid stuff.

When The 1st Fails, There's Always The 2nd

2005-10-19T18:59:00.000-07:00

Great article on gun control by John Stossel. Very simple, rational, truth. However, this quote will just embolden Mr. Can't on his position that drugs should be legalized:

"First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them 'criminals.') Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it."
But here's the money quote:

"What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, 'the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.'
'The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do,' Judge Kozinski noted. 'But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.'"

Or, more simply, as this reader from Instapundit put it:
"In 1999 or so, NPR ran a story about an armed gang of about 30 men in Bosnia rounding up all the military-aged men/boys in a village and executing them in their village square. About 300 were killed.
The thought 'it would take a whole lot more than 30 men to kill 300 villagers in an armed society' occurred to me, and I joined the NRA that evening.
I've heard the "living, breathing Constitution" morons say that there's no way the Founding Fathers could have foreseen things like the internet, cloning, etc. Well, maybe not, but they damn sure foresaw this. And provided for it.

"And the winner is..."

2005-10-18T15:47:00.000-07:00

If a right- to- right libertarian web log is designed for the sole purpose of finding and exposing the lunacy of tyrrany, my co-conspirator The Man has permanently beaten me to it. I will never find a piece of lunacy as telling as this:

Mr. Mugabe departed from his text at a ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to accuse Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair of illegally invading Iraq and looking to unseat governments elsewhere.

Mr. Mugabe -- who has starved his people by seizing white farms and subdividing them as gifts for political cronies -- is speaking at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization?

I've half a mind to throw in the towel right now. To give a brief concession speech and continue my writing career elsewhere. I mean it. I'm beaten. A man knows when he's beaten. I was so feverish and contrite when I spoke to The Man earlier that I actually referred to Mugabe as "president of Venezuela."

Hey. Honest mistake.

But frankly this poses a seamless transition into the post I was planning for today: anxiety. There are three types of objects that lead to anxiety: those objects that linger, and those objects that the subject cannot control. Call them type 1 and type 2, and call a combination of both type 3.

Type 1 objects (those that linger) might include persistent personal failures, a health problem, a troubled relationship. Take alcholism, which can last for years: it is not type 2 because, technically, all you need to do to rid yourself of alcoholism is stop drinking. Take a nagging cough ("Shit! Cancer!"): it is not type 2 because you can go to the doctor and have it checked. Take a bad marriage: it is not type 2, because you can call a family attorney and file for divorce. These are expressly type 1 objects. These are easier to accept because you have some degree of choice.

Type 2 objects (those beyond your control) might include today's traffic, a dressing-down at work, or a jail sentence that will end in a few days. Take the example of finding yourself parked on the expressway: there is nothing you can do, but since it will not linger, since you will soon be home, it is not type 1. Take the example of an ass-chewing at work: short of walking out of the supervisor's office (and losing your job), you know that it will not last overnight. He will tire of the routine and want to go home, so it is not type 1. And a jail sentence that is scheduled to end: clearly not type 1.

These are my terms, by the way. Please do not do a Google search for Type+3+anxiety because your results might be unpredictable.

The nasty objects of anxiety are type 3. These are the worries that hang out there for months, years, for life, and over which you exact very little or no control, you can only exact control on your perception of these objects. Asteroids hurtling towards earth, terrorists planning a suitcase nuke attack on our shores, the slow creep of totalitarianism across the face of the earth: admit it. There is very little -- to nothing -- that we can do. But remember: our perception is all. We can always fool ourselves into believing that the combined weight of our vote makes a difference, and, therein, our elected leaders shoot asteroids with laser beams, kill terrorists on sight, and rid the world of totalitarianism. But, funny. The afterglow of tranquility lasts about fourteen minutes. We go vote and then we're all anxious again.

I know that it is precisely this sort of voting nihilism that offends my co-conspirator and causes him a libertarian-founded anxiety of his own, but, hey! If it feels good...

And finally I get to my point: web-logging, another comfort food we gorge ourselves on when we feel anxious about geo-political matters. But -- in my case, at least -- it isn't helping. I still grind my teeth at night. I still hope to convert the Great Unwashed to Free Market Mayhem. And something about my brief stint over at Sliced Bread tells me that the message isn't playing with the crowd I want it to.

I mean, hell, what need have I to convince The Man? He's a bit slapdash on illegal immigration, but otherwise he's got it together.

So here it is, my pledge to you, Gentle Reader. A lot less philosophy and a lot more fun: whacky liberals, stupid people tricks, laws where there oughtn't be, and film, music, books, food, beer, sex, all the things that keep us on our course.

United Nations

2005-10-18T05:05:00.000-07:00

Never mind the text of this story. Never mind that Mugabe called Bush and Blair terrorists. That is what the media will focus on because they love that crap. And they will say never mind who the source is.

The real story here is this: Why is the United Nations having a racist dictator who wrecked his country's agriculture industry and is starving his people speak at the 60 year celebration of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization?

Sliced Bread

2005-10-14T11:13:00.000-07:00

Since my post this Monday, I've been all over that Sliced Bread thing. You may remember that Sliced Bread is,

"looking for fresh, new ideas for a better America. Do you have a common-sense idea that will improve the day-to-day lives of everyday Americans? Or an opinion on how working families can succeed in the new global economy?

"You have until December 5, 2005, to submit your idea and to weigh in. A panel of judges will select the top 21 ideas. All of America will be able to vote on the finalists, and on February 1, one person will win $100,000—runners up receive $50,000 each."

Some ne'er do well posted this as his common sense idea:

"Drop the electives and teach the following Milton Friedman books, one for each of the eight high school semesters: Capitalism and Freedom, Free to Choose, Monetary History of the United States, Money Mischief, Positive Economics, Price Theory, Road to Serfdom, and Why Government is the Problem."

His one unsolicited comment charitably reminds him of the economist's middle initial, and reads thus:

"Milton J. Friedman's theories are the problem. Not the solution."

And for her common sense idea, Carrie A. from Michigan wrote:

Public schools should have equality across the nation; they are PUBLIC schools. Money on a federal level should be distributed based on population, and the taxing for education should be on a state level, not local. Rich neighborhoods should not be the only areas where intellect is properly stimulated; many of our potential future doctors, scientists, economists, etc. are turned out on the streets for their education because their schools are operating by a shoestring, becoming drug dealers and criminals instead. Many people do not know what they want to do with their lives until they are exposed to a particular occupation, and the 3 R's, though important, do not cut it. Evenly distributed funding would allow better vocational and after-school programs (in addition to the basics, like books, which many areas cannot afford to update), and better stimulate the children who drown in the hopelessness of having to teach themselves. Teach a man how to fish in this world, or he might feel forced into stealing your fish to feed his children.

It's conceivable that the ne'er-do-well left this comment:

"Are you somehow implying that the central planners **aren't** already turning their attention to public schools?

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html"

Leading Carrie A. from Michigan to reply to his idea:

"Drop electives? NO choice as to what you might want to learn about to take with you in life/vocation? Mandatory classes all written by ONE person, with no alternative views? If we are trying to create some sort of Capitalist cult in our public schools, this idea is a winner. Children ARE being left behind, regardless of what kind of title one wishes to put on one's program, and if Milton Friedman gets 5 minutes, Noam Chomsky should get 5 minutes (at least). School is no place for the political views of one person. Have more faith in kids... let them make their own choices, but provide them with MORE choices to do it."

All that said, the neer-do-well can only reply in kind:

Drop electives?

I was bomb-throwing. I assumed that free market advocacy would go nowhere on an SEIU website devoted to economic ideas for working families. And, trust me, I've nothing against working families. My wife and I both work, and we have a son, a dog, a mortgate, and another child on the way. But the term "working family" -- in this context -- can be little more than a catchphrase meaning "central economic planning." Now I know that my assumption was right, that any free market advocacy is simply jeered out of the room.

NO choice as to what you might want to learn about to take with you in life/vocation?

Sorry? Since when is anything else about school the students' choice? Is enrollment the students' choice? Are the hours or -- in some cases -- the dress code the students' choice? And the last time I checked, we still conduct business in the remnants of a free market system, so whatever a student learns about and takes with him/her - he/she will end up applying it in a capitalistic economy -- unless, that is they hop one of the many homemade boats leaving Florida daily for Cuba. So teaching free market advocacy is as deranged an idea as is teaching English grammar.

Mandatory classes all written by ONE person...

"ONE person:" these are your words. These is precisely the number of people the SEIU wants at the helm of our Federal Gasoline Agency setting retail unleaded prices. So don't distill my message using your equipment. As far as I'm concerned, in the matter of school subjects, the taxpayers decide, based on coordination with the parents and school administrators. You know ... the democratic way. My recommendation to them would simply be that they teach more Milton Friedman. And when I write that I am not bomb-throwing.

...with no alternative views?

My friend, Friedman is the alternative view. Look me in the eyes and tell me that John Maynard Keynes -- who advocates interventionist economics -- is not taught in economics classes around the country.

If we are trying to create some sort of Capitalist cult in our public schools, this idea is a winner.

I bet that was a relief to get off your chest. Feel better? I hate to break it to you, though, but in the case of a cult, the kids aren't allowed to go home at the end of the day. Sort of like Red China (a model of central planning if ever there was) treats their gymnasts. But I digress...

Children ARE being left behind...

...yes, by central planning...

...regardless of what kind of title one wishes to put on one's program, and if Milton Friedman gets 5 minutes, Noam Chomsky should get 5 minutes...

Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky are not competing thinkers. Friedman is an economist, whereas Chomksy is a linguist. A competing theorist to Friedman would be the aforementioned J.M. Keynes. Something tells me you've no problem with Keynes already being taught in our schools, or with a "economic interventionist cult" being put together with our property tax dollars.

...(at least).

Now tell me which "ONE person" is writing mandatory class requirements.

School is no place for the political views of one person.

Again, Friedman is an economist. You're the one who introduced politics into the discussion, by writing Noam Chomsky into the syllabus.

Have more faith in kids...

You're the one who said they would form a cult.

...let them make their own choices...

They're kids. Again, it's not up to them. It's up the taxpayers, the parents, and the school administrators.

...but provide them with MORE choices to do it.

At last, at long last ... we agree.

Surrendering The High Ground

2005-10-13T08:55:00.000-07:00

Okay, the Miers nomination has finally hit my radar screen. One would have thought it wouldn't have taken this long. After all, the runaway judiciary is a real hot button for me. But I guess I had just chalked it up to another in a long line of disappointments in the Republicans for conservatives. Rush called it a pick made from weakness, I rather thought of it as a pick made on the defensive. As Immanuel said, maybe Bush was reeling from all the fallout from Katrina and wasn't up for the fight. And who could blame him anyway? Would you expect the senate Republicans to stand up?

I was thoroughly disgusted with the Democrats (which has become commonplace for me ever since the Wellstone memorial service) for their transparent view that this was all about Roe vs. Wade and abortion. Quite a small-minded view considering you are appointing someone for life to the highest court in the land. For conservatives, and, I thought for Republicans, the issue was much larger. I thought what was at stake was the Constitution and whether it means anything anymore.

With recent decisions such as Kelo vs. New London, campaign finance reform, sodomy laws, and juvenile death penalty statutes it seemed not to matter what the Constitution said or did not say. That is why it was so important to get a constructionist judge on the court who would exercise judicial restraint and not legislate.

But now, in the aftermath of the Miers nomination, that has all gone out the window.

This nomination is now about abortion. And nothing will change that. Not even if Miers is withdrawn and replaced by someone else. Anyone else. It is about abortion not because the Democrats made it so, after all such has always been the case in their view. No, it is now purely about abortion because the Republicans have made it so. By going out and assuring the pro-lifers that she is anti-abortion we have not only lost the debate, we have lost the opportunity to have the debate. We even have the First Lady calling conservatives sexist. I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Forget the fact that Roe should have never been heard or ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Forget about justices conjuring up something in the Constitution to support their personal views. The Republicans have now allowed the Dems to frame the debate. And whether or not we win the battle, we have already lost the war.

Bird Flu Pandemic

2005-10-12T18:44:00.000-07:00

I did a search on google news and found this story everywhere: Indonesia Bird Flu Death Toll Rises to 6. 6? This stuff is all over the news because of 6 deaths? I must be missing something, right? So I read on and find this:

The H5N1 strain of bird flu has swept through poultry populations in large swaths of Asia since 2003, jumping to humans and killing at least 65 people more than 40 of them in Vietnam and resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of birds.

65 people in Asia? And this is all over the news? And then there's this:
Despite the growing toll from the virus, Health Minister Siti Fadila Supari told reporters that "the situation appears to be in control," repeating earlier assurances that the disease was not spreading between humans.
"The death toll is much less than in Vietnam, so the people must not panic," he said.
Are you kidding me? A pandemic? We went through this same bullshit with West Nile Virus. What is the world going to do if we face another true pandemic? And if you would like a description of the real deal check this out:
A company cook named Albert Mitchell reported to the infirmary with typical flu-like symptoms - a low-grade fever, mild sore throat, slight headache, and muscle aches. Bed rest was recommended.
By noon, 107 soldiers were sick.
Within two days, 522 people were sick. Many were gravely ill with severe pneumonia.
Then reports started coming in from other military bases around the country.
Thousands of sailors docked off the East Coast were sick.
Within a week, the influenza was hitting isolated places, such as the island of Alcatraz.
Whatever the cause, it was clearly airborne.
Within seven days, every state in the Union had been infected.
Then it spread across the Atlantic.
By April, French troops and civilians were infected.
By mid-April, the disease had spread to China and Japan.
By May, the virus was spread throughout Africa and South America.
The actual killer was the pneumonia that accompanied the infection.
In Philadelphia, 158 out of every 1000 people died. 148 out of 1000 in Baltimore. 109 out of 1000 in Washington, D. C..
The good news (if there was any) was that the disease peaked within two to three weeks after showing up in a given city. It left as quickly as it arrived.
The United States death toll was a total of 850,000 people, making it an area of the world that was least devastated by this virus.
850,000. Now that, my friend, is a pandemic. At that point, you can panic. Until then, I'll worry about the idiots I have to dodge on the way to work every morning.

Mad, Mad Props...

2005-10-12T12:31:00.000-07:00

...to the creator of this web log, for making me wonder: Joke? Earnest? Smartass? Simpleton?

His posts are brief axioms; one sentence here, one there, just a few words. Like this one, which reads, "I liked the Star Wars movies because it has a touch of fantasy and has a great story to it." That's it. That's the entire post. Title included.

Or this one: "Lying is justified in certain situations like when you want to save your life or to save the lives of others." He has not one, but ~~two~~ four posts about wanting to go home and get some sleep. George Carlin can't reach this level of deadpan by half.

Kudos, Admiral.

Me? I think radios are good because knobs are good, and if anything has lots of knobs, it's radios.

UPDATE: I've concluded that he's just some kid just screwing around, but I'm in love with this web log anyway. Think about it: if it turns out that Pablo Picasso was really an elephant that splashed those canvases at random, and all along we found genius in those works in quite the same way that children found shapes in clouds, you'd still love Cubism anyway, right? I've found two more posts talking about going home and sleeping, hence the strike-through above. Brilliant. I'm pretty sure I like his web log more than he does.

And me? I think rabbits get a bum deal. They hop better than we hop, and if you think about it, no one makes stew out of them like they used to.

The Ethics of Groups

2005-10-12T05:34:00.000-07:00

My in-laws are gone. Generally by the second or third day of their visit I would be posting on some liberal-on-the-street mamby-japamby that I'd gleaned from one of their rants, but politics didn't come up at all this week. Not once.

So the only fight I've been able to pick these last few days was with a lifelong friend about Ernest Hemingway.

Yeah. Exactly. Hemingway. My friend claims The Old Man and the Sea is an indian summer masterpiece. I claim that Hemingway's fiction is verbose, overhyped filler. Of course, making such a claim in literary circles is tantamount to blasphemy.

It was such a silly waste of time, such an Only-In-the-Age-of-Yahoo-Messenger argument that I had to tell my co-conspirator about it. We both agreed that -- to commit blasphemy -- there has to be a doctrine laying around there, somewhere. There has to be a book of scriptures. And since this is only literature, and not some world religion....

But don't be too quick to judge. There absolutely is a canon of scriptures in the literary world, and one must show it fealty and worship. Take, for example, Modern Library's 100 Best Novels. There, faithfully, predictably, is Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, buried among four other books in either direction that you'll never read. Indeed, the first book on the list I actually enjoyed is the forty-first, the Nietzschean Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, all soaked through with human nature and the futility of governing and its questions of tribalism and populism. Beyond that, there is Tropic of Cancer, and little else.

Scripture. Doctrine. These are things that should be meaningless in literature, but they aren't. This absurd prerequisitism reminded The Man and me of a conversation he had with a young woman once. He asked her of her stance on abortion. She said, and I'm paraphrasing: "Well, I'm in my twenties, I live in an urban area, I'm a woman, and I'm unmarried, so I'm pro-choice."

In other words: "Pro-life unwed women my age aren't invited to cocktail parties around here." No talk of rights, no talk of the basis of government or the purpose of civilization. No allusion to human nature or the will to power. Just groupthink at its most destructive and unnecessary. "My group believes xyz, so I believe xyz."

With all this in mind, a scatterbrained, meandering post titled The Ethics of Individualism caught my eye over at Deepak Chopra's web site.

Frankly, I should have known better. Distill Chopra's message into a few short sentences, and it might read something like this: "I'm spiritual. You be spiritual, too. Vote Democrat. Buy my book." Funny, but this is precisely the nature of complaint you frequently hear the left making of the right. Interesting.

So I was curious to hear his thoughts in quite the same way I'm curious about the Banned From Television series.

But any time the discussion turns to ethics, put one hand over your ear and another over your wallet, because it's about to get loud and expensive. The article begins:

"If people have the opportunity to get away with something, they will."

Read the whole thing -- it's short, and it deserves the attention, even negative attention from web logs like this. Should the crosshairs of policy, literature and ethics discussions be trained on the group? Or the individual? If you agree that governments are instituted among men to protect natural rights, are those rights meant to address group needs? Or individual needs?

Acting in their own self-interests, are groups, or are individuals most responsible for achievements in economy, science, art, literature, mathematics and leisure?

Maybe the statement above might read, "If people have the opportunity to get away with something, we should hope they will."

The End is Extremely Fucking Nigh

2005-10-10T20:54:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure if I thank The Agitator or not for this horrifying glimpse into man-on-the-street economics.

The deal? A $100,000 contest for broad-stroke solutions for working families (presumably "national policy" broad-strokes). In the web site's own words: We're looking for fresh, new ideas for a better America. Do you have a common-sense idea that will improve the day-to-day lives of everyday Americans? Or an opinion on how working families can succeed in the new global economy?

You have until December 5, 2005, to submit your idea and to weigh in. A panel of judges will select the top 21 ideas. All of America will be able to vote on the finalists, and on February 1, one person will win $100,000—runners up receive $50,000 each.

Fair enough.

And here are some of the entries:

--OVER WORKED

TOO MANY HOURS ,TOO MANY JOBS THATS ALL WE DO IS WORK WORK WORK

TO FIX IT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A 6 HOUR WORK DAY WITH THE CURRENT 8 HOUR PAY AND BENNIES

IT WILL CREAT MORE JOBS. IN STEAD OF 3 SHITS YOU WOULD HAVE 4 SHIFTS A DAY. MAYBE FAMILIES WILL GET TO SPEND SOME TIME TOGETHER TO HELP EACH OTHER GROW THE WAY THEY NEED TO . WAY TO MANY CHILDREN GO UNSUPPERVISED BECAUSE MOMMY AND DADDY HALF TO WORK LATE AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN. AND WITHOUT BLUE COLLAR WORKERS HOWS GOING TO DO THE GRUNT WORK.

IT MAKES ME SICK TO READ AN ARTICLE ABOUT A CEO OF A COMPANY THAT MAKES $54,000.00 AN HOUR.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THINGS BE MORE FARE AND COMPANYIES BE MORE GIVING .

--The problem: People not voting

Fix: Give tax breaks, college credit, or breaks on college loans for registered voters who vote.

--American children are becoming more overweight, and are achieving less at school.

Simple solution: Free food.

Public schools already have free lunch programs for some students; this should be expanded and improved. Every public school should provide free, nutritious meals (breakfast and lunch) to ALL students. Many young students who come from households with two working parents often depend on school meals as their primary source of nutrition. These students regularly skip breakfast and go through half a day of hunger before their first meal. At lunch, they gorge on junk food to quickly satiate their hunger. Inevitably, this pattern of eating affects attention span in class, and, in turn, academic performance. Simply providing a free nutritious breakfast and lunch would allow students to focus on their schoolwork rather than their hunger.

The other side of the issue is the junk food that fills school concession stands and cafeteria lines. School meals should be tested for nutritional value. Replacing burgers and hot dogs with free nutritious meals is a simple solution to two big problems.

--The problem: Appliances consuming energy even when turned off.

Idea: Mandate all appliances have built-in timers that completely shut off when not in use after a prolonged time.

Every household in America has at least one television. All TV's have built-in instant on features so images immediately flicker to lfe at the press of the remote "on" button. It has been estimated that each household will probably save $100 annually if TV's were unplugged at night. It's not limited to just TV's, but any appliance. Think about the tremendous drop in our power consumption with this one simple solution!

Czech it out for yourself. There's much, much more zaniness to be had.

Eddie Eagle

2005-10-10T13:45:00.000-07:00

The NRA has had a program for many years featuring a character called Eddie Eagle who teaches kids what to do if they find, or find themselves in the presence of, a gun. The mantra that Eddie Eagle sings repeatedly is "Stop, don't touch, leave the area, tell an adult".

Now I can personally vouch for the effectiveness of this message, though I didn't depend on Eddie Eagle to convey it. I'm a parent. However, whether the program works or not is not even the issue. My question is, what can it hurt? Is that not exactly what you would want your child to do if they found a gun? Maybe in a friend's house?

But, of course, there are people who don't want this taught. Like this quote from some mental giant "local emergency room doctor" who "has treated his share of juvenile gunshot victims":

Nobody should trust Eddie Eagle to make their child any safer than before they took the program. Rather than try over and over again to gun-proof our kids, I think we ought to child-proof our guns.

Ya gotta hand it to the libs. They can come up with some damn slogans. Unfortunately, many of them lose their appeal when you look at them more closely. And to me the question comes to this: Who would you rather trust more - your child whom you and Eddie Eagle have drilled repeatedly to stay away from guns or your child's friend's father that has been reminded repeatedly via public-service announcements to lock up his guns?

If your answer is not your child, you must have some damned high-caliber neighbors.

Quote of the Day

2005-10-08T16:03:00.000-07:00

"People of faith are not talking about what is known. They're talking about what is not known."
--Andrew Sullivan, on the October 7, 2005 episode of Real Time With Bill Maher.

I posted on this very subject recently. Sullivan and I agree, but in comparison to his succinct and balanced prose, my post was clunky and overlong tripe. For point of comparison, click here. (I guess that's why I'm co-hosting a backwater blog on a remote outpost in cyberspace, and Andrew Sullivan is 2 million words into his online experiment, appearing on Real Time.)

In typical Bill Maher fashion, he tried to be fair and non-partisan. He was liberal, mind you, but non-partisan.

I should add: fair and non-partisan in every subject but that of religion.

To wit, an exchange between one-man fatwa Salman Rushdie and Maher:

RUSDIE: "A couple of years ago, just before the Iraq nonsense began, I was invited to Washington to speak to a group of senators of both parties. And the thing that was most obviously different between the Democrats and Republicans was that the Republicans exclusively used religious language. Exclusively. And that scared me.

"There was one of the senators who asked me why Osama bin Laden said that America was a godless country. He was really offended by that. He said, 'We're not godless. We're very godly.' I said 'I guess Mr. bin Laden doesn't think so.' "

MAHER: "If only he knew us better, he'd probably like us better."

RUSHDIE: "A lot in common."

America has "a lot in common" with the cosmology and politics of Osama bin Laden? Judeo-Christian communities share "a lot in common" with the nihilistic jihad of Al Qaeda? I have an idea: I invite Rushdie to travel to Iran personally to explore our many similarities.

All levity aside, this is insulting and prima facie absurd. And to broadcast this slander from American soil inherently voids the point he is trying to make. Rushdie is too intelligent to possibly believe this. He knows that what he says is bullshit.

That said, I will never read another one of his books.

I have no illusions of spearheading a national boycott (again: backwater blog). But as far as my own, personal endorsement of Salman Rushdie? Finished.

Oh, and, Herr Rushdie? Check your arithmetic. The "Iraq nonsense" began over fifteen years ago in August 1990, when then-president Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Not "a couple of years ago," when UN weapons inspections teams decided that Hussein was giving us the run around.

The Truth

2005-10-06T20:03:00.000-07:00

From President Bush's speech this morning:

Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence—the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we’re not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We’re facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers—and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.

Those who don't, can't, or won't understand this endanger us all.

Well, Yeah

2005-10-04T19:28:00.000-07:00

Source.

un-UN

2005-10-03T19:47:00.000-07:00

I do not sanction the grotesque pretense of an organization allegedly devoted to world peace and human rights, which includes Soviet Russia -- the worst aggressor and bloodiest butcher in history -- as one of its members.

The notion of protecting rights, with Soviet Russia among the protectors, is an insult to the concept of rights and to the intelligence of any man who is asked to endorse or sanction such an organization. I do not believe that an individual should cooperate with criminals, and, for all the same reasons, I do not believe that free countries should cooperate with dictatorships.
--Ayn Rand

Media Bias

2005-10-02T18:10:00.000-07:00

This is a subject I don't talk about much, simply because it can't be proven and those on the left not only refuse to admit the media is biased in their favor, but even go so far as to claim a bias to the right. However, for this post I am going to speak from the viewpoint that everyone knows there is a liberal bias in the media. No one with a shred of objectivity would argue that - and the rest of you are a lost cause anyway.

The question is this - Without the media's assistance for the last 40 years, where would the Democrats and the liberal movement be? Both books by Bernard Goldberg and this story point to how insidious the bias is, and the fact that it is not a conscious act but a result of group think and a uniform world view among the elites. And it is only now, with the rise of talk radio and the blogosphere that it is being illustrated and challenged - which is shaking the media and the liberal establishment to its core.

A more optimistic conservative could make the case that the liberals are on the ropes. The Democrat Party is in total disarray, they can't win an election for dog catcher, and many of their sacred cows are, if not being slaughtered, at least being herded in that direction. However, the Republicans are doing their best to show that it doesn't really matter which party is in power - because it's all about power.

But by any measure, the Dems and libs have lost their stranglehold on the government. Where would they be without the help of the media, which has, if anything, stepped up its efforts? Without all the acronyms carrying their water, could they stand on their own? In my opinion, they've never before had to actually defend their absurd philosophy, and now so pressed are doing a pretty poor job of it. What would they do if the media actually showed who the anti-war movement is? What would they do if Larry King actually asked a pointed question? What would they do if Terry Moran and his ilk were replaced in the White House with Brit Hume and his ilk? What would they do if everywhere they went, they were asked what they thought of the NARAL ad accusing John Roberts of supporting violence against abortion clinics? Or how it is that New Orleans was so dirt-poor after having been run by Democrats forever?

I certainly wouldn't venture a guess on the answers to these questions. It is, in fact, such a stretch that I can barely picture it in my mind. I keep trying though, and will, as I fall asleep tonight. With visions of stammering libs dancing in my head.

UPDATE

First, let me say that I don't watch the Today show. But, while getting ready for work, my local news was interrupted by President Bush's press conference nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Not paying too much attention and in and out of the room, I happened to hear the end of the press conference and got to hear Couric asking Tim Russert his take. Her quote, which so interested me I TIVO'd it back to listen again, was pretty much this:
"Tim, I guess the most frightening thing about this nominee is the lack of a paper trail..."

Frightening? I'm terrified. What with terrorism having been defeated and all, this is the scariest thing on my radar.

Boobie-Thon!

2005-10-02T17:45:00.000-07:00

How come I can never think of something like this?

Stands to Reason

2005-09-30T07:25:00.000-07:00

Should taxpayers be coerced to pay for government pamphlets that openly assault their most deeply-held beliefs? Certainly not.

Should atheist taxpayers fund government-published bibles? Or fund public-sector ministers? Should religious taxpayers fund government-published attacks on their religion? Or fund public-sector seminars on non-belief?

The answers to the above are clearly no, no, no and no. So why does the same not apply for government-purchased textbooks? And school teachers? What is the difference? In what universe would this even have to go to court?

(Clearly in this universe, apparently.)

Jacob Sullum sorts through the white noise over at Reason Online. Check out the public response to his article here.

UPDATE
In case anyone wanted to know my opinion on the matter, it is staunchly, unwaveringly thus:

1. The scientific method begins with the observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. (By definition, an "observable and describable" phenomenon.)

2. The scientific method continues with the formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. The scientific method continues with the use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other observable and describable phenomena.

4. The scientific method concludes or continues with the performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

In layman's terms:

1. You watch as a problem occurs.

2. You guess at the solution to the problem.

3. You apply your solution to other applicable, observable problems.

4. Lather, rinse, repeat.

This is all I will say on the matter. Your conclusions about my conclusions about cosmology, origin-of-life, evolution and intelligent design are your own.

Spain Getting Tough

2005-09-29T05:03:00.000-07:00

An imam who wrote a book on how to beat your wife without leaving marks on her body has been ordered by a judge in Spain to study the country's constitution.
Yep, that'll get it.

Same Old Song and Dance

2005-09-28T17:49:00.000-07:00

In Dayton Ohio or Portland Maine
On a cotton gin out on the great high plains
That's done closed down along with the school
And the hospital and the swimming pool
Dust devils dance in the noonday heat
There's rats in the alley, and trash in the street
Gang graffiti on a boxcar door
We can't make it here anymore
-We Can't Make it Here
James McMurtry

Am I in a time warp? Who is president? FDR? Jimmy Carter? What's the unemployment rate - 13%? 15%? I thought we were doing pretty well, but obviously a lot of people are hurting out there.

I love McMurtry's music, and I don't even mind the occasional protest song - in the vein of the 60's "The Man (yep, that's me) is keeping me down". But come on. Find something else, dude. We've all got jobs now, man. You're being very un-dude.

Racism. Women and the poor hit the hardest. Evil corporations. Starving children. Dirty water. Dirty Air. Dirty laundry. War - what is it good for?

It's amazing how the liberals never change their tune.

Permanent Martial Law

2005-09-28T05:01:00.000-07:00

With all due admiration and reverence, my co-conspirator understated President Bush's remark that,

"It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces -- the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice."

According to the source article, "That would require a change of law, since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids the military from performing civilian law enforcement duties. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is investigating possible reforms to the act, which Pentagon officials consider archaic."

Archaic? Try this for archaic:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

[...]

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.

Liveblogging Santorum

2005-09-28T04:45:00.000-07:00

I've bought Rick Santorum's book It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (ISBN: 1932236295).

My reasons for buying it were twofold: first, a quotation that Reason Online attributed to him stuck fully in my craw,

This whole idea of personal autonomy -- I don't think that most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. And they have this idea that people should be left alone to do what they want to do, that government should keep taxes down, keep regulation down, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, that we shouldn't be involved in cultural issues, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world. And I think that most conservatives understand that we can't go it alone, that there is no such society that I'm aware of where we've had radical individualism and it has succeeded as a culture.

Nonsense. (Such a ridiculous remark merits nothing more than that one-word answer.)

And secondly, the very subtitle of his book offends me, not unlike the way the expression "compassionate conservative" does. American conservative thought in itself is compassionate. It needs no added assurances. Expressions like "compassionate conservatism" and "conservatism and the common good" are akin to something like "left-wing liberal." Why state anything twice? (With the clear exception of the Fifth Amendment.)

A word on the common good, an expression as meaningful as "canned good." "I went to the store to buy a canned good. You hungry?" "Actually, I rather hate hearts of palm." "I didn't buy canned hearts of palm. I bought canned asparagus." "Well, in that case, let's eat!"

I had intended a philosophical treatise on the meaningless of the expression "common good," but Wikipedia has clearly and succinctly beaten me to it. Still, I'd love to know what Santorum believes is a common good, and I'm hoping his book will clear that up. Are trees a common good, for example? According to the Wikipedia article, one must answer "no" to two questions in order for a good to count among "common goods."

First: "Do I compete with others in obtaining the good?"

Second: "Is it physically possible to exclude others in obtaining the good?"

A tree fails the first question, even if it would have passed the second. There is no way to restrain another citizen from chopping down a tree, but you can compete with him for it by chopping it down first.

A ticket to an exclusive golfing club fails the second question, after it passes the first. You can choose a place so high-end that the membership is cost-prohibitive for another, even though you don't directly compete with him for membership.

A painting at an auction fails both questions. You compete directly with other auction attendees, and once you own the painting, you lock it away in your home, so only you and your family can appreciate it.

The armed forces and the postage service pass both questions. If I use the security of the army, there is no reason that you can't, either. And even if I don't use the security, there is no way that I can prevent you from doing so. A brief summary of Article I of the U.S. Constitution might read something like this: "Congress shall pass laws pertaining to the military, the borders, the postage service, and little else."

Curious that the framers of the constitution discovered over 200 years ago that these were our two "common goods," and curious that we're trying to find a broader use for the term. While the armed forces and pony express are the apex of "compassion," we're still trying to make sure that trees, country club memberships and paintings (to say nothing of steroid-free baseball) are also part of the deal.

And in the "That's Not News" category...

2005-09-27T17:46:00.000-07:00

"My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday [Aug. 27] that Louisiana was dysfunctional"

U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd formally announced Wednesday that he will seek a record ninth term in the Senate.

"Rumors supplanted accurate information and media magnified the problem. Rapes, violence and estimates of the dead were wrong."

"Let the Games Begin"

2005-09-27T08:15:00.000-07:00

Bringing the good readers up to date, yesterday I wrote: "All political parties will struggle with the balance between security and the natural right of free men to visit -- and live alongside -- other free men. This is not uniquely a Libertarian Party dilemma."

My compadre's response: "No natural right exists for the movement of free men between borders of sovereign nations, any more than there is a right of free men to trespass on property owned by another."

My response:

I see this as akin to putting the cart before the horse. Sovereign nations exist to protect rights. Rights do not exist to protect sovereign nations.

Some sequential, illustrative, hypothetical examples of why emigration is a natural right:

Example A -- All men are naturally born free, but no free nations exist, only dictatorships. In effect all of the world is a single, global brotherhood of dictatorships, and mobility between "nations" is no ideologically different than mobility between, say, one city and the next.

Example B -- All men are naturally born free, but no free nations exist except one, and the rest are dictatorships. The one free nation is a shining city on a hill, a sanctuary where free men can come together to escape and fight tyranny. Fitting that when Elián González landed on our shores, I don't recall conservatives calling for President Clinton to check his passport for the proper visa or check his bag for a dirty bomb. Why? Because Cuba is our sworn enemy and we acknowledge that González was born free.

Example C -- All men are naturally born free, and the world is -- as it is now -- a blend of free nations and dictatorships. The free nations are collectively a "shining city on a hill," a collection of sanctuaries where free men can come together to escape and fight tyranny.

Example D -- Francis Fukuyama wins the lottery and all nations on the earth are free. In effect all of the world is a single, global brotherhood of free nations, and mobility between "nations" is no ideologically different than mobility between, say, one city and the next.

One technicality, not that you asked: public places must exist, else all is private property, and libertarians believe that property beyond trespass is an inviolable right. In an anarchic world consisting of no public property, mobility is limited to the extents of your land. Otherwise, you risk being shot if you leave the house: hardly a telltale sign of freedom.

You Got What You Wanted, Now Choke On It

2005-09-26T17:29:00.000-07:00

Libertarians are the only adherents to a political philosophy to have their own party. The Libertarian Party must, for the most part, be faithful to it's namesake. This purity is great for the faithful, as they never have to deal with policies that fly completely in the face of their philosophy. It is also why they will never hold power.

The Republican and Democrat Parties, on the other hand, are all about holding power. They adhere to no political philosophy, though the Republicans are considered primarily conservative and the Democrats liberal. However, both parties are full of people of both persuasions and "moderates" who might vote for tougher border enforcement and amnesty in the same week.

Adherents to conservative or liberal philosophies are destined to be disappointed by their parties time and again, as I am today. President Bush is offering the military to take the lead in disaster response here at home. Well, Rush has long said that the liberals view the military as an overblown "Meals on Wheels". But wait, Bush is a conservative, right?

Okay liberal whiners, here you go. You wanted the feds to take the lead in disaster response, you got it. I don't want to hear any bitching in Berkeley when the 3rd Infantry Division comes rolling in after your next earthquake.

Libertarians and Immigration

2005-09-26T09:37:00.000-07:00

Those who stick around will realize that the greatest source of discord between my blogging partner and me is that of illegal immigration.

I hate to use myself as a source, but I just left a comment at another weblog; one that I realize summarizes my views on illegal immigration quite nicely.

All political parties will struggle with the balance between security and the natural right of free men to visit -- and live alongside -- other free men. This is not uniquely a Libertarian Party dilemma.

But I hear you; as a libertarian (lowercase L) I wonder if the Libertarian Party (uppercase L) is struggling at all.

Just In Case You Needed Reminding...

2005-09-26T02:34:00.000-07:00

"The disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life."
--British MP George Galloway, in a September 16, 2002 interview with Simon Hattenstone, for The Guardian

Hollywood Slices?

2005-09-25T14:21:00.001-07:00

In a September 25 column written by A. O. Scott, the New York Times poses the question: has Hollywood gone native on us? Is film a primarily conservative medium anymore? Has cinema turned to the right?

The answer is unambiguously "no," even if Scott tries to prove otherwise. The article follows an embarrassingly predictable path, even for the New York Times, citing recent hits such as The Passion of the Christ, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Just Like Heaven and The Incredibles as key pieces of evidence detailing a measurably rightward arc in film.

There is no mention that Passion is the tenth-ranked film of all time. Statistically speaking, the top-selling "conservative" film ought to be somewhere in, say, the top three. Some found Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith to be openly anti-Bush and transparently mocking of religion, and the latter film currently stands three places higher than Passion. Shrek 2, the sequel to the most openly postmodern film of our era, stands four places higher still.

There is no mention that the slightly Randian picture The Incredibles rests in twenty-ninth place. Statistically speaking, the top-selling "libertarian" film ought to be somewhere above, say, Meet the Fockers. But in this world, the world that people actually inhabit, The Incredibles is a few points behind that other, miserable film. Peruse the other movies in the Top 100 and decide for yourself. But we will proceed with the assumption that motion picture has certainly not become a right-wing medium.

That said, the business of Hollywood -- if not the end product -- is a pure form of capitalism, if not the purest form. To wit:

-- Globalization. Hollywood operates and competes in a virtually borders-free environment, filming in any nation, employing principals, extras and staff of any nationality, and competing domestically against films from all corners of the globe. Yet Hollywood almost never campaigns for artificial trade restrictions. (I should add: "restrictions they would almost certainly receive, if only they asked." Other film industries around the world -- most notably that of France, cannot boast the same l'aissez faire attitude.) Our film industry therefore competes at a terrible disadvantage, facing low foreign labor costs, better scripts, more exotic sets, and national subsidies. So how is it that we ever see Hollywood releases in domestic theaters anymore, given the skewed playing field? Hollywood succeeds by literally speaking truth to power. But what does that mean? Hollywood stays ahead by learning from its competition, by leading the world in technological innovation, by mercilessly hunting down and eliminating stasis in all its forms, by submitting utterly to the laws of supply (budgets, schedules, scripts) and demand (test screenings, adopting successful or prizewinning novels, sequels). And by the practices that follow.

-- Discrimination and Inequality. Hollywood practices wholesale discrimination based on age, gender, ethnicity, looks, general fitness, body style, and talent. The right actor for the part is the right actor for the part, period, irrespective of laws or lawyers. And enormous pay inequalities exist between similar grades of individual actors, from four figures to eight figures, depending on popularity and budget.

-- Self-Regulation. Hollywood self-regulates both ratings systems and branding. Plainly put: Hollywood is the final authority on what films are NC-17 and what films are PG-13, just as Hollywood is the final authority on what films are "documentaries" and what films are "independent," even though both lines continue to blur and shift by necessity.

-- Promotion. Hollywood actively promotes itself, by flying huge billboards, by running enormous print ads, by creating noisy ratio spots, by obnoxious tie-ins, silly magazines, and gaudy award shows. Imagine for a moment the drug industry congratulating itself once annually with the "Pharmies." "In the category of erectile dysfunction, the nominees are...."

-- Property Rights. Hollywood jealously guards its intellectual property, by means of lawsuits, a stern ad campaign, and, yes, footsoldiers staying on message.

Indeed, one might go as far as saying that the business side of Hollywood is an industry model for all industry. Shame that the message side of Hollywood is so skewed in the other direction.

Hurricane Rita vs. Hurricane Katrina

2005-09-24T13:57:00.000-07:00

Order. That is the marked difference in the scenes from Rita and Katrina. Orderly evacuations, orderly protection of property, orderly restoration of services, and an orderly return to homes will soon follow. What is the reason for this? Is it because FEMA and President Bush learned their lesson? Is it because the military was involved early? No. It is due to the competence and diligence of local officials, who had a plan and executed it. It is also due to a phrase that liberals react to like "state's rights", and that is "personal responsibility". People took steps to take care of themselves and did so early.

The Federal Government is good at a very few things. In the realm of responding to disasters, one is logistics, due to massive resources and a first-class military that can spring into action when necessary. The other is throwing obscene amounts of money at any problem. If you are expecting (or, worse, depending on) more than that when the shit comes down, don't be surprised when you are standing on your roof waiving your arms.

Every now and then

2005-09-23T16:06:00.000-07:00

Every now and then, not often mind you, but now and then you see a story that gives you hope that the entire world hasn't gone mad. Here are some stories in contrast to the Democrat's dismal failure in New Orleans. Yeah, the Democrats. Who have been running New Orleans and Louisiana all my life.

Major Victory For Firearms Owners And Freedom In Louisiana

The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

And a lesson from some Texans on how to deal with looters

http://www.blogsofwar.com/looters_strike_in_advance_of_rita

And this story on how the government should deal with looters

Police: Looters arrested in The Heights

There is still sanity left in the world. Thank God I live amongst it.

Louisiana Dispatch

2005-09-23T11:47:00.000-07:00

Blogger Kevin Boyd has this to say about Katrina and her aftermath:

We must change the political climate of the state [of Louisiana] and move it to a more fiscally conservative/libertarian persuasion.

He's right. Freedom means prosperity. And if you don't believe me, drive to Venezuela. (And no, I don't recommend that you drive.)

But it's a heartbreaking essay if you read between the lines. How can we expect that Louisiana ever change? In the post-event chatter, it is clear that big government advocates are now more edified in their beliefs than ever, resolute that more spending, more central planning, more entitlements and more federal relief agencies would have saved New Orleans. Frankly, small government and self-governing advocates have debunked this myth more times than I could count, and I'm not going to try to outwit them here by debunking it further.

One has to wonder if New Orleans is doomed to suffer some Nietzschean form of eternal return, where bad weather is thought to be legislated out of existence by global treaties such as Kyoto, where poverty is exacerbated by anti-poverty measures, where rebuilding is subsidized by a power-drunk federal government, and where the stage is set yet again for another Category 4 hurricane to exact similar carnage. I hope I'm wrong.

Roberts Confirmation

2005-09-22T10:04:00.000-07:00

The power of the Federal Government (and I mean all three branches) has become so overarching that everything is a political issue - even natural disasters. The Roberts confirmation to the Supreme Court is also a political issue. Even though the court, and the judicial branch as a whole, was created to be insulated from political pressures. However, the left has used the courts to advance parts of their agenda that they cannot get passed through federal or state legislatures. Therefore, any appointment is highly political.

It is my belief that judges should be confirmed based on qualifications alone, not on any forecasting on how they might rule on specific, or even general, questions before the court. To realize how far we have gone consider these excerpts from one story on the judiciary committee's vote on Roberts:
"I think he has a real sense for building consensus," said
Specter.

Biden said while he did not doubt Roberts' qualifications for the job, as a representative of the American people he could not vote for Roberts without knowing more about his stance on the right to privacy.

"I knew as little about what Judge Roberts really thought about issues after the hearings as I did before the hearing. This makes it very hard for me," she [Feinstein] said.

"It may turn out that he will be an outstanding chief justice but I can't say with confidence that I know on a sufficient number of constitutional issues how he will rule or what his position is," said the former presidential hopeful [Kerry]. "I still find that something essential is missing - a genuine exchange of information and exchange of ideas."

So, this is where we have come. A Supreme Court Justice must build consensus? He must have stances on issues, and be open to an exchange of ideas? What ever happened to interpreting and applying the law?

The Tyranny of FEMA

2005-09-22T08:34:00.000-07:00

I've not read Jacob Sullum's For Your Own Good, The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health, but in light of the Do Rebuild New Orleans-Don't Rebuild New Orleans dialogue, something tells me I can translate the apparently paradoxical "Tyranny of Public Health" clause.

The dialogue begins something like this: "Should there be a national policy about rebuilding New Orleans?"

The self-evident response: "Absolutely not. As early as July 4, 1776, we recognized the 'pursuit of happiness' as a basic human right. Where people build -- and why -- is a matter of private, individual choice."

Then, "But if New Orleans is rebuilt, and stands to suffer another hurricane and levee collapse at some time in the future, and if it is a forewent conclusion that the federal government will bear the reconstruction costs, why should the question of rebuilding not be a national one?"

When conservatives and self-governing advocates speak of the tyranny of FEMA, it is not the individual authoritarian decisions they are referring to. FEMA's actions (such as preventing Wal-Mart and Red Cross personnel from delivering necessary resources) are only the sneeze. The existence of FEMA itself is the case of walking pneumonia.

Federalism purists will point to the promote the general welfare clause of the Preamble of the Constitution. Frankly, I agree that the cataclysm of our lifetime merits some manner of federal response. But it frames the mandatory evacuations and the future, inevitable zoning despotism in a whole new way.

And it shines new light on the otherwise perplexing term "the tyranny of public health." If I'm paying for your emergency gastric bypass surgery, it makes your diet and exercise routine my business.

But, paradoxically, your diet and exercise routine are absolutely none of my business.

Food for thought.