Category: Politics

Around the Web: Vigorous Nodding Edition

John Cole assesses the Senate’s asinine behavior in passing the anti-liberty FISA bill with telecom immunity and pursuing the NFL over Spygate perfectly:

There is a very real and perverse possibility that the NFL will face tougher sanctions for spying on practice squads and covering it up than the telecoms and this President will face for spying on the citizenry and lying about it.

That the Democrats caved so easily on the former is another reason to ignore them as a party of leadership.

Next, Jacob Sullum dissects the problem with too many science journalists and editors:

Any journalist who doesn’t feel comfortable going beyond what appears in a medical journal to put a study’s findings in context and offer caveats where appropriate has no business writing about science. Reporters can’t be experts on everything, but they can ask smart questions and seek informed comments regarding a study’s potential weaknesses. If news organizations refuse to do so on the grounds that the study was peer reviewed and therefore must be faultless, they might as well just reprint researchers’ press releases. Which is pretty much what they do, all too often.

This is essentially every bit of “journalism” in America regarding circumcision over the last 125 2½ years. For example.

Finally, Colman McCarthy wrote in yesterday’s Washington Post on the current steroids brouhaha in Congress:

This is the second time members of Congress have posed as drug-busters cleaning up the great American pastime. Except that drug use — whether involving legal or illegal drugs — already is the American pastime, and it is far bigger than baseball.

I’m hoping that Roger Clemens polls the members of Waxman’s committee on their use of performance-enhancing drugs. Start with Viagra. Or Cialis, ready for action “when the moment is right” — say, a congressman stumbling home after a late-night floor vote on an earmark bill. Clemens might ask the members how many need shots of caffeine drugs to get themselves up and out every morning. He might ask the members how often they reach for another shot of Jack Daniels to enhance their performance while grubbing for bucks from lobbyists at fundraisers. And before leaving Capitol Hill, he should grill the allegedly clean-living baseball reporters on how many of them sit in the press box enhancing their bodies with alcohol, nicotine and caffeine drugs. And a blunt or two when night games go extra innings and deadline nerves need steadying.

My stance remains unchanged. McCarthy’s essay holds up a mirror to the hypocrisy of today’s moralizers, both inside and outside of government.

I came, I saw, I got the sticker.

As I said I would, I voted for Sen. Obama today. I don’t feel better about the world. I’m not relieved that change is on the way. My teeth aren’t straighter. My hair isn’t shinier. I didn’t win the lottery. Is that because I don’t believe enough?

For what it’s worth, I’m standing by my refusal to vote for either party’s candidate in November. Having already judged Sen. Obama the least problematic, relatively speaking, I’ll ignore Senators McCain and Clinton until another day. But this misguided enthusiasm for Obama because of his promises of help with college tuition from a voter¹ looking for a vending machine candidate and Radley Balko’s concise rebuttal of the stupidity of such an offer sum up my antipathy to registering a general election vote for even this least problematic candidate. Barring a stunning development or a good third party candidate (i.e. not Bloomberg), I’m voting for myself for president in November. I already have three votes lined up. Join the parade early. (I’d add often, but that’s the modus operandi of the two major parties.)

I’ll leave you with a scene from my voting experience today. When the woman in front of me walked to the check-in table when it was her turn, she countered any optimism I’m supposed to have about democracy (in the naked, majoritarian sense) with the following:

Volunteer: What’s your name?

Woman: <states name>

Volunteer: <after verifying name> Which primary would you like to vote in?

Woman: I don’t know.

Volunteer: You have to pick one.

Woman: What are the choices?

Volunteer: <pointing> There are the sample ballots.

Woman: <slowly reads the two ballots, then points> This one.

She chose the Republican ballot. I’m stereotyping guessing she voted for Huckabee because of his affiliation and his opposition to teh gay. That’s probably not fair, but I’m trying to gauge my world – my neighbors – with incomplete information. My theory fits my district, unfortunately.

Any dissenters from that theory, with only the limited information I gave?

¹ Via Andrew Sullivan.

Virginia Primary Endorsement

I may not get to vote in next week’s primary in Virginia. That would be a shame because I’d decided against my own objections to every candidate running to cast a vote against Hillary Clinton. As I’ve written, I don’t buy into Obama’s marketing plan of “Change, rah rah”. I just don’t care, and the cynical part of me hates the unquestioning pep rally feel of this quest for a Dear Leader. I want specifics, and since those specifics I want are what the politician will stop doing, I’m not interested in Senator Obama’s progressive gobbledygook. But Hillary Clinton must be stopped.

I’ve thought about the reasons why, as I’ve come to this conclusion recently. Megan McArdle almost summed it up yesterday:

Barack Obama. No surprise here. He’s slightly to the left of Hillary on goals, but he’s well to the right of her on process. His goal is not more government so that we can all be caught up in some giant, expressive excercise of collectively enforcing our collective will on all the other people standing around us in the collective; his goal is improving transparency and minimizing government intrusion, while rectifying specific outcomes. His economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, is brilliant. Plus, he doesn’t have Hillary Clinton’s deep administrative ties, which means two good things: less capture by the bureaucracy, and arguably less ability to get things done. And frankly, I’m creeped out by the notion of a presidential succession that goes Bush . . . Clinton . . . Bush . . . Clinton.

Again, I don’t like what Sen. Obama is proposing in his never-discussed agenda. I will not vote for him in November if he’s the nominee because he is offering us what he thinks we need. But he needs to be the nominee because Clinton is offering us what she knows we need. Her potential to change her course in the face of contrary evidence is on par with George W. Bush’s mastery of that skill.

I don’t like the short-term if Senator Obama is elected. The chance is too great that there will be a kumbaya grace period for his agenda with the Democratic Congress, but long-term, yeah, I think he will display a lesser ability to get things done. It’s a point made by a friend in another conversation recently; it’s a good one.

Since Virginia doesn’t require party affiliation to vote in a primary, I could vote in the Republican race. But why would I bother? As soulless and unpalatable as he is, I like the idea that Romney would have very little political capital to get things done. However, I also think he would sell any one of us out to another if he thought it would help him. Soulless is as soulless does. But he also has no chance of defeating McCain here, so I’m not interested in wasting my vote. Vote None of the Above.

I wonder how much they’ll sell their candidate for on eBay.

Who wants majoritarianism? Some voters – I’m already shuddering – in Wisconsin showed up at their polling places this morning to vote in the Super Tuesday primaries. At some polling stations, they lined up as early as 6:30 this morning. The article failed to mention whether or not these voters brought sufficient supplies to last them until Wisconsin’s primary on February 19th.

If you can’t even figure out the right day to show up to vote, why should I ever agree to subject my rights to your opinion? I’ll continue to trust only in limited government rather than the alternatives offered in today’s American political landscape desert.

Link via To the People.

I don’t know which post I like better.

Two excellent posts from Cato@Liberty. First, Michael Tanner provides an update on how well RomneyCare is working in Massachusetts.

Faced with rising costs that threaten to put the program $150–400 million per year over budget, the Massachusetts Connector Authority is now adopting a number of changes to RomneyCare. They include:

  1. Pressuring insurers not to increase premiums (ie. premium caps).
  2. Ordering insurers to cut reimbursements to hospitals and physicians by 3–5 percent.
  3. Reduce the choices available to consumers.

It seems that in the fight between economics and political dreams, economics wins. <sarcasm>How shocking.</sarcasm>

Second, Jim Harper discusses an issue separating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with implications far beyond the purported scope of what’s barely been discussed.

Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) disagree quite starkly on whether illegal immigrants should be licensed — or, more accurately, on whether driver licensing and proof of immigration status should be linked.
…

The right answer here isn’t obvious, but it is important.

Many people believe that illegal immigrants shouldn’t be “rewarded” with drivers’ licenses. Fair enough: the rule of law is important. There’s also a theory that denying illegal immigrants “benefits” like driver licensing will make the country inhospitable enough that they will leave. This has not borne out, however. Denying illegal immigrants licenses has merely caused unlicensed and untrained driving, with the hit-and-run accidents and higher insurance rates that flow from that.

The major reason, though, why I agree with Senator Obama is because the linking of driver licensing and immigration status is part of the move to convert the driver’s license into a national ID card. Mission-creep at the country’s DMVs is not just causing growth in one of the least-liked bureaucracies. It’s creating the infrastructure for direct regulatory control of individuals by the federal government.

I agree with this. As a libertarian concern about unintended consequences drives some of my disdain for anything more than limited government. But as a libertarian who understands a little about history and tyrants, concern about intended consequences drives me more. Stupidity in government is bad. Evil in government is worse. Any politician who supports a national ID system is evil and must be stopped from enacting his or her plans.

Watch them lead the dog’s tail.

I have two issues with this beyond the obvious fact that it involves an economic stimulus package that will only stimulate inflation, debt, and tax increases:

Senate Democratic leaders yesterday put off an expected showdown over an economic stimulus plan until next week, worrying that the absence of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) could doom efforts to force changes to the package fashioned by House leaders and President Bush.

“I still have two Democratic senators” on the campaign trail, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said. “Next Tuesday is Super Tuesday, and they’re both very busy, as is Senator [John] McCain. So I probably can’t get them back here until Monday, but I need them back.”

Point the first: They’re sitting United States Senators, being paid by the citizens of the United States for a job they are clearly ignoring. They are not being paid to campaign for their next job. If the economic stimulus package is so important and two Senators running for president can’t be bothered to put their paid job before their ambitions, they’re not people any sane person should want in a position of power.

(We may be getting a bonus that they’re derelict in their duty because the economic stimulus package is irrelevant to economic growth and a waste of future taxpayer money. That’s the rare positive unintended consequence from government and politicians. The cynic in me realizes the delay means more time to lard the final bill.)

Point the second: Senators Obama and Clinton have had years in office to be involved with important changes. They could’ve stepped up and sponsored a bill to end the noxious discrimination of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. But Obama hasn’t. Clinton hasn’t. Why should I trust either to lead now?

While Obama’s answer is typical politician lying through omission, Clinton’s answer in the linked video is particularly repugnant. Does she honestly believe that the ability of a repeal to pass the approval of a Republican Congress and President matters to the validity of the underlying principle? The proper response to bigotry and ignorance is to expose them, not cower in their presence. Force the issue as many times as it takes. Pandering only demonstrates an unwillingness to lead in potentially uncomfortable situations.

Dereliction and pandering. It’s shameful that a major party can’t nominate anyone better than Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

All Your Problems Are Belong To Us

A sane person barely trusts politicians to perform their limited, legitimate duties. No sane person could possibly believe that expanding their power beyond that small scope is anything but a terrible idea.

With that in mind, Sen. Arlen Specter has a stunning belief in the government’s boundaries, even by politician standards. He wants an explanation from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on why the NFL destroyed the Spygate tapes.

“That requires an explanation,” Specter told The [New York] Times. “The NFL has a very preferred status in our country with their antitrust exemption. The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game. It’s analogous to the CIA destruction of tapes, or any time you have records destroyed.”

The destruction of tapes proving that a football team cheated against another football team is analogous to the government’s destruction of tapes proving that it tortures prisoners. I can’t possibly give that any further boost. Sen. Specter forced the fullest possible amount of grotesqueness into this conversation.

He went on to say:

“I don’t think you have to have a law broken to have a legitimate interest by the Congress on the integrity of the game … What if there was something on the tapes we might want to be subpoenaed, for example? You can’t destroy it. That would be obstruction of justice,” Specter said to The Times.

If violation of the law (even illegitimate laws) need not be the criteria, is it reasonable to assume that we’ll soon have an anti-tape destruction bill zipping through Congress to prevent Joe in Milwaukee from destroying his tapes of that night in Tijuana where he got just a wee bit tipsy and took pictures of himself giggling at the window displays advertising drugs that aren’t legally sold over the counter in the United States. I imagine such a bill would garner 97 votes¹ in the Senate and 434 votes² in the House, just as soon as the economic stimulus package passes.

Anyone else think this is grounds to remove Specter from office? He hasn’t broken any law, but he’s clearly not mentally capable of carrying out the duties of a United States Senator.

¹ Senators McCain, Obama, and Clinton are too busy to do their jobs vote.

² Ron Paul will vote against it, although he will stuff it full of pork for his constituents. But he’ll vote against it, so that makes it okay.

Hallelujah!

Excellent news out of Virginia’s 11th Congressional District:

U.S. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III said yesterday that he will retire from Congress at the end of the year, …

“It’s time for me to take a sabbatical,” Davis (R-Va.) said.

Good riddance, although I’m sure he’ll still walk the halls of Congressional offices as a lobbyist. Whether he supported improper moralizing against civil liberties, improper moralizing against steroids in Major League Baseball, disregard for the basics of Constitutional justice, advocating for “democracy” over the plain text of the Constitution, or generally being awful at reading comprehension and constituent relations, he can’t leave fast enough for my liking. I hope the door hits him on the way out.

So, anyone want to support a small-l libertarian candidate in an independent bid¹ for Davis’ seat?

¹ I’m not necessarily joking. I’m constitutionally eligible, and I’m as qualified as any current member of the House of Representatives. Of course, your support will buy you nothing unless what you want is a vote against everything the Congress unconstitutionally does. So, almost everything it does. Then your support is just sponsoring what would already happen.

Brief Thoughts on the GOP Debate

After American Idol and the few minutes of the idiotic insult from Lost’s producers that I could stand, I watched the last 8 minutes or so of the GOP debate in California. Aside from the laughable attempt at symbolism hammered on viewers by placing the stage in front of the President Reagan’s Air Force One, not one of these candidates is worthy of the presidency. In no particular order:

Mike Huckabee
He is slick and empty. He is made entirely of corn-pone, and only those who appreciate corn-pone politics could possibly buy him as credible.

Ron Paul
Not every question is an invitation to discuss the gold standard. I liked his answer that the president’s job is to get out of the way of the economy until he veered off the rails at the end into Iraq. It’s a valid point, but not in a question about the president’s role in the economy. Leaders don’t hyperventilate at every question. (Ron Paul’s problem, aside from too much of the message, is the messenger himself.)

John McCain
I couldn’t listen to anything he said. His smug smiles and attitude were insufferable. He thinks he’s pious and his presidency would attempt to make everyone exactly as pious as him. Why the media loves him is beyond me.

Mitt Romney
Does he ever stop to listen to himself as he rambles, making stuff up? His answer to the last question (something about “would Reagan endorse you for president?”) was a rambling, breathless collage of incongruent talking points. He will say anything. He can’t possibly be so stupid as to believe this statement, which demands to be quoted verabitm:

Ronald Reagan would say no to a 50-cent-per-gallon charge on Americans for energy that the rest of the world doesn’t have to pay.

In the United Kingdom, the fuel duty begins at £0.5035 per litre. The exchange rate is currently £0.5034 per $. Britons are paying $1 per liter in tax on gas. That’s approximately $3.78 per gallon in tax, excluding VAT. Gas in the Northern Virginia area is approximately $2.90 per gallon for regular unleaded. I’m fairly certain gas is not being sold at a loss, with businesses chipping in $0.88 per gallon in gas tax. Mitt Romney is an idiot, a liar, or both.

I’m more excited about the contestants on American Idol than I am about any of the Republican candidates for president.

Look before you leap is wise. We leap without looking.

Former Senator Bob Graham has an essay in today’s Washington Post detailing “how to end the gridlock” in Washington, as if that’s a wise goal. It’s not, because bipartisanship is a four-letter word that involves more expenditures on bad ideas. (e.g. economic stimulus packages) Among other reasons, partisan gridlock gave us a balanced budget in the ’90s. If sole partisan control of the government in the ’00s can’t maintain that, I’m hard-pressed to understand how some bipartisan consensus will improve the situation. Anger can be good.

In the essay Graham offers more than I care to challenge here. I’d like to focus on one problem and one solution he identifies. First, the example:

Gas prices remain high, but we still have no real energy policy.

We have an energy policy. It’s part of our farm subsidies. Sure, gas prices remain “high” (a subjective term), but our food prices are now rising as a result of our current attempt at an energy policy. Aside from generic constitutional concerns over what our government involves itself in, the appearances of unintended, though certainly not unpredictable, consequences should give us pause before we add more grease to the government engine in an effort to get more done. I prefer reality-based analysis using evidence.

Next, one of his solutions:

The media must insist that future presidential debates each focus on a single issue. Candidates can hide behind sound bites when a debate covers every and all subjects. But when candidates must spend a full 90 minutes discussing health care or national defense, voters will learn who is for real and who isn’t.

It’s nice to think this might improve our situation, but it won’t. First, politicians are liars. Second, the electorate isn’t interested in calling politicians on their lies. See yesterday’s post. The majority of voters in America aren’t interested in details. They’re interested in the sales pitch. Whoever promises to make the United States government a larger vending machine for the voter’s chosen goods, while adding in a little bit of organized hatred for the voter’s preferred target of derision, wins that voter’s heart. It does not matter if the plan is wise or even feasible. It only matters that it’s promised.

Look at the adulation Sen. Obama is now getting. What was the last policy proposal he discussed in any detail approaching 90 seconds? When he spent his campaign offering proposals, his campaign was in the toilet. When he started relying more on concepts like hope and change, absent any details, his campaign soared¹. If he gets the nomination, then, maybe, voters will start kicking the tires on his proposals. If voters genuinely cared for specifics, they’d engage in their fact-finding when the field is larger. But they don’t. The only rational response is to limit what they can do with the government, not require them to be more detailed about the extensive list of what they’d like to do.

¹ I’m putting a simplistic touch on this for effect. It’s more complicated than my statement, but not materially, I think.