Listening to Howard Stern this morning, he briefly discussed the upcoming New York primary. One his listeners e-mailed to say that he hadn’t decided who to vote for between Clinton and Obama. The listener said he ultimately decided on Clinton because he liked Gary Dell’Abate’s reasoning that she was in the White House with Bill when he balanced the budget in the ’90s, so she probably knows how to do it again.
I fear for our country sometimes often.
Much is being made of the nonsensical, fact-free attack on libertarianism in this article by Benjamin Storey and Jenna Silber Storey on John McCain and virtue. Those arguments are valid, but I’m stopped by this:
The main current of opposition to McCain faults him for departures from strict free-market ideology. McCain’s decisions about tax cuts, campaign finance, and greenhouse gas caps may be prudent or imprudent, and it is important to debate their practical effects on our economy and on our nation’s well-being. Nonetheless, if conservatives succeed in marginalizing anyone who does not toe the doctrinaire line of their free market ideology, they will lose an important–indeed the most central and precious–aspect of their creed: the faith in the virtue of individuals to make a good society for themselves, rather than the faith in an ideology to make a good society for us.
Faith in the virtue of individuals to make a good society for themselves… is not free-market “ideology”? What am I missing? That’s exactly the point of free-market economics. Rather than some central decision-maker, even someone as “virtuous” as John McCain, each person working with and against¹ each other can will make a better society.
The article continues with a defense of free markets. The authors seem to get stuck on ideology, as if a commitment to free markets implies some specific outcome. Other than the commonly known fact that the iPod’s planned appearance, granted by decree to Apple, was on page 347 of Milton Freedman’s The Free-Market Ideologue’s Complete Guide to Acceptable Progress and The Organizations Granted Such Opportunities², I’m not sure how any thinking person can come to such a conclusion. Economic progress is almost by definition unexpected and devastating to the old ways. An ideologue wouldn’t accept such reckless change to his status. But then, I’m also invested heavily in buggy technology. We’re going to run out of oil someday, since the free market has no idea what to do about the situation.
Naturally, as an ideologue, I’m required to ignore the helping hand of government in trying to make us free from dependence on foreign oil. And those reports of rising food prices as an unintended consequence of government’s well-thought-out subsidies to turn America’s corn into gas? Those reports are shoveled from the stables where I’m keeping the horses that will pull my buggy.
Now I’m bored³. Prudent leadership is a euphemism for central planning. It doesn’t matter if the Dear Leader is John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Stalin, or Jesus Christ. Any will imposed on another for his own alleged benefit without his consent is not liberty. In the absence of liberty, political and/or economic mandate is not virtuous.
As for the “critique” of libertarianism, aside from my suggestion that the authors invest in a dictionary of political terms, kudos are in order to Matt Welch at reason for getting to the point:
Turns out there’s a pretty important difference between wishing the government out of people’s free transactions, and assuming those transactions are wonderful (let alone wanting to force them upon the rest of society).
But I’m partial to Will Wilkinson’s pitch-perfect dismissal:
National Greatness Conservatism is like a grotesque wood-paneled den stuffed with animal heads, mounted swords, garish carpets, and a giant roaring fire. Only the most vulgar tuck in next to that fire, light a fat cigar, and think they’ve really got it all figured out.
I hate wood-paneling.
¹ The two are not mutually-exclusive or counter-productive.
² Freedman’s companion volume, How to Oppress the Proletariat, is a great read.
³ If I chose to continue, I’d remark that “greed is good” advocacy in the free market is distinctly different from the irrational belief that “greed is good” has a place among our “prudent leaders”.
Free speech be damned darned:
The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a $1.4 million fine against 52 ABC Television Network stations over a 2003 broadcast of cop drama NYPD Blue.
The fine is for a scene where a boy surprises a woman as she prepares to take a shower. The scene depicted “multiple, close-up views” of the woman’s “nude buttocks” according to an agency order issued late Friday.
The FCC is only attempting to fine ABC stations in the Central and Mountain time zones because they aired the show before 10 p.m. Even that logic violates the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law”, but okay, fine, at least the FCC is following one rule limiting its reach. But allow me to play semantics for a moment.
The agency said the show was indecent because “it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs _ specifically an adult woman’s buttocks.”
Ahem:
Function of the skin
The skin has several important functions, including:
…
- Waste disposal. The skin is a minor source of waste disposal. Sweat glands located in the skin excrete waste products such as urea (a byproduct of protein metabolism) therefore eliminating them from the body.
Every actor on television violates the letter of the law by revealing an excretory organ. And every athlete during the Super Bowl next Sunday will presumably cause Fox liability by sweating, thereby engaging in an excretory activity. I will be complaining.
I’m engaging in hyperbole, but I’m not joking.
In an obscene requirement, ABC defended the artistic merit of showing a woman’s buttock, generating this response:
“The law is simple,” FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate wrote in a statement yesterday. “If a broadcaster makes the decision to show indecent programming, it must air between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. This is neither difficult to understand nor burdensome to implement.”
But it is an unconstitutional burden. Apparently “Congress shall make no law…” is difficult to understand. I’m not sure how, since it’s only five words, and only the first has more than one syllable. Perhaps that’s the trouble. Our leaders representatives do not understand the word Congress because it is too complicated. Idiots, every one of them.
Take joy until Congress and the FCC catch on. Any time you flip on your television, you’re being exposed to indecent material. Naughty, naughty.
This is only in the House so far, so there’s a chance, however slim, for cooler heads to prevail. I’m not counting on it.
Democratic and Republican congressional leaders reached a tentative deal Thursday on tax rebates of $300 to $1,200 per family and business tax cuts to jolt the slumping economy.
…Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.
Families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package. Rebates would go to people earning below a certain income cap, likely individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples with incomes of $150,000 or less.
Before addressing the plan, is the economy “slumping”? On what economic data is everyone falling all over themselves to give away public treasure? On what economic data is everyone reporting that the economy is in a recession (allegedly) requiring government intervention? Speculation rarely makes for good public policy.
Now, about that plan… This is naked welfare. If a “taxpayer” hasn’t paid any taxes, he is not a taxpayer. Under this plan, he will be a welfare recipient. If that’s what Congress intends to do, it should be honest about it. Because politicians are involved, they can’t be honest. Instead, they wrap their redistributionist garbage in “for the children”. Children do not stimulate¹ the economy.
As for subjecting this welfare to an income cap (there is a $3,000 income floor), is there an expectation that lower income non-taxpayers will spend the rebate free money better than others? Are there restrictions on how the money may be spent? Momentarily ignoring income distinctions, there will be a deadweight loss of some portion that will inevitably be spent on unproductive consumption (e.g. beer and cigarettes). There is no concern for the effect of this nonsense, only whether or not it buys more votes.
To those receiving my tax payments, you’re not welcome. To those distributing my tax payments, you’re economically illiterate scumbags.
More thoughts, both specific and general, here, here, and here.
¹ Stealing money from X and giving it back to X can no more stimulate the economy than stealing from X to give to Y. Welfare is an additional problem, but it is not the only problem. President Bush’s preferred “solution” would fail to achieve economic stimulus just as well.
Following on my last entry, via The Liberty Papers, I see that Mike Huckabee is spinning (video here):
On last night’s Hannity & Colmes, Colmes cited Huckabee’s quote about changing the Constitution and said, “That makes people a little worried. It sounds like you’re looking to have a theocratic state when you make statements like that, talking about changing the Constitution in keeping with your view of God.”
Huckabee responded, “Not at all. On two things. The context is two things: Human life amendment, which I support and which has been in the Republican platform since 1980. And, by the way, Fred Thompson doesn’t support it. Nor does John McCain. And yet it’s part of our platform. And it’s a very important part of our platform to say that human life is something we’re going to stand for. And the second thing is traditional marriage. So those are the two areas in which I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting that we rewrite the Constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance. I want to make that very clear… Except for you, Alan. I think maybe you should, maybe you should obey those things.”
Colmes said drily, “Well, thank you for the suggestion.”
Does he really think we’re all that stupid? He didn’t make a mistake in saying what he really meant. He said it with the right words. He’s just not happy he got called on his anti-American, anti-Constitution crap.
But I’ll take him at his revised word, if only temporarily, in order to demonstrate exactly why he’s using selective interpretations of the Bible because he is a bigoted fraud more interested in his codifying his bigotry than in hiding his lying. Remember the Bible passage I quoted in my last entry:
If a man has two wives, …
That is a statement of fact, not a refutation of the idea that a man may have two wives. Will Huckabee’s proposed amendment in order to keep consistent with his God’s law include a provision legalizing polygamy in the United States?
Mike Huckabee is a bigot and a liar. (The two flaws have a “strange” habit of appearing in the same person. Interesting.)
Via Jason Pye at The Liberty Papers, Mike Huckabee has a frightening understanding of how a secular, liberty-minded nation should use its government:
Using his selective reading and logic skills, I’ll suggest the 29th Amendment:
The Right of the Firstborn
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.
Polygamy. Yeah, those’ll look good on us when viewed in hindsight by more heathen enlightened generations in the future. But, no worries. God’s law. Who are we to challenge that?
Mr. Pye makes the same argument I’ve made, that the United States people “are electing a President, not a pastor.” There is no place for this in our political landscape. He has the right to say it, of course, but the only valid response to him should be dismissive shunning of his earthly ambitions by every voter.
I lose myself in sports. I’m invested in the Phillies, Redskins, and Hokies far more than is probably sane. I like that I can follow along, enjoy the highs and lows, and pretend that my involvement turns them into we. But I know that none of it matters. There are no consequences. I can still rant about a blown call in the 2000 National Championship game because I know I’m correct and know that it still amounts to nothing without devaluing my enjoyment of the process.
That’s why I’m hoping for a mild, maybe even complete comeback by Hillary Clinton. I think she’ll be a terrible president. She has all the wrong impulses and inclinations. But her lightning rod personality has a chance to create gridlock better than Barack Obama.
Too much of the fawning over Sen. Obama right now borders on fanaticism. Enthusiasm is wonderful, but politics has consequences that matter. Lives are affected, with too many altered for the worse. A mindless search for a Dear Leader will not improve America, even if it’s wrapped in rhetoric of change. Details matter. On those Sen. Obama differs little from Sen. Clinton. Neither is offering much that is sensible.
When General Manager Pat Gillick explains that changes to the Phillies will increase their our chances of winning a championship, I accept that he’s biased. I also look at the evidence and determine if his claim is logical. In those times when I don’t like the evidence, I find ways to spin it. I know I’m being irrational, embracing a dream over logic. I want to believe. That’s okay. Again, there are no real consequences.
When Sen. Obama explains that changes to our government’s policies will increase America’s chances of achieving fairness/growth/whatever, I accept that he’s biased. I also look at the evidence and determine if his claim is logical. I won’t assume that everyone will conclude like me that the evidence demonstrates his claims are illogical. But how many have actually looked at the details? How many can state even one policy he stands for other than “change”? There are real consequences.
I will not cheer Sen. Clinton’s popular vote victory in New Hampshire. I will cheer if it means more people will begin to ask questions to look beyond the empty noise the front-runners offer.
James Kirchick’s article revealing the many instances of racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic commentary in Ron Paul’s newsletters over the last two decades is damning. I’m willing to consider the possibility that these were ghostwritten without his input, although the best conclusion is that he has very poor skills in exercising judgment and oversight. Those are not winning attributes for a president. Regardless, since I haven’t supported Rep. Paul’s candidacy, I feel no need to justify or defend him further. I’m more interested in the larger issue.
From Radley Balko, at Hit & Run:
Of course, Paul was never going to win. So the real concern here is what happens to the momentum for the ideas his campaign has revived. The danger is that the ignorance in those newsletters becomes inextricably tethered to the ideas that have drawn people to Paul’s campaign, and soils those ideas for years to come.
…I also fear that newly-minted Paulites on sites like Reddit, Digg, Slashdot and the like—whose first exposure to libertarianism was Ron Paul—are going to click over to the New Republic piece in the coming days, become disillusioned, and assume that this is really what libertarianism is all about.
…Paul’s success and media coverage have exposed a large portion of the country to libertarian ideas for the first time. Before yesterday, that was a good thing. But now I’m not so sure. If this new audience’s first exposure to libertarianism now comes with all of this decidedly unlibertarian baggage—that many may now wrongly associate with libertarian ideas—maybe it would have been better if Paul’s campaign had sputtered out months ago, and we waited a cycle or two for someone else to come along to tap the sentiment.
From an Andrew Sullivan reader:
The backlash from all of this will be harsh, no doubt. It might even leave a long-lasting mark on libertarian conservatism. I think we deserve it.
Sensible libertarians do not deserve any such backlash. I have not run wild promoting Rep. Paul just because I wanted to see what I value reflected in his campaign when it was never there. Maybe it’s a cynicism I’ve developed from looking at how government works and how people with illiberal, anti-liberty positions manipulate the government that made me skeptical of Paul. I’d say it’s probably more a wonkish desire to know details. I can’t claim perfection there because I do have a filter. But when a candidate like Paul espouses ideas that are flawed so close to the surface, I’m not willing to set aside critical thinking in favor of enthusiasm and hope.
I don’t think the problem has been libertarians supporting Rep. Paul. We all make compromises at some point. But we must be honest about them. We should talk about ideas, and when something makes them more possible to discuss in public forums, we should seek to use that opportunity. Still, labels matter. With even a cursory look at his positions, it was always clear that Rep. Paul is not a libertarian.
So now the careless have hitched our principles to an unstable vehicle of political expediency. Why? We knew that we weren’t getting a libertarian president in November, even if Rep. Paul was a libertarian. We’re often accused of being too rigid in adhering to how little government should do. There is no justification for abandoning that rigidity at the first whiff of minor success in the public consciousness. First impressions.
Now I’m angry at being forced into guilt-by-association. Thanks.
P.S. Title reference here.
While not automatically opposed to a presidential candidate giving sermons, Mike Huckabee scares me. Giving a guest sermon at a church in New Hampshire yesterday, he said:
“When we become believers, it’s as if we have signed up to be part of God’s Army, to be soldiers for Christ,” Huckabee told the enthusiastic audience.
That mindset will reverse the push to Christianize the United States Military. I’m not interested. I don’t have a problem with religious soldiers, but our military must remain secular. We’re already too close to destroying that. Huckabee is not a step away from the brink.
“When you give yourself to Christ, some relationships have to go,” he said. “It’s no longer your life; you’ve signed it over.”
Likening service to God to service in the military, Huckabee said “there is suffering in the conditioning for battle” and “you obey the orders.”
Huckabee’s economic populism reflects this. Citizens sign their lives over to the state so that the state may save them, including those who don’t vote for Huckabee. Even if it doesn’t reach into religion, the state knows better what you should and shouldn’t do.
I didn’t realize the ABC debate was last night. Knowing about them normally wouldn’t change my lack of desire to watch them, but I was in an angry stupor from watching the Redskins destroy the Seahawks themselves. I was in a mood to watch something that would make me angry, so I stuck around when I turned it on. I missed the Republican portion of the “1 Night, 2 Parties” scheme because of the game, but really, so what? There’s only one guy there I’d consider voting for, and I’ve already explained several reasons why I won’t vote for him. Even then, none of them stands a decent chance of winning, unless the Democrats stay as stupid and spineless as they’ve proven over the last few years. Based on last night’s debate, they could go either way.
I’m writing from memory, as I didn’t take notes and don’t feel like reading the transcript. With that, the candidates:
Sen. Barack Obama
He knows it will sell to claim that we can fix Social Security by eliminating the wage cap. I have no doubt he also knows this is disingenuous to any claim of fairness. Social Security is already progressive, aside from being obscenely ineffective. “The rich” do not receive the same return on their taxes. Their benefits are means-tested to shift some of their taxes to “the poor”. Eliminating the wage cap will only make the system more progressive. Any talk of “the rich” paying their fair share is a lie.
Sen. Obama was very effective at answering the likability question. He managed to disarm the crowd and moderator with talk of the Redskins and general chit-chat. In the talk of writing, he showed what Clinton said.
It proves nothing about his ability to be president, of course, but as Sen. Clinton said, people voted for Bush because they would like to have a beer with him. I don’t think Clinton misunderstands the value of this point; she’s just incapable of exuding likability.
Also, his honesty that a cap-and-trade system would cause harm was good. He’s wrong about cap-and-trade, but at least he’s only partially delusional.
Sen. Hillary Clinton
I didn’t like her before, and I don’t like her after. I didn’t learn anything new about her other than she really, really believes her own marketing and the silly idea that wanting something to happen in Washington means it’s a foregone conclusion. And, she’s scared. She spent the entire evening attacking Sen. Obama with rambling, non-linear attacks that left him with too many opportunities to pick and choose his rebuttal. He did. Even Edwards defended him. She’s toast, so I’m done worrying about her.
Gov. Bill Richardson
He has a decent notion of what a principle might be, which is a welcome change. But he’s mental on foreign policy. I’m not sure he has a great grasp on domestic policy, either. I found myself thinking, “I like him. Too bad he’s not doing better.” Then I remembered that the vote is for president. No.
Former Sen. John Edwards
He’s gotten slicker, in the most non-complimentary way. He’s a snake-oil salesmen to his core. It’s very personal for him, as he reminded us many, many times. Government can do anything if the president just cares hard enough.
He’s a complete economic populist. I don’t understand how people find his pitch reasonable. He wants to fight for all American people against the evil corporations and special interests. And “the rich”. Right, but aren’t they Americans, too? This is how he demonstrates that equality isn’t about equal. I’m not interested.
I also thought he had the stupidest mistake of the night. The other candidates should’ve jumped on him when he gave examples that he doesn’t hate all corporations. AT&T? The same AT&T that helped the Bush Administration circumvent the Constitution and spy on Americans without warrants? Surely helping its workers unionize (Really?) isn’t comparable. Caving to a calculated talking point rather than expressing an in-depth understanding of an issue is not a quality I want in a president.
Finally, Edwards used the case of Nataline Sarkisyan:
Doctors for 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan wanted to give her a liver transplant, but her insurer, Cigna HealthCare, initially denied their request on grounds that the transplant was too experimental. Nataline, a leukemia patient, was in intensive care at UCLA suffering from complications of a bone marrow transplant.
…Stripped of backgrounds and reduced to sound-bite scale, Natalie’s story sounds like it could have been scripted by Michael Moore. But as the Los Angeles Times noted, Cigna had “tough calls” to make. It was far from clear that the requested liver transplant would do any good. Even Natalie’s doctors at UCLA judged that she would have had a 65% chance of living six more months — not a strong chance of long-term success.
Dr. Stuart Knechtle, who heads the liver transplant program at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, says transplantation is not an option for leukemia patients because the immunosuppressant drugs used in such procedures tend to spur the growth of cancer cells (he was not commenting specifically on Nataline’s case).
Clearly Edwards is saying that universal/single-payer health care would’ve approved the transplant. Fine, make that argument. But now explain to me how that lowers the cost of health insurance. There will be other tough cases. The choice is rationing or extensive experimental care. We’ve currently opted more to experimental than rationing, which is why our costs are higher than other countries. But we get something for that. We can’t have both. So which is it?
I don’t walk away from the debate with a different opinion on how badly single-payer health care would go. Health care reform, as it’s currently discussed, is a populist effort. Politicians do not have it in them to say “no” to any requests. Everyone and everything is validated as worthwhile. Such thinking has consequences and they’re predictable.
One final point on Sen. Obama regarding health care. He touted his plan’s lack of a mandate for adults (he mandates for children), saying that adults can choose. Agreed, but why is that not transferable to every other policy proposal? Why do I not get a choice with Social Security, for example?
