You know what you almost never see? Somebody heckling a diver.

Back in July, I wrote that this quote about new Chief Justice John Roberts concerned me. It’s even more relevant today about Harriet Miers. Consider:

I’m told that the President waited to make this decision and that it was a deliberate decision. The President, I’m told, wanted someone he knew, someone who would be seen as conservative, and someone who would “tread carefully” on Executive Powers. Roberts was the only one in the end who fit the bill.

I reiterate what I said then. The last thing we need right now is someone who will tread carefully on Executive Powers. If there has ever been a President who needs to be restrained by the Constitution’s checks-and-balances, it’s President Bush. I reserved judgment on Chief Justice Roberts and eventually decided that there were no obvious reasons to vote against him. I remain hopeful that he will become a good Supreme Court Justice, one who is faithful to the Constitution. I refuse to take the same approach for Ms. Miers, who is so blatantly unqualified for the Supreme Court that her nomination makes a mockery of the process. I would suggest that President Bush should be ashamed of himself, but I don’t believe he’s capable of such a simple observation of reality.

I don’t know that we’ve ever needed Congress and the President to be from opposite parties more than we do now. Is it November 2006 yet?

Does God believe in Karl Marx?

These recent questions from The One-Handed Economist fascinated me. No doubt this paragraph could be hacked at by someone looking at tedious nuances, but the basic idea stands as rather valid, I think. Consider:

Why is it that so many of those who are willing to accept that something so complex and diverse as the life on Earth came about as the result of an essentially random process cannot also accept that the modern economy can organize itself the same way? Why is the converse also often true? Neither position seems particularly consistent to me.

Ah, the beauty madness of the politics of ideology and party rather than intellectual curiosity and principles.

Uh, what country do you think this is?

In a recent column for Townhall.com, Ben Shapiro wrote about the recent announcement that Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez directed the FBI to increase its anti-obscenity efforts against pornography. While the anti-pornography crusade is wrong-headed for many reasons, I’m more amused with Mr. Shapiro’s reasoning for his support of this policy. In challenging unnamed FBI agents who criticized the new program with comments like “I guess this means we’ve won the war on terror,” Mr. Shapiro explains political philosophy. Consider this nugget of twisted nonsense:

Plainly it is not governmental inefficiency these agents are worried about. They find the anti-pornography crowd disturbing because they believe that policing pornography violates fundamental rights. This has become the dominant view in our society: As long as what I do doesn’t harm you personally, I have a right to do it. It’s a silly view and a view rejected by law enforcement policies all over the country. Were we to truly recognize such a philosophy, we would have to legalize prostitution, drugs and suicide — as well as the murder of homeless drifters with no family or friends. After all, if someone kills a homeless drifter, how does that affect anyone else? Consent should make no difference here — that’s an imposition of your values. Just because a murderer offends your moral sensibilities doesn’t give you an excuse to impose your subjective values on a society.

Such logic means destroying human communities. It is uncivilized, in the purest sense of the word. It makes us each selfish actors. The effects of our actions on others are irrelevant. No, you can’t punch me in the nose, but if you choose to perpetrate genocide, and if none of my friends or family members is thrown into a mass grave, what business of mine is it? When everyone is an island, no one is safe. Actions cease to have consequences.

With so many holes in his theory, I’ll just start at the beginning and slog my way through. What he attempts to discredit describe is a libertarian view that everyone has liberties which are inherently free of government possession or granting. I’m not sure who said it (otherwise, I’d attribute the quote properly), but Mr. Shapiro suggests that the prevailing philosophy in America is based on the sentiment that my rights end only where your nose begins. Oh, if that were only true. I only need mention same-sex marriage to dispel that notion as little more than lip service from many. The dominant view seems to be more I have the right to do anything I want as long as I don’t harm you. You, on the other hand, have to live by my idea of right and wrong. Unless I choose to read Mr. Shapiro’s statement without the implied “physical harm” and replace it with the not-implied “moral harm”. In that case, he’d be 100% correct. But he’s not arguing that. Anyone disagree?

There are people who do hold Mr. Shapiro’s original statement as political gospel. I happen to be one of them. We should legalize prostitution and drugs. (Suicide? What argument is that, other than the “Culture of Death” stupidity preached today?) The drug war? If that was a war in a foreign country with large numbers of soldiers involved, the American public would revolt at the devastating failure. Exactly how much has the drug war slowed down drugs? All it does is criminalize what has always happened, what will always happen. People get high. One must acknowledge nothing more than “alcohol” to understand the lack of difference. What’s happening now in the market for drugs is exactly what happened during Prohibition. We’ve done little more than trade the mafia for gangs, which seems an even trade in a best-case analysis. That’s not smart, nor is it effective.

And prostitution? I can’t personally imagine what would drive someone to a prostitute, but wouldn’t it make more sense from a public health viewpoint to legalize it and regulate it? That way, we can test for STDs. We can devise ways to reduce the dangers associated with prostitution. That makes more sense than defending some illusory idea of public morals. I love theories and ideas but health is practical. It’s here and now. We’re never going to stop prostitution without Theocratic rule. We shouldn’t try.

Continuing, perhaps freedom is silly, but it doesn’t specifically matter what law enforcement demands. Law enforcement agencies are beholden to the public (i.e. elected government) it serves and protects. Law enforcement doesn’t set its policies independent of legislation. Mr. Shapiro’s point is ridiculous, unless he’s interested in a police state. I suspect he is, of the “you have to live by my morals” manner. So be it. He’s a columnist, not a legislator.

Everything after that is an absurd attempt to pander to the stupid. Murdering homeless drifters with no family or friends? Forgive me for missing the logical transition from “as long as what I do doesn’t harm you personally” to “as long as no one will miss you when you’re murdered.” Granted, it must be a brilliant transition, but Mr. Shapiro fails to provide it for the rest of us. I want to understand how libertarianism is little more than barbaric hedonism. Enlighten me, maybe with a future column. Unbelievable.

The same argument he makes for regulation of drugs and prostitution can be made for economic regulation. We don’t want people to starve because that offends morals, so we need to make sure that everyone has a reliable income. They won’t work? Who are you to say that everyone should earn their living? If you like going to work, why should you care about how someone else receives an income? That logic falls apart quickly. I assume Mr. Shapiro would agree. So how is the culture held to a different standard than the economy? Political philosophy should be robust enough to not crumble under some issues facing a society. If it does, it’s not a political philosophy, but instead a hodgepodge of subjective applications designed to promote self-interest over principle.

Mr. Shapiro shuffles out his next argument, at which he’s supposedly arrived from his explanation of libertarian freedoms. Consider:

If we are to maintain communities, someone’s standards must govern. Those standards can either make it easier or more difficult for the traditionally moral to live their lives. The idea that no one’s standards have to govern — that everyone can do what he likes, when he likes — inherently means tolerance for evil. Tolerance for evil means nourishment of evil. Nourishment of evil means growth of evil. Growth of evil is a direct affront to traditional morality.

That makes no sense. The libertarianism Mr. Shapiro smears does not exist in any accepted view. But it does hold that standards must govern. Those standards are that everyone is free to live his life as he sees fit, as long as he does no actual harm to another. There’s nothing particularly complicated about that. It doesn’t mean a tolerance for evil, merely an acceptance that people believe “evil” things and may continue to believe “evil” things. Unless the thinker acts on (or threatens, etc.) his “evil” beliefs, government has no authority to control it.

That doesn’t hinder traditional morality, which is subjective, at best. Mr. Shapiro is free to believe whatever he wants, no matter how crazy or “evil” I might imagine it to be. However, traditional morality is not an objective, stationary principle. It’s a moving, subjective target designed apparently to police the salvation of everyone through the litmus of one. That is not a governing philosophy for a free society, nor is it in the Constitution of the United States.

So here’s a thought: leave people to self-determination. Reduce legislation to the allegedly dominant view in society. We’ll see individual actions conform almost exclusively to the actions individuals previously chose under legislated t
raditional morality. People already make choices, regardless of legality, which inherently means that moral laws are useless. So wouldn’t it make sense to direct law enforcement efforts to immediate (physical, economic, etc.) dangers than to moral dangers?

Cannons destroy muskets

In preparation for Saturday’s Virginia Tech game against West Virginia, in Morgantown, WVa, I present to you a fine explanation of the joy that is West Virginia football. Behold:

Fire officials have ordered the removal of all upholstered furniture, debris and flammable objects from porches in neighborhoods with high student populations in an effort to put a damper on the outdoor furniture blazes that have become a tradition.

The move comes as the city, known as the couch-burning capital of college football, prepares for the West Virginia-Virginia Tech football game on Saturday.

“The reason for the order is based upon statistical fire data gathered following major rival football games or other sporting events,” Morgantown Fire Chief Dave Fetty said Monday. “Data says there are particular areas within the city where we can expect to have illegal street fires.”

Students celebrating victories by the Mountaineers have a long tradition of setting fires in the streets, often with cheap furniture dragged from their rental homes.

Morgantown led the nation in the number of intentional street fires between 1997 and 2003, with a total of 1,129 set.
…

“Officers plan to go door to door posting written, typed-up orders on each house or putting them in mailboxes,” Fetty said. “The notice states all indoor furniture that has been placed outside, along with other debris in specified areas, must be put elsewhere.”

Do I really need to write any sort of punchline?

You just don’t fit in

One of the reasons I advocate a flat tax is that it incentivizes wealth-building without a class mentality. It encourages success across the nation without punishing people for achieving that success. I believe this can work and want the discussion to start so that we can get to real change. Debate on this issue is productive. This, however, is ridiculous.

I would offer Americans an even lower flat tax rate–14% as opposed to 17%–and at the same time do more to help low-income people. Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff and I have put together a plan that works in the following way.

First we’d get rid of the across-the-board $9,000-per-person exemption in the Forbes plan. Why should billionaires like Bill Gates get an exemption? Forbes is giving too much money away to rich people. We’d save that exemption money and give it instead, in the form of a rebate, to the bottom third of earners, those who bring home roughly less than $25,000 for a family of four.

Second, Forbes ignores the 12.4% Social Security payroll tax (split between employer and employee). Currently, income over $90,000 a year is not subject to the tax. We don’t think it’s fair that a $50,000-a-year autoworker has to pay payroll taxes on all his income while a million-dollar-a-year auto executive does not. Under our proposal all wages would face the same income and payroll tax rates.
…

We would also use the rebate of tax dollars to the bottom third of taxpayers to solve other social problems. For example, instead of people automatically getting the 14% rebate, we would require them to show that they have health insurance and a retirement pension as a condition. Specifically, to get one-half the rebate (7%), low-income families would have to produce proof of health insurance. This would encourage millions of people who qualify to enroll in Medicaid or in their employer’s health plan. Barring that, families could apply the tax rebate to health insurance they purchase on their own. We propose making the other half (7%) contingent on proof of a pension, an IRA, a 401(k) or some other savings account.

So instead of national health insurance and more government spending on the elderly, we would use our flat-tax proposal to urge people to solve these problems on their own.

With this proposal, we receive a progressive tax system with special incentives and loopholes. Brilliant. This is little different in spirit than what we do today. I can’t comprehend how keeping the same screwed up mentality qualifies as reform. Specifically, who would administer all of this? Some bureaucrat has to sit in a government office and verify health insurance. Some other bureaucrat has to sit in another government office and verify pension accounts. This does not reduce the size and inefficiency of government. The question of affordable private healthcare remains. And if taxpayers have to have pensions to qualify for half of the rebate, why bother perpetuating Social Security? Just funnel FICA into private pension accounts. It also leads to interesting conundrums regarding privacy and self-determination.

Ultimately, though, the obvious flaw is that this plan assumes people won’t do these things if they have money in their bank accounts. It imposes a blatant Nanny State oversight upon poor people, condescending to them that perhaps they’re just not responsible enough to do these things. In some cases, that’s undeniably true, but we can’t legislate against stupidity. If people wish to do dumb things, so be it. No amount of new, creative laws will change the fundamental self-determination, however stupid, that people exhibit.

Worse, the government has shown for decades that it doesn’t trust the citizens who elect it. Like every other tax reform that changed only the redistribution effect, the scope creep of this tax recommendation will not stop with the poor once Congress begins playing with the parameters. Tax reform is essential, but as important as the numerical details are, changing the tax mentality is most important. The flat tax can do that, but not when supporters rig it with patronizing gobbledy-gook.

Softening butter vegan shortening, not America

Good grief, where to begin? I’ve written a number of times about the nonsense that is the sweeping generalization of a liberal bias in media, usually the MSM. I’ve also written against policies and actions of President Bush. I guess I’m a raging ideologue for the leftists. At least that’s the way I interpret John Fund’s logic while opining on the liberal fantasy not-so-subtly called Commander in Chief in today’s Opinion Journal. Consider:

The series pits Academy Award-winner Geena Davis against the patriarchal world of national politics until her “You Go, Girl!” attitude puts to rest the doubts of her many detractors. The creator of “Commander in Chief,” Rod Lurie, is apparently trying to broaden the show’s appeal by promising that he won’t be using it as a soapbox for his admittedly liberal views. He is quick to note that Ms. Davis isn’t playing a Democrat. Instead she is an independent who landed on a Republican ticket in order to offset a conservative candidate’s low approval rating among women.

Mr. Lurie insists that red-state viewers need not shun the show. He admits that he “can’t write to a belief system that I can’t swallow myself,” but he says that he has hired some conservative writers to make up for his deficit. Not that a balanced approach was evident at last week’s series-celebrating parties, in Washington and New York, hosted by the feminist White House Project.

Marie Wilson, the founder of the White House Project, told attendees how she struggled for years to convince Hollywood to do a show about a woman in the Oval Office. “We offered a prize, we offered to pay for a script. But they still didn’t think it would interest people,” she lamented. “Then like out of some Zen moment they suddenly decided the time was now.” And maybe the time is now: The latest Rasmussen Poll finds that more than three-quarters of voters are comfortable with the idea of a female president. All the Hillary-Condi talk clearly means something.

But Condi had nothing to do with the conversations at the White House Project parties. Attendees made it abundantly clear that they see the show as a liberal fantasy. Much as “The West Wing” portrayed the White House that liberals wish Bill Clinton had run, “Commander in Chief” will look forward to something resembling a Hillary Clinton presidency, or so its fans presume.

I didn’t watch Commander in Chief for a number of reasons, not least among them the simple fact that I don’t like Geena Davis. But also not least among them is that I think the concept for the show is dull. “Let’s take the president and make him a… her!” I can’t think of a more brain-dead attempt at creativity on network television now. If I landed on ABC while Commander in Chief was on, I’d turn the channel as fast as my thumb could move for fear that my brain would be infected by stupidity. Not liberal stupidity, just generic stupidity.

Consider how Mr. Fund developed his argument. He constantly referred to Hillary-Condi as a possible presidential confrontation in 2008. He even uses a 75% acceptance of a hypothetical female presidency. Remind me again what the election results were last year? Did 75% of voters choose the crazy liberal who can’t wait for Hillary to be dictator for life? By basic reasoning, this acceptance bleeds across political affiliations and ideology. It may be more prevalent in one party, but that doesn’t change the underlying reality. On paper, at least, most Americans say that the shocking idea of a woman as president deserves a yawn. Right, liberal conspiracies abound.

But more than that, I want to focus on Mr. Lurie’s specific statement. As he said, he “can’t write to a belief system that I can’t swallow myself.” Oh. Now I’m convinced. Even I’m willing to ignore the idea that hiring conservative writers will make it a “balanced” show. So what? Mr. Lurie’s statement told me everything I needed to know. If it turns out I’m wrong and the show is moderate, oops. I prejudged and missed out. Along with every other American, I do that every day. Somehow I survive.

That’s not to say I don’t get Mr. Lurie’s point. I’ve written fiction in which I’ve had one character murder another character. I’ve never killed anyone, nor would I ever do so. Does that make me unqualified to write such a scene? Of course not. But if I can’t, that’s different. Incompetence means an inferior product, unless he gets other writers, which he did. The vision still suffers, though, because as the creator he sets the foundation. Perhaps he did and I missed it. Again, if that’s so, oops, but that’s not a ringing endorsement for the show.

Extending this further, imagine reading a novel in which it’s clear the author had a moral axe to grind. He’s convinced that we should outlaw the military, for example. That’s going to be a story with few, if any, well-developed characters and interesting conflicts. The essence of good story-telling will involve interesting characters and interesting conflict. The “lesson” should flow from the story, and be evident from how the main character changes. The message as the foundation doesn’t work in literature, whether it’s books, movies, or television.

In the unfolding execution of the show, Mr. Fund will find that Commander in Chief will not further the President Hillary Clinton liberal fantasy. Viewers will watch, but if the show sucks, they’ll stop. If it preaches, they won’t. If ten million viewers tune in and that’s sufficient for ABC, the show will continue. But how are ten million viewers to an allegedly biased show sufficient to propel Senator Clinton to the presidency? Didn’t President Bush receive sixty million votes last November? And do you really believe that those undecided about Senator Clinton for president are too stupid and brainwashed to separate her from a television character? If people are that stupid, the hundred-plus million dollar box office for Fahrenheit 9/11 should’ve easily propelled Senator Kerry to the White House. Have you seen who calls 1600 Pennsylvania home? Stop worrying and trust America.

Will there be “Raaaaaaaar”?

You’re excited, correct? I know I am. After four long months, Alias returns tonight! (ABC, 8pm)

When we left off last season, Sydney and Vaughn were driving along the highway. Vaughn began to reveal a secret to Sydney involving him not being who she thought he was. In classic Alias fashion, the pregnant pause (the pun was too easy, I had to take it) between setup and punchline turned into SMACK as another vehicle t-boned our heroes. Doh! I wonder if they’ll live?!?

Alias underwent “changes” in the time off, as we now know. Future Senator Ben Affleck made it unavoidable that Agent Vaughn knocked Sydney up sometime last season, presumably in some post-Zombie celebratory bliss. I have qualms about this development because I remember the disaster that befell Mad About You when Paul and Jamie got a little too friendly, but I’m optimistic. J. J. Abrams has never let me down in four seasons of Alias (or in one-point-one seasons of Lost or four seasons of Felicity), so I think he’ll pull off the rare feat of adding a baby/pregnancy to a show and not ruining the show. I’m hopeful. I believe.

I know where I’ll be in four hours. You should be there, too.

Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K

Everyone knows by now that Representative Tom Delay (temporarily) stepped aside from his role as House Majority Leader because a grand jury indicted him on charges of conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. I have nothing to add to that, other than he’s innocent until proven guilty and all that. I’m more interested in his (temporary) replacement, California Rep. David Dreier Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt.

The public relations machine is obviously kicking into gear now, stating how Rep. Dreier is this kind of moderate and that kind of conservative whatever they’re saying, which is probably less moderate since Rep. Blunt was Rep. DeLay’s right hand man. [Ed. – The rest of this stands, as I wrote it about Rep. Dreier.] I don’t know much about him and I have no reason to challenge any of that now. I’m open-minded about how he’ll work the system over the next few weeks and months as Rep. DeLay’s indictment plays out. But I suspect the Democratic smear campaign will start by tonight, if it hasn’t already, and I don’t think that’s wise.

Using basic logic, it makes no sense to think that Rep. Dreier Blunt will attempt any bold action in the near future. He can’t reverse the Republican status quo on the budget. (He should, but he won’t.) He can’t ignite the base with any new social red herrings for diversion. (He shouldn’t, but he might.) Any action he takes will be scrutinized relentlessly as an indicator of his leadership skills. He’s a 13-term representative Majority Whip, so he should have some pull, but any bold action would signify that he isn’t just a place holder until Rep. DeLay’s possible return, undermining DeLay’s future leadership. That would work if Rep. DeLay is really done as House Majority Leader, which is certainly a likelihood given his ludicrous statements and conduct. But the current Republican leadership in Congress has shown an eager willingness to circle the wagons around any scandal. I see no reason this will be different. Until Rep. Dreier Blunt shows something bold [Ed. – something that contradicts Rep. DeLay, since every statement will now be that Rep. Blunt is acting as Rep. DeLay would act], I’m holding onto that. If he does, then maybe I’ll take him seriously and focus on what he’ll try to accomplish.

Welcome to your no-win opportunity to lead the House, Rep. Dreier Blunt.

Update: This is rhetorical, but I wonder why the GOP leadership chose Rep. Blunt instead of Rep. Dreier, as Rep. Hastert preferred? Googling Rep. Dreier will likely offer an explanation.

The United State of America

Federalism may not be dead yet, but we can schedule the wake.

President Bush yesterday sought to federalize hurricane-relief efforts, removing governors from the decision-making process.

“It wouldn’t be necessary to get a request from the governor or take other action,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday.

“This would be,” he added, “more of an automatic trigger.”

Mr. McClellan was referring to a new, direct line of authority that would allow the president to place the Pentagon in charge of responding to natural disasters, terrorist attacks and outbreaks of disease.

Alright, let’s do it. Let’s pass whatever legislation is necessary and amend the Posse Comitatus Act and toast marshmallows on our warm, happy feelings. But let me ask a question in the four nanoseconds before we ram this through. Why bother having a state chief executive (or even having states) if we’re going to federalize such an obvious role for a governor?

We all know this is stupidity coming from an administration yet to meet a federal expansion it doesn’t like. But the administration can’t possibly think the federal government will run this better than states. Louisiana is by all indications a very poor example for state competence, but whose fault is that? Louisiana citizens are responsible for voting in their leaders and maintaining watch over them. Naturally, this administration seems content to eliminate checks and balances on the government, so their obtuseness in this not-so-subtle point can be forgiven. When the residents of New Orleans allowed corruption to persist within the police department and local government, they made a choice with foreseeable consequences. I’m not indicting them or refusing sympathy for their plight in this, but when a person hits themselves in the head, repeatedly, with the clawed end of a hammer, we don’t become shocked when they start to bleed. We also don’t propose banning hammers.

Of course, President Bush can claim all sorts of failures within Louisiana governments, both state and local. But the mistakes flowed all around. Perhaps, if he’s sincere, the president will wait for an assessment of what went wrong (and what went right) before offering solutions to those faults. But all I’ve done is quote the White House press secretary. Maybe the president should speak for himself:

“It may require change of law,” Mr. Bush said yesterday. “It’s very important for us as we look at the lessons of Katrina to think about other scenarios that might require a well-planned, significant federal response — right off the bat — to provide stability.”

Who will make that determination? What level of “we didn’t see this disaster coming” is necessary? Is it all disasters, with or without warning? Again, if it’s not a state’s governor making that determination, why bother having states? Throw out our republican form of government and adopt a straight democracy. President Bush seems content on pushing for that with whatever the topic du jour happens to be, so perhaps he should just kill the slow descent and cut the cord. Yes, the landing will be hard, but at least we can begin with truth rather than this charade of federalism and Republican values.