Diversity in the News

FoxNews.com Headline:

Obama Seeks Hikes in Domestic Spending:  "President is calling on Congress to reward generous budget increases to domestic programs while proposing cuts totaling about one-half of 1 percent of the $3.4 trillion budget."

CNN.com Headline:

Obama will slice budget by $17 billion:  "White House will propose cutting or reducing funding for more than 100 federal programs in latest salvo in 2010 budget fight."

Jackie Chan's Taken One Too Many Kicks to the Head

Here's Jackie Chan speaking to the media recently in Hong Kong:

"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said. "I'm really confused now. If you're too free, you're like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic."

Chan added: "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."

And finally:

Speaking fast with his voice rising, Chan said, "If I need to buy a TV, I'll definitely buy a Japanese TV. A Chinese TV might explode."

Hmm... "If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want," huh? Like build a TV that won't explode, for example? Heaven forbid.

Taibbi Calls "1) Bullshit; 2) bullshit; 3) bullshit, plus of course; 4) bullshit" And "5) Boo-Fucking-Hoo"

Matt Taibbi posts a thorough and highly entertaining flogging of former AIG exec Jake DeSantis and his resignation letter -slash- NY Times op-ed.

The whole thing is well worth reading, but these paragraphs are my favorites: responses to DeSantis's claim that he "was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G."

Are we supposed to believe that Jake DeSantis knew nothing about Joe Cassano's CDS deals? If your boss and the top guys in your firm were all making a killing selling anything at all -- whether it was rubber kayaks, generic Levitra or credit default swaps -- you really wouldn't bother to find out what that thing they were selling was? You'd really just mind your own business, sit at your cubicle and put your faith in the guys up top to fill you in if there was something you needed to know?

and

[...] Let's just say, Jake, that you're telling the truth, that you don't know anything about this toxic portfolio. If that's the case, then why the fuck does anyone need to retain you at an exorbitant salary to help unwind that very portfolio? If these transactions aren't and never were your expertise, then where the hell is your value here?

After reading the publicity stunt of a resignation letter, I never felt bad for DeSantis. But I also did not even realize that AIG-FP had only 377 employees.

I work for a large corporation, and I understand that such corporations have different branches that can operate like separate companies under the same name. It's hard to believe, however, that an executive VP of a 377-head branch "never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money."

I am glad to see that, for whatever reason DeSantis is really returning his bonus, he is giving it directly to charity. At least the money will likely make it to some of those who actually need it. If he gave it back to the government, well, nobody really knows where the fuck the money would end up.

You Ain't Gettin It Back

At Samizdata, Brian Micklethwait kicks around the idea of telling the citizens of nations funding Western governments' debt that they're not going to get their money back:

It needs to be said that under certain circumstances easily now imaginable, many Western citizens would argue, strongly and vocally, that those idiot foreigners who are now lending money to Western governments should in due course be told: sorry sunshine, you ain't ever going to get it back. Our governments are bankrupt. Why the hell should we and our descendants in perpetuity be paying tribute to you? You knew that the money to pay you back would have to be stolen from us. You assumed we'd just cough up indefinitely. Well, we damn well won't. You are now a definite part of our problem, and telling you to take a hike is going to be part of our solution. Our thieving class is now "borrowing" money from your thieving class like there is no tomorrow, and we are not responsible for the actions of either gang. A plague on both your houses.

To avoid taking Micklethwait out of context, I should clarify that the topic of the post is that it may be healthy for some general ideas currently too politically incorrect to be discussed in mainstream politics to be discussed on the internet. And I think the lead-in example in the third paragraph of the post is counterproductive.

But he has a point in that it may be time to start seriously discussing the default option - if not as a mainstream political talk point, at least as a strategy to start some political push back in the lending nations to stop funding these trillions in Western government debt.

Double Standard?

The stupid military policy set 15 years ago as a "compromise" policy by Congress and President Clinton almost came around to bite an openly gay Representative.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon at first blocked Rep. Tammy Baldwin's domestic partner from traveling on a military plane with a congressional delegation on a trip to Europe but gave in after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intervened.

The Pentagon said it was merely following House rules, which do not define domestic partners as spouses. Pelosi's office countered that the Pentagon has its own rules about who can go on its planes.

Both sides agree that Defense Secretary Robert Gates reversed the decision to keep Azar off the plane after getting contacted by Pelosi, D-Calif.

I think the Pentagon made the right decision. I actually wish, however, that they would have prevented Rep. Baldwin's domestic partner from getting on that plane.

If the Pentagon would have kicked a Congresswoman's homosexual partner off a military airplane, a good portion of Congress would be outraged. And while Congressmen who support "don't ask, don't tell" may find it easy to tell gay people they'll never meet that they cannot serve in the military, it might hit home a little more when they have to tell a fellow Congresswoman that her partner cannot travel with her on routine business travel.

Even though both Democratic presidential candidates claim to oppose the policy, I don't believe they are sincere enough to pursue any real change if they get what they're really after in this campaign: being elected president. I hope I'm wrong and I'm just being overly cynical. But I think something like a personal conflict between people who have to work together every day (or, most days) would be a lot more effective in bringing about a change in the policy.

"Don't ask, don't tell" will eventually dissolve, and eventually sexually orientation will not affect military service. But the policy has already been around for over 15 years, so if it takes congressional infighting to get rid of it, so be it.

Someone Actually Has A Worse Understanding Of Justice Than The US Drug Czar

Relative to the worldwide condemnation of Geert Wilders' film, "Fitna," these remarks by a British Imam and "lawyer" will probably go mostly unnoticed and unpublicized. But this analysis of innocence and guilt is not something I'd want to see applied by any government or justice system:

"You are innocent if you are a Muslim," Choudary tells the BBC. "Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."

Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.

"As a Muslim, I must support my Muslim brothers and sisters," Choudary said. "I must have hatred to everything that is not Muslim."

And the Archbishop of Canterbury commented just two months ago that some aspects of Sharia law seem "unavoidable" in Britain.

If only I could remember why I decided to stay away from that whole religion thing...

What Do These Five "Recession-Proof" Industries Have In Common?

I found an article on CNN.com entitled "Is your job recession-proof?" that starts by reassuring that, despite the slowing economy and housing markets, employers are generally still hiring. At first, it seemed to be just another commentary on the economy.

However, something really caught my attention in the second half of the article, in which a consulting firm notes five industries "expected to offer the best opportunities for job seekers during the predicted slump." The five "recession-proof" industries listed in the article are education, energy, environmental sector, health care and security.

Why are these five industries doing so well these days, while "retail, manufacturing, finance and technology, are vulnerable during recessions?" What is it that these industries have in common? Well, their success is either directly or indirectly driven by government.

Education is almost completely a government monopoly. Government pays for about half of Americans' health care and heavily interferes with and regulates the entire system. Security, especially airport security, is booming due to the "War on Terror." Energy and environment go hand in hand to an extent, and government is either acting or about to act on both. Energy is largely controlled (see: public utilities) or subsidized (see: ethanol) by government.

The article does not explicitly note the involvement (intrusion) of government into the noted five industries. But a critical reader can read between the lines and catch the hints.

Hmm, do you think the extensive government involvement in these booming industries might play at least some role in the plight of the rest of the economy?

So Let Me Get This Straight...

If you get busted for pot, you could possibly go to jail, have some of your money or assets seized, lose student aid, lose voting rights, or even lose custody of your children.

So what happens to people like these parents?":

WESTON, Wis. — An 11-year-old girl died after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical help for a treatable form of diabetes, police said Tuesday. [...]

Vergin said an autopsy determined the girl died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body, and she had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms like nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness.

The girl's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to "apparently they didn't have enough faith," the police chief said. [...]

The mother believes the girl could still be resurrected, the police chief said. [all emphasis mine]

This death clearly didn't need to happen. The article refers to the girl's condition as "a treatable form of diabetes." So while most people could go get some insulin treatment and live on, this girl had to suffer for a month and eventually die because of an ideology forced upon her by her parents.

So what of the parents who let this happen?

The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said.

"They are still in the home," he said. "There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see."

Well, look closer, chief. I know religion is a touchy subject and all, but now might be a good time to voice some criticism. I also understand the problems and complexities that come with government judging parents fit or unfit and the adverse effects on children or teens who are taken forcefully from their parents. But in this case - although a lose/lose situation - I can't imagine that the siblings could be any worse off in state custody than they would be with parents whose idea of treatment is prayer and/or subsequent resurrection.

It's stories like these that make me hope that I'm wrong, and that there really is a hell for such people.


UPDATE: FoxNews, where I originally found this article, now has a new version of the article posted. It's almost exactly the same. However, the new version does not include the mother's statement about resurrection and does not include the police chief's statement that the siblings are still in the home. Both versions are attributed to the AP. I don't know the reason for the revision, but it's interesting.

UPDATE 2: Both versions of the story are actually listed in the "Most Read" column of the FoxNews.com site.

Wear A Condom, Go To Hell

I'm a bit late (ok, two weeks late) in addressing this, but I've been recovering from a flu that I caught while recovering from tonsillitis.

Anyway, the Vatican decided that only seven deadly sins just didn't cut it anymore in this modern world, so they added some more. A taste of the new sins:

Drug pushers, the obscenely rich, environmental polluters and “manipulative” genetic scientists beware – you may be in danger of losing your mortal soul unless you repent.

Subjective as hell, no doubt about it. And this is only the first paragraph of the article. Is the doctor who recently sold me pain killers a "drug pusher?" Are you "obscenely rich" if you own a building like this? Do all cows necessarily go to hell?

However, these first few paragraphs are really just textual masturbation (and don't even get the Vatican started on that), because I'm yet to even mention that part that pisses me off the most:

[The Catholic Church] holds mortal sins to be “grave violations of the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes”, including murder, contraception, abortion, perjury, adultery and lust.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell”.

Murder, adultery, lust... same ol' shit... already covered by the commandments. Perjury... yeah, ok, if you insist. There are plenty of situations in which abortion is perfectly justified, but I will admit I'm personally uncomfortable morally with terminating a pregnancy for a parent's
convenience only, even though I think it's none of the government's or the Vatican's business.

But, contraception? No shit???

First of all, if the Vatican wants to take such an absolute stance against abortion under any circumstances, isn't it just plain counterproductive to oppose slipping on a condom? If abortion is murder unconditionally, wouldn't it make sense to encourage taking a daily pill to prevent an unwanted pregnancy that might otherwise lead to abortion? If you're going to insist that terminating a fetus or a zygote is the equivalent of slaying a human being, wouldn't you prefer letting some sperm cells die instead?

And while the Vatican is addressing the subject of new-age sins, what do they think of encouraging the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases? An organization that considers itself an authority on morality should definitely support the efforts consenting adults, or even consenting minors, in preventing diseases, neglected babies and, yes, unnecessary abortions.

I guess the rationale of the Catholic Church is similar to that of the Bush administration: your options are abstinence or abstinence. But it simply doesn't work that way, and both the Church and the administration should know better.

I guess the Catholic Church, in which I was raised, will just have to deal with my soul being eternally damned. If everyone who puts on a condom or takes a birth control pill is going to hell, I will have good company down there. For you other contraception users out there, call my hell-cell and we'll meet up for a few drinks or lines.

Revised Crack-Cocaine Sentencing Guidelines

A December decision by the U.S. Sentencing Commission could possibly reduce the sentences of many inmates. The reason for the decision is to reduce the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.

Judges could reduce sentences for nearly 20,000 inmates following the decision by the U.S. Sentencing Commission -- an independent federal agency that advises all three branches of government on sentences. Advocates of the sentence reduction say it is only fair, but the Justice Department counters and says that the move will allow dangerous criminals back on the street.

The Justice Department is concerned "that so many people would be released all at once -- people who have shown that they are repeat offenders, and without the possibility of any kind of transition or re-entry program to bring them from prison back to the streets," Deborah Rhodes, an associate deputy attorney general, told CNN.

But lawyers and groups that have been pushing for the change in sentencing disagree. They say that most of these prisoners are not hardened criminals, and that judges will have to approve any reduction on a case-by-case basis and will not grant an early release to those considered dangerous.

Will the early release of inmates result in a spike in crime? I sure hope not, and it's quite possible that there will not be any distinguishable spike. But I'm not willing to make that claim with much certainty.

I wholeheartedly agree with the "lawyers and groups" noted above that most of the prisoners are not hardened or violent criminals. Many of them, however, will likely be craving a hit or two of crack. Considering that many have been serving multi-year to 22.5 year sentences for getting high or providing for others to get high, I can't honestly fault them for it.

As long as the government feels the need to keep drug prices at high black market levels, corrupt the supply chain, conduct dangerous raids, rely on shady informants and, yes, throw people in jail for years for getting high, then a minority of the released inmates will relapse into a life of crime - be it crime or "crime."

Of course, you can be sure that the DEA will seize any statistic they can find that indicates a related crime spike, and you can be sure that the media will run with it. Expect that. In fact, it's possible that some of these dire stats may even be true. But until any real, substantial progress is made on ending the war on drugs or even better, legalization, it is impossible to guarantee that some of the criminals will not again become dangerous.

The reduction in crack-cocaine vs. powder-cocaine sentencing disparity is a step in the right direction, but it is for sure a baby step. Let's hope that there will still be some positive lessons to learn from this, regardless.


UPDATE: Cully Stimson of the Heritage Foundation opposes making the new sentences retroactive. I don't buy the first half of the argument that the 100-1 sentencing disparity was justified to curb inner-city violence (my paraphrase of Stimson). But the second half of the argument makes some valid points, if you have a world view that takes the Drug War as a given and you refuse to consider legalization.

Huckabee Campaign Reduced To Selling Newspapers

The Dallas Morning News has endorsed Huckabee, mathematics be damned. Well guess what, DMN? Just like Jesus, Mike Huckabee loves you.

"The Dallas Morning News is probably the greatest newspaper in America," the GOP dark horse said today at a press conference in Houston, tongue planted firmly in cheek. "And everybody ought to get a lifetime subscription."

Yeah, he's telling another joke. But it's now more obvious than ever that Huck's entire campaign is, well... a joke.


Bonus Passage: So why exactly does the Dallas Morning News like Huckabee?

The world has changed since Ronald Reagan's election nearly 30 years ago, and the great man's political heirs will have to adjust the GOP's strategy and tactics to new realities.

To that end, Mr. Huckabee, 52, should be a top leader in tomorrow's Republican Party. His good-natured approach to politics – "I'm a conservative; I'm just not mad about it," as he likes to say – is quite appealing after years of scorched-earth tactics from both parties. He's a pragmatist more concerned with effective government than with bowing to ideological litmus tests. For example, he has proven himself willing to violate anti-tax dogma to undertake investment in infrastructure for the sake of long-term prosperity.

Mr. Huckabee also is good on the environment, contending that the future of the conservative movement depends on embracing conservation and stewardship of the natural world. And he's a compassionate conservative especially in tune with middle-class anxieties in a globalizing economy.

Translation: Limited government is dead, so we endorse Huckabee because he'd spend a lot of your money and restrict trade, but at the same time magically conjure up loaves and fishes for everyone.

John Hemminghaus, This Camel's For You

Earlier today, I found via Hit&Run an interesting debate on civil disobedience. Here's Arnold Kling arguing in favor. Here's Kenneth Silber taking him on. And here's Kling's "Re:Re:" Tonight, ironically, I found a story of a guy from my former home state testing the waters of this civil disobedience thing.

WEST FRANKFORT - A call from authorities hasn't halted one West Frankfort man's plans to host a peaceful protest against the state's recently implemented Smoke-Free laws.

John Hemminghaus has been passing out flyers and making phone calls to invite as many people as he can reach to a March 1 event he is calling a "Smoke In."

"This country was founded on civil disobedience," Hemminghaus said in a previous interview. "It has gotten to where, now, people are afraid to get into trouble. It kind of makes me mad that everybody has turned into cowards."

Monday afternoon, Hemminghaus said he was recently contacted by Williamson County State's Attorney Chuck Garnati in regards to his plans."

Chuck said I would be taken into custody and get a $2,500 fine," he said. "Nobody I know can find where anybody in Illinois has been arrested yet." [...] He said Garnati told him that law enforcement would be present at his event if he couldn't be talked out of hosting the rally.

So if Hemminghaus is correct, nobody has been arrested for violating the Illinois ban to date. But one guy tries to publicize his plans to exercise his property rights and organize some people, and the State's Attorney feels the need to whip it out and swing it around a bit.

As for fines and punishment he might face, Hemminghaus said he will skip vacation to spend his money on the cause he backs, even though he stopped smoking about five years ago.
[...]

Hemminghaus said others are also on his side, including several other non-smokers. The man is so determined to have his point heard he has posted a large sign in the front yard of his business, which reads "My Place, My Choice, Smoking Allowed."

Very nice. Although a southern Illinois dissenter isn't likely to make the headlines, I'll keep an eye out for what happens to the guy. I have a feeling that if he's fined $2,500, he won't have a problem getting donations to cover it, even in a sparsely-populated area of Illinois. Best wishes, John Hemminghaus.

My previous post on the Illinois smoking ban here.

It's Official: Google Will Do Anything Any Governing Body Tells It To

You'd think that a company as significant as Google could tell an organization as insignificant as the U.N. to go fuck itself. But, here we go again. Apparently, Google News has cut its links to a "scrappy little Web site" called the Inner City Press due to its frequent criticism of internal coruption in the U.N.

It began with an innocuous-sounding yet chilling form letter from Google to Lee, e-mailed on Feb. 8:

"We periodically review news sources, particularly following user complaints, to ensure Google News offers a high quality experience for our users," it said. "When we reviewed your site we've found that we can no longer include it in Google News."

As soon as he read it, Lee immediately suspected one thing: That someone at the UNDP had pressured Google into "de-listing" him from Google News — essentially preventing Inner City Press from being classified on Google News as a legitimate news source and from having its stories pop up when someone conducts a Google News search.

Over the last couple of years, Lee has proved to be a constant — and controversial — thorn in the U.N.'s side.

I've never read the Inner City Press. Nor had I heard of them before reading the FoxNews article. But the article goes on to describe the guy as a little off-the-wall (my paraphrase). Even if this is true, however, I can't imagine why Google would take such action without some pressure from someone or something with influence.

Illinois Smoking Ban

During my vacation trip back to the US last week, I went to Peoria, Illinois, to visit some college friends. It was also my first time back in IL since the state-wide smoking ban took effect. The ban was written in such a way that, basically, nobody understands what the fuck is going on. My attempt, via Google, to find out exactly what is the enforcement policy, was fruitless.

The Smoke Free Illinois Act is apparently more bark than bite at the moment.

The St. Clair County Health Department has decided not to issue tickets until the law is better defined. The Madison County Health Department, although not saying it won’t issue tickets, has not written any either.

Officials in both counties cite the need for the law to be better defined by either the Illinois Department of Public Heath or Illinois General Assembly, or the act itself written in a way that includes a more active means of enforcement. “At this point in time we are not issuing tickets. We are offering owners and managers the opportunity to do voluntary enforcement in order to follow the law,” said Barb Hohlt, director of health protection at the St. Clair County Health Department.

The bar owner from O'Fallon, Illinois, whom I talked to said that he is enforcing the ban... but basically because he isn't sure whether or not he can get fined for allowing people to smoke in his bar. And from what I've heard from friends, the bars in the cities and suburbs are enforcing the ban while the more rural bars (and there are plenty in Illinois) are ignoring the ban, for the most part.

In Peoria, Illinois, my college town, the ban was being enforced. And while I haven't been in Peoria often enough recently to be able to tell whether the smoking ban has affected bar business, the bar I went to downtown definitely was taking advantage of it. In the case of that particular bar, if you arrived at the bar before the cover charge went into effect and you went outside to smoke later on, they'd demand the cover charge on your way back in. Of course, the bar certainly has the right to do this on its own property, but it was frustrating for both the unsuspecting smokers and the staff member at the door.

So the ambiguities of the Illinois ban could result in either a breakdown of the ban or a tightening of the regulations. Unfortunately, I suspect it will be the latter. But I was glad to hear far more opposition to the ban in Illinois than I ever heard in my current home state of Washington.

Still, though, it looks pretty much certain that smoking will soon be banned everywhere in the US besides your own non-commercial property. Some towns are even closing in on that. So now I guess it's just a matter of when, not if.

2015? 2025?

Campaigning for Office vs. Serving in Office

Russ Roberts quotes Bush in a debate with Gore in 2000. Bush, evidently, sounded quite reserved about "nation buildling" at the time.

Some of the comments to the post claim that 9-11 changed everything, so Bush shouldn't be faulted for making such statements. But I'm still waiting for a solid Saddam/9-11 connection.

Jetlag

Ugh. I hate flying. The first flight barely made it out of Nagoya in heavy snow. After I finally got airborne at about 1:15pm Saturday, Japan time, I changed planes in Detriot and landed in St. Louis at about... 1:15pm Saturday. It's now Sunday, 4:15am CST, and I've been awake for about two hours.

Anyway, while visiting Nobody's Business tonight, I saw the new photo that Rogier has posted, and the first thing I thought was: Damn, that looks like Mitt Romney. I've never thought any of his other photos looked like Mitt Romney, but even now I think this one looks strikingly so. It's the one in the red shirt and scarf.

So does anyone agree with me or am I just fucking crazy and way too sober for late on a weekend night?

This Is What Wins Front-Runner Status In The GOP

How did John McCain spend Super Bowl Sunday? Speaking at Sacred Heart University in Connecticut, of course:

FAIRFIELD - John McCain cast himself Sunday as heir to Ronald Reagan on domestic spending and a strict-constructionist on judicial nominations, messages intended to reassure conservatives less than 48 hours before the Super Tuesday primaries.
[...]

But he also focused on burnishing his credentials as a fiscal hawk, decrying what he called $35 billion in pork-barrel spending signed into law over the past two years by President Bush.

Who did McCain choose to have at his side while delivering his "fiscal hawk" message? Who else: CT Rep. Chris Shays and Sen. Joe Lieberman. As David Boaz notes, Lieberman is no conservative, fiscal or otherwise. Besides hawkishness and age, there's basically nothing Lieberman and McCain have in common. And Shays? Well, his wealthy CT district was a well-represented part of the 2008 additions to the DHS "Terror Risk" list. Each of the three CT cities added to the DHS list this year have some zip codes in Shays's district. And while it's true that the list is actually released by the executive branch, it's not farfetched to believe that Shays may have had some influence. He also serves on the House Committee on Homeland Security.

Was he any more credible regarding judicial nominations? Hard to tell... he didn't really say much:

"I am proud to have been part of a team that got Justice Roberts and Justice Alito appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court," McCain said. "I will appoint judges that strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States of America and not legislate from the bench."

CNN correspondent Dana Bash recently commented on TV that the quote from McCain was "essentially code" to appeal to conservatives. She's right in that it was a pander to conservatives... "strict-constructionist" and "not legislate from the bench" are classic GOP pandering lines. But it's not at all "code." Code, by definition, is that in which "symbols are assigned definite meanings." But there is no definite meaning here. Normal politics, absolutely. Bullshit pandering, you bet. But for fuck's sake, how about some clarification:

* What do you mean by "strict-constructionist?" Is this just a way to say "pro-life only" without saying "pro-life only?" Or do you mean "strict-constitutionalist?"

* Name three examples of "legislating from the bench." Explain how those decisions contradict the constitution. Next, explain how the constitution allows the federal government to prohibit or regulate abortion.

To be fair, I never hear any serious candidate answer these questions, not just McCain. But the point is that this guy has no idea what he will do if he is elected president, except stay in Iraq indefinitely. While McCain may be a fiscal conservative in some ways, he's obviously not a principled fiscal conservative. In other words, I cannot be confident in McCain to take the right side of any fiscal issue that may become the new hot button issue over the course of a 4 year presidency. If he wins, he might as well just flip a coin to choose his position on each new issue.

More Cities Within Which You Should Be Afraid

This year, the Department of Homeland Security has increased the number of areas considered "at risk" of a terrorist attack by one third. The perk of being on the list is that the areas are then eligible to compete for $782 million in grant money from the federal government (i.e. from your paycheck). So who made the list this year?

For instance, Albany, N.Y., was put back on the list this year after being dropped in 2003.

Other regions added to the list this year are: Rochester, N.Y.; Syracuse, N.Y.; Austin and Round Rock, Texas; Baton Rouge, La.; Bridgeport, Stamford and Norwalk, Conn.; the Hartford, Conn., region; Louisville and Jefferson County in Kentucky and an adjoining area in Indiana; Nashville, Davidson County and Murfreesboro, Tenn.; Richmond, Va.; Riverside, San Bernardino and Ontario, Calif.; Salt Lake City; San Juan, Caguas and Guaynabo, Puerto Rico; and Toledo, Ohio.

Ten bucks says Osama bin Laden has never heard of Round Rock, TX.

Hiroshima Photos

This week, I found out I will be moving back to Nagoya from Hiroshima at the end of February. I could have sworn that about three months ago I promised you photos from Hiroshima. But my memory is shit, so who knows.

Anyway, here you go. I'm not much of a photographer, and I haven't taken nearly as many pictures as I should have in such a historic city. Regardless, I've captured some neat stuff the few times I've remembered to take my camera along with me.

Side note: Two of the pictures are from Nagoya, not Hiroshima. They're labeled accordingly.

Dumb Celebrity Quote

HT to TheAgitator for the link to the article. The quote:

"My favorite thing about Bhutan is they measure their country's wealth, not based on dollar amount but on gross national happines," [actress Cameron] Diaz said.

That's "GNH" for you less 3rd-world-happiness-savvy readers. The full context is here. From elsewhere in the same article:

Bhutan, a country that received particular praise from Diaz for its environmental policies, has one of the highest infant mortality rates (103 infant deaths per 1,000 live births) and lowest life expectancies (54 years) in the world.

True, this doesn't necessarily correlate with happiness. But it's enough to make me (and I assume Diaz, too) hesitate to pack my bags and move for the sake of the clean air.

At the bottom of that article's page, there was a link to this one. The title: "Environmentalist Laments Introduction of Electricity." Yes, it's every bit as bad as it sounds. I can't do it justice by pulling a clip, so check out the whole thing (it's short).

Kickbacks For Cash Flow

Sure, the Japanese prime minister could easily afford his own iPod, but this just seems tacky:

Rock star Bono bowed deeply and gave Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda an iPod at the start of a meeting Saturday to try to get more Japanese support for the fight against poverty in Africa.

The gift broke the ice as Fukuda sat down with Bono, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other major supporters of more aid for Africa.

Again, it's a pretty trivial gift. But still, Jesus Christ, try to follow the rationale here... The gift is to get the Japanese PM to pledge more "Japanese support." That makes it sound like Fukuda-san would just whip out his wallet and hand the poor people of Africa $1000-Yen per person.

But Bono's not interested in Fukuda's money. He's interested in the Japanese taxpayers' money. To make it sound like anything else is underhanded bullshit. Although I don't believe it's a Japanese taxpayer's moral responsibility to give money to the poor in Africa, that's not the point. If any citizen of Japan wishes to send money to Africa via any medium available, he or she is free to do so.

What is disgraceful here is that Bono has the balls to hand the prime minister of Japan anything; be it an iPod, a Pepsi from the vending machine, or a slap on the ass; and expect the prime minister to be more likely to pledge the hard-earned yen of his taxpayers towards Bono's pet cause.

Bono, seriously... I don't want the people of Africa to be poor any more than you do. But can you at least be straightforward about what you're proposing? I'd have so much more respect for you if you'd just say, "I think every person in the world should be forced by his or her government to give $100 per year to the poor people of Africa" than this lobbying of government officials to get them to spend taxpayer money per your demands.

George Will on the Economy

In his latest Newsweek column, George Will has one of the best takes I've read to date on the economy and the inevitable stimulus package. I can't do the article justice by quoting a paragraph or two, so I recommend the whole thing.

From Will's article from the November 19th issue of Newsweek, the hard copy of which I just received last weekend due to the administrative cluster fuck involved in forwarding my mail to Japan, comes this great quote:

Everyone should remember the witticism that the stock market has predicted nine of the last three recessions.

Besides George Will and John Tierney, can anyone think of any other MSM columnists you'd recommend to a libertarian? I'm sure there are one or two more who I just can't think of right now or maybe have never even heard of.

Added: I later remembered PJ O'Rourke, who I guess can still be considered MSM.

Dear Bush, Bernanke and Congress,

I have heard the news that you plan to release an economic stimulus package that entails giving each American taxpayer a lump sum payment of, tentatively, $800 per person.

Therefore, I feel compelled to disclose that I plan to spend my "stimulus" payment primarily on marijuana, with the remainder going towards a beer chaser and cigarettes. Likely there are many Americans, young and old, who plan to spend their checks in a similar manner.

I hope you realize that your policies on drugs, alcohol and tobacco will mostly likely prevent such expenditures from stimulating the economy whatsoever. For instance, the marijuana I plan to buy is inflated in cost due to the risks involved in growing, transporting and selling it in the black market. So instead of my "rebate" being injected back into the economy, most of it will end up in the pockets of various levels of dealers who don't pay taxes on drug income, likely don't invest in the market, and will probably spend the money in a way of which you wouldn't approve.

The remainder, which I will spend on beer and cigarettes, will indeed go into the economy. But since these industries are taxed so heavily in the name of "public health," you'll probably be taking back a good chuck of this sum anyway. If the money is - at least in part - going right back into your hands regardless, then why bother with the lump sum payout to me in the first place?

I realize that my economic rationale in this letter may not be flawless. But I do sincerely believe that it's better than all of yours. I have been waiting, but so far left wanting, for an explanation of exactly how sending just a small part of the taxes we pay back to us is going to stimulate the economy at all. Please feel free to explain your rationale in the comments section of this post.

Sincerely,
Nate

Bitter Debate Hurts Obama More Than Clinton

I'm sure everyone who's reading this has already heard about all the Clinton vs. Obama bickering at the SC debate and afterwards, but I'll link to the CNN story anyway. And here's a video clip.

As someone who may (reluctantly) vote Obama for president but would not vote for Hillary, I think Obama needs to tone it down. This type of bickering from Hillary isn't much of a surprise to me, and I'm guessing it wouldn't come as a surprise to most. Obama, on the other hand, is (or at least was) banking on his more honest and friendly image.

If not for personality differences, what exactly is left to distinguish between Obama and Clinton? Except for non-binding versus binding universal health insurance mandates, I can't think of any solid difference. If Obama wants to defeat Hillary based on the friendly, new-guy-to-Washington image, then he needs to stop sounding so much like a seasoned politician.

ACLU Gets It Right... But Could Say It Better

My knowledge of law and legal precedent is slim, but this rationale from the ACLU in support of Larry Craig (which is allegedly based on Supreme Court precedent) sounds fishy:

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting the undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote.

Even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, the ACLU argued, his actions would not be illegal.

I know a little more about sex than law, although not much more, unless the single-participant type counts. Practically, however, I find it hard to fathom that it's possible to expect privacy when having sex in a public bathroom. I guess it's possible in some cases, but considering the two or more sets of feet beneath the divider and the potential for noises not related to relieving oneself, I find it hard to believe that such sex would go unnoticed.

That said, I agree with the last sentence of the above quote, although I suspect it's for a different reason. I view it as entrapment that a police officer is allowed to cocktease in a public restroom with the intent of making an arrest, much like I view officers dressing as prostitutes and hitting the streets as entrapment. What gives the police the authority to set up such a sting for voluntary behavior?

Even if we assume that sex in a public restroom should be a criminal offense (which I do not necessarily believe), how could the police prove that the signals indicate an intent to have sex in that restroom? How can they prove that the foot tapper doesn't instead intend to exchange phone numbers and meet up for sex in private?

It's possible there could be some grounds for civil action between two non-police parties, but that sounds like something more complex than I'm capable or willing to address.

If anyone can provide more details about the Supreme Court precedent in the comments, I'd appreciate it. I did some quick Google and ACLU.org searches but came up empty handed.

Is Cloned Meat Immoral? Let The Market Answer

The FDA will apparently soon report that cloned meat is safe to eat and contains the same or similar levels of vitamins and other goodies as conventionally bred animals. Ron Bailey has reported on this issue for a while and has always suspected as much. After all, besides the "eww gross" factor and sanctity of life arguments against cloning, there has never really been any scientific reason to believe that cloned food would be any different nutritionally.

Today CNN has of course reported the FDA results, but - I guess for the sake of "balance" - still seems to dwell on the questions of morality and "grossness." However, I am yet to hear any scientific or safety objection to cloned meat.

If it's safe, there's no reason the meat shouldn't go on the market as soon as it's available and profitable. For those who are freaked out by the whole idea of eating a clone, don't eat it. For those who think that the cloned meat industries will be infringing on God's turf, don't patronize them.

That said, this is the one sentence of Bailey's post that I found surprising:

The FDA may allow food produers [sic] to label their products as deriving from non-clones.

May allow? Why the hell wouldn't they allow it? And what gives the FDA the authority to prevent such labeling, anyway? It seems like voluntary labeling is the only option besides either banning cloned meat outright or not letting people know where the fuck their steaks come from.

I'm with Bailey: I'm ready to grill up a cloned-beef steak when available. I bet it will taste a lot like... steak.

Ron Paul As President vs. Ron Paul As Person

I was going to write a post on the importance of distinguishing Ron Paul as a person and Ron Paul as president, but then I found this Samizdata post in which Perry de Havilland says almost exactly what I was going to say, but far more eloquently.

In response to David Boaz's (pretty good) post at Cato@Liberty that mentions how Paul has "slimed the noble cause of liberty and limited government," here are the money paragraphs from de Havilland:

Please, gentlemen, take a deep breath. I realise racism is the cardinal sin of our time and that it carries the automatic penalty of public abomination and auto da fe, followed by burning at the stake (it even gets you banned from commenting at Samizdata, although probably not for the reasons most people think), but the notion that the cause of liberty is inextricably tied up with Ron Paul's campaign is excessive hyperventilating, both from Ron Paul's supporters and his detractors.

I never felt he was the dream candidate, just the only one serious about shrinking the size of the state and frankly if he wanted to do that in order to preserve the purity of his precious bodily fluids rather than to increase the general sum of liberty, well so be it, just so long as he really is serious about shrinking the state.

Most of the quotes from the Paul newsletter really are indefensible (some are defensible), but I won't get into that since they have been covered and covered again since the TNR article. What is obvious is that Ron Paul's character has been tarnished.

The point is that I still believe, despite his character and how important his character may be to voters, that Ron Paul as president would understand the limitations of his presidential powers as delimited by the Constitution. And most, if not all, of the other candidates would not.

Not only because of the newsletter controversy but also because of the recent elections, Paul's hopes for president are now none (as opposed to slim-to-none before). This may very well be my last post about Ron Paul. But goddamn, the remainder of the field is depressing.

As far as the claim that Paul has tarnished libertarianism goes, I don't buy it. After all, libertarianism hasn't really been drawing the masses recently. Is there really that much to tarnish? Although each person at both Cato and Reason is a far more "solid libertarian" than Ron Paul, let's face it, Paul has reached more people. And if a few of those people were intrigued enough to look into libertarianism further (like I was about 4 years ago, thanks to Radley Balko's FoxNews articles), perhaps they will discover the ideals for the sake of the ideals, not for the sake of the candidate.

Ron Paul deserves the criticism he has brought upon himself. But I believe that libertarianism in general has been helped by his campaign, not hurt. Those who have been drawn to libertarian ideals thanks to Paul's campaign will - and must, if the libertarian movement is to become significant - understand individual liberty as an ideal in and of itself and look past the quirkiness of Ron Paul as an individual.

Weekend Links

* Man sues the Yankees for "fraud" based on the alleged use of performance enhancing drugs. The amount he's suing for? $221. I think I've spent that on beer at a baseball game before. If I was going to sue the not-so-strapped-for-cash Yankees, I'd go for at least 8 digits. By the way, good luck proving that case.

* In Pennsylvania, a man was charged with disorderly conduct for writing "fuck" on the memo line of a check used to pay a parking ticket fine. The article claims the charges were filed because the comment was obscene. And, upon the charges being dropped, the police chief is quoted as saying "He was contrite enough to offer an apology, and I think that satisfies the people who were insulted by it". Is insulting someone grounds for a lawsuit? The article doesn't say. The Bill of Rights does.

* Dog damn nearly gets hit by lightning.

* One more reason to love YouTube: Amateur blues guitar.

Elitist Bullshit At Its Finest

An Indian automotive company has developed a car that not only gets 50 miles per gallon, but sells for roughly $2500 new. Goddamn, this is great news for both the Indian people and the environment, right? Well, maybe not:

While the price has created a buzz, critics say the Nano could lead to possibly millions more automobiles hitting already clogged Indian roads, adding to mounting air and noise pollution problems. Others have said Tata will have to sacrifice quality and safety standards to meet the target price.

[...]

Chief U.N. climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri, who shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize, said last month that "I am having nightmares" about the prospect of the low-cost car.

If you oppose Indians driving a compact car that gets fifty miles to the gallon, I guess that means you oppose Indians driving anything at all. After all, what would be the better option? I guess you think the current state of India is preferable to one in which the common person or family can afford a car, right?

I wonder how Dr. Pachauri gets around as a U.N. scientist. Does he walk on water to get to Belgium? Assuming he obeys the laws of physics and takes an airplane (or even a boat), why does he think he deserves fast and efficient transportation while the common Indian shouldn't even have a fuel-efficient compact car?

I suppose that overcrowding on the roads could be a concern. But if millions of Indians are suddenly able to afford this car, then wouldn't that suggest that there's a market for new roads also? I guess not if you operate under the meta-context that requires that the government and only the government to provide roads.

Dr. Pachauri should be ashamed of himself for spewing this garbage. That cushy U.N. job must really be getting to his head.

Good News For [Censored], Bad News For The [Censored]

Not fair! Why should my life-altering decision have consequences? So say some pregnant high school students from Denver:

Teen mothers-to-be attending a Denver high school are asking for at least four weeks maternity leave, saying they don't want to be penalized for absences while healing and bonding with their new babies, The Denver Post reports.

The current policy at East High School requires new mothers to return to school the day after they are discharged from the hospital or be penalized for unexcused absences, the paper said.

Next, the article gives Head ['s opinion]:

"My initial reaction is if we are punishing girls like that, that is unacceptable," Nicole Head, one of the counselors who brought the matter to the school board last month, told The Post. "We've got to do something."

Punishing? Are you kidding me? Listen, I'm all for a new mother taking some time off work or school to care for the newborn. But calling it "punishment" just because there are negative consequences is fucking insane. What about the other students who practice safe sex or abstinence and still have to attend class every day and do homework every night? As if the current structure of the welfare state doesn't encourage teen pregnancy enough already, now new teen mothers might also get a month off school with no strings attached? Unbelievable...

In addition, this is yet one more issue that could be a non-issue were it not for the government monopoly on schools and the complete lack of consumer choice. The last sentence of the article states that the Denver Public Schools do not have a set policy for student maternity leave, and it's up to the individual schools. Therefore it's possible that some public schools in the Denver area have policies more friendly to new moms. If students or parents had any choice in education, the mothers could simply choose a different school. (Given the high costs involved with having a baby, the private school option will not be feasible in many cases.)

Even so, I find it extremely unfair to more responsible high school students for mothers to get time off school with no consequences.

Story here.

Damn, I Feel Bad For These Poor Kids

CNN's Nancy Grace gave birth to twins.

I can only imagine what it would be like to have Nancy Grace as a mom. And frankly, I don't even want to think about it.

I think TtP should start a fund for these poor kids to ensure that as teens they will have all the drugs they need to put up with mom's shit.

Multiple videos of Grace being a huge bitch on national TV here.

Why Should The Iowa Caucus Change Your Vote?

Russell Roberts takes up this question at Cafe Hayek:

The standard answer is that if you vote for a candidate who now appears to have a dramatically lower chance of winning, you might be wasting your vote.

But your vote isn't likely to matter anyway, in the sense of breaking a tie. Why is it wasting your vote to vote for a candidate who has a diminished or minimal chance of winning? You get no credit for voting for the winner. It's not a bet. Doesn't the morality of democracy demand that you vote for the candidate closest to your views regardless of the probability of victory?

By the way, I'm going to castrate the next person who uses the word "Obamentum." Hopefully, New Hampshire will strike "Huckaboom" off the MSM's phrasebook.

Quick Trivia Question...

... What were Bhutto's political beliefs?

And no cheating, you know, like doing actual research. You have to answer based on what you've seen on TV and in the papers in the last 24 hours.

Between work today and alcohol tonight, CNN has been my only source of information about this. So my answer to the question is: "Hmm, something about democracy... Musharraf bad... and...democracy."

I'm not picking on Bhutto. She had guts to come back from exile at a time like this and oppose the dictatorial Musharraf. My point here, however, has little to do with Bhutto.

I just wish CNN could analyze foreign politics beyond "democracy" or "not democracy." It's just like how Bush spoke - and still speaks - of Iraq.

To be fair, I can't blame CNN or the MSM completely. Even Noam Chomsky writes of democracy this way. I just wish someone one the left or the right would say "Until basic individual liberty is realized in a nation or society, fuck democracy."

Paul Follow-up

I was originally typing this as a comment to my previous post, but what the hell, I'll just make it a post.

However well Paul may be doing in the polls isn't really the point. Paul won't win the nomination. Not to pick on Fred Thompson (I like him better than Romney and Huckabee), but is Paul really any more of a fringe candidate than Thompson right now?

Fuck a few percentage points in the polls... that's basically the margin of error. Plus, polls have been pretty unreliable in the past, even a week or two before the caucus. My point is: Thompson's not going to be the nominee. Neither is Paul. So is there any reason Thompson is considered among Huckabee, Romney and Giulani, but Paul doesn't get a mention?

As a meaningful measure of significance, I'll take record fundraising over a few percentage points in the polls any day. I hope the discussion continues.

Paul Who???

Since I just saw this on TV, I have no sources or links. But CNN just reported the "average" results in the Republican and Democratic presidential polls, and they completely dogged Ron Paul. They showed the percentages of Republicans (well... Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain and Thompson, anyway) in each of the early primary states (and Iowa).

I could have sworn that Paul was polling at 8% in New Hampshire. But CNN left him out completely and reported the typical five, including Thompson's impressive 3%.

I'm under the influence at the moment, so I can't get too analytical about this, but it seems like CNN thinks that Paul is a less serious candidate than Fred Thompson. Why, exactly?

Fun Fact: Of the six candidates' names that I typed above, Blogger's spellcheck only catches "Huckabee" as a spelling error... and it recommends "Hackable" as the first correction. Interpret it however you like...

Swiss Canton Votes "No" On Roads, Sewers, Running Water, Education, Health And Civilization

Via Cato@Liberty:

Obwalden has become the first Swiss canton to adopt a flat income tax rate, with more than 90 per cent of the electorate voting in favour of the move. The decision, announced by the authorities after a vote on Sunday, comes after a court ruled the canton’s previous degressive tax model unfair. From next January Obwalden will impose a rate of 1.8 per cent on all categories. The new model also exempts the first SFr10,000 ($8,700) of income from taxation, a measure designed to benefit those on lower incomes the most.

Based on the information on this page, the Swiss tax system is still fairly complex (although apparently relatively simple). But Switzerland and much of Eastern Europe seem interested in lowering taxes and inviting investment.

Will the resulting prosperity teach the USA a lesson?

Sunday's Ron Paul Rake

The Ron Paul campaign took in nearly $5 million in another one-day fundraising effort. Right now, the counter on the front page of Paul's campaign site stands at $18.15 million total for the 4th quarter (I'm not sure if the counter will still be on the front page on Monday).

On a sadder note, the Foxnews.com story about the campaign's big-money day, although linked on the front page, is listed as a footnote to a story about how Barack Obama went to church with a throng of reporters in tow just to prove he's Christian enough, and not a Muslim in disguise trying to tear America apart from the inside out.

So Paul has to rake in a cool $5 million in one day to be mentioned in the MSM, and Obama just has to walk into a church. And Huckabee just has to smile. Well fuck.

Still, it was another impressive fundraising day for Paul and company.

Mind Your Own Business, Spain

Irish airline Ryanair has released a for-charity calendar featuring its "air hostesses" (flight attendants, I guess) in bikinis. And this aerospace engineer simply can't think of a better combination than bikini-clad Irish women and 737s.

But a Spanish government-funded women's rights institute is not happy.

MADRID, Spain: Spain's government-run Women's Institute has labeled a 2008 calendar for low-cost airline Ryanair featuring bikini-wearing air hostesses as sexist and said it would be sending letters of complaint to Irish and EU authorities.

The institute, which defends women's rights, said that while the fact that the proceeds from calendar sales would go to charity was positive, the photographs "represent the stewardesses as sexual objects" and "reinforce discriminatory stereotypes."

"It is significant that that only women are used, in a sector in which there is a considerable percentage of men," the institute, which is part of the Labor and Social Affairs Ministry, said in a statement.

I guess Spain thinks that Ryanair is the first to think of selling a calendar featuring scantily-clad women. I mean, hasn't this made it to Spain yet?

No word yet on whether the EU is actually going to act on this. But this is one thing about a multi-nation continental "government" that worries me. Spain could have prevented the calendar from being sold within its borders and called it a day. But now it wants papa EU to (presumably) prevent Ryanair from selling its calendar period.

Let's hope the EU gives this Spanish government organization the same treatment that the Spanish king gave Hugo Chavez.

Headline Of The Weekend

Bill Clinton: It's a 'Miracle' That Hillary Clinton Has a Chance in Iowa

The Rich Are Getting Richer, The Poor Are Getting Richer

Send this old Coyote Blog post to anyone whom you hear say "The rich are getting richer; the poor are getting poorer."

For a quick taste, here's the closing paragraph:

Here is a man, Mark Hopkins, who was one of the richest and most envied men of his day. He owned a mansion that would dwarf many hotels I have stayed in. He had servants at his beck and call. And I would not even consider trading lives or houses with him. What we sometimes forget is that we are all infinitely more wealthy than even the richest of the "robber barons" of the 19th century. We have longer lives, more leisure time, and more stuff to do in that time. Not only is the sum of wealth not static, but it is expanding so fast that we can't even measure it. Charts like those here measure the explosion of income, but still fall short in measuring things like leisure, life expectancy, and the explosion of possibilities we are all able to comprehend and grasp. [Links in original]

HT: The optimistic Cafe Hayek blog.

What A Fetish

I was all pumped up about responding to this Craigslist add, until I got to the part that said I could not masturbate behind the black curtain with the eyeholes cut out. That's where I draw the line.

If I was to post such an add, however, I don't think I would have been so specific about the items I "borrowed" from the art museum to carry out my fantasy. But to each their own.

HT: TheAgitator

Note to Self: Next Time You Whip It Out In Public, Make Sure You're Not In Montana

HAMILTON, Mont. — A Missoula man who was on parole after serving nine years in prison for rape was sentenced Tuesday to 225 years in prison for three felony counts of indecent exposure.

District Judge James Haynes sentenced Robert Stearns to 75 years in prison on each of the counts. The sentences will run consecutively.

Emphasis added. Full story here.

The sentence was undoubtedly influenced by the fact that the man was already in jail for a sex crime. And he doesn't sound like a guy anyone would want roaming the streets. But wow, that's one huge sentence.

I hope it's not abused as a precedent in a later, less serious case.

Of All The Reasons To Oppose Fred Thompson...

This?

LEXINGTON, South Carolina (CNN) — Eight Confederate flag-waving men protested outside a Fred Thompson campaign stop Wednesday evening, one week after Thompson and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney criticized the flag during the CNN/YouTube debate in Florida.

[...]

Asked about the flag during last week's debate, Thompson said that, "as far as a public place is concerned, I am glad that people have made the decision not to display it as a prominent flag, symbolic of something, at a state capital."

Good luck finding that vocally pro-Confederate flag candidate.

In my opinion, however, it's not a very good debate question in the first place. I guess you could say that the way a candidate answered that question reflects on his or her character. But the question I wish CNN would have selected is: "Do you support my right to free speech enough to let me wave this flag peacefully, even if some or most would find it offensive.?"*

I wish I could ask the protesters which of these candidates they would support most:

Candidate A:
"I don't find the Confederate flag offensive at all. But let's allow democracy to decide."

Candidate B:
"Personally, I hate that damn flag. But this is America so you have the full right to free speech. You can wave it, wrap yourself in it, or cut a hole in it and fuck it, but don't expect me to like it or condone it."

I would hope that those protesters would support Candidate B. But I get the feeling they are only going to be happy with a candidate who would strongly support the display of that flag at state government offices and buildings. Shouldn't they take that up with the state government and not Fred, though?

Update: The position I detailed for "Candidate A" may be appropriate for public places. However, the number of public places should be kept to a minimum.


*If only CNN's panel [censors?] chose questions this straightforward

When You're Thinking Pizza, Santa's Thinking Oral Sex

My last few posts have been kind of serious, but this is just too good not to share:

Last year, Microsoft encouraged kids to connect directly to "Santa" by adding northpole@live.com to their Windows Live Messenger contact lists. The Santa program, which Microsoft reactivated in early December, asked children what they wanted for Christmas and could respond on topic, thanks to artificial intelligence.

The holiday cheer soured this week when a reader of a United Kingdom-based technology news site, The Register, reported that a chat between Santa and his underage nieces about eating pizza prompted Santa to bring up oral sex.

One of the publication's writers replicated the chat Monday. After declining the writer's repeated invitations to eat pizza, a frustrated Santa burst out with, "You want me to eat what?!? It's fun to talk about oral sex, but I want to chat about something else."

The exchange ended with the writer and Santa calling each other "dirty bastard."

Merry Christmas, cocksucker.

It Really Is About The Issues, Not Ron Paul

Professor Roderick T. Long has a new post up at Liberty & Power that is somewhat of a supplement to Professor Horwitz's post about Ron Paul that I blogged about yesterday.

While I agreed with the points that Horwitz made (but had a different conclusion about the Paul campaign), I think Professor Long may be putting words in the mouths of Paul's more enthusiastic supporters that they may not actually be inclined to say.

The argument goes like this: “Even if you think Paul is wrong on some particular issues, he’s still far, far more libertarian than any of the other candidates, so why not support him?” [Emphasis in original]

So far so good. Actually, this is the rationale for my support of Paul's campaign. I elaborate on this in yesterday's post. But here's where I think Long is incorrect:

The reason I find this argument puzzling is that those who make it would not, I suspect, find it plausible in most other contexts.

Imagine, for example, that instead of Ron Paul it’s Randy Barnett who’s running for President. Paul and Barnett have a lot in common; they’re both fairly thoroughgoing libertarians, they’re both enthusiasts for the Constitution, and they both take some positions that many libertarians regard as deviations.

Understanding that I cannot speak for Long, what he seems to be saying here is that there is something about Ron Paul personally that is drawing libertarians to his campaign. And that if the presidential candidate was someone with libertarian positions similar to Paul's, but not Paul, Paul's current supporters may not support that other candidate. As a Paul supporter, I will say that this is not true for me, and I would definitely be willing to support another candidate with a quasi-libertarian platform, even if he or she is not Paul. I agree with this paragraph from Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch's article about libertarianism and Paul in the Washington Post:

That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him -- and the much larger subset of Americans who are increasingly disillusioned with the two major political parties' soft consensus on making government ever more intrusive at all levels, whether it's listening to phone calls without a warrant, imposing fines of half a million dollars for broadcast "obscenities" or jailing grandmothers for buying prescribed marijuana from legal dispensaries.

Also, to be honest, I had not heard of Randy Barnett prior to seeing his name dropped in Long's post. But from what Professor Long says about Barnett in his post ("Barnett’s two major deviations ... would be his support for the war and his insufficiently decentralist approach to federalism."), Barnett may not be a good example of an alternative to Ron Paul. One of the major attractions to Paul's campaign for independents and libertarians is his opposition to the war in Iraq. That war is not only putting American troops in harm's way for a questionable reason, but it is severely damaging America's reputation abroad.

I'm going to risk putting words in other Paul supporters' mouths here too, but I would think that they would agree with me that Ron Paul is the most likely candidate to bring the troops home anytime soon. Yes, all the Democratic candidates are speaking out against the war, but it seems to me that they are saying this more to beat the Republican candidate than to actually bring the troops home promptly. Maybe I'm being cynical, and believe me, I'd love to be proven wrong if a Democrat is elected president, but I'm not convinced as to the Democrats' sincerity. One of my favorite things about Paul (and I think even most of Paul's critics would agree) is that when he says something, he means it.

Paul's service in the House of Representatives, voting no on nearly every (every?) spending increase, has been admirable. And his outspoken (although, in my opinion, not outspoken enough) opposition to the War on Drugs is almost unheard of in modern politics, in either party. However, I see no reason why I wouldn't be willing to support any other candidate who spoke out in favor of such positions.

We've Been Given The Right To Choose Between A Douche And A Turd

In a very interesting post on the Liberty & Power blog, Professor Steven Horwitz expressed his doubts about Ron Paul and his campaign. I recommend reading the whole post. Prof. Horwitz makes some excellent points.

The post got me thinking... Here's why: 1) I agree with 100% of Professor Horwitz's post. 2) I'm still enthusiastic about Ron Paul's campaign. Look, I know Ron Paul is not the perfect candidate. I'm not sure I've heard anyone claim that he is. However, Paul is the best serious candidate to run for president in my lifetime. It's unfortunate, sure. But in politics, it almost always boils down to choosing the least bad candidate. I believe Paul is the least bad in 2008.

Moving on, Horwitz begins by addressing three concerns about Paul's stances: abortion, immigration and free trade agreements.

Horwitz agrees with Paul that "Roe [v. Wade] was bad constitutional law", but he claims the Court "got to the right result for the wrong reasons." I agree, but what does he want from Paul here? As far as the authority of the president goes, don't Horwitz and Paul agree completely on policy? Perhaps Horwitz wishes Paul was not so outspoken about his personal opposition to abortion, but it is perfectly in line with Paul's principles that he would not move to ban abortion at the federal level (which is, of course, is the only level he would have authority over as president).

Issues #2 and #3 of Horwitz's post, however, do fall within the scope of the federal government. And I cannot defend Paul's positions here, except to mention once again that I believe that Paul qualifies as the "least bad" candidate overall, despite these somewhat "un-libertarian" views. No candidate seems to be campaigning on a platform of open borders or completely free trade. The Democratic candidates will likely be best on the immigration issue, whereas the Republicans are more likely to support free trade. But while the Democratic candidates may be willing to pass a few policy steps towards more open borders, they will not address the philosophical issue of, in Horwitz's words, "Why should employers be prevented from engaging in labor contracts with adults from anywhere in the world?". And while the Republican candidates may be more willing to support free trade agreements, they will not speak of free trade as the right of individuals to, well... Please refer to the quote in the previous sentence.

The next two paragraphs are worth quoting directly, even though they're quite long:

All of this leads to my general discomfort with Paul, which I think I would characterize as a lack of cosmopolitanism. For example, I don't think he's a racist but there are reasons why he's getting donations from KKK leaders. Even though many of his positions are solidly libertarian, the way they are framed, along with the three above, lend themselves to appealing to the nativist/Buchanan types in a way that I think goes against the historical progressive spirit of classical liberalism. I share David Bernstein's concerns about the way in which Paul addresses the racism issue, even if there's nothing in it that is "un-libertarian" in policy terms. This is an example of the sort of left-libertarianism view I advocated for above (and that I believe L&P co-blogger Roderick Long shares, though I don't know what he thinks of Paul). If the true spirit of libertarianism is a cosmopolitan one, we can and should do a lot better than a policy statement on racism that refers largely, if not only, to the way in which state-enforced racial categories (mostly of the left) have "divided" America. That may well be a problem, but its silence on the racism of the right and the real ways in which people of color continue to face discrimination (though much less than in the past) cuts against the grain of what should be libertarianism's progressivism. What is so difficult and so wrong about saying racism exists in other forms and that as people committed to equal and individual rights we should work to end it?

Libertarianism's progressive spirit is one of cosmopolitanism and openness to cultural change (perhaps best captured in our own time by Virginia Postrel's work). Paul's cultural conservatism and several of his positions push in the opposite direction and, in my view, might do long-term damage to libertarianism even if it reaps some short-term benefits in this campaign. I do not believe the future of libertarianism is in making alliances with the forces of nativism and the wrong sort of isolationism, nor with those who cannot see the ways in which the US is still not a society that treats women, gays/lesbians, and persons of color as equal individuals, both under the law and culturally. (To be clear, I'm not advocating for any state intervention to address these problems - in fact, the state is the source of some/many but not all of them). The future of libertarianism is to align with Postrel's forces of "dynamism" both left and right. Paul's campaign is attracting young people, but I suspect mostly because he does indeed tell it like it is and that straight talking appeals to cynical youth. And I do admire Paul greatly for his honesty and his intellect. But in the long run, the young will never sign on to a movement rooted in cultural conservatism. Paul's campaign is, in that sense, running a huge risk of long-term damage to libertarianism.

I'm not clear on what Horwitz is hoping for here. It seems as though he wishes Paul would speak out more against racism and his less-than-reputable financial supporters. But it seems like he is, to some extent, singling out Paul here. Does Horwitz believe that none of the other candidates have financial supporters who are less than reputable? Assuming that Horwitz recognizes that some shady characters donate to almost every campaign, doesn't he think they should all speak out against them?

In addition, even if Paul is lacking in "cosmopolitanism", I believe that the social issues about which Horwitz expresses concern are getting better without the endorsement of any specific politician, Paul or otherwise. I am definitely not claiming that blacks, Hispanics, gays or lesbians are treated equally as others, and I am not claiming that these specific social issues are unimportant. But America in general is making progress on these social issues without the help of government. (In fact, it's arguable that progress will be faster if government stays out.) Very few politicians have spoken out enthusiastically for gay rights, but can anyone say he or she would rather be openly gay 20 years ago than now? Can anyone say he or she would rather be openly atheist 20 years ago?

On the other hand, monetary policy and free trade do not seem to get increasing support over time without political support (at least not at this time). Although I cannot exactly explain the reasons, libertarian social issues seem to be progressing much faster than libertarian economic issues.

After this criticism, I feel it's necessary to say again: I agree with 100% of Professor Horwitz's post on the level of political philosophy. I only disagree with him on the level of practical politics. Yes, this does reflect very poorly on modern politics, but I don't know of any self-described libertarian who is satisfied with the current political climate.

Professor Horwitz is criticizing Paul's campaign, fairly, from a purely ideological standpoint. I guess my disagreement stems from my frustration with politics in general. In a perfect world (or even a semi-perfect world), we might have a candidate for president who fits the libertarian blueprint detailed in Horwitz's post. But the current political scene is not even close to perfect. So I can't help but be enthusiastic about Ron Paul's candidacy, simply because he's the best candidate in my lifetime who is actually making headlines. And now that a protectionist nanny-statist is leading the GOP polls in Iowa, Ron Paul's imperfect libertarianism is still very refreshing to me.

In case you don't already know, the post title is explained here.

I'm Going To Name My Bong "Mohammed"

Sudan has arrested a British teacher for insulting faith and religion, the British Foreign Office said Monday.

[...]

Numerous media reports say Gibbons was arrested after allowing her class of 7-year-olds to name a teddy bear "Mohammed."

That could be seen as an insult to the Prophet Mohammed, the reports said.

Blasphemy is punishable with 40 lashes under Islamic Sharia law, Britain's Press Association news agency reported.

Just as depressing, both articles I read about this (CNN and The Times of London) quote the high school's director as referring to Gibbons' actions as an "innocent mistake." And the TV coverage on CNN concentrated more on whether or not Gibbons intended to insult Islam rather than whether or not jailing and lashing someone for insulting a religion is a blatent abuse of human rights.

I hope the human rights organizations of the world jump all over this shit. And I hope Ms. Gibbons is freed promptly and safely. Fuck you, government of Sudan.

This Week In Dictatorship

Russia:

A Russian judge sentenced opposition leader Garry Kasparov to five days in jail Sunday, a day after the chess champion-turned-politician and other protesters were arrested at a pro-democracy demonstration in Moscow.

Kasparov was charged and sentenced Sunday for organizing an unsanctioned procession, resisting arrest and chanting anti-government slogans.

[Emphasis mine]


Venezuela:

Chavez said Sunday he is putting relations "in the freezer" after President Alvaro Uribe ended the Venezuelan leader's role mediating with Colombia's leftist rebels. That announcement drew a strong rebuke from Uribe, who said Chavez's actions suggest he wants to see a "terrorist government" run by leftist rebels in Bogota.

[...]

It could have serious economic consequences. The two countries are major commercial partners, with $4.1 billion in trade last year, about two-thirds of that in Colombian exports to Venezuela.

This situation in Venezuela is a bit more complicated. First off, the talks between Chavez and FARC were (according to the article) to arrange for the release of hostages. Second, Uribe comes off as no angel himself. But as Chavez isolates his nation from the world further, is there anyone (outside of Hollywood) who really believes this guy cares about "his people" anymore?

Someone In Hollywood Takes Marriage Seriously

Natalie Portman says she may never get married. Why?

"I'm not convinced about marriage,” the beautiful "Star Wars" sensation recently told InStyle magazine. “Divorce is so easy, and that fact that gay people are not allowed to marry takes much of the meaning out of it. Committing yourself to one person is sacred."

Well that sounds downright reasonable. Then again, those celebrity marriages sure do bring home the publicity, even if they last less than two years and make people vomit.

Previous post on my doubts about legal marriage here.

Hooters Girls of the World, Unite For A Cause

Q. When do SWAT teams NOT make the national MSM news?

A. When they raid the wrong houses, kill dogs, and put guns to the heads of children or the elderly.

Q. When do SWAT teams make the national MSM news?

A. When they pose with armed Hooters girls.

If we could only unite an army of busty libertarians to bring down any and all threats to civil liberties... And just one picture of Dick Cheney with his head wedged in cleavage would probably do more to bring him down than any well-researched article or report on his Constitution-stomping shenanigans.

Depressing but true, folks. I'm going to pack the ol' assault rifle in the armored car and go get myself some buffalo wings.

Story here.