I knew that recent disclosures about legal memos regarding the use of torture would send Democrats and media types scurrying to re-mount their high horses. An excellent post by Tom Smith of The Right Coast saves me the trouble of composing my own post. Smith has it just right.
Month: June 2004
In the "Nausea" Department
From Reuters.com:
Film Industry Gives Controversial Iraq Film Ovation
By Arthur SpiegelmanBEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (Reuters) – Director Michael Moore’s controversial anti-Iraq war film “Fahrenheit 9/11” won a standing ovation on Tuesday night from an audience of film industry professionals attending its West Coast debut at Academy Award headquarters.
After an audience of more than 600 people in the theater of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences cheered, whistled and laughed their way through the two-hour film, they jumped to their feet to give Moore a standing ovation as he took the stage.
Respect for Presidents
In the previous post I referred to Ronald Reagan as President Reagan and Mr. Reagan, whereas I called Bill Clinton plain old Clinton. I’m not of the school that accords every president or ex-president the same degree respect when it comes to honorifics. Presidents must earn my respect by their actions. I’m their employer, after all.
Here’s how I think of the men who have served as president since the end of World War II:
Truman — sometimes Mr. Truman and sometimes Harry; it depends on which Truman I’m thinking of at the moment, the no-nonsense Truman or the partisan Democrat.
Eisenhower — Ike, with respect for his soldiering days, or President Eisenhower.
Kennedy — Jack or JFK is the best I can do for the playboy of the West Wing.
Johnson — LBJ or something unprintable for the biggest crook on this list, after Nixon.
Nixon — Nixon, when I’m being kind; otherwise, only Tricky Dick fits the man.
Ford — Jerry, because it rhymes with ordinary.
Carter — Jimmy, because it’s the undignified label he gave himself; better than he deserves. (A “great ex-president” my foot.)
Reagan — Mr. Reagan or President Reagan; Gipper is too familiar for a man who was pleasant but dignified.
Bush I — Bush I is the best I can do for a career bureaucrat who had to have his turn in the White House.
Clinton — Clinton, when I’m being kind; otherwise, Slick Willie or something unprintable for this walking amalgam of JFK, LBJ, and Nixon.
Bush II — Bush II, when he’s being a compassionate conservative; otherwise, President Bush.
Presidential Values
My local paper, apparently unable to bear any longer the outpouring of adulation for President Reagan, today ran a front-page article on his failings as a father. The headline, “Reagan championed family values, but had complicated relationships with his own children,” all but accuses the late president of moral hypocrisy. Now, how are Mr. Reagan’s supposed parental shortcomings related to his accomplishments as a president? They’re not, as far as I can see. But the liberal press simply cannot stand by and let Mr. Reagan pass into history unsullied.
If Mr. Reagan’s personal life is irrelevant to his performance as president, why was there all that fuss about Bill Clinton’s extra-curricular activities with Monica Lewinsky? Democrats persist in saying that the impeachment of Clinton was “just about sex.” But it wasn’t.
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath before a federal grand jury and for obstructing justice in the Paula Jones case. Whatever Jones may have said publicly after she settled her suit against Clinton, she had nevertheless chosen freely to sue him. Her suit became a federal case, under the laws that Clinton had sworn implicitly to uphold in his capacity as president.
Oh, but Clinton wasn’t guilty because the Senate didn’t convict him on any of the articles of impeachment. Wrong! Clinton was guilty, but he wasn’t convicted because Democrats — to a man and woman — effectively refused to hear the evidence. They had made it clear from the beginning that the trial would be a farce. And it was. Some Republican senators, knowing that Clinton couldn’t be convicted, chose to vote “not guilty” out of political expediency. Clinton would have been convicted if Democrats had acted in good faith.
If you need more evidence of Clinton’s guilt than the articles of impeachment, consider this: In the aftermath of the impeachment trial, Clinton was disbarred in his home State of Arkansas and by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, tell me why the media must flaunt Mr. Reagan’s purported failings as a father.
An Extra Day of Freedom
Eugene Volokh objects to “spending about half a billion dollars of taxpayer money for a paid holiday for federal employees.” The half billion dollars is the reported cost of giving federal workers the day off on Friday, in honor of President Reagan.
Here’s how I look at it:
1. They would have been paid anyway, so taxpayers really aren’t shelling out an extra $500 million.
2. We’re better off when federal employees aren’t at work.
I think it’s a very fitting way to honor the memory of Ronald Reagan.
Libertarian-Conservatives Are from the Earth, Liberals Are from the Moon
A post by Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution points to George Lakoff’s book, Moral Politics. Lakoff thinks he has an explanation for the difference between conservatives (who hew to a “Strict Father” model) and liberals (a “Nurturant Parent” model):
What we have here are two different forms of family-based morality. What links them to politics is a common understanding of the nation as a family, with the government as parent. Thus, it is natural for liberals to see it as the function of the government to help people in need and hence to support social programs, while it is equally natural for conservatives to see the function of the government as requiring citizens to be self-disciplined and self-reliant and, therefore, to help themselves.
Lakoff is probably wrong about liberals, and he’s certainly wrong about most conservatives — and about libertarians, whom he doesn’t seem to acknowledge.
Liberals, in my observation, don’t think of the nation as a family. They think of it as a playground full of unruly children, needing someone (government) to enforce the rules (liberal rules, of course). A liberal’s candid thoughts would run something like this:
Well, here we are all on the same playground. Well, if we’re going to be here, we might as well get along together. I’m sure we’ll do just fine, and you’ll all be happy, if you do as I say. Now, if we all share, there won’t be any fights. Johnny, you have more toys than Billy, you have to give him some of your toys. Susie, no fair hanging around with your friends, you have to hang around with people you’ve never met; it’ll be good for you.
In other words, the liberal mindset is more like that of a bossy child trying to control her playmates than that of a “nuturant parent.”
Conservatives (those who think about such things, anyway) and libertarians don’t see “the nation as a family, with government as parent.” They see the nation as parent whose role is to guarantee a form of government that exists not to require citizens to be self-disciplined and self-reliant but to allow citizens to realize the fruits of whatever self-discipline and self-reliance they can muster.
It is not surprising, therefore, to find that conservatives and libertarians are generally more patriotic than liberals. Conservatives and libertarians put nationhood above government, realizing that without the nation our enemies (without and within) would rob us of our ability to enjoy the fruits of our self-discipline and self-reliance. Liberals, on the other hand, put government first and seem embarrassed by patriotism.
Thomas Sowell, in A Conflict of Visions, has a much better explanation of the dichotomy between the liberal and conservative-libertarian perspectives. He posits two opposing visions: the unconstrained vision (I would call it the idealistic vision) and the constrained vision (which I would call the realistic vision). As Sowell explains, at the end of chapter 2:
The dichotomy between constrained and unconstrained visions is based on whether or not inherent limitations of man are among the key elements included in each vision….These different ways of conceiving man and the world lead not merely to different conclusions but to sharply divergent, often diametrically opposed, conclusions on issues ranging from justice to war.
Thus, in chapter 5, Sowell writes:
The enormous importance of evolved systemic interactions in the constrained vision does not make it a vision of collective choice, for the end results are not chosen at all — the prices, output, employment, and interest rates emerging from competition under laissez-faire economics being the classic example. Judges adhering closely to the written law — avoiding the choosing of results per se — would be the analogue in law. Laissez-faire economics and “black letter” law are essentially frameworks, with the locus of substantive discretion being innumerable individuals.
By contrast,
those in the tradition of the unconstrained vision almost invariably assume that some intellectual and moral pioneers advance far beyond their contemporaries, and in one way or another lead them toward ever-higher levels of understanding and practice. These intellectual and moral pioneers become the surrogate decision-makers, pending the eventual progress of mankind to the point where all can make moral decisions.
Sowell has nailed it. Equality is a state that we will reach when liberals tell us we’ve reached it. Until then, we must do as they say — or else.
A Few More Thoughts
The passing of Ronald Reagan reminds me of two enduring truths, which those who sneered at him never grasped. The first truth is that you can’t have peace with dignity unless you’re prepared for war. The second truth is that free markets — not government programs — offer the surest path out of poverty.
In Memoriam
Ronald W. Reagan: February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004. He brought us peace through strength and prosperity through greater self-reliance. The greatest president of the 20th century now belongs to the ages.
D-Day and Other Great Days
Tomorrow marks the 60th anniversary of D-day (not the 60-year anniversary of D-Day, as current usage would have it). D-Day was the beginning of the end of World War II. Victory in Europe came on May 8, 1945, less than a year after D-Day. The Japanese announced their surrender on August 14, 1945, although they didn’t sign the surrender document until September 2, 1945.
We used to commemorate each anniversary of victory in Europe as V-E Day. Similarly, the anniversary of Japan’s surrender was known as V-J Day. Those memorable dates seem to have slipped off the calendar as World War II has faded into the past.
Let us hope that V-E Day and V-J Day are commemorated properly next year when we observe the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. The men and women of the armed forces paid for victory in Europe and the Pacific with lives, limbs, and lost years. Those warriors who survive to mark the 60th anniversaries of V-E Day and V-J Day should be encouraged to celebrate their victories. The rest of us should celebrate the victorious warriors, living and dead.
Tell It to the Judge
Then there’s this:
A student who admits plagiarising throughout his three-year degree, plans to sue his university for negligence after his activities were exposed the day before the final exam….
[The student said:] “I can see there is evidence that I have gone against the rules, but they’ve taken my money for three years and pulled me up the day before I finished. If they had pulled me up with my first essay, and warned me of the problems, it would be fair enough. But all my essays were handed back with good marks and no one spotted it.”
[A university official] said: “The university has robust and well-established procedures in place to combat plagiarism and our students are given clear guidance on this issue… in the faculty and department’s handbooks.”
The former student is thinking of suing the university, of course.
If he wins, think of the useful precedent it will set. For example: I know there are speed limits, but I habitually exceed the speed limits. I finally get caught. Then I tell the judge that because I wasn’t caught the first time I sped it wouldn’t be fair to fine me now. Do you think the judge would buy it?
A Timeless Indictment
The authors of the Declaration of Independence, if they were writing it today, would be able to list “a long train of abuses and usurpations” by the federal government against the States and the people. Their list could rightly include these charges, once levelled against the British monarch:
…erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people and eat out their substance….
…combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws….
…[took] away our [State] charters…and alter[ed] fundamentally the forms of our governments….
Unintended Irony from a Few Framers
The constitutional balance, as seen by Hamilton and Madison in The Federalist Papers:
It will always be far more easy for the State governments to encroach upon the national authorities than for the national government to encroach upon the State authorities. (Hamilton, No. 17)
[T]here is greater probability of encroachments by the members upon the federal head than by the federal head upon the members. (Hamilton, No. 31)
The State governments will have the advantage of the federal government…in respect to…the weight of personal influence which each side will possess…the powers respectively vested in them…[and] the…faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other. (Madison, No. 45)
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. (Madison, No. 45)
[T]he powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded of a mediated and consequential annihilation of the State governments must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them. (Madison, No. 46)
On the other hand, “Cato” foresaw in 1787 that: “the great powers of the president…would lead to oppression and ruin”; the national government “would be an asylum of the base, idle, avaricious, and ambitious,” a “court [with] language and manners different from [ours]”; and “rulers in all governments will erect an interest separate from the ruled, which will have a tendency to enslave them.”
You’re Driving Me Crazy
Driving habits that seem to have become universal in the past several years:
1. Looping left to make a right turn, and vice versa.
2. Making an abrupt turn without giving a signal, when there are other drivers around you who would benefit from knowing your plans.
3. Going just slow enough to make it through a light as it turns yellow, then speeding up after the cars behind you have braked for the light.
4. Staying in the left lane of an interstate highway while driving at the speed limit (or slower). (This habit dates back at least 20 years, but it has become standard practice in certain places: Virginia and Florida, to name two.)
5. Going 55 mph in the middle lane of an interstate highway when the speed limit is 65 or 70 mph. (Can’t you and the jerks in the left lane read the signs that say “Slower Traffic Keep Right”?)
6. Getting all ticked off and speeding up when someone tries to pass you on an interstate highway, even though you had been obliviously dawdling along at 55 mph.
7. Yielding the right of way when it’s yours — out of a misplaced sense of courtesy — thus confusing the driver who doesn’t have the right of way and causing traffic behind you to back up needlessly.
8. Of course, there’s talking on a cell phone while driving in heavy traffic.
9. Then there’s talking on a cell phone while driving in heavy traffic and leaning into the back seat to slap your child. (Here’s a case where I think the government should confiscate your car — and your child.)
10. How about those drivers who cross the center line while taking a curve because they can’t exert the bit of effort required to stay in the proper lane? (What, no power steering, you self-centered jerks?)
11. And how about those drivers who like to take corners by cutting across the oncoming lane of traffic? Jerks, jerks, jerks.
12. What are those stripes for on either side of a parking space? Might they be meant to be parked between? No, they’re just targets to aim for. As long as your car is straddling one stripe or the other, you’re okay. SUV drivers — being mostly obnoxious jerks — are the worst offenders, but yuppie women in small BMWs are close contenders.
The longer I make this list, the more irritated I get. I’m ready to hop in my car and go 30 mph through a 20 mph school zone. Then I will keep going 30 mph when I get onto a nice 45 mph boulevard. Then I will honk at you if you dare pass me. Why not? Everyone else seems to do it.
Things Have Gone Too Far
From AP via Yahoo News:
‘Ladies Night’ Discount Axed in N.J. Bars
TRENTON, N.J. – The state’s top civil rights official has ruled that taverns cannot offer discounts to women on “ladies nights,” agreeing with a man who claimed such gender-based promotions discriminated against men.
David R. Gillespie said it was not fair for women to get into the Coastline nightclub for free and receive discounted drinks while men paid a $5 cover charge and full price for drinks.
In his ruling Tuesday, J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, director of the state Division on Civil Rights, rejected arguments by the nightclub that ladies nights were a legitimate promotion.
Later in the story we find that some States have the right idea:
[C]ourts in Illinois and Washington state have said that ladies nights are permissible because they do not discriminate against men but rather encourage women to attend.
James E. McGreevey, the governor of New Jersey, is quoted as saying that the ruling “is an overreaction that reflects a complete lack of common sense and good judgment.”
Not bad for a Democrat.
Know Your Enemy
Knowing the enemy is more instructive than “understanding” the enemy (as the bleeding hearts would have us do). Consider this, from BBC News World Edition:
Aid workers die in Afghan ambush
Three foreign and two Afghan aid workers have been killed in an ambush in the north-west of the country, according to police.
The attack occurred in the village of Khair Khana, in Badghis province, 550 km (340 miles) west of Kabul.
The victims were members of international aid organisation Medecins Sans Frontieres [Doctors Without Borders] and were thought to be setting up a clinic in the area.
The former ruling Taleban has said it carried out the attack.
Will the Libertarian Party’s Candidate Swing the Election to Kerry?
No way. The Libertarian Party has outdone itself this year. I predict that its current presidential nominee — one Michael Badnarik — will garner fewer popular votes than any Libertarian candidate has since 1980. That year marked the party’s high-water mark in presidential politics, when its nominee received 921,199 popular votes. It’s been pretty much downhill since then. The second-best showing of 485,798 popular votes in 1996 was followed by 382,892 popular votes in 2000. (Stats courtesy of the LP web site.)
An article posted yesterday on The Chattanoogan.com indicates the quality of Mr. Badnarik’s intellect:
The reason we can’t find a relationship between the Constitution and our current government is that there is none. [Oh really, none at all, not even the three branches of the federal government?] If I can win the Libertarian nomination, there’s no reason I can’t win this election. [Of course, it would take an unprecedented and undetected failure of most voting machines in the United States.] We have a unique opportunity to change the world. [What an original thought!]
The article goes on to say, “Badnarik urged the national audience to reject the ‘wasted vote’ argument…” Right. Well, if the LP candidate in 2000 had received as many wasted votes as the LP candidate in 1996, the election probably would have gone to Gore, without the need for a long recount in Florida. If Libertarian Party members don’t like Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” they’d surely hate Gore’s “ultra-compassionate liberalism.”
Badnarik scattered a few more pearls of wisdom:
If you were in prison and faced a 50% chance of death by lethal injection, a 45% chance of the electric chair, and had a 5% chance of escape, would you vote for lethal injection because it was the most likely outcome, or would you try for escape? [What an absolutely compelling metaphor. Will it fit on a bumper sticker?] Voting Libertarian is our only chance for political survival. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. [It may be, but if you don’t choose the lesser evil, you get the greater one.]
My heart may be libertarian but my mind is Republican.
The Cost of Affirmative Action
La Griffe du Lion, in “Affirmative Action: The Robin Hood Effect”, assesses the redistributive effects of affirmative action:
[O]n average a black worker between the ages of 25 and 64 earns an extra $9,400 a year because of affirmative action. Hispanics also benefit to the tune of almost $4,000 a year. However, being a zero-sum game, white workers pay an average of about $1,900 annually to foot the bill.
Working from data for 1999, La Griffe estimates that affirmative action cost white workers a total of $192 billion. But there’s more to it than that.
Because of affirmative action — and legal actions brought and threatened under its rubric — employers do not always fill every job with the person best qualified for the job. The result is that the economy produces less than it would in the absence of affirmative action.
GDP in 1999 was $9.3 trillion. Taking $192 billion as an approximation of the economic cost of affirmative action in that year, it’s reasonable to say that affirmative action reduces GDP by about 2 percent. That’s not a trivial amount. In fact, it’s just about what the federal government spends on all civilian agencies and their activities — including affirmative action, among many other things.
Favorite Posts: Affirmative Action and Race
Politics and Prosperity 