August 18, 2008
Reading Racism Between the Lines
In a year when it is racist to call Senator Obama "skinny," Paul Waldman, writing at The American Prospect, has realized that the Obama Energy Plan Tire Gauge -- much beloved by some ThreeSourcers -- is actually a, um, I think I'll let him say it:
The message couldn't be plainer: See that itty-bitty, little tire gauge? If you vote for Obama, that's how big your penis is. If you vote for McCain, on the other hand, your penis is as big as this [working oil] rig, thrusting its gigantic shaft in and out of the ground! Real men think keeping your tires inflated is for weenies.
Wow. I missed the PoMo, feminist collegiate experience by: a) being old, b) studying math and hard science, and c) dropping out. But I have encountered it because I read a lot of literary criticism of Buffy and Angel (sometimes a sword is just a sword, Doctor).
If every candidate is going to have to justify the double indirection parsing of his or her words, we're going to get even farther away from a serious philosophical election.
Hat-tip: Attila (who else?), reminding that I have been remiss in not linking to "When CPA Means 'Jew'," even though I have laughed about it every day since I read it. Riffing off the "skinny" contretemps, Attila recalls the 2000 Lieberman-Cheney debate:
. . . and it's really quite obvious that Cheney's reference to CPAs is a not-so-veiled allusion to Lieberman's Jewish background. What Cheney said was, "You have to be a CPA to understand what he just said." A CPA. Get it? He could just as easily have said, "You have to be a Jew to understand what that Jew just said." And then Cheney went on to say, "The fact of the matter is the plan is so complex that the ordinary American is never going to ever figure out what they even qualify for." The "ordinary American," as opposed to the Jew. That's not very subtle, either, painting the Jew as the Other.
August 5, 2008
Thanks a Million, Oprah
Professor Mankiw links to a paper that examines the value of celebrity endorsements and suggests that Ms. Winfrey's support of Senator Obama brought him an additional 1,000,000 votes.
Craig Garthwaite and Tim Moore of the University of Maryland Economics department admit that there are substantial hurdles to accurately measuring the effect of any endorsement, but they do some reasonable extrapolation of Oprah's clout in book sales and other items featured on her show. Interstin'...
July 23, 2008
Public-Private Partnership
I was going to give WSJ Ed Page Editor Paul Gigot a quote of the day, for this little bon mot:
My battles with Fan and Fred began with no great expectations. In late 2001, I got a tip that Fannie's derivatives accounting might be suspect. I asked Susan Lee to investigate, and the editorial she wrote in February 2002, "Fannie Mae Enron?", sent Fannie's shares down nearly 4% in a day. In retrospect, my only regret is the question mark.
Reading the rest of the editorial made me realize that this needed a little more coverage. Long time readers of the WSJ Ed Page have followed the battles with Fannie and Freddie -- if you're behind, they have compiled them here.
Gigot takes the unusual step of writing a bylined editorial on his own page, and I strongly suggest that you read the whole thing. He and his staff were on the front lines against this perverse hybrid of government and private power. He has certainly earned a few I-told-ya-sos, but he uses the space to expand and discredit the whole idea of mixing government power with private enterprises.
The abiding lesson here is what happens when you combine private profit with government power. You create political monsters that are protected both by journalists on the left and pseudo-capitalists on Wall Street, by liberal Democrats and country-club Republicans. Even now, after all of their dishonesty and failure, Fannie and Freddie could emerge from this taxpayer rescue more powerful than ever. Campaigning to spare taxpayers from that result would represent genuine "change," not that either presidential candidate seems interested.
It is germane not only because we are bailing out Fannie and Freddie today, but also because Senator Obama, and to a lesser extent, Senator McCain both have a soft spot for this "third-way" model, Public-Private Partnership. It's all Kumbaya all the time, until you realize that you have created an un-reformable, undefeatable monster.
UPDATE: Great article by James Surowecki (other than cartoons, the reason to read New Yorker) on the GSEs. Professor Mankiw links and points out that it is one more thing to thank LBJ for:
It wasn’t until 1968 that Fannie was privatized....The main reason for the change was surprisingly mundane: accounting. At the time, Lyndon Johnson was concerned about the effect of the Vietnam War on the federal budget. Making Fannie Mae private moved its liabilities off the government’s books, even if, as the recent crisis made clear, the U.S. was still responsible for those debts. It was a bit like what Enron did thirty years later, when it used “special-purpose entities” to move liabilities off its balance sheet.
Jeez, them Enron boys were pikers...
July 19, 2008
The New Graeme Frosts
I assume many of you saw this, but I think everybody has to.
NPR profiled the plight of this family that has had to cut down on food. The headline on the NPR site is For Some Ohioans, Even Meat Is Out Of Reach. I'm sure the story was quite touching on the radio. I can almost hear the dulcet tones of the NPR announcer du jour, and the well produced transitions with acoustic music in the background.
Low-income families in Ohio say they are particularly hard-hit by the changes in the economy, according to a new poll conducted by NPR, The Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health.
In the blogosphere, however, the story has a different vibe because it includes a picture of Angelica Hernandez and Gloria Nunez, the "starving" family:
Now I hate to be cruel. I have been heavy most of my life and could certainly use to drop 20 pounds right now. But only NPR could present these two as suffering from a lack of food. (Okay, I'll be cruel: the headline "Meat out of reach" is apropos because none of them can lift her arms! -- Sorry.)
Like the Frosts, the family that starred in the Democratic Radio address to support SCIHP, maybe these people have -- I don't know -- made some bad choices, or have perhaps done something slightly wrong that has kept their income from keeping up with inflation?
Nunez and most of her siblings and their spouses are unemployed and rely on government assistance and food stamps. Some have part-time jobs, but working is made more difficult with no car or public transportation.
Yet the high prices have hit them hard as the accompanying graphic shows:
They're not hit by high gas prices because they don't have a car. They've cut back on food (no more ice cream!) so they are saving money. Their energy costs at home are subsidized and unchanged. Why were they chosen by NPR to support this story premise? Because they were the only family in Ohio that claimed they were eating less because of food prices. And because there are no pictures on radio.
Chain of hat-tips: Instapundit, Gateway Pundit, Moonbattery.
UPDATE: Mean-spirited photoshopping from Snapped Shot: Mondo-Heh!
They had to cut down on ice cream! Cry me a river.
Yeah, subsidized housing. Healthcare is unchanged, because these two get it because the rest of us are forced to pay.
Somewhere there's a Third World village that's starving because of these two bitches. Not because these two bitches eat the same food, but because the costs of "public support" means the rest of us have less to spend, including on goods and services that Third Worlders could produce and thereby lift themselves out of poverty.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 19, 2008 1:49 PMNot to mention how much money was wasted by "NPR, The Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health" to discover whether low-income families are "particularly hard-hit" by the economic downturn.
Posted by: jk at July 19, 2008 2:35 PMBut without worthless studies and news reports that are easily debunked with the truth, what would these pseudo-economists and "fake but accurate" reporters do? If they didn't have these taxpayer-supported jobs, they'd...they'd weigh 350 pounds each, be on welfare, living in subsidized housing, complaining that they had to cut back on ice cream!
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 20, 2008 10:46 PMAs the young folk say, LOL. I didn't recognize it as a jobs engine.
I was thinking of James Lileks, who counters such studies with "Dang, I thought the poor were going to come out really well this time."
Posted by: jk at July 21, 2008 10:49 AMJune 10, 2008
Remember When...
...Paul Krugman used to stick to writing those great economics columns on Slate defending things like free trade and cheap labor? Now he writes things like this:
Obama says he’s “partnering” with Elizabeth Edwards on health care. While I don’t know exactly what that means, it gives BHO a lot more credibility on the issue, at least in my eyes.
Yes, indeed. As all of you know, Edwards is a respected
As one of my friends said, Krugman's support of Hillary should have told us ages ago that she wouldn't get the nomination -- because as we know, always go with the opposite of what Krugman predicts.
But now that Obama has the nomination, Krugman has to kiss some butt if he has any hope of an economic advisor position.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 10, 2008 2:45 PMMay 19, 2008
O'Rourke
The folks at Samizdata had been discussing a line from the P.J. O'Rourke column in CATO's Letter.
Now, if you're electing Democrats to control government spending, then you're marrying Angelina Jolie for her brains.
Some closet Virginia Postrels came out and suggested that just because Ms. Jolie is attractive does not mean that she is not intelligent. I'm going to duck that question. And not even post a picture. When O'Rourke is on form, as he is in this piece, almost any paragraph can be pulled for a Quote of the Day or a Blog Post. Professor Mankiw likes this one:
I have a 10 year old at home, and she is always saying, “That’s not fair.” When she says that, I say, “Honey, you’re cute; that’s not fair. Your family is pretty well off; that’s not fair. You were born in America; that’s not fair. Honey, you had better pray to God that things don’t start getting fair for you.”
I can excerpt too -- how about the intro:
Well, I wish I had better news for you, but the barbarians are at the gates. We are besieged by pagans—savage, brutish worshippers of big government. Theirs is not even a golden calf. They’ve abandoned the Gold Standard. They worship the taxing and spending of a fiat god, all the more dangerous for being both false and imaginary.
Must. Read. Whole. Thing.
May 6, 2008
Taking Libertarianism Mainstream
I just read an amusing (read: leftist) review of Ron Paul's new book. Here is my favorite part:
Often seen as a rich man’s political philosophy, devoid of social programs and indifferent to the plight of the poor, libertarianism needs a makeover if it is ever to break through to the mainstream.
By "makeover" does she mean more statism?
The review continues...
Paul understands this, and he thus softens up his views with a vague, benevolent populism. In a passage that condemns all forms of welfare, he is quick to tell us that he is also talking about government aid to rich corporations. “I do not understand why we take for granted that the net result of all this looting is good for those who are lower on the economic ladder,” he writes. True enough, but it doesn’t change the fact that Paul still opposes giving federal aid to the disadvantaged.
Allow me to outline the leftist manifesto:
1. One must fail to distinguish between the concepts of total and marginal.
1a. An additional dollar of funding will have the same effect regardless of how much one is already spending.
1b. Taxes are to be defended on the grounds that they are the price one pays for a civilized society.
1c. This concept should only be applied to analysis of government. By contrast, individuals do not need certain levels of income. Although this level of income is not known, it will be subject to the obscenity test by our trusted elected officials.
2. Government is bad and oppressive.
3. Government is the answer to our problems.
4. Believe it or not numbers 2 and 3 do not seem to contradict one another. Number 2 refers to civil liberties and war. Number 3 refers to redistribution of income and government regulation.
5. Intentions rather than results are what matters.
6. Incentives? What incentives?
7. Tax it. Regulate it. Regulate it some more.
8. Those who do not favor an expansion of government should be mocked. No explanation or counter-argument is necessary.
9. Belief in freedom and free markets is naive. Belief in the benevolence of government is ideal.
10. If it fits on a bumper sticker, it fits on the platform.
April 30, 2008
Ron Paul's Book
Perhaps there is hope. CNN reports:
Ron Paul’s loyal supporters helped him set campaign fundraising records and capture more delegates during his presidential run than some of his high-profile Republican rivals...Now they’ve taken his latest book to the top of the Amazon.com bestseller list.
“The Revolution: A Manifesto”, released earlier this month, is currently No. 1 on the Web site’s list of top sellers, besting even Oprah’s latest Book Club selection.
Regardless of how anyone feels out Ron Paul (and certainly ThreeSources has been a place of both praise and criticism), it is encouraging to see a libertarian message reach such a large audience.
Let the record show that I agree wholeheartedly. You can count me among the ThreeSourcers who did not feel he was the right President at the right time, but his ideas on Constitutional purview and the power of liberty deserve a wide audience.
The delegate count is interesting as well. My life's work is to convince the GOP to embrace these ideas. Delegates are the coin of the realm.
April 22, 2008
Swapping Stickers
I've regaled you with stories about my political family members [Yawn, is he done yet?] Here's a manifestation.
I own only the nanocar. I love it and it meets all my needs save one: no room for Husband, Wife, and Loyal Family Pet. That's frequently a drag, but in my current situation of showing a house for sale, it is intolerable.
My lovable but Communist sister-in-law has been perhaps the most generous helper as we prepared the house for sale. Words cannot describe her input: inside, outside, and emotionally. Struck by my plight, she has offered to trade cars with me for the month. I hope she enjoys the convertible in the awesome convertible month of May.
She can choose to remove my magnetic "Support the Troops" ribbon in Red, White and Blue if she chooses -- I'm not sure if she will. I have no options on the "Department of Peace" bumper sticker on my new Camry (they're keeping the hybrid).
C'est la guerre!
April 15, 2008
Not Questioning Their Patriotism
Lileks does a nice riff on "bitter-gate:"
I’ve been trying to find the right words for a certain theory, and I can’t quite do it yet. It has to do with how a candidate feels about America – they have to be fundamentally, dispositionally comfortable with it. Not in a way that glosses over or excuses its flaws, but comfortable in the way a long-term married couple is comfortable. That includes not delighting in its flaws, or crowing them at every opportunity as proof of your love. I mean a simple quiet sense of awe and pride, its challenges and flaws and uniqueness and tragedies considered. You don’t win the office by being angry we’re not something else; you win by being enthused we can be something better. You can fake the latter. But people sense the former.
Nice words, but I think the sage from Minneapolis might be pulling his punches a bit. My brother (the mad lefty one) had an interesting coda in a recent email discussion (riff, coda, got something going here...) He said he was upset because "the flag is now a Republican symbol" and a moderate relative agreed.
I didn't respond to that point but I have been thinking about it for quite a while. It is not that my lefty friends lack patriotism per se, but the ones I know are completely uncomfortable with the idea of American exceptionalism. They have ceded the flag as a symbol to those who do believe.
I tell a good friend "we liberated tens of millions from Communism," and he says "yeah, but what about propping up Somoza and Pinochet and Marcos?" I think of the Ken Burns documentary on WWII. I love the guy's work, but he juxtaposes the Bataan Death March with Jim Crow laws and restricted liberties for black soldiers. Yeah, Ken, I guess we're both bad. Another friend loves to bring up Japanese Internment camps. And don't ever ever ever get a liberal started on Indians, Native Americans Indigenous Americans.
They think I'm a jingoist, but I am comfortable appreciating this country's achievements "warts and all." Senator Obama famously refused to wear a flag pin. I don't say that he -- or his Marin County listeners -- don't love this country, but it's not questioning anybody's patriotism to point out how uncomfortable most of them are with displays of patriotism.
Gotta go now, Team America World Police is on cable...
The flag is only a Republican symbol because Democrats have allowed it to be.
How hard is it to put up a flag? But Dems won't do it because God forbid, someone might think them a rightie.
If a few more flew it, it would no longer be a Republican symbol.
Posted by: Terri at April 15, 2008 1:55 PMTerri, to the leftist mind, the US flag is the ultimate symbol of world oppression.
On a side note, as someone who straddles the Pennsylvania line between the State of Philadelphia and the central PA "T," I can tell you from my encounters that Obama has lost the central portion of the state, not to Shrillary, but to McCain.
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at April 15, 2008 10:25 PMApril 1, 2008
Thanks Dems
Our Democratic Congress decided to say "no thanks" to an anti-pork measure.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a former member of the pork-dispensing Appropriations Committee, strongly opposed the moratorium, as did all but a handful of Democrats.House Democrats such as John Murtha, D-Johnstown, a longtime Pelosi ally who got the "porker of the year" award from Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington-based watchdog group, weighed in as well. If the Senate won't give up its pork, they argued, why should the House?
Earmarks for road and bridge projects, contracts for local defense companies, and grants to local governments and nonprofits can mean jobs back home. Then there's the political boost that lawmakers running for re-election reap from earmarks, especially endangered freshmen such as Nancy Boyda, D-Kan.
Can we at least pretend they're not trying to bribe us for their jobs?
Or is that too much to ask?
If the GOP didn't have Sens. Stevens, Cochran, &c, they could take this up as a defining issue. The rallying cry of "we don't suck quite as bad as them!" lacks energy.
Posted by: jk at April 1, 2008 11:10 AMMarch 25, 2008
Praise for James Carville
I love this guy. Three cheers for Democratic überoperative James Carville:
First. One of my favorite lines from any debate ever. He was "debating" Bill O'Reilly during the 2000 election and he said [quoting from memory]: "It's important. Whether the US is run by the principles of George Bush or Al Gore is important, My wife thinks it's important that it is George Bush, I think it is important hat it is Al Gore, but we agree that it is important."
Second. He mentioned his wife. If Mary and James can keep it together, none of us has any cause to question our vows. I'm not kidding, it gives me great hope.
Third. (HT Insty) He's not apologizing or revising his "Judas" remarks:
“I was quoted accurately and in context, and I was glad to give the quote and I was glad I gave it,” Mr. Carville said. “I’m not apologizing, I’m not resigning, I’m not doing anything.”
We need more Carvilles in our political world.
March 19, 2008
A New Deal for the New Economy
Hanging around with Libertarians on the Internet (It's fun, but remember to wash your hands), I am often challenged to reassess my party affiliation. Yup, the GOP has some positions which are not friendly to liberty and a poor track record of success on its good positions.
Reading Reason Magazine, or Ann Althouse, or Megan McArdle, I encounter serious, sane, sentient people who love liberty and look first to the Democratic Party for candidates to pursue it. One tries to be open minded and all -- BUT
But then I watch the Democratic debates, or read something like this. Comprehensive "Fisking" is not my blogging style, but I am tempted to try it here. I think I disagree with every sentence in Rep Rahm Emmanuel's "A New Deal for the New Economy." To be fair, Congressman, I didn't think so highly of the Old New Deal.
He starts with Nafta, the thesis being that the trade deal is not the cause of anxiety so much as the lack of a social contract. Even still, he is not willing to defend Nafta, with which he was closely involved.
In 1993, I was President Clinton's point man in ratifying Nafta. And, I am the first to admit, the fact that our party is still debating this trade agreement 15 years later is proof it hasn't lived up to its hopes. It is true that if we were to negotiate Nafta today, we'd insist on tough labor and environmental standards that never mattered to negotiators in the first Bush administration, who hammered the agreement together before Bill Clinton took office.
Evil, wicked, Republican pact it was -- I always thought so too.
But the problem is not Nafta, the problem is that we are not Sweden. The way to make an anxious middle class feel better is to:
- Add another year of compulsory education (the first twelve rock!)
- Expand Schip for all kids (why shouldn't I take care of Warren Buffet's grandchildren?) and those between 55 and 64 years of age.
- "[C]reate a new institute -- funded at the same level as the National Institutes of Health -- that will support critical research into energy technologies for the future." Millions of green collar jobs, energy independence, yadda. (Because government develops and selects technology so much better than the private sector -- look at Ethanol!)
- Finally [at last!] Universal Savings Plans,"Like 401(k) plans, these accounts would supplement, not supplant, Social Security. Employers and employees would contribute 1% of their paychecks on a tax-deductible basis, and workers could make additional contributions if they chose."
He learned at the foot of the master, only a Clinton aid could use the word "contribute" in the sense of a forced, coercive mandate.
Rep. Emmanuel is not a crazed lefty or ideological outlier. He's a party centrist in the mold of President Clinton. This is their best plan. Greater regulation of trade pacts abroad and a huge increase in the size, scope and cost of government at home.
Wonder if they still have the green St. Pat's Pachyderms for sale at gop.com...
Great fisking, and a good call on "contribute." After all, haven't our income taxes been called "voluntary contributions" for decades?
Now, how the hell can I put up 1% of my income starting in 2010, when my taxes are going to go back to the moon?
The wife would like to try having children already, and we could have a couple by the end of 2010...God knows we *already* need all the deductions we can get.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 19, 2008 1:21 PMMarch 10, 2008
Hot Schadenfreude On a Stick!
Don Luskin is having waaaaay to much fun with Governor Spitzer's woes.
I consider Spitzer the archetype of government power gone bad. Allahpundit says "Wife and kids, so schadenfreude isn’t in order." I will worry about his kids just as long as he worried about Hank Greenberg's family, or Dick Grasso's before he launched unfounded attacks on them from the New York AG's office.
UPDATE: Try this fun blogger-media quiz! Find any story anywhere on this that does not use the word 'schadenfreude." Bet you can't...
February 13, 2008
I Have Seen It All
A blog from the self-proclaimed netroots of the Green Party proclaims:
The business conservatives are screaming for a corporate income tax cut. They claim that the tax rate that US corporations must pay is far higher than their overseas competitors. They are right...kind of. Some are screaming for the rate to be dropped to 25%. We should publicly agree and take it to the extreme by calling for the rate to be cut to 0%.
I say that we act now before they change their minds.
The same idiotic mindset thinks, "Wow, great, auctioning off broadcast TV airwaves will bring in revenue for the government!"
In the end, they can't see, or refuse to admit, that the consumer must eventually pay the tax. Businesses are merely the tax collector.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 14, 2008 3:40 PMFebruary 11, 2008
Okay, Senator McCain is Ninth On My List
The Everyday Economist links to a list of the Laissez-fairist U.S. Presidents, and wishes If only one of them were running for President.
• Grover Cleveland (1885-1889 and 1893-1897)
• Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
• Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
• Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
• Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
• Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
Blog friend Perry Eidlebus recently disagreed with my call for 19th Century government. I will point out that the top four inhabited my Century.
Oh, and as far as Andrew Jackson being laissez-faire, how do you justify his signing and wholehearted support of the Tariffs of Abomination? I'll even put aside the fact that *he* was the one who told South Carolina that it was subject to federal authority, and not that the federal government was a compact between the state governments.
I should also add that four in the 19th century is better than the 20th century, but there were 24 presidential administrations during the 19th century, and 22 if you don't want to count John Adams or William McKinley.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 11, 2008 11:56 PMI was a little surprised to see Jackson on the list, though I'd think you would applaud his (and Taney's) efforts at fighting the National Bank.
I'll tell you what I love about the 19th Century: all those Presidents are an unknown blur of bald heads, moustaches and sideburns. They didn't create the League of Nations or the New Deal or the Great Society. They governed modestly. I am no fan of tariffs, but they also operated the entire Federal government without income tax.
Post-slavery, pre-income tax. Not a bad time for US Government.
Fighting the Fed's first incarnation was the best thing Jackson did. He was also an honorable man who had the guts to defend his wife's honor. However, things like the Trail of Tears and his support of the Tariffs of Abomination (not to mention his support of federal superiority over federalism) mar his record.
The Constitution explicitly empowers Congress to place a *uniform* tariff to be placed on imports (which tells us that BS preferential treatment like "MFN" status is unconstitutional). It would be an overstatement to call the original tariff levels "modest." It was a fraction of a percent, and indeed it was enough to fund the federal government until the Civil War. The federal government was so in line with its Constitutional limitations that the tariffs didn't need to be high, until Lincoln set an example for LBJ and drew the U.S. into a bloody mess.
The Tariffs of Abomination were deliberately protectionist, by contrast. They were set very high so that foreign machinery would become artificially more expensive than the North's equivalents, so that the South would be forced to buy from the North. Supposedly this was going to help the North's economy, then "trickle down" to the South. This was true force, because if you refuse to pay tariffs, the government will imprison or kill you. If my neighbors otherwise banded together and said they'd levy a tariff on whatever I buy from Wal-Mart, I'd laugh in their face.
And I shouldn't need to add that, like all tariffs, it completely backfired. A country can't get rich by oppressing one half of its economy.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 12, 2008 2:25 PMBTW, the time was post-slavery, pre-income tax, with massive increases in federal power, such as all the subsidies and charters granted out as political favors, and that the Southern states were forced to ratify an amendment if they wanted the goddamn national army to lift martial law.
Since then, federal power has waned not one bit. It may not have our state legislatures under military rule, but the federal government established itself as higher than the states.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 12, 2008 2:29 PMI would suggest the expansion of government started about 1788 or so, and continued pretty much unabated until today.
I'm as Federalist as the next guy, but you're not getting me to speak against the 13th, a4th and 15th Amendments. I'm in enough trouble celebrating the 19th Century!
Do you not understand what the 14th Amendment did? There are some good and neutral portions, but for the first time, citizens of the several States were proclaimed citizens of the United States, putting them under federal jurisdiction.
Before, people were "the people of the United States," but unless they were Americans who lived in federal territories or the District of Columbia, they were citizens only of their home state. They were citizens of the United States for purposes of identification when traveling abroad, but until the 14th Amendment, they were not subject to federal authority save in interstate matters. *That* was the natural of our original federalism.
The 14th was the first truly bad amendment. It speaks of "privileges or immunities" when it should be talking about *rights*.
And to boot, as I've already said, Southern states refused to ratify it, so the federal government dissolved their state legislatures and instituted martial law until the Southerners complied.
Oh, and if you want to get technical, the expansion of American government began in 1789 once the Constitution was ratified. Lysander Spooner had an excellent point, and I agree. How do several of the States have the power to approve a compact, thereby forcing the remaining States into it, when the others do not yet approve? Of course, the other states eventually ratified the Constitution themselves, but why should they have been forced to join the new Union before their own ratification?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 13, 2008 3:21 PMJanuary 27, 2008
I Was Born In the Wrong Country
I'd put up with the NHS to hear speeches like this! Imagine, for one second, Senator Carl Levin or Harry Reid trying something this deft and intelligent.
Samizdat Perry DeHavilland says "William Hague is on the money and bloody hilarious..." Insty just says "Heh"
January 23, 2008
Cal!
Sad proof of how far the GOP has declined in 84 years. President Calvin Coolidge makes quite a bit of sense:
This is said to be the first film of a US President with sound. Hat-tip: Rick Sincere
Second best president of the 20th century!
Posted by: HB at January 23, 2008 9:27 PMJanuary 16, 2008
Not Me Man, I'm a Prosperitarian
I don't want to pile on the Ron! supporters around here. But things are playing out that reinforce my beliefs about the state of the liberty movement.
In discussing the Ron Paul Newsletters imbroglio on this blog, no one has refuted my central thought that neither big nor little-l libertarians will ever have a chance of influencing our electoral system until they weed out some of their toxic elements. They've got liberty to sell for cryin' out loud -- they don't need to muddy it with racism or millenarianism.
ReasonOnline has an article on the newsletters that makes substantive but unproven accusations that Lew Rockwell wrote them. Again, there is no proof, but there is a good circumstantial case. More telling to me is the recounting of toxic, millenarian sentiments from Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, recalling their history as paleolibs.
I repeat my claim that the liberty movement needs two leaders. They, firstly, need their own William F. Buckley, Jr. Bill chased the John Birchers out of the conservative movement in the fifties, and created the structure that paved the way for Goldwater's quixotic run in '64, and built strength to Reagan's successful run in 1980. Secondly (I gave away the ending), a libertarian Reagan will be needed to communicate ideas beyond the confines of the movement.
One person to create the infrastructure and one to communicate beyond. But the first guy has to chase all the Lew Rockwells, Murray Rothbards, and Leonard Piekoffs out. Then, somebody will have to articulate an incremental vision to rolling back American collectivism.
Rothbard and Rockwell want to rebuild a libertarian utopia out of the ruins of a race war. In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand had to shut society down. The Buckley-Reagan conservative axis didn't produce utopia (immanentize the eschaton?) but they turned back sizable hunks of the New Deal-Great Society collectivism at home and freed 50 million people from communism abroad.
I'm glad that people have been exposed to some classic liberal ideas through Ron Paul, but fear they will take away some of the wrong ideas and give up on the right ones. Here's the close of the Reason piece:
Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.
I have perhaps, in one post, angered every regular reader, writer, and commenter on ThreeSources. All in a day's work.
Angry? No. Just a couple of fact checks:
1. Ayn Rand, author of 'Atlas Shrugged' referred to Libertarians as "hippies." (AlexC added the modifier "dirty.") And in 'Atlas Shrugged' she didn't "shut society down" to rebuild a libertarian utopia. Instead she showed what happens when creative men eschew unearned guilt and choose not to trade with any man who asks him to sacrifice himself to others. The net *result* was to shut society down, for without creative men there is nothing.
2. Leonard Peikoff is not a Libertarian, nor even a libertarian. He is an Objectivist. See above.
'Nuff said. Someone else will have to defend those other characters.
Posted by: johngalt at January 16, 2008 11:44 PMI've had the good fortune to have met many reasonable [O|o]bjectivists in my day. I would like to think that a resurgent liberty movement could include them.
I got a little sloppy in my terms, I am talking about a liberty movement that may grow out of current libertarians but will not likely grow out of the current LP.
Your point on Atlas is taken. But I have to say that I have also met some [O|o]bjectivists who look forward more to the train crash than the happy times on Atlantis.
I know you're 'down for the struggle' JK and my clarifications weren't intended for you so much as for unwary readers - "for the record" as they say.
And possibly also for wary readers who've forgotten what Rand's real point was.
Posted by: johngalt at January 17, 2008 2:33 PMJanuary 15, 2008
The Silver Lining
If we must endure a President Hillary Clinton -- and I very much hope we do not -- at least there will be a few laughs as the last light of western civilization and freedom is extinguished and flushed down the commode. Christopher Hitchens, who wrote The best Clinton Hate Book during Clinton's impeachment (I think I read them all), could really let loose. Every week, we would be treated to prose like this:
What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton "rapid response" team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues."
Almost worth it. (Hat-tip: Insty)
January 3, 2008
Rep. Lantos
How about a little elevated debate for the New Year? Celebrate a Democratic Congressional leader in ThreeSources. John Fund writes this superb tribute to Rep. Tom Lantos (D--CA), titled "A One Man History Lesson:"
It's safe to say the next chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee won't have the fascinating biography of California Rep. Tom Lantos. As Mr. Lantos, who disclosed he has been diagnosed with cancer and announced his retirement yesterday at age 80, put it in his press release: "It is only in the United States that a penniless survivor of the Holocaust from Hungary and a fighter in the anti-Nazi underground could have received an education, raised a family, and had the privilege of serving the last three decades of his life as a Member of Congress."Mr. Lantos has always been a minority voice on foreign policy in his Democratic Party, especially given the fact that he represents part of radical San Francisco in the House. In the 1980s, he founded the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which criticized both Communist and right-wing dictatorships with equal fervor. He has been a fierce critic of human rights abuses in China, skewering Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Cisco Systems for agreeing to comply with Internet censorship restrictions there.
Most notably, he led the floor debate in favor of the resolution authorizing war in Iraq in late 2002, a move that prompted an unsuccessful primary challenge against him in 2004.
Known as a prickly and stubborn man, Mr. Lantos found he had to accommodate himself to the liberal tenor of his fellow House Democrats when his party took over control in 2006. Last February, he drafted a resolution opposing the troop surge in Iraq, a move he may well privately regret now. In deference to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, his good friend, he also abandoned his earlier opposition to a resolution that condemned Turkey, a U.S. ally and NATO member, for its killing of Armenians during World War I. Ms. Pelosi was eventually forced to backtrack, embarrassing both her and Mr. Lantos.
While his fidelity to a bipartisan foreign policy waned during his recent tenure as House Foreign Affairs chairman, Mr. Lantos leaves Congress with a distinguished record and the respect of human rights activists the world over regardless of ideology. Here's hoping others in his party are willing to carry forward the torch he held high.
Good luck Congressman.
January 2, 2008
Policy by Plebiscite
Speaker Newt Gingrich sends an email "How You Can Help America in Iowa If You Act Today." I follow the link (anything but work!) to find the American Solutions Platform of the American People -- A Red, White, and Blue Revolution
Gingrich has collected a long list of issues/solutions all of which have substantive majority support across the political spectrum. Each change is followed by the percentage of support it received in their polling. So, how about it, America? Can we roll up our sleeves and forget our differences, and work together?
Umm, no, Mister Speaker. I am not sure we should. I agree with almost all of your suggestions, and could probably live with the ones I do not. But -- is the poll our ultimate guide? To my dismay, it seems to be the case in GOP immigration policy, but what if the people are wrong?
For example, one I would criticize is: "Climate change and global warming are probably happening. (82 to 13)." I bore my friends with references to Karl Popper and insistence that science is not democracy. Should we sign Kyoto because 82% cheered at the end of "An Inconvenient Truth?" Gingrich doesn't suggest this but he does say "We support building more nuclear power plants to cut carbon emissions and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. (65 to 28) “I’m all for more nuke plants, but not if we're building them to cut carbon emissions (plants need to breathe too!) or for "energy independence" (see Huck-a-Whack, Dec 31). If they make economic sense, and the electorate can be convinced of their safe operation and storage, let's go.
He does not list "Pee in the cornflakes of the 49% (51 to 49)" but we all know, deep down, it's in there.
Brilliant JK. Superb.
Posted by: johngalt at January 3, 2008 3:53 PMDecember 31, 2007
Cui Bono?
A good friend of ThreeSources sends a link to this WaPo story and wonders whom it will hurt. My Latin isn't up to that, so I wonder who will benefit.
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.
Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.
I think Bloomberg is running. He seems to be making a lot of noise and inquiries, and if he ever wants to do it, this is certainly the year. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rep. Ron Paul run as a Libertarian, though Reason Magazine points out some legal hurdles.
I guess it depends on the final candidate list, but I think this tends to hurt the Democrats. It's an escape valve for those who do not care for Senator Clinton (just last week I encountered two very liberal Democrats who said they cannot support her), and if Senator Obama gets the nomination, a Bloomberg run would bleed off the "nice guy" vote.
The social conservatives and the economic conservatives are unlikely to find a home in a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket. We'll see how many antiwar Republicans there are, but I am guessing that is not a huge plurality.
Who loses? Those who send money to this doomed enterprise. Who wins? David Harsanyi -- sales of his Nanny State book should soar -- Mayor Bloomberg gets quite a few pages.
UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg links to a David Weigel post that projects a GOP victory if Bloomberg spoils NY for the Democrats and Ohio and Florida for the Republicans. Interstin'...
December 19, 2007
Ain't You Glad You Joined the Republicans?
That's an Abraham Lincoln quote, and the title of a funny book.
I thought of it reading John Fund in the Political Diary on the importance of turnout and weather in the Iowa Caucuses:
One reason some Democrats may skip the event is that Democratic caucuses are not the businesslike affairs the GOP caucuses are. At a Republican caucus, voters show up, listen to very short speeches, fill out a slip of paper, drop it in a box and leave. At a Democratic caucus, voters show up at 6:30 pm and vote for delegates for each candidate. But first they must listen to short speeches on behalf of all the candidates. With a half-dozen or more candidates, that takes time. Then everyone breaks into "preference groups," with voters gathering in various corners of the room to express support for a given candidate. If a candidate doesn't receive 15% or more support, his or her supporters must join another candidate's preference group. In most of Iowa, this effectively means only Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards will elect any delegates to the local county convention, which is held later. It also means that a voter's second choice can be highly important in who actually wins. Ominously, while Mrs. Clinton has many supporters, she's not the second choice of many Obama or Edwards backers.Further complicating matters is that rural areas are given more weight than urban ones in selecting delegates. In a small town, 25 caucus-goers might carry as much impact as 250 who stop by a downtown Des Moines caucus.
Every year I get a little less proud of my party, although when they put Rep Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens in prison, I'll bump up. But reading this, it looks like the GOP gets the better deal.
December 13, 2007
The Road To Serfdom
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I have heard every Democrat in the Primary Debates speak to making college more affordable -- up to Gov. Richardson's plan for "College for All." At first glance, that's a typical example of good politics, bad economics. Is it perhaps a little more invidious? A WSJ editorial today (free link) points out that the result of government subsidies is not reduced tuition, but rather a larger portion of education paid for by Federal largess:
Ironically, these government handouts are creating the tuition problem. Tuition has risen about three percentage points faster than inflation every year for the past quarter-century. At the same time, the feds have put more and more money behind student loans and other financial aid. The government is slowly becoming a third-party tuition payer, with all the price distortions one would expect. Every time tuition rises, the government makes up the difference; colleges thus cheerfully raise tuition (and budgets), knowing the government will step in.
Already well endowed schools are free to raise tuition, then grant capricious exemptions.Gregory Mankiw says "In the future, Harvard will cost $1 billion a year, and only Bill Gates's children will pay full price. When anyone else walks through the door, the message will be 'Special price, just for you.'"
Compared to terrorism or socialized medicine, one is tempted to let this one slip -- college is swell, right?
Considering the <bold-italic-super-emphasis>EXTREME</bold-italic-super-emphasis> collectivist tilt in academia, and academics’ new importance in financing candidates, this is concerning. We are creating not only expensive tuition, but also a well funded intellectual superclass.
December 6, 2007
Kind Words for Senator Lott
Hey, I am as surprised as you!
Don Luskin admits to giving Lott a hard time, but says we'll miss him when he's gone:
So what would happen if the House sent the Senate back a tax bill with offsets? Lott says, "They’re going to have to eat this. Get over it. Now, Nancy can dictate to all the Democrats she wants to. She ain’t dictating this. If they want the AMT, there ain’t going to be no offsets. Write that in granite. I can guaran-damn-double-dog, you know, guarantee you that.""Offsets" is just another word for taxes.
Guaran-damn-double-dog! I'll miss that. Lott seems to have philosophically lost his way, but the minority Senate has been impressive. Credit where it's due, Senator Lott knows how to play this game:
In Lott’s last weeks as a Senator, he is blocking new AMT taxes, the excessively large S-CHIP bill, billions in energy taxes and a proposal to raise taxes on capital gains by 135%. The sad news is that no one seems ready or able to take up his whack-a-mole duties next year.
“I’ve been through a lot of end-of-sessions, and I’ve been involved in them very closely, and I’ve been the solution and I’ve been the problem,” said Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., who is leaving Congress at the end of the session. “This is the most bizarre situation and atmosphere I’ve ever seen. Nobody has any idea how to do anything or how in the world we’re going to get out of here, or when.”
UPDATE: Luskin posts that the Double-Damn-Dog Guarantee was honored. Well done Senator Lott!
Baucus legislation will protect 19 million American families from unfair tax increase; minority objections to fiscal responsibility forced elimination of provisions to pay for bill.
Even with the Democratic spin I like it!
November 23, 2007
Reagan, Thatcher, Sarkozy!
Air traffic controllers, mine workers, rail workers. The NY Sun says Collapse of Rail, Subway Strike Is a First Success for Sarkozy
"We think a dynamic of return to work has begun," Julie Vion, a spokeswoman for France's state-owned railroad network, SNCF, said.Union leaders began to concede defeat yesterday. "We have to face reality. Since yesterday's negotiations, things have changed. The strike is no longer the solution. The strike strategy is no longer winning," a leader of the Sud union representing Paris underground railway workers, Philippe Touzet, said in an interview with Bloomberg News.
A few days ago, it was called a daring move that would make him a five year lame duck if he failed. Audaces fortuna juvat, Monsieur Presidente! Fortune favors the brave.
Hat-tip: Insty.
In "Paradise Lost," Satan says, "To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n." Or put another way, it might be Hell, but at least he's the boss.
Sarkozy knows better. One can be captain of a sinking ship, but it's still a sinking ship. Sarkozy knows that despite the modern Gallic proclivity for laziness, something has to be done to revive France's economy. Right now it's in heavy competition with Germany for that dubious title of "the sick man of Europe," as Ireland once was. Ireland grew itself out of economic woes by, surprise surprise, cutting taxes to attract businesses.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 27, 2007 3:36 PMOne hundred bonus points for quoting Milton.
Posted by: jk at November 27, 2007 4:31 PMOctober 24, 2007
How About That First Amendment Thingy?
Senator Clinton is racking in the donations from Chinatown dishwashers, Senator Obama and Governor Romney are drawing four-digit checks from "the children." The Washington Post notes the trend:
Elrick Williams's toddler niece Carlyn may be one of the youngest contributors to this year's presidential campaign. The 2-year-old gave $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).So did her sister and brother, Imara, 13, and Ishmael, 9, and her cousins Chan and Alexis, both 13. Altogether, according to newly released campaign finance reports, the extended family of Williams, a wealthy Chicago financier, handed over nearly a dozen checks in March for the maximum allowed under federal law to Obama.
[...]
A supporter of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R), Susan Henken of Dover, Mass., wrote her own $2,300 check, and her 13-year-old son, Samuel, and 15-year-old daughter, Julia, each wrote $2,300 checks, for example. Samuel used money from his bar mitzvah and money he earned "dog sitting," and Julia used babysitting money to make the contributions, their mother said. "My children like to donate to a lot of causes. That's just how it is in my house," Henken said.
It's time to cut and run from the quagmire of campaign finance reform. All of it. It lives in opposition to transparency, which would be good. It contributes to establishment candidates and the much-decried dynastic Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton trend.
Here's my campaign finance laws: Everybody can give all they want to anybody they want. Candidates who do not provide a good public accounting of the support they receive should not be voted for. Understandable, enforceable, and Constitutional.
Good Republicans or not, I'm calling Bull***t on the Dover kids: $2300 from dog sitting? For a primary? I'm thinking not.
Posted by: jk at October 24, 2007 12:54 PMSeptember 20, 2007
POW Habeas Corpus
It really breaks my heart when bills in the Senate can't hit the supra-constitutional 60 vote cut off.
The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would have allowed terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to petition federal courts claiming that they're being held in error.The 56-43 vote in favor of the bill fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off Senate debate, blocking the legislation. Both Washington state senators voted for the measure.
The bill, sponsored by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., would have given military detainees the right of habeas corpus — the right to challenge one's detention in court, rooted in English common law dating from before the Magna Carta of 1215 — which serves as a check on arbitrary government power.
Actually, I would support such a measure: even "enemy combatants" should be allowed to prove, if they can, that they're innocent. There's evidence that some were turned over to U.S. forces by their neighbors, because of family feuds.
But on the flip side, if we prove we captured them for a good reason, we should just execute them summarily.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 21, 2007 3:21 PMThey deserve some process, which I understand that they get. But the full panoply of the US understanding of habeus corpus is too much.
We cannot allow a captured, foreign terrorist to demand to learn how evidence against him was collected and to see the full evidence. For an American citizen, this would and should be required.
You nail the alternative -- if the hallal rice pilaf at Gitmo is not up to epicurean standards, enemy combatants can always be (quite legally) shot. Wanna reconsider, Ahmed?
It wouldn't have to be the full process, just a military tribunal where they can present evidence and, if they were seized in a raid, find out what the evidence was. Not all were captured on the battlefield, and I'm troubled because some circumstances were questionable. If a neighbor rats you out as a terrorist, is it true, or the result of a feud? So I think we should give them a good chance to prove their innocence, even if it demands they question how we knew they were terrorists.
On the other hand, I don't think any process should be given to anyone captured in battle -- American citizen or not. John Walker Lindh should have been shot where he was found, and it would have saved us a lot of headaches.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 22, 2007 10:55 AMSeptember 14, 2007
Not so fast, Senator...
I posted Senator Salazar’s response to my letter yesterday. I was pleased that he had indeed come out against the MoveOn.org advertisement and said "Well done." The letter references media reports:
As noted in media reports, I believe the ad was inappropriate and sent the wrong message ("Salazar assails MoveOn over Petraeus attack ad", Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 9/13/07).
I almost made a joke about being surprised that I had missed that in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, but I'm not really that amused. The paper's website lists its circulation as:
Daily Circulation: 30,707
Sunday Circulation: 33,733
I think the Senator is being very clever indeed. He can respond to his right wingnut constituency, that "the ad was inappropriate and sent the wrong message" and he can cite the media report. At the same time, he can be certain that most people have only the slightest possibility of encountering his brave moment.
I thought I would test this by doing a Yahoo Search for "Senator Salazar MoveOn Ad." ThreeSources comes up three times in the top ten (this might make four!) I'm glad to be known as the guy who owns this story, but it becomes clear that nobody else is paying attention.
Is my Senator having it both ways?
UPDATE: Gary Harmon of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel emails Professor Glenn Reynolds, who linked to tihs post:
Prof. Reynolds: Here I sit, damned with faint praise re Salazar’s Sis Souljah? Did you have to mention the size of the readership? Now I feel like the freshman on the first day in the locker room with the seniors. Again.Actually, we won’t apologize for the size of our readership. It’s actually growing and not many can say that in this business. What is interesting is that the comments were made in a phone conference involving almost all Colorado media, including the big dailies and AP.
That it made it to our paper might explain why we’re growing and, well, they’re not.
I certainly didn't mean it as a slight to the paper. If the larger dailies passed on the story, it negates my point, but it still works out well for Senator Salazar. Nice scoop, Gary. You get the "well done."
All well and good, but what if he went to the NYTimes and they said he would have to pay retail for the privilege of refuting them?
Screwed, he would be.
He just wanted to make sure that Norman Hsu knows where he stands.
Posted by: johngalt at September 14, 2007 4:26 PMAs a Colorado resident, I would say this action is completely in character for Ken Salazar. He is a very calculating man. This isn't the first time he has done this type of thing, and it won't be the last. So far, he has pulled off these incidents unscathed. I predict the Colorado media won't call him on it, he is known in local media circles as the Teflon Hispanic.
Posted by: Steve-o at September 14, 2007 5:38 PMWhat Steve-o said. Being from Colorado I thought "Why am I not surprised?"
Of course there is an undertone of sliminess to the whole thing but that too is no surprise.
P.
Posted by: Portia at September 14, 2007 6:43 PMI'm not at all surprised the Denver Post didn't print anything: No doubt they agree with the ad and they are only an AP reprinting vehicle anyway.
(We get it at work so I occasionally, and masochistically, read it.)
Posted by: mrsizer at September 15, 2007 2:15 PMSeptember 11, 2007
Dear Senator Salazar
Senator SalazarI see that you received $4,000 from MoveOn.org for your campaign in 2006. I don't find much agreement with that organization but would not object to your accepting a modest donation from them.
I strongly object to their "General Betray Us" advertisement. Reasonable people can disagree on the war but there is no justification for this ad hominem attack on a great American patriot.
I write to request that you publicly disavow this smear.
Thank you,
John Kranz
Marie Rivera
How about your Senator?
September 10, 2007
Hsu Fly Pie II
Hillary! has decided to dump $850K (yes, nearly a million) of Hsu-sourced money.
It makes one wonder how much Hsu-sourced money has found it's way into the Pennsylvania political system.
That's hard to tell from the Campaign Finance website, but it does find interesting things like $500 to the Republican National State Elections Committee.
Ahem.
September 8, 2007
Hsu Fly Pie
NOTE: I always subscribed to the theory that one of the reasons Sun Microsystems' Java language was so popular was because the trade press could make up clever headlines about it. Senator Clinton may have misfortune in the name of her errant donor for the same reason.
I'm intrigued when campaigns are caught with "smelly money" that they can give it to charity: it's a get out of jail free card for political campaigns. I bought it until I heard that Senator Edwards gave $300,000 of Rupert Murdoch's smelly money to a charity run by his daughter.
It seems that Senator Clinton could enjoy power by directing campaign cash to charity. Does the press follow up? She'll give this money away -- but it will not be to the RNC.
UPDATE: National Journal's Buzz has a collection of Hsu puns (including this one). Click on over. Hsu know Hsu want to...
The right and morally correct thing for all those who received money from Hsu would be to use that money to reimburse those who were swindled by Hsu. Of course were talking about the Democratic party so something like that will never happen.
Posted by: Allan at September 9, 2007 12:22 PMI'm thinking she'll give it to the Clinton Presidential Library
Posted by: jk at September 9, 2007 1:23 PMAugust 31, 2007
Friday Funnies
Jay Leno, courtesy of Polical Diary:
"Speaking at a forum organized by Lance Armstrong on cancer research, Hillary Clinton told Chris Matthews if she is elected president, she will declare war on cancer, and then she will support the war on cancer for two years, and then she will be against it for a year, and then she will back out of it all together" -- Jay Leno, host of NBC's "Tonight Show."
Sen. Craig (R-- EW!)
I fear my beloved Republicans have learned the wrong lessons from recent history. Poor Senator Craig cannot find a friend in the Senate Cloakroom. Well, perhaps, that's for the best. But he cannot find a friend in the GOP leadership, and I am not sure that's right.
Really creepy? Yes. But I'd like to compare the Senior Senator from the last stall to members in the party’s Hall of Shame who enjoy their good standing.
- Rep. Tom Foley -- he may be out of good standing now, but his is supposed to be the lesson learned. I suggest that Rep, Foley was propositioning minors and was using his position as a Congressman coercively. He should have been shut down early by leadership that suspected/knew of this behavior.
- Sen. Ted Stevens (R - $$) -- no room in the party for a creepy queer, but crooks may hold leadership positions. Senator Stevens is a crook who stands against everything the party is supposed to embrace.
- Rep Don Young -- see above, what is with these Alaska guys?
- Rep. Jerry Lewis -- I will not call him a crook, but he's a poster child for purchasing incumbency with Federal largesse.
Creepy Craig was at least seeking something consensual with a grownup, and I suspect that he was going to pay out of his own pocket.
August 30, 2007
It was Only $100 Million
A union shell group raises and spends $100 million illegally, and the punishment is a fine of less than 1% -- I bet they spent more on coffee.
Yet another problem with government regulation of campaign finance -- besides its explicitly contravening the First Amendment -- is that the laws have no teeth. Like the mob, you just budget for some fines in your business plan. John Fund reports on the recent decision against "Americans Coming Together."
The Federal Election Commission has just found that Americans Coming Together, a top union group active in the 2004 presidential election, spent $100 million illegally on federal election activity that year. The agency imposed a fine of just $775,000 -- and not one dime will go back to the union workers who financed ACT's illegal activities with their forced payment of dues.This is a textbook example of what's wrong with federal election laws. The FEC takes years to catch up with those who break the law, then administers a slap on the wrist on the grounds that ACT disbanded after the 2004 election and won't be engaging in further election activity.
In reality, such groups may disband but their supporters and personnel have every intention of remaining active in politics under another brand name. That perfectly describes the ACT shell game.
Its largest donor was the Service Employees International Union, one of the most politically active labor unions. Its largest non-union donor was billionaire George Soros. And who was the group's president? None other than Harold Ickes, a long-time functionary of the Clinton machine who served as Bill Clinton's deputy White House chief of staff. Mr. Ickes is now a major player in the huge fundraising apparatus of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who unsurprisingly has run into her own campaign finance scandal this week. One of her top donors, Norman Hsu, was revealed to be a fugitive from justice and may have illegally laundered campaign contributions to the Clinton campaign through "straw" or fake donors.
It's clear the FEC can't be relied upon to report on the law-skirting by major political players before voters render their judgment at the polls in 2008. Nor are its sanctions much of a deterrent to those playing for big stakes on the presidential stage. Mrs. Clinton's latest scandal appears to be a near-replica of the 1996 Clinton fundraising scandals, in which 120 people either fled the country to avoid questioning, took the Fifth Amendment or otherwise failed to cooperate with investigators.
The FEC enforcement action against ACT came after a complaint three years ago by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Meanwhile, the news media resolutely ignored the story, insisting that looking into the modus operandi of the Clinton machine represented "old news." Here's hoping the press wakes up and realizes the time for vigilant reporting on the 2008 election excesses of all parties is before Americans vote, not years afterward.
I'm sure they'll start with the GOP, John.
August 21, 2007
The State of the Left
A good friend of this blog sends a pair of links to be enjoyed together.
In An Investment in Failure Thomas Sowell points out that, back to Karl Marx, the left has no interest in those rising out of poverty. Once you cease to be an object for their polity, you are -- if I may borrow a word from Senator Clinton -- invisible.
At one point, Marx wrote to his disciples: "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing."Think about that. Millions of human beings mattered to him only in so far as they could serve as cannon fodder in his jihad against the existing society.
If they refused to be pawns in his ideological game, then they were "nothing."
No one on the left would say such things so plainly today, even to themselves. But their actions speak louder than words.
Over at The Nation, their words speak pretty loud as well. Barbara Ehrenreich cannot contain her glee that the subprime crisis is Smashing Capitalism but she is mad that it is not self directed. You really have to read this in full (it's blissfully short), but here's a taste:
The American poor, who are usually tactful enough to remain invisible to the multi-millionaire class, suddenly leaped onto the scene and started smashing the global financial system. Incredibly enough, this may be the first case in history in which the downtrodden manage to bring down an unfair economic system without going to the trouble of a revolution.First they stopped paying their mortgages, a move in which they were joined by many financially stretched middle class folks, though the poor definitely led the way. All right, these were trick mortgages, many of them designed to be unaffordable within two years of signing the contract.
Like my disappointment at "The Glorious Revolution," however, the serendipity of it annoys her.
Personally, I prefer my revolutions to be a little more pro-active. There should be marches and rallies, banners and sit-ins, possibly a nice color theme like red or orange. Certainly, there should be a vision of what you intend to replace the bad old system with--European-style social democracy, Latin American-style socialism, or how about just American capitalism with some regulation thrown in?Global capitalism will survive the current credit crisis; already, the government has rushed in to soothe the feverish markets. But in the long term, a system that depends on extracting every last cent from the poor cannot hope for a healthy prognosis. Who would have thought that foreclosures in Stockton and Cleveland would roil the markets of London and Shanghai? The poor have risen up and spoken; only it sounds less like a shout of protest than a low, strangled, cry of pain.
Capitalism will survive? Damn.
"European-style social democracy, Latin American-style socialism, or how about just American capitalism with some regulation thrown in?"
There's some stuff a bull left in a field. A Frenchman might call it merde, a Spaniard might call it mierda, and an American baby might call it caca. It doesn't matter what you call it: it doesn't change what it really is.
Ehrenreich is truly an idiot. If she thinks defaulting on a mortgage is a revolution, what will "mortage protestors" do when they want to take out a loan? Strike one: credit history. Strike two: higher interest rates, if they get approved. Strike three: banks will stop lending money to anyone below stellar credit. Yeah, that's great. Mortgage yourself to the stars, default intentionally to hurt those evil rich people, then lose your house and never own your own home again. Brilliant!
The poor don't borrow from other poor. They don't even borrow from the middle class. When you take out a $500K loan on a new house, from whom do you think you're borrowing? John Q. types who earn mid-five-figure annual salaries, or a single millionaire? All right, so several middle-class families could save enough between themselves to lend to one family. But in a new subdivision where everybody's a new homeowner, who are they borrowing from? Certainly not from each other.
The rich are actually the ones who are invisible these days. The rest of the people don't see how their very livelihoods and borrowing depend on how wealthy "the rich" are, and that raising taxes won't do a damn bit of good.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 21, 2007 1:45 PMHow many thousands of column inches do you bet The Nation has devoted to running down banks who would not take a chance on poor or minority borrowers?
Now, giving a loan to a guy who needs it is predatory lending. I hope they never see Jimmy Stewart in "It's A Wonderful Life."
August 18, 2007
More Media Nonsense
The media has absolutely nothing to say about anything -- at least not enough to maintain 24-hour news channels. First, Obama wasn't black enough. Then Hillary wasn't woman enough. Now, Fred doesn't know which shoes to wear. All this is apparently considered important information when choosing our next leader.
They should just stick to the important things, like how we're losing the war and the devastation of global warming.
Posted by: jk at August 19, 2007 11:45 AMAugust 17, 2007
Netroots
Harrison Bergeron's post last week on "Kos" highlighted what a negative impact the Netroots' tactics will have on their own preferred candidates. Today Kim Strassel interviews a moderate Democrat who survived a Kos-inspired primary challenge: Henry Cuellar (free link).
Yet a lively midweek chat with Mr. Cuellar suggests that this campaign of threats isn't necessarily having the intended effect. If anything, it might be backfiring. "They win when they intimidate people," says Mr. Cuellar. "I've taken everything they've thrown, plus their kitchen sink, and I still stand proud as a moderate-conservative Democrat." He says his triumph over blogger fire has only strengthened his conviction that his party will only win elections if it continues to be a "big tent" open to all views. "To make that tent smaller, to force people--not to persuade, but to force, because these are threats--to quiet down, that's destructive in the long term and the short term."
Though we have different limits around here, I think we all agree that politics is a balance of enlarging the tent for electoral victory and maintaining ideas to make it meaningful.
Kos seems to be bent on creating the smallest Democratic tent and, as hb exposed, not bothering to tie it to any ideas or policy of consequence.
August 15, 2007
Kos is not a libertarian
We know that Markos Moulitsas is a partisan hack. He believes that Karl Rove is responsible for the bridge collapse in Minnesota, he believes that socialist progressives (my words, not his) are the new "center", and he does not think that Democrats should ever be criticized (although he does believe that the party needs cleaning). Kos also pretends to be a libertarian, abeit in is own words a "modified and twisted around version of libertarianism." In reality, Kos and his followers are a growing threat to individual liberty and freedom from government.
What is disturbing about Kos is that, unlike many activists, he is not really an idealogue. When asked for the three most important issues for the candidates in 2008 on Meet the Press, he did not name a single issue. His sole purpose in life, it seems, is to get Democrats elected (well, only those who oppose the war in Iraq).
The political realm should be one of ideas. Personally, I subscribe to the ideas of individual liberty and free market economics. Kos, however, subscribes to the idea of party loyalty and ridding the party of those who are not loyal to the cause.
Given the fact that the Kossacks are big government socialist progressives, my hope is that the Kossacks are simply a fad within the Democratic Party.
I have to admit that I do not pay a lot of attention to Kos. He whips up a lot of fury, but they are so outside the mainstream, I don't see their affecting much more than party politics.
It seems you're right, they push the Democrats to purity yet don't push ideas -- that strikes me as anti-pragmatism, the least effective of both worlds.
August 6, 2007
If Other States Want...
"States shall Choose Electors" but the Constitution provides great latitude. John Fund reports on an interesting bit of Inside Baseball in the Political Diary:
Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman, knows a trap when he sees one. The Democratic state legislature in North Carolina was on a fast track to pass a bill that would have ended the practice of apportioning all that state's Electoral College votes to the statewide winner. Instead, the winner of each of its 13 Congressional districts would win one electoral vote, while the remaining two (representing the state's two U.S. Senate seats) would go to the statewide winner. In 2004, under the proposed formula, John Kerry would have won three electoral votes from North Carolina rather than zero. Only the small states of Maine and Nebraska currently apportion their electoral votes in such a manner.The North Carolina Senate had already approved the measure and the State House was within hours of sending the bill to Democratic Gov. Mike Easley's desk when Dr. Dean called and urgently prescribed the patient's death. "He said the party had suddenly learned a similar measure was being proposed by Republicans in California and that could mean over 20 electoral college votes in that state going to the GOP," one Democratic state legislative staffer told me. "That meant [Democrats] would be tagged as hypocrites if we proceeded to do the same idea in North Carolina and then opposed it in California."
Indeed, last month Thomas W. Hiltachk, a Republican attorney in Sacramento who is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's personal lawyer on election matters, filed a proposed initiative to allocate the state's Electoral College votes precisely as Democrats had planned to do in North Carolina. The difference is that California is such a megastate that even though President Bush lost statewide in 2004 by 10 percentage points, he nonetheless won a majority in 22 Congressional districts. Hendrik Hertzberg, a liberal New Yorker magazine columnist, says that if voters were to approve the initiative in California's June primary next year, it would represent an "unearned, Ohio-size gift of electoral votes" to next year's GOP nominee. Democratic strategist Chris Lehane says that if the rule were adopted, it would "virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008."
No one knows if Republicans will invest the $1 million it would take to qualify such a measure for the California ballot, much less the millions it would take to withstand the Democratic onslaught against it. Democrats worry that the measure has the appearance of creating more fairness than the current winner-take-all formula -- which is precisely why they thought they could get away with the ploy in North Carolina. They also worry that in a low-turnout primary in which only local offices are on the ballot (California's presidential primary has been moved to Feb. 5), the measure just might pass.
If the proposal does appear on the June ballot, expect the mother of all battles. It's not too much to say next year's entire presidential race could be played out in the California ballot battle even before the two parties' candidates are officially nominated at their respective conventions. And you thought the presidential campaign process was already front-loaded?
I fought tooth-and-nail against Colorado's attempt to do this, and was glad to see it go down in flames. Even though we're pretty close to flipping blue, I think it reduces a states importance. Colorado is becoming a swing state and seems likely to pick up a seat in the 2010 census. It seemed crazy.
If other states wish, however, I guess I've no objection. Any strong feelings in ThreeSources land?
August 5, 2007
More of the Same...
More of the same from the "reform-minded" Democrats:
If the idea was to shame lawmakers into restraint, it did not work.Eight months after Democrats vowed to shine light on the dark art of “earmarking” money for pet projects, many lawmakers say the new visibility has only intensified the competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving.
So far this year, House lawmakers have put together spending bills that include almost 6,500 earmarks for almost $11 billion in local projects, only half of which the Bush administration supported...
...The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has obtained about $63 million worth of projects, most of them in or near her district in San Francisco. But Ms. Pelosi was overshadowed by Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, who obtained $163 million in pet projects — more than anyone else in Congress and more than his own previous record of about $100 million.
And the money quotes:
“We’re lying to the American people when we say we’re fixing earmarks when we’re not,” said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, during debate this week on the Senate floor.But Democrats respond that the changes are a big improvement. “This is just sour milk,” Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said of Mr. Coburn.
Tases like sour milk to me too, Senator. The 110th is going to take a victory lap for their brave reform efforts. Insiders know these laws have no teeth, yet the Democrats get a win.
C'est le guerre...
Posted by: jk at August 5, 2007 5:22 PMJuly 25, 2007
Again, Bullwinkle?
That Special Prosecutor trick never works!
But it would be great for l’Affaire Gonzales. AP:
WASHINGTON - Angry senators suggested a special prosecutor should investigate misconduct at the Justice Department, accusing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Tuesday of deceit on the prosecutor firings and President Bush's eavesdropping program.
I choked when I heard Sen. Arlen Specter (RINO - PA) suggesting it. It's a bad idea to begin with (cf Fitzgerald, Starr), but especially worrisome when there has been no crime.
I'd love to see Congress take the President to court. (SCOTUS, natch)
Then we'd settle this separation of powers debate.
Posted by: AlexC at July 25, 2007 5:50 PMThe best part of Specter's Special Prosecutor threat was that he threatened the Attorney General himself with the spectre (no pun intended) of "the Attorney General has the power to appoint a Special Prosecutor..." or someone else could do it, he added.
Posted by: johngalt at July 26, 2007 2:59 PMThe WSJ had a nice editorial today on this. I love the lede:
Here we go again. Democrats in Congress have made little headway in their own investigations into the non-scandal over the firings of nine U.S. Attorneys last year, so they've hit upon another strategy: Get the Justice Department to do the investigating for them. And right on cue, Republican Senator Arlen Specter has joined the call for a special counsel to investigate the dismissals. Now, there's a truly bad idea.
"Right on cue." They assert that a "pinata" AG will be better for the administration than investigations, prosecutors, and conformation hearings. Posted by: jk at July 26, 2007 3:20 PM
Two Republicans in Jail
I'll suspend my pragmatism to clean out the stables. The Wall Street Journal news pages report: (paid link)
Rep. Don Young of Alaska, the former chairman of the House Transportation Committee, now is the subject of a continuing criminal inquiry involving possible political favors for a company in Alaska, people close to the case said. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, the powerful former chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the longest-serving Senate Republican, is also now under criminal investigation, these people said.
I would trade a Senate seat and a House seat to get rid of those two. You can throw Rep. Jerry Lewis of California in their cell as well.
July 16, 2007
The Leftward Lurch of the Democrats
When the New York Times tells you you're trending left...
Greg Mankiw linked to this NYTimes Story and it is highlighted on the NYTimes email alert. The Times spins it a little more positively:
The more populist tone is one indication of a broader debate among Democrats over how much they should break with the centrism of the Clinton years.
Sadly, the Democrats learned all the wrong lessons from the Clinton Years. Rubinomics dictates that increased taxes = greater prosperity (it worked once, sortof) but none learned that more trade or lower spending helps.
Not only the Presidential candidates, but also Congressional leaders have all tacked hard to port:
Their language, and to some degree their proposals, reflect a striking contrast with the approach taken by Democrats during much of the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton asserted that trade would create American jobs and that paying attention to the concerns of Wall Street would help the economy by lowering interest rates. The more populist tone is one indication of a broader debate among Democrats over economic policy and how much they should break with the careful centrism of the Clinton years embodied by Robert E. Rubin, the former treasury secretary, who was a champion of free trade and cutting deficits.
What strikes me is the lack of another voice. Clearly, no one sees an opening for championing free market policy in the Democratic Party. Senator Obama provides some lip service and has the talent on staff but it has not crept into his policy in any meaningful way.
On the other hand, the GOP seems pretty diverse on trade. You have Rep Tancredo on immigration, Rep Hunter boasting that what separates him from the others is his willingness to dabble in tariffs and interfere with China's currency. If there were a constituency for classical liberalism, I would think the Democrats would field a candidate or that the GOP would openly tack harder to starboard.
Sorry liberty lovers, the groundswell of votes that you are certain is there for the right candidate clearly is not.
July 10, 2007
Sen. Feinstein (D - Guangdong )
Don Luskin links to a Charles Krauthammer column, in which the Senior Senator from the Golden State wonders why we can't be more like China:
The senator was vexed. The U.S. auto companies were resisting attempts by her and other Senate well-meaners to impose a radical rise in fuel efficiency by 2017. Why can't they be more like the Chinese, she complained. Or, to quote Sen. Dianne Feinstein precisely: "What the China situation, or the other countries' situation, shows is that these automakers, in all of these countries, build the automobile that the requirements for mileage state. And they don't fight it, they just do it."
Ahh, yes. They just do what the government tells them without a lot of lip like you get around here. One child, 40 miles to a gallon, none of that Falun Gong, no subversive websites...
July 2, 2007
Townhall.com now in charge
Flush with victory against allowing the United States to humanely treat the workers it needs to expand the economy and generate wealth, populist blogsite Townhall.com has now decided it is in charge of policy.
Having halted the Bush-Kennedy “grand bargain” on immigration, many conservatives are expressing newfound optimism that they can do the same to the president’s signature education achievement, the No Child Left Behind Act.
I'd be more sympathetic to opposing Federal involvement in education but I am hoping they fail for two reasons:
- Further expanding the influence of the populist wing of the GOP (Sam's Club vs. Country Club) is a bad idea. Put me in with the Country Club sect, and bring me an Arnold Palmer -- with a little ice this time for cryin' out loud.
- All the leftist, NEA/ACT teachers in my family absolutely hate NCLB. They get night sweats over accountability tests. Anything that disturbs that much must have some redeeming value.
June 30, 2007
Freedom is Popular
I know that Ron Paul isn't very popular around these parts, but this speech about freedom and liberty is stellar.
I think Rep Ron Paul is very popular around these parts. I've been critical of his isolationism and think JohnGalt has joined me. This was a good speech but I find a few things worrisome:
1) Did I say "isolationism?" He asserts that we can lead the way just by following our principles and that others will see our wealth and freedom and emulate us. Did that trick ever work, Bullwinkle? The Cold war? Cuba? the Taliban? It is naive to think that the world will follow our example and dangerous to think that we do not need a vigorous defense. Like Mayor Giuliani, I think defense today requires a lot more offense.
2) I love the founders and consider myself a late-blooming history buff. I do not agree that we need only "ask the founders" for the solutions to current problems. I think the founders gave us the greatest gifts but I think that we have to apply the documents they gave us to the 21st Century.
This may be a quibble and, yes, I wish our legislators looked more toward The Federalist Papers and less toward MoDo. But I cite it as an example of oversimplistic reason to assert that the founders had us covered.
3) Freedom is very popular, Rep Paul. Popular with 9% of the electorate as I understand. In 1988, Paul, with no less zeal for liberty, attracted 432,179 popular votes (0.47%).
I'm with JK.
Ron Paul makes a great trouble making Congressman. Where "Dr. No" is a fine appelation.
It's just that he's not suited toward the Executive Branch.... and isolationism is the biggest nail. "In a post 9/11 world..." etc. etc. etc.
Posted by: AlexC at June 30, 2007 1:35 PMjk,
I must quarrel with point number 2.
To claim that "we have to apply the documents they gave us to the 21st Century" is akin to what Robert Higgs calls the Modernization Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, the expansion of government has arisen from the belief that the scope government must change in response to the increasing complexities of modern society. Both the proposition that world has become more complex and the assumption that only government can solve this increasing complexity can be called into question. Arguments for modernization will only lead to bigger government.
The beauty of the Constitution is that it limits the power of the federal government, separates powers, and most importantly is able to be amended.
Unfortunately, the federal government has reached beyond the scope outlined in the Constitution and much of this can be explained by this push for modernization and "interpreting" the Constitution. Anti-trust, health care regulation, and the federal minimum wage are prime examples of attempts to deal with modernization through federal policy not described in the document.
If the documents truly need to be adopted to the 21st century, then steps should be taken to amend the Constitution, not re-interpret it.
Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at June 30, 2007 1:52 PMI may have to cut and run, here. On another listening, I can hear your interpretation of his remarks (1:30 - 1:00 before the end) and agree that was what he was saying. I heard something that is not in there and would withdraw point two.
I'll eat a bit of crow on my hasty comment but still think I'm batting .667..
I still haven't gotten around to watching the video, but I will after I get back next week from vacation.
Today, I will say this as a general argument: Ron Paul's "isolationism" is typically mischaracterized. Ron Paul is a disciple of Bastiat, as I am, in believing that free commerce and non-interventionist foreign policies are the way for nations to prosper and exist peacefully alongside each other.
Ron Paul is not saying that if you're attacked, don't fight back. Likewise, he has never said that non-interventionism is a guarantee you'll never be attacked. He has never denied that bad guys sometimes attack you even though you never did them any harm. But if we leave others alone and set an example, it just might set off light bulbs elsewhere. At the very least, it won't provoke others who would have otherwise not become jihadis were it not for guys in camouflage uniforms bearing American flags on their shoulders. To rescu
Our Founders had much wisdom, and the Constitution was meant to be mostly inflexible for our own good. It could be amended, but only with great difficulty. Jefferson had written 11 years earlier that, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." But for the most part, it had no need to be. It set up a very limited federal government, just enough to get things done between the states, and it left everything else up to the states and the people. After all, people can do things more "flexibly" within their own states if they decide, without dragging others down with them. Right, Robert Byrd?
The principles the Founders stood for still apply today. How much less strife would we have if we heeded Washington's admonition to avoid "the spirit of party," and to stay out of permanent alliances? How much less "blowback" if we heeded Jefferson's similar advice about trade? "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." Well, since "blowback" is by definition that which comes back to you, we wouldn't have had any. Yes, we'd still be fighting jihadists, but we wouldn't have had all those Marines die in Beirut because we sent them where they didn't belong. We wouldn't be helping the jihadists recruit the next generation by giving them excuses.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 3, 2007 1:27 PM