Saudi Arabia is the home of many ludicrous laws based on the premise that it might ignite sexual desire. Any number of things are disallowed or forbidden outright all in the name of keeping people's morals in compliance of a designated morality. I ran across this news article that was about women smoking water pipes in Gaza. Most telling is the quote from an official "It is inappropriate for a woman to sit cross-legged and smoke in public. It harms the image of our people,." Later, the article goes on to say that women smoking water pipes are frowned upon because of the "sexual connotations." It's a wonder that they allow them to eat... I'm not going to get into why it's OK for a man to do it...

The thing is, unless someone told you that there were sexual connotations with smoking a water pipe or crossing your legs, you would never think that there was. I have long held that the crackdown on anything that might possibly have a sexual connotation actually puts sex into the forefront of people's minds. When you live in a place that thinks that water pipes, wet hair, or even the opposite sex immediately brings sex to mind, I think you are pretty sexually repressed. When I was in Yemen, people there would comment on how sexual our culture is. That's true enough, but all of our sexual connotations were about, you know, sex. We don't wig out if someone goes into public with wet hair, eats a banana, or God forbid, talk to a member of the opposite sex. We can do normal things without thinking about sex because we are allowed to think about sex on its own terms. I honestly believe that the cultures that try to enforce laws like that are the most sexually obsessed people on the planet.

 

The Associated Press: Some Gaza women smolder over Hamas' water-pipe ban: ""

(Via .)

I'm not using the prefix of extra to mean larger, in this context, it means outside of. I have written before about the administration's use of predator drones. Like I said, there is an argument to be made about pursuing folks that are actively fighting the US forces beyond the combat zone and doing away with them. I don't buy them, but the arguments can be made. Where I have a real issue is when US citizens are targeted, ones that are not actively fighting the US. The administration has OK'd the killing of this American for inspiring the underwear bomber. There has not been a trial, there is no indictment, there is no jury. Did we gun down Tim McVeigh when we found him? No. We didn't even kill Sadaam when we found him. Maybe this guy deserves to die, but surely we shouldn't allow the executive branch to execute whomever they think they should. If Dubya had done this, there would have been universal outrage, and it would have been warranted. The current president is getting a free pass and I have no idea why.

I was happy to see a modest protest about this though. There is what looks like a transformer or phone circuit box on the right as you go over the Key bridge into Georgetown.  On it has been spray painted an image of a predator and the word "extrajudicial." I doubt most people understand or care, but I am glad to see it. I am glad that there are some people that are bothered with the power that had been seized by Dubya and is now being wielded by Obama. I wish there were more...

 

 

Our entire way of life depends on others doing lots of work for us. We do our work for them as well. It's a great system. You do what you you can to help other people, and they do what they can to help you. Isn't it great to have other people do things for you? It's especially good since I have no idea how to make a lot of the things I use. We all barter our labor for the things that we want through the intermediary of money. You work and are given IOU's to other people's labor in the form of money. Other people will do almost anything for you in exchange.

When viewed in this way, it is easy to see why a society based on freedom of exchange works so well. It gives all of us the most varied products and services and the lowest prices. When you see money as the way to barter your labor for others labor, paying low prices seems even better! Cooperation is the name of the game, and freedom is the cause of it, and the result of it.

People that espouse "self sufficiency" have a general distrust of this idea of free cooperation. In my more cynical moments, I get the feeling that they just distrust people in general. Self sufficiency is the road to privation. You spend much more of your most precious commodity, time, on things that could be gotten much more easily with exchange. Cooperation and exchange is the two laned road to abundance and freedom.

There are people that espouse the idea that we should grow our own food, raise our own animals, and do our own canning (canning for God's sake!) in order to pursue freedom. All that stuff is fine if you enjoy doing them, but don't pretend that you are any more "free" because you did it yourself. Don't kid yourself, you have given up a lot to do those things.

Our current wealth is evidence. I once asked my grandmother why she didn't can things and make pickles anymore. She gave me a look that I'll never forget and said, "Because I don't have to anymore." Canning was hard work and it simply wasn't worth her time. She would have laughed in my face if I had told her that some people think that canning is part of the formula for freedom.

Go shopping for the things you need, work for other people's benefit, and enjoy the extra time you get instead of doing everything yourself. What could be more freeing than that?

 

A big thank you to all of you that served and especially the ones that didn't come back. I have a special place in my heart reserved for the men that fought and died for us and who did not feel they had a choice.A month or so ago, my friend David came to town and we visited the Vietnam memorial and the WWII memorial. There was a stark contrast between those wars, and the willingness of people to serve in them. As I walked along the wall that is the Vietnam memorial, I wondered how many of them were there willingly. Thank God the draft is over. Those of us that grew up after Vietnam are freer than the ones that grew up before or during. Your sacrifice is not forgotten.

 

In addition to remembering the bravery of the soldiers that fought and died for us, we should also remember the additional burden of the ones that were forced into dying for us. Memorial day should be a day to remember bravery, but it should mostly be a remembrance of sacrifice. 

The more I think about it, the more I think the folks that don't like the outcome of the Citizens United case don't understand the concept of free speech. Everyone I have heard complain about the verdict has essentially wanted to curb the power of large corporations. In their mind, it is perfectly justifiable to limit their ability to run political ads.

Here's the trouble, in doing that, you also restrict the ability of smaller, grassroots organizations to express themselves as well. The proponents of the McCain-Feingold legislation are willing to eliminate the voices of smaller, activist organizations in order to prevent the possibility of a corporation abusing its so-called power.

The hell of it is that the corporations will find other ways of influencing lawmakers, the rich will always do OK. It is the smaller voices that need to be heard, perhaps even in opposition to corporate interests. That is the entire point behind the concept of free speech.

Yes, the overturning of that legislation may lead to more corporate political activism but it is also the only way to fight against that activism. Instead of trying to limit certain groups, we should instead try to make sure that everyone has the chance to get their point across. Free speech for everyone is the only way.

I keep hearing outrage, gnashing of teeth, etc. over the recent Citizens United ruling. I've been questioning people as to why they support what I see as an obvious restriction of free speech and the answers seem to boil down to one of the following:

1) Corporations are bad and you can't trust them.

2) Corporations have too much money.

3) Corporations are not people!

4) People are mindless lemmings that will do whatever ads tell them to do.


Keep in mind that the law in question applied to not only what we consider the typical corporations, but also non-profits (more on this later), grassroots organizations, and essentially any grouping of people. So, perhaps there are some "bad" corporations, but surely there are groups that deserve and need to be heard close to an election too!

Points 2 and 4 are related. It is argued that because some corporations have "unlimited money" that they also have unlimited power over the voters. Why people think that Exxon or Chase have Svengali-like powers is beyond me. Ads can present information, they can never coerce, so why the fear of their ads? Ah, because people are stupid of course. Sorry, I don't subscribe to this train of thought. Ads will, on the whole, either reinforce people's priors or they will give them something to rail against. If an ad presents information that changes someone's mind then surely it was useful and should have been aired.

As to the corporations are not people bit, I think that it relates to point #1. Organizations are groups of people. Those people want to get their point across, that's what free speech is all about.

Even if those 4 things were true, they still do not provide us with an adequate reason to limit free speech. To see why, we only have to look at the basis of this case. A US district court ruled that ads for a movie about Hillary Clinton violated the McCain-Feingold act because they aired within 60 days of an election. Think about that. Whatever you may think about Ms. Clinton, what does it say about our country when you cannot advertise a film that is critical of a politician? What does it say about the state of political discourse when you cannot get a group of people together with a common cause and then let people know about it within 60 days of an election? That's what this law was about, that's why I am glad it was struck down.

And what I can't help but wonder is why the people that scream about this decision are seemingly happy that organizations like the ACLU or AFL-CIO are also muzzled. Don't you want to hear what they have to say about the candidates? Don't you want others to hear that too? This is what it really comes down to, you cannot limit free speech of a particular group without limiting many others. Hence the language of the 1st amendment :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The founding fathers got it right by not referring to individuals, groups, etc. They knew that any limitation on political speech was harmful. If you want freedom of speech, you have to extend it to everyone, no matter how they group themselves. The alternative is to muzzle yourself as well. Free speech for everyone!

It's best summarized by Timothy Lee.

"So I’m not thrilled at the idea of Fortune 500 companies spending a ton of money on bogus “issue ads.” But I think the dangers of such ads are frequently exaggerated. I’m far more worried about preserving the right of organizations like the ACLU to spread their message. And I don’t see any plausible way to stop the former without seriously restricting the latter. So I’m glad to see the Supreme Court take the words of the First Amendment — “Congress shall make no law” — literally."

This ruling doesn't change the rules about corporate contributions to campaigns, it only addresses the ability of corporations to run political ads within a certain amount of time before an election. "But corporations aren't people! They shouldn't hav the same rights as a person." No, but they are a group of people. I find it odd that so many people support our right to free speech and our right to assemble but oppose our right to free speech when we assemble (HT Warren Meyer).

It fell 20 years ago today. I really am amazed at how quickly the cold war seems to have been forgotten. This was probably the biggest event in my lifetime and it still resonates with me now. Surely an event worth commemorating.

It shows that there are a lot of people that don't like gay folks. It's hardly surprising really. Here's the thing about votes like that, at best, you are only going to make a lot of people mad no matter how the vote comes out. I sound like a broken record (skipping CD?) but this kind of politics breeds resentment and hatred. The hell of it is that there isn't any reason for the government and its laws to be involved at all. The best way to sort out this problem is to have the government out of the marriage business. There really are some things that governments do not do well and social/religious agreements are at the top of the list.

This was a speech given on national television, can you guess who it was? What are the odds that a speech like this would be made today?

"This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, “The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”

The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose."

It's an excellent point and I think I'll use it as a launching point for a couple of posts on political economy. That is, the rational choices people make in the world of politics. Those will follow in the next couple of weeks.

A friend took one of those silly facebook myers-briggs tests and was horrified to find that some prominent republicans shared her personality type. I would be honored if I were to be compared to Thomas Jefferson, but Cheney is on that list too, so I can understand the consternation.

But really, I'm surprised more people don't the see the similarities between hard core republicans and hard core democrats. They both have ideas, BIG ideas about things. They are prepared to wage political and social war in order to have the power of government in order to bring about their visions. To a lot of people, they don't look all that different

Oh sure, they do have different outlooks about people, morals, possibly even money, but they are united in the importance of the government and their desire to control it. Of course controlling the government is really just a proxy for controlling people that don't agree with them. Seriously, squint just a little, Pelosi and Palin aren't all that different in the control department.

As long as the disagreement is over how to use government to implement favorite outlooks and control the people that do not share that outlook, the political war will never end. It is this quest for power that causes the conflict.

Of course people think I'm crazy for bring this up. Duh Isaac, what else is government supposed to do? Look at the constitution, that's what the government is supposed to do. Those things are not, for the most part, very controversial. The things that are controversial, abortion, stimulation of the economy, maintaining of the economy, protection of jobs, health care, gay marriage, etc. are all products of political party fights over power.

That's really the difference between the two parties, how to wield power. So remember, the personality test is not a political one, don't be too terrified if you show the same personality traits as your political enemies. The fact that you are so similar is why you are enemies, the drive is the same, just for different ends.

This is something else that came up with my kidney post. it's from a friend of mine and I think it's a fairly common outlook.

I guess in my ideal world, Isaac, we stop our worship to the god Money, who rules over us now, and puts himself between people and life, fun, love, education, food, nature, etc, etc, etc. It seems as people make more money, and create new and better avenues to money, they also create bigger needs for regulation and protection to control the greed produced in its wake.

Wow, where to start? How about this, the greed doesn't come from the money. People have unlimited desires, we always want more. Of course in order to satisfy all of those wants, this world would need to be unlimited as would our lifespans. This is a limited world. We are limited.

When economists say that there's no such thing as a free lunch (TNSTASAFL), they aren't really taking about money. What they mean is that something has to be given up. There is labor, and time spent on lunch. Now, we could incur that cost ourselves, or we could get someone else to incur it for us. Of course, if they do that for us, they expect something in return.

Ultimately, we are all engaging in barter. I exchange my labor for someone else's labor. Some people make sandwiches, some people sell cameras, other people do other things. But barter is really unwieldily. If I sell cameras and I want a sandwich, I would have to find someone that makes sandwiches AND wants a camera. So instead of doing direct barter, we use money instead. We exchange out labor for money and then exchange the money instead of labor directly.

Peoples' desires for more is always what is at the root of what people blame on money. Those desires would still be around even if money were to disappear tomorrow. Of course, a world without that unit of exchange would suck. We should all be thankful for the existence of money, it makes life much easier. People's desires, or if you prefer, greed, has always been around and always will be. What we have to do is learn how to deal with other people's and our own and stop blaming other things for what we see as wrong in the world.

As far as the government being the best thing in order to protect us from greed, I'll just say this; the government is made up of people too. They aren't special people, they aren't above anyone else. They too, are subject to the same types of desires and greed as anyone else. The difference is that the people in government are able to wield quite a bit more power than the average person. Entrusting other people with that kind of power is asking for trouble, and boy have we ever gotten it. At best, I would say that the government's efforts have not helped at all with the issue of greed. Of course they have done that at great cost, and I really do think that they've made things worse anyway. Inevitably, when government "protects" us from something, they give more power to some corporation or at least give them more money. Keeping a level playing field is best accomplished without government interference and it allows us the maximum amount of freedom to determine our response to other's greed.

The 4th is my favorite secular holiday. It commemorates a momentous event in history and a radical approach to government. I am a little saddened that it seems a bit too radical for Americans today. Politicos have either ignored the financial freedom=civil liberties equation (which goes both ways) or they don't care about either. Too many people have been hoodwinked into thinking that the folks in DC have their best interests at heart AND are the best ones to make sure that people are OK.

I'm optimistic though. Today is the day when we should refresh our memories and cogitate over this sentence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Happy 4th of July, happy Independence Day!

OK, now that prop 8 has been upheld, there is more legal stuff being brought to bear to overturn it again. failing that, people are promising to bring it to another vote as early as next year.

This is crazy. Regardless of which way this goes, about half the population of CA will fight it. At what point do people say enough?

An obvious solution is for the state of California to say, "We don't care who you marry, don't talk to us about marriage!" Why people feel the need to have the state bless their union I'll never understand. All of the benefits and privileges that are associated with marriage can either be gotten rid of, or managed some other way. We don't have to have all of this wailing and gnashing of teeth, people could be getting on with their lives if they would stop turning to the wrong entity for validation. Sheesh....

I was watching a baseball game on sunday night when the announcer reminded us to remember the people that have voluntarily put their life in danger for their country. A fair number of them never came home, and there's no doubt that we owe them a great deal.

On this memorial day, and I think on all memorial days from now on, I want to especially remember the people that died in conflicts that they did not want to be a part of. Many people fought only because they didn't want to go to jail. They didn't care about falling dominos, a UN resolution, or any other reason the politicos gave them for killing other people and getting shot at.

It's one thing to die for something you believe in, it's quite a different matter to die for something that you don't care about. A lot of soldiers died that way, between a rock and the draft.

In addition to remembering the bravery of the soldiers that fought and died for us, we should also remember the additional burden of the ones that were forced into dying for us. Memorial day should be a day to remember bravery, but it should mostly be a remembrance of sacrifice.

Alright, I've had about as much as I can take. The reaction to the "tea parties" has been ridiculous for the most part. I am not going to defend the political opportunism that a lot of the people in those protests showed. I'm positive that there were a significant number of people there that just don't like Obama and would take any opportunity to vent. I'm not going to deal with them because I never take that sort of thing seriously. I'm going to talk about what those protests were nominally about, taxes.

There are two parts to tax protests, the amount of the tax and the use of the tax. I'll deal with the latter first because it's easy. I think that the repulsion of what our tax money has been used for stretches across all partisan lines. People of all stripes were appalled by the uses of our money. Bailouts of fabulously wealthy people (and campaign contributors), wars, propping up of failed companies (detroit, I'm looking at you), etc. I was amused when I read about some signs at a counter demonstration that read, "End corporate welfare!" They should have been part of the demonstration, not against it! Going into debt is not necessarily a bad thing, it depends on what you are buying. The recent misuse of our tax dollars is shocking, it should piss everyone off, no matter what their political leanings.

Ok, the other thing I hear in reaction to the tea party protests is that the people are stupid because Obama has actually lowered taxes on the people protesting. Let's get this straight, OBAMA HAS RAISED TAXES DRAMATICALLY! What? Obama has done exactly what he has (rightfully) accused dubya of doing, piling on debt and leaving it for the next administration. What Bush did was terrible, but Obama has taken it to the next level. Why is no one calling him on this? Debt is simply taxes deferred. All of the debt that is being wracked up needs to be paid. There are two ways for us to pay it off, more taxes, or inflation. Either way, we will be getting the shaft. Why more people are not protesting the tax rate on their children I'll never understand. Debt is taxes deferred. It's the perfect political ploy, deliver stuff and don't be around when the bill comes due. When we are languishing with rampant inflation and/or higher taxes, Obama wil be long gone.

People need to look past political affiliations and concentrate on basic accounting. That's the main idea with the protests. The press and people that are prone to political partisanship are painting this as a "Which side are you on" issue instead of "We need to pay attention to what's going on with our money." Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

A guy named George from Ghana found me on facebook. He is one of several people that have come across my profile while looking up things like "feedom" and "free market." It's gratifying to have other people with similar outlooks get in touch with me.

He is an advocate of free markets and freedom in general and uses those ideas to try to help people in his country. He is currently working for a company called "Save the Village." If I understand correctly, the idea is to foster economic development in villages in order to keep them viable.

In any case, George was invited to go to a conference put on by the Mackinak Center for Public Policy. They are an organization that promotes free market thinking in Michigan. Talk about a tall order... Anyway, they are an organization that encourages liberty, freedom, etc.

Here's the thing, George was refused a tourist visa to come to the US. Why? Because he's not married... I'm familiar with visa issues for people in Yemen and I can kind of understand the State department's wariness about letting the wrong person go to the states. I had never heard of not being married as a reason for being denied entry into the US before.

It sounds as though they are worried that he won't come back to Ghana. They have deemed that he does not have enough "ties" to guarantee his return. The fact that he works to promote the long term viability of village in Ghana and the fact that he was attending a conference to promote freedom and economic liberty wasn't enough for him. He needs to be married. The irony of being denied a visa to the US to attend a conference on liberty is sickening...

I don't want anyone to think these are the only reasons that people would be for or against the stimulus bill. There is always the possibility of stupid partizanship. I'm ignoring the possibility that people are for it/against it simply because of who proposed it. There are also an infinite number of variations on what Ihave written, but I'm trying to paint with large strokes in order to simplify. I'll admit to having a little trouble with characterizing the group that is in favor of this "stimulus" bill, but I will try anyway. Please correct me if I'm way off...

At their best, the people that are in favor of this bill are worried about the general public's welfare and believe that the government has the power to make sure that everyone is cared for. There is a deep belief in the power of the government to work for what is right and true. Underneath this belief, there seems to be the usually unsaid understanding that all things economically flow through and come from the government. If the government doesn't do it, it won't happen. They believe that morality should be the basis of government and that no "good" person could really be against a government made this way.

At their worst, the people that are in favor of not only stimulating the economy but in all of the other things that are in the bill are technocrats. They believe that they know what is best for everyone in this country. Underneath this belief is the understanding that people at large can't be entrusted to take care of themselves. Not only are people stupid, but they should be actively discouraged from doing what they think is best. Somehow, even though they are stupid, they are still the technocrats burden and must be cared for...

Once again, the more extreme view is pretty out there, but they do exist. How often have we heard the phrase, "They should be sterilized?" I know, that is usually said in jest, but it points to a deeper feeling of "We are in the right and they are insignificant."

Don't jump on me, I know there's a wider spread, but these seem like they are the two extremes of the people that favor this bill.

I do have some big problems with even the best case scenario I've outlined above (the worst case I won't even dignify with a critique). First, I don't see any evidence that the government has "our" best interest at heart. That is tied up in my second issue in that the government keeps changing. Even if we were to elect a government that is pure in word and deed and had perfect foresight, that government would change. I think it is telling that the people that have the above belief only have it when the "right" people are in office. No one ever seems to connect the dots in the fact that if a government has the power to do good, it also has the power to do evil. I worry about the power, if they don't have sweeping power, it matters much less who is in charge.

The third thing that I don't like is that there have been governments based on the principles outlined above. They have been formed with the stated goals of equality and justice and have all been nothing but evil. The Soviet Union, Red China, North Korea, etc. What needs to be emphasized is not that the wrong people were in charge, but that people like that will always be drawn to lead governments like that. While I don't think that our government is in danger of becoming like those, I am very worried about those types of people being drawn into the government because of all of the power they can wield.

This isn't a left/right or republican/democrat thing. This is all about what people believe when it comes to the government's role in our lives. I'm willing to bet a lot of people don't give it much thought and I'm also willing to believe that the majority of people in this country believe in what I have described above. I'm just hoping to make my point and tell people why I am against this and not be seen as an uncaring person or a partisan hack...

Technorati Tags:
bailout, democrats, economics, free trade, freedom, libertarian, money, obama, politics

This bailout business is comical. Both "sides" can line up economists that agree with them. All of them have models and historical facts and figures to make their case. Unfortunately, macroeconomics isn't something that can be proven. i wouldn't be surprised if both sides were right some of the time.

This event is not so much about competing schools of economics, but of world views. I'll start with the "side" that I'm in because I understand it pretty well.

Resistance to this bailout goes well beyond the idea "It won't work." At their best, people who do not want this bill passed believe that everyone should spend their money the way they see fit. People should be free to labor for what they think is important with a minimum of burden from outside influences like the government. This means keeping the tax levels low, and therefore keeping government spending low. Not everyone will do what we like, but c`est la vie, everyone is different and we can't expect them to do our bidding. They don't believe that this "stimulus" will work because no one can steer an economy. It is built on what is done by everyone in it as opposed to being directed from above. If things are left to themselves, the entire economy may look like it's going up or down, but that isn't really important. Allowing people to have the freedom to react to their world is paramount. There is a coherent, logical form of economics that says that this type of arrangement would allow for the most widespread prosperity not only in this country, but worldwide. History would seem to bear them out. While it's true that there has never been a government like this, the opposite has been tried with disastrous results.

At their worst, the people that oppose this "stimulus" believe that the real motivation for it is slavery. Massive spending is the first step to higher taxes, and being forced to work without remuneration is in fact slavery. Think about it, if the government taxes you at 8.3 percent, that means that you would work for an entire month without seeing any money. It might be OK if they then spent it on things you agree with, but these people would never admit to that, plus, if they wanted it, they wouldn't need to have the threat of incarceration to pay for it. In reality, people are generally taxed at much higher rates already and if taxes are not paid, you go to jail. In these people's eyes, the current bill is simply the latest effort to force people to live and work in a way that the political elite want them to.

Like all extremes, the worst version of this view is a little kooky although it's hard to argue against the slavery definition. One thing that needs to be emphasized is that just because someone is against this bill, it does not mean that they want people to suffer. They just have different priorities in how our labor should be spent. I'm somewhere closer to the first, or best case scenario in my own outlook, but I can sympathize with people who have the second. I'll try my hand at the "pro" side to the bill in the next post.

Technorati Tags:
bailout, economics, free trade, freedom, libertarian, politics

This came from the website of the Yemen Observer, one of the English language newspapers in Yemen.



Her name is Boushra Almutawakel and she is a photographer in Yemen. Needless to say, a female photographer in Yemen is a rather unusual thing. You can read the article via the link above to read more about her. I want to say a few things about this picture.

There's no way to know what she meant by it but I find it quite powerful. Many people in the US and Europe see the hijab as a repressive aspect of Arab culture. Of course those people have probably never asked one of those women why they cover up. Part of it is simply dressing appropriately in that culture. A woman here in the US might have a reason to go topless, but she would have to think about it long and hard before she did so. It just isn't done for the most part.

A more important part of the hijab is its religious importance for those women. By wearing the hijab, they reaffirm what they believe. Here in the US and in Europe, it is also a marker of her faith. Women who wear hijab here know that they are in some senses representing Islam so they better act accordingly. I wish more people that wore a cross would remember that as well.

The hijab is very powerful symbolism when taken in context of faith. Women are quite literally taking refuge under it and by extension Islam. That is why, in my opinion, wearing the American flag as hijab is so powerful. It is not just a religious statement, it is political.

Of course, it is the kind of politics that I like. She is free to do this, the US constitution guarantees her freedom to not only make this statement but to be a Muslim as well. It is everything that makes this nation great.

She may have been making an "in your face" statement to Americans with it. She might have targeted those people that conflate Christianity and being American or it may have been some sort of statement about the so called War on Terror. I have no idea, but that's one of the great things about art, the artist does their thing and we are left to makes sense of it. What I love about it is going to piss some others off. How an American acts will probably be different than someone living in the middle east. The many different responses that can come from this is what makes it a great work in my opinion.

You go girl!

Technorati Tags:
freedom, gitmo, islam, middle east, politics, religious freedom, yemen, art

There is, among some of my friends, the belief that I am all about money. I do talk about it quite a bit on this blog and most of my economics posts seem to center around money. I guess I only have myself to blame for not making things clearer.

Most of us do not value money for its own sake, but for the possibilities that it represents. When you have x amount of dollars, you can turn that amount into a computer, a hamburger, a charitable donation, a trip, education, or any number of other things. Naturally, we all prefer having more things/experiences, or at least higher quality things/experiences than less.

What people seem to discount (no pun intended) is how we get it. The bottom line is that we can only get money by doing something that other people want. The potential for making money is directly related to how great a want we satisfy. Working, and profiting from that work, is a benefit to society. As you profit, you employ others for your wants. Other people can make your lunch, drive you to work, clean your suit, educate your children, or whatever comes into your mind.

This is the real definition of a wealthy society. People use dollars to satisfy their wants and they can only get them by satisfying the wants of others. The more people that do this, the wealthier we are. Not because of the dollars, but because of the services and products we make for others.

Too many people make an artificial distinction between monetary freedom and "personal" freedom. They are the same thing, this is what economics is all about. Somehow people have gotten it into their heads that things like taxation and education are not related. They think that we can discuss health care and civil liberties as separate topics. No one seems to see the connection.

If you restrict things on the monetary side of things, you will eventually impact things on the freedom side of things. Imagine that taxes have to go up in order to pay for some things. The money you pay in taxes is diffused throughout the country so you will inevitably not see the direct effect of your money paid to the government. So you end up getting less money for the same amount of work, or you work more for the same amount of money. Monetary issues have taken away some of your time, liberty has been lost to a monetary measure. The same thing happens with any regulation that increases the cost of a product or service. We must work more for the same benefit...

If you curtail liberties, it will eventually impact the wealth of the nation. Remember, wealth is determined by people satisfying wants and needs of other people. For people to achieve their potential, they must be free to pursue what is important to them. Remember, there are always two people behind every transaction. They must be free to pursue what is important to them, and be free to pursue what is important to others. Doing both of those things is the very definition of wealth, you can't have wealth without freedom.

In order for society to function, there needs to be some limits, I'll admit that. But I tend to lean more towards things like prohibiting murder and leaving things like marriage, food, recreational chemical usage, etc. up to the individual.

So the thing that I have as my primary subject in my posts is not money, but freedom. Money is usually a good short hand method for talking about freedom and liberties in general. Most people tend to only look at liberty OR money, I want people to reconnect those concepts...

Technorati Tags:
libertarian, freedom, money

I've heard some people talking about history today, and I was wondering where today fits into my idea of historical events. Obama makes my top ten, but there are some other things that take precedence. I'm limiting myself to things that happened in my lifetime but not to things that I recognized their importance at the time.

10) The take over and taking of hostages in the American embassy in Tehran 1979
9) W's unjustified and illegal invasion of Iraq
8) Obama is elected president
7) The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty 1979
6) 9/11/2001
5) China adopts market reforms under Deng Xiaoping starting in 1978
4) Pol Pot giving up power and fleeing into the jungle during the Cambodian-Vietnamese war 1979
3) The end of Apartheid in South Africa 1n 1990
2) The fall of the Berlin Wall 1989
1) The collapse of the Soviet Union 1991

That was tougher than I thought it would be. I had the top three pretty well nailed down, but I thought that the end of the Vietnam war and the assassination of Sadat would make the list. My top 5 had immediate and important effects to millions and millions of people. Number 6 is probably ranked too high on an absolute scale, but it did have quite an impact on me. Hmm, the more I think about it, the less I think Obama's place on my list will last. Right now we are all a flutter with the departing of Bush and the inauguration of the first black president, but if we take a step back, it really doesn't compare with the things that come after it on my list...

Well, he's made history, now let's see what he can do. For all our sakes, I hope he does a good job.

I'm up early this new year for some reason, guess it's as good a way to start it as another. Like every year of my life, I'm looking forward to this one. I don't have any resolutions other than this, I resolve to let things go. By that I mean that I am not going to allow myself to become depressed over the economy and people's beliefs in how to fix it. It has been too easy to get angry over the disconnect between what people think the problem is and what they think the solution is. I can't do anything about the political/economic machinery churning away and people's blind faith in it despite what I see as its obvious failings. All I can do is try to make the most out of what I've got. I am resolving to regain my optimism. It has faded a bit over the last 6 months. I think having too much extra time to think about things is mostly to blame for that. Well, it's time to get busy with life again...

Oh, I'll still rail against what I see as obvious problems, don't worry about that! I have to keep in mind that all I'll be able to do is educate people. Things will turn out the way they will, bad policy will have bad results... In the same vein, bad habits will have bad results as well. I need to take care of the things that I can do and ensure that what results from my activities is good. Insha'alla I will remember this throughout the year and keep my sanity intact.

In some ways all years are basically the same. All that really changes is what we think of them. Here's to a good attitude for the rest of this year and for all the years to come. Happy new year!

A friend asked me what I though of this article in Vanity Fair. My basic thought is that you find what you look for. Everything he mentioned reminded me how much the government had screwed up. He enumerated all of the things that the government did or had power to do (Alan Greenspan, various legislation, etc.) and how disastrous they were and then concludes that "anti-regulation fanatics" were to blame for the current mess. Huh?

I think a more reasonable way to look at it is that the government either shouldn't have the power it does (via the fed) or should stop trying to compensate for its market distorting reactions to other market distorting legislation (like Sarbanes Oxely etc.). Instead of picking out one fed chair and (rightfully) complain that he screwed some things up, why not ask why a person or board has that kind of power in the first place? Instead of complaining about the repeal of Sarbanes et. al, why not ask what the markets were reacting to that made that legislation first attractive and then unattractive? I'm willing to bet that it was a reaction to some sort of legislation that caused that law to be "needed" in the first place. I'm also willing to bet that both in the enactment and the repeal of that law, they got it wrong...

His sneering at self-correcting markets is especially galling, how would he know how well they work? First off, they don't exist in the financial world. On top of that, they are never allowed to correct. No one ever claimed that perfection would result from totally deregulated markets, but they do indeed "correct" themselves. I'm ignoring the strawman that people have been chomping at the bit for totally deregulated markets. As far as I can tell, people have wanted less regulated markets, or at least minimally regulated ones.That's not the same thing at all... Anyway, it is the attempt to mitigate these corrections that causes so much widespread trouble. Trying to "fix" the result of markets only leads to other consequences. Markets only work well if the negative things are allowed to happen. Stupidity and excessive risk taking should be their own punishment....

How people can propose more regulation to fix problems that have government's fingerprints all over them really confounds me. Why does he think it is possible for effective legislation for such a complicated issue to come out of the political process? Why does he not think that even if we did get the most brilliant economists (even by his standards) running things via regulation that they would be replaced by other people eventually? If you give power to people to regulate things, the political process will make a hash out of the best intentions.

So I'm not going to attack his econ cred. I'd look pretty silly with my several semesters worth of econ vs. his nobel prize... I have no reason to disbelieve his analysis of cause and effect. I am attacking his myopic view of what regulation is capable of and of the process that creates that legislation. There isn't any reason to think that different regulations wouldn't cause other problems. This is, in a nutshell, why the vast majority of professional economists drive me crazy. They know their models well, but they confuse those things with economics.

The main point that I got out of it was "The party I don't like made some decisions that had bad consequences, so they're all stupid." His juvenile worship of the philosopher/economist technocrat getting things right blinds him to the reality of the political process. Unfortunetly, this idea of "If only we had the right people administering the right laws, everything would be fine," is probably the most widespread view out there. Sigh.... Freer markets are by no means perfect, but they are a hell of a lot more democratic. In a totally free market of exchange, the damage caused by bad decisions are mostly limited to the people involved in that exchange. In his world, if all of the politicians involved in his regulating efforts aren't blessed with perfect foreknowledge of all consequences for years to come from their regulations, we all feel the effects of their decisions.

I heard a clip of this speech the other day on the radio and I realized that I had never heard the entire thing. I made the effort and I'm glad I did. It's quite the history lesson. It's also good to hear the man himself instead of relying on fuzzy memories and modern critics. Listen to it here:



The first 30 seconds or so is a blurb about who is hosting the file, the speech begins after that. This wasn't that long ago, a little over 20 years, but my how things have changed! Some of the more interesting bits IMO:

1) "The Soviet Union is pointing nuclear weapons at all of the capitals of Europe..." Wow, doesn't that take you back? We were worried about nuclear war, and for good reason. Reagan has the reputation of being a war monger, but listen and you'll hear a man that felt that he was doing what had to be done. he certainly didn't seem to relish the arms race...

2) SDI. Yes, I can hear all of you groan from here. The "Star Wars" project was an infamous government waste of money. It was a waste insofar as it didn't actually produce any sort of defense anything and cost an amazing amount of money. Believe it or not, there are more than a few historians that credit the SDI with the beginning of the end of the arms race. How? As early as 1968, Reagan had written that the best way to make the Soviet Union collapse was to make them spend a lot of money. His reading of Hayek made him realize that the Soviet system was inherently inefficient (despite all sorts of people, including a fair number of economists thinking otherwise). The American system could absorb many more losses and still function fairly well. History has born out both Hayek's and Regan's visions. SDI didn't have to work, in fact I'm sure that Regan knew it wouldn't work. All he had to do was convince the Soviets that there was a way to make it work given enough money. The Soviets couldn't start that kind of research and keep up the ongoing arms race. It was the first crack in their armor, SDI is what made it clear that the US could afford much more than the Soviets, and they started to change...

3) Freedom. I know that use of "freedom" in a political speech is out of favor these days due to dub-ya's mistakes in the name of it. But really, what Reagan said and what W has promised isn't all that different, so why is Reagn's speech moving and W sounds like a buffoon? I think that it was primarily what was causing the lack of freedom. Socialism was an organized, powerful, directed movement against liberty. The USSR was an easy target, and they were genuinely repressing people that wanted things to be different. Today is much different. Except for a few sad holdouts (N. Korea, Cuba), socialism is dead. There are still governments that repress their citizens of course, but none of them are large enough to pose a world-wide threat. They are also not large enough, or powerful enough to consistently fire up Americans... The freedom that W talked about was freedom at the point of a gun. Yes, Saddam was a monster, but that entire area seems to be disposed to autocratic rulers. My time in Yemen made it clear to me that they were not convinced a democracy like the US's was in their best interests. Most of them would rather have a king...

In other words, the lack of freedom in the middle east was not so much dependent on governments (although there are more than a few repressive ones over there) as it was ingrained in their culture. If you ask them, they will of course claim to desire freedom, but that word has very different connotations to them than to people in the US usually. So the thing that limits freedom is not a monolithic, militarily powerful entity in that part of the world. It is instead diffuse, ingrained, and largely beneath the surface. How do you fight that? Trick question, you can't "fight" that, you have to cultivate freedom.

So in short, I think that a lot of what caused W problems was the fact that there wasn't a single thing that he could fight and "win" against. Today's problems with freedom are quite a bit more complex than in years past. This last administration has been an absolute disaster in that regard. I really hope that Obama can get a feel for the real obstacles to freedom and act accordingly.