CATO's Christopher Preeble makes a lot of sense in his post about Gates's proposels for trimming down the military.

 

"Gates claims that the U.S. military needs to grow because the world is becoming “more dangerous.” More dangerous than what? The notion that a few hundred al Qaeda ragamuffins and their Taliban allies poses a greater threat to Americans than a nuclear-armed Soviet Union is absurd on its face, and yet we spend more on our military today than at the height of the Cold War."

The plan to cut down on waste by shutting down the Joint Forces Command in Hampton has gotten the predictable responses from the local politicians. The senators, house members, the governor, and the local politicos are unanimous in declaring that the closing of that command will be disastrous to the national security of the nation... oh, and it will adversely affect the local economy too. If military spending is going to be cut, things will have to go away. And guess what Virginia, states that have a heavy military presence are going to get things cut. Trying to make the case that everyone else in the country needs to support this base because Hampton will suffer is absurd. The fact that no one mentions the unfairness of this arrangement galls me. It's one thing if the base actually does protect us in some way, but when the military itself considers it expendable, that should tell us something.

I suppose that this base actually did something at least. There are several senators and congressmen pursuing projects that the military has explicitly stated that they do not want and will not use. This doesn't stop politicians from trying to waste our money for their voters. The building of an alternate engine for the joint strike fighter and the C-17 airplane are conspicuous in their egregious waste of money. These are projects that will not be used, but politicians are pushing them to create jobs in their districts. It's akin to paying people to dig holes and then fill them in again.

I need to stop reading the news, all of this makes me sick.

Once again, the specter of government regulation of the internet rears its head under the banner of net neutrality. Once again, people seem to have their stories confused as to why this is an important topic. We are told that corporations are plotting to give priority to certain types of information speed-wise over others. The networking companies claim this is the only way they can efficiently use their networks, by separating VOIP, streaming video, and email from each other and then charging people for the bandwidth they actually use. Somehow, this is supposed to lead to them filtering information so that people only get what the corporations want them to get.

Tell me that doesn't sound paranoid, go ahead. It also doesn't make any sense. It actually does make sense from the networking end of things to give different types of traffic different priorities, but let's ignore that for a second. Are the companies greedy or not? Do they try to make as much money as possible, do they try to outdo their competition for subscribers?

My question is this, who would subscribe to a service that blocks content? Or to put a different spin on it, how long would it take for a company to advertise that they do not block content or restrict speeds regardless of content? Do you think that would give them a competitive advantage?

See, that's the thing, net neutrality laws are totally unnecessary assuming that there are at least a couple of companies actually competing for subscribers. As long as one company offers non-discriminatory speeds, all of them have to. As long as one of them does not restrict content, none of them can. I say go ahead Comcast, try to implement some content filtering and see what happens. Verizon/cox/everyone else will be licking their chops waiting for your ex-customers.

On the other side of things, allowing congress to get a foothold in the workings of the internet is a very dangerous precedent. Would you want Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, or Jesse Helms mucking around with the internet? No? Then you can't allow Pelosi, Franken, and Frank mess with it either. Leave the internet alone. We will be taken care of, not because the companies want to, but because they have to in order to survive and beat the competition.

I subscribe to a financial news service, one that is aligned along the ways I think about the economy and has more than a little Austrian econ flavor. Anyway, one of their commentors was discussing all of these countries with all of their financial issues. He pointed out that huge debts and deficits are common during times of war. Wars are expensive and there is a lot at stake. Sometimes, you have to deficit spend just to keep the barbarians from breaking down the gates.

Here's the thing, the wave of budget problems, enormous deficits, and ballooning debts sweeping across countries had almost nothing to do with war. Countries seem to be running themselves into the ground by just doing business as usual. That should make everyone pause and question what the government should really be doing, and yet that doesn't seem to be happening to any great extent.

Yes, the US is fighting a war, and it does have a big effect on our bottom line. But what about Ireland? Greece? California? What excuse do they have? What excuse do the people living there have? Will the US be able to cope with a war AND ballooning deficits and debt? We'll see, but seeing how some of the European nations have fared doesn't make me real optimistic...

 

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...

 

Conservatives

 

"If everyone would stop being so stupid and be more like us, everything would be much better. As it is, we better use the government to dictate the way things should be."

 

Modern day American Liberals

 

"People at large are stupid, greedy, and sometimes even evil. The government is the only way to protect them from themselves and us from them."

 

Libertarians

 

"People are indeed stupid and greedy to varying amounts. There are even evil people in this world. This is why we need to limit what governments can do so that people can't use their position to do bad things. With any luck, people interested in power and influence will be less attracted to government positions when there is less power to be wielded."

 

IMO, it is attitude number two that leads to attitude number one. Power corrupts. I keep hoping that people will eventually realize that no matter how evil someone is, they can only do massive amounts of harm with the government's blessing. Wait... am I slipping into attitude #1...?

 

 

Via Bloomberg, the US government now pays more for credit than several other bonds. This means that investors see Berkshire Hathaway, Lowe's, Proctor and Gamble, and Johnson and Johnson as safer bets fro getting their money back than the US government. Think abut that for a moment. The nation's debt is starting to loom, and the latest vote has added an enormous burden to it over time. Or at least that's how the financial world sees it. The US is in danger of losing it's AAA bond rating from Moody's. Treasuries may no longer be the go-to conservative investment.

I'm really hoping that this will cause some sort of fiscal restraint to enter into the political mindset before there's a real problem. I'm not optimistic though. As long as politicians can promise benefits now and payments later, that is what they will do.

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.

Back in the mid 70's, Gordon Tullock and James Buchanan wrote "The Calculus of Consent." Its subtitle is "The Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy." This book, along with his previous writings, earned Buchanan the Nobel Prize in Economics for launching the study of political economy.

People have all sorts of ideas about how the political process works, and even more opinions about how it should work. Political economy is the study of how politics actually works. As it turns out, politicians aren't all that different from people in any other job. On a day to day basis, they will do whatever allows them to keep their job and get them promoted. What these things are will vary depending on the type of government and the times they live in, but the general concept holds.

So why call the subject political economy? Why not just call it political science or just political studies? Another name for microeconomics is rational choice theory. By putting the label of "economy" on it, we emphasize the rationality of the actors as opposed to the ideology of them.

Political economy essentially tells us that when faced with a decision, politicians will tend to make the choice that benefits them the most. In this governmental system, politicians need votes, but it usually pays for them to target specific voting blocks. Political economy also has a lot to tell us about why bills tend to look the way they do. I'll talk more about political coalitions and bill formations in a bit, the main idea I want to get across is that politics works the way it does because of rational choices given the incentives that they face. People's frustrations over politicians stem much more from the system than from individual politicians. It isn't a matter of avoiding evil ones and electing "good" ones, the system makes politicians what they are. In an ideal system, it wouldn't matter much who was elected, but that's not the system we have.

I think the next installment will be about voting blocks and the nature of power in the political process.

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.

I recently caught up with a friend of mine that I had originally met in Yemen. She's the rare breed of person that really enjoys my econ writings and she's encouraging me to keep at it. She's also encouraging me to apply to the State department, but more on that later...

Here's the thing, I haven't been writing much recently, and it feels nice not being so negative all the time. I had originally thought that this particular administration was the root cause of all of my angst, but that really isn't fair. I was just as upset with Dubya's reign, and I'm sure that I will be as upset with anyone else that comes and would have been as upset with any previous administration. I have to keep reminding myself that administrations do what they do not for economic reasons, but for political ones. I also have to keep reminding myself that good economic policies won't benefit any particular group (even if the population as a whole benefits) and so will never gain any political traction.

Politics is, and will always be, a trading of privileges and powers. If you spend any time at all wallowing in it and have a conscience you will get angry. The only politicians I could ever hope to support and be positive about are ones that advocate the lessening of government influence and it's unlikely that anyone like that will be in the news any time soon.

So I will continue to write about economics, but I am going to try really hard not to get sucked into the political end of things. That's not a promise, but I really am going to try...

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.

I don't want to give the wrong impression, but it may already be too late. If you read enough, you'll see that people in countries that have various forms of nationalized healthcare, or at least nationalized healthcare coverage are mostly happy with it. People deal with whatever they have to work with. In other words, if something were to be passed, and it worked overall, I don't think it would be the end of the world. That doesn't mean I'm not worried what is hidden in those 1000 pages, but I'm not going to get crazy if it does get passed.

I am getting frustrated at people scoffing and ridiculing others for being worried about the federal government involvement in things that it doesn't have any jurisdiction over. Calling them "unamerican" like our speaker of the house did is unexcusable. Whatever you may think of those people, they do have an argument that has some force, it's called the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment (the last of the original bill of rights) is the key difference between our government and all of the other governments out there.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is a clear limitation on the extent of the powers and scope of the federal government. Granted, the people yelling at the meetings are not citing the 10th amendment, but their sentiment is the effectively the same. Like it or not, it is there and we shouldn't ignore it, or the people that share the sentiment.

Of course, the 10th amendment has all but been ignored for all of the 20th century. The supreme court has twisted itself into knots using the commerce clause in order justify all sorts of federal involvements that are not in the constitution. I do wish that we would remember what the federal government is supposed to do, it is very clearly spelled out in the constitution. The 10th amendment was put in there to prevent the federal government from emulating a monarchy. You have to have limits to prevent that, an the 10th is it. On the other hand, the proper use of the commerce clause could in fact help out this issue and the government could stay within its prescribed bounds. SIGH, I guess it's too much to ask for that to happen...

That's a response I got to my last post. It's true, I don't know of anyone seriously promoting that, but it can still do what I said in my previous post. Why? It all has to do with the fact that it is a federal program.

Imagine that you have kids and live in an area with lousy public schools. You really don't want to send your kids to neighborhood school, what to do? Sure, you have a choice, you don't have to choose to use the state's school, there are plenty of private schools to choose from. Here's the thing, even if you choose to not use the public school you still have to pay for it. Your choice to not use the school does not help you out at all. You have to come up with the money for both the public and the private school. On top of that, the public school doesn't really care if your children don't go, they won't change what they do at all.

Facing that decision, most parents go ahead and send their kids to the public school. If they are really committed, they will agitate to improve the school. Of course, if anything ever does come of that agitation, it will only be long after their kids are through that school.

It's a similar thing with a federal health insurance "option." It will be optional to use the services, but it will not be optional to pay for it. Faced with that decision, most people will go ahead and use it. Using what you are charged for is the rational thing to do, even if that thing is substandard. The cost of using something else is just too much for most people. This is the mechanism that will cause the federal program to squeeze out the private ones.

Keep in mind that this holds even if you can opt out of the premiums. This is because the inevitable cost over runs and/or cost underestimates will still be the responsibility of the federal government. Without any real reason to worry about profitability, there will be both. It will be like Fannie mae and Freddie Mac, political promises with no incentive to rein in costs or risks. In other words, a disaster waiting to happen.

I have had several people say to me that I must be excited about the effort to reform the medical world what with my MS and all. Despite what some people would see as an advantage to me, I don't really see much upside in my circumstance.

It probably doesn't come as any surprise that I just don't trust reform coming from DC that involves more federal activity. The political process is not conducive to doing that well. Even if they managed to set the ideal system up, how long would it last? Special interest groups will be rewarded for their contributions and we will get mission creep like all other federal programs. The bill in the house is a prime example. It is currently over 1000 pages long, it isn't a stretch of the truth to say that nobody can understand the thing in its entirety. The most recent concession involves an ethanol program for a lawmaker in Illinois. Perhaps there should be a law stating that new laws can be a maximum of 5 pages long...

A bigger worry is that with more government involvement we will get far fewer innovations in the medical world. Say what you want about the US healthcare industry, but there's no question that it is responsible for the vast majority of medical innovations in the world. This is especially true when it comes to drugs. It is the quest for profit that drives inventions like MRIs, laser scalpels, heart valves, etc. Of course those new treatments are one of the reasons that costs keep going up.

On a less grand scale, I also worry about people losing options that lay outside of the medical mainstream. MS is a case in point. The approved drugs are expensive, don't have a great track record as far as effectiveness goes, and of course have various side effects. There are some other drugs that have been approved for other conditions that seem to help a lot of people with MS. They are much cheaper, have no significant side effects, and seem to have at least a similar amount of success as the approved drugs. Right now, I can get a doctor to prescribe these for me, but will I have that option if the feds are much more involved? Would I be able to get drugs that are not approved by the FDA for my condition?

So unless the lawmakers can get their act together and draft a law that anyone can read and figure out (If no one else reads it and understands it, at least they should be able to) I am firmly against this current legislation. It may have some good stuff in there, but how can anyone know?

Gambling was a blast the first time I went to Vegas. I hung out at the Roulette table and had a pretty long run. Eventually, I ran out of chips and the thought "I need more chips" crossed my mind. It took several minutes to remember that those chips were actually money. That isn't by accident, the casinos know exactly what they are doing.

In the same vein, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing "The federal government" will pay for program x, y, and z. I would like a law passed that would require all government employees to substitute the phrase "The American taxpayers" for "The federal government." It sounds like a minor thing but I think that it would have some significant effects. Instead of hearing senators say "The federal government will provide a subsidy of $4500 for older cars," we would have "The American taxpayer will provide a subsidy of $4500 for older cars." That does sound different, doesn't it? I want politicians, members of the press, and political hacks on all sides to stop deceiving themselves and others. I want them to stop playing games when it comes to spending money. Be truthful when talking about spending our money!

The budget mess in California is a sight to behold. They are the poster child for spending run amok. Well, they still aren't as bad as the federal government, but there's a big difference between states and the feds. The states are not allowed to print money in order to pay for their expenditures.

I hear that the state legislature of California has come to an agreement on what to do with their budget. I'm always amazed at how government programs suddenly become "essential" when it comes time for cuts. Things worked OK before the program started, but we are told that all hell will break loose if it is cancelled. The problems in CA can be boiled down to this; it is very easy to add spending but it is very difficult to cut it. Even the compromise that they have worked out depends on CA jumping out of the recession quickly. They rationalize that they can afford this budget in the future. Of course, they don't want to acknowledge that they can't afford it now.

I do hope that the powers that be can navigate the tremendous amount of debt that has been accumulated, both in budgetary matters and with the central bank. I'm hopeful, but not optimistic.

I'm trying to keep up with the whole health care reform thing, and it's making me question my sanity. I thought that the pressing issue was how much our health care cost, but now it seems like "coverage" is the big thing. The real problem is how we imagine health care should be. The ideal coverage doesn't cost us anything and treats everything. Clearly, that can't happen.

I got this comparison from Penn Gillette of all people... Imagine that we had "food insurance" that worked the same way as our health insurance does now. Do you think that the prices of food would rise if there wasn't any incentive to look at how expensive things are? If our insurance covered everything (and what good is insurance if it doesn't?), we would buy the best food all the time. In addition, all of the people that made food would make more and more expensive food. In other words, the good things about a market would get turned on it's head and we'd have ever increasing costs instead of competition driving prices down.

I do think that the price we pay is way out of whack, but I don't put the blame on greed, I put it on the fact that our incentives are all screwed up. If you wanted to get philosophical, you could claim that greed is what causes people to want services at either no cost or very little cost to them... but I would never do that.

We need insurance to be more like our home insurance or car insurance. Those policies do not cover everything, they are there for catastrophic losses. The typical health insurance tries to be exhaustive. What ends up happening is the worst of all worlds. We end up paying for our health care in installments AND we get the high prices from the screwed up system. Yes, we should insure against really bad things happening, but we have gone overboard in insulating ourselves from the cost of things, our current system is the result.

Needless to say, the 1000 page monstrosity that is being worked on up in DC is nothing more than doling out favors and scoring political points. I am very certain that whatever comes out of that process will cause prices to go up even more, our quality of service to go down, or some other really bad outcome. The political process is not a very good tool for problems like this, look at what it has already done! If more people would realize what has happened, we wouldn't be turning to the same people that screwed us up in the first place.

Wal Mart is support new legislation that would require employers of a certain type to provide health insurance to their employees. Shouldn't they be fighting that? After all, it is one of the things that is supposed to make them monsters. Yes, in their ideal world, they would not have to offer anyone health insurance at all. So why are they supporting this legislation?

It's easy, this will hurt their competition (and potential competition) more than it will hurt them. The government will, in effect, strengthen Wal Mart's position in the retail sphere. Yes, it will cost Wal Mart money, but it is the only way to make their competition incur costs that will hurt them. Usually Wally World is unable to dictate what costs places like Target and Costco have to deal with, but with the federal government's power to regulate employee benefits, the way is opened to inflict damage to their competition.

This goes on all the time. Legislation that is supposed to help people ends up hurting by limiting competition. In reality, this is a way for congress and big companies to work together. The big business gets protection and the legislators get cheap political points. Sigh...

I really can't believe Obama said this...

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Umm, why didn't you think of that before pushing through that so called stimulus and all of those bailouts? I would use a well known saying involving a pot and kettle, but I don't want to be accused of being a racist. Where does he think all this debt came from? And more importantly, why didn't he worry about this BEFORE taking on all of that debt? Unbelievable...

What do you call a Republican that is pro-choice, supports Obama, and supports civil unions for homosexuals? ? A Democrat. Zing!

This is what strikes me the most about Arlen Spectre defecting to the democratic party. These days, the only thing that separates dems and republicans is a fondness for different policies. There are no longer any philosophical differences on the nature of government. It is assumed that the president "runs" the country, it is assumed that the "direction" of the country comes from DC.

I think this is worse news for the republicans than for the democrats. There is enough support for the policy direction of the democratic party that they can float along with no problem. The republican agenda has been uncool for some time, and is quickly falling by the wayside. With any luck, this is the beginning of the end of the republican party's social conservatism as a political force. They have long since abandoned any claim on being the party of fiscal conservatism. For a long time, that was the main identity of republican politics, then they hitched their wagon on social conservatism. That was a long term tactical error that may well end the Republican party.

While my ideal political party would have a platform of fiscal conservatism and an emphasis on civil liberties (I actually think they are the same thing), I would be happy with some politicians that had no other platform than responsible fiscal policies. We need some resistance to the current republican/democratic fetish of spending money without thinking of the consequences. In short, we need a real alternative to business as usual in the political sphere.

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...

GM is looking for more money. Let them go into bankruptcy already. People are going to get fired in any event, we should allow the things that are worth something to be sold and the rest go away. Why are we being saddled with keeping this failed corporation alive?

Technorati Tags:
economics, free trade, politics, GM

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

"We need to pass this bill NOW in order to protect this country. It is imperative that this bill be passed post haste so that things do not get worse..."

This is, of course, the tack that Obama is taking in trying to get this spending bill passed. It is also exactly the same technique used by Bush to get no only the TARP legislation passed, but also the invasion of Iraq. Are people's memories that short? Does no one remember what happened when congress was railroaded into those types of spending bills? Most of what is in this bill would not come online until 2011, so what's the rush?

First saw this over at Mises blog. Can't say a lot about the talent involved, but I do like the message...

Technorati Tags:
bailout, fannie mae, freddie mac, libertarian

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

This is an excellent article about what is going on behind the hatred of Bush and the euphoria over Obama being elected. I do think that politics has turned into a search for redeemers and villains more so than looking for good managers. It's an odd thing if you can get a perspective far enough away.

A really nice piece from Cato...

"I was asked by a radio host more than once this week what I thought of the fact that some big business leaders were standing by President Obama in his pursuit of the gargantuan “stimulus” package. There is an unfortunate public perception that supporters of free markets are knee-jerk supporters of anything that could be perceived as benefiting “big business.” As the thinking apparently goes, because free marketers favor business, and members of the business community favor the stimulus, shouldn’t free marketers therefore favor the stimulus?

Hardly. In his book, The Myth of the Robber Barons, historian Burton Folsom differentiates between market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs:"

There is a huge difference between those two. Market entrepreneurs innovate and compete on services and quality of the goods they produce. Political entrepreneurs lobby the government to "protect" them. Protect them from what? From competition, the friend of the consumer and the enemy of the business owner.

Any time you see a large company, or an industry group putting their weight behind legislation be on guard, especially if it will cost them money. Inevitably, the legislation will have been worth every penny they invested in it to get it passed...

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

This article is what I, and many other people were looking for from Obama. Imagine, a leader saying that the future is important! It is a relief to hear that he thinks that people in the middle east are important. Honestly, I think that W probably thought so to, but he never actually said it. That's a big deal. There are plenty of people over here (believe it or not) that don't think that W is a monster, so they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, not so over in the middle east.

Anyway, a televised interview on an Arabic station is a huge first step, let's hope he'll continue the healing process.

Technorati Tags:
islam, middle east, obama, politics

I had dinner with a friend of mine last night and she recounted a conversation she had with someone that was working on her car. He wasn't real happy about Obama being elected and she asked him why. He told her of some of his fears like, "He is going to release all the people in Gitmo and let them out on the street, he's going to give away all of our money and raise taxes, etc." But the kicker was that Obama is a muslim! Now, my friend is an ordained Episcopal priest and lived, for a while, very close to where Obama went to church in Chicago. She asked the car guy to take her word for it when she said that Obama was a Christian. He just looked at her like she was nuts and said, "But he said he was during the inauguration!"

As you all know, I have some problems with Obama, but I like to think that any criticisms I level against him are based on his actions and agenda. I don't make things up out of thin air... It was pretty obvious that this guy had heard rumors of Obama being muslim (his middle name is Husain, hello, how much more obvious can you get?) and then listened for something to confirm it for him. I have no idea what to do about people like that... All you can do is keep telling him no...

Technorati Tags:
obama, politics

So is Russ Roberts over at Cafe Hayek. Like a true Hayekian, he understands the real information comes from the bottom up, not from the top down. This bailout bill is massive, there is no way any one person, or even a group can keep tabs on this and actually track where the money goes. So there is both a Wiki and a blog set up in order to take advantage of the wisdom of crowds. Ultimately, they will try to use these tools to keep track of the money that is disbursed by letting all people participate.

It's an ambitious project, but it's really the only hope we have of keeping track of things. This is also a non-partisan thing. Even though the democrats are the ones advancing this, I'm sure there will be many bones thrown the republicans' way to grease the political wheels. Pork is an affliction shared by both parties...

So feel free to keep tabs on them, and if you know anything, or know anyone that would know something, please participate!!!

"The delusion of the day is to enrich all classes at the expense of each other; it is to engender plunder under pretense of organizing it."

Quite so, some things never change...

His remarks today basically amount to, "OMG! We need to do something now or else things will crash and burn! We need to do it now now now!!! Can't you see how bad things are getting?"

A big part of consumer confidence is just that, confidence. If the next president, this so-called agent of hope and change, is saying that the end is near, are we so surprised that people aren't spending money? Why on earth would they think that now is a good time to make purchases like houses, cars, etc. when the next president is saying we are on the brink of disaster?

So what should he do Isaac? Well, he should reassure us that the economy is going through a change, that things will not be the way they were before. But once those things that need to happen do happen (GM cough cough), the economy will pick up again. Even if that's not the case, that is the message that he needs to spread, not doom and gloom. He doesn't have to campaign anymore, he's got the job.

Of course I know why he's doing this. He sees this recession as a way of promoting his political aims. By making things sound awful, he makes it more likely that his ideas will come to pass because the politicians have to do something... Ugh...

Wow, the Israel/Palistine conflict never ceases to amaze me. I like to think that most Americans think the say way I do about this, namely that both sides are a bit crazy. The Palestinian authority, Hamas, Arabs, and Muslims in general seem to react with shock and dismay when Israel attacks Gaza after rockets launched from Gaza had been raining down on Israel. Israelis and their supporters don't understand what all of the anger is about after they kill far more civilians than combatants... The cycle never seems to end, part of me wonders if they want it to end...

I was reading through some of the reactions from official spokesperson types and feeling even more angst about the situation. Predictably, there was a lot of empty talk about how Hamas needs to stop attacking Israel and how Israel needs to stop being so heavy handed. Of course, there was also the blanket condemnation of Israel (without acknowledging any of the mitigating circumstances) from the usual suspects.

The best reaction, IMO, was from the Vatican. "Hamas is a prisoner to a logic of hate, Israel to a logic of faith in force as the best response to hate.
"One must continue to search for a different way out, even if that may seem impossible."

It does indeed seem impossible...

"I believe the Obama years will cause a crisis for progressivism roughly comparable to what the Bush years have brought upon libertarianism."

That's Tyler Cowan over at Marginal Revolution. Tyler is pretty influential in the blogosphere, and he's an astute commentator on economic issues. I think he has a decent chance of being right.

There could be a couple of reasons his thought might come to pass. None of them involve Obama not wanting to help people. Good intentions and governments do not usually make for a good combo. The most likely problem will be the typical political/bureaucratic one. The program will be founded on all the best intentions but the political process in getting it passed and the actual running of it make a mess out of it.

Even if by some miracle a program is not plagued by those problems, you can bet our old friend "unintended consequences" will rear its ugly head. See the Ethanol program for an example of that...

So as usual, I anticipate whatever government programs that come out of the next administration will be, at best, too expensive. At worst, they will inflict significant damage to the economy or to the people that the program is aimed towards. It won't be because Obama is a democrat, because he is stupid, or because they will be pursuing something evil, it will be because they used the wrong tool to get the job done. It will be because they tried to make the government responsible for things that it can't be responsible for. I can only hope that this crisis in progressivism comes soon...

Here's the Daily show's take on the Mumbai mess (at the end, don't know why there's so much space...)I think that's hilarious, I really do. John basically summed up my feelings when I was watching that on the news, I was yelling along too. There's only one little problem, this violence was not about establishing a world wide caliphate. This was about Kashmir.

Usually, when something big like this happens, there are political motives rather than religious ones at play. The Kashmir issue is a political one although the parties involved are split along religious lines. The same could be true of the day to day demands and goals of Al-Queda. They want foreigners to leave the Saudi peninsula, they want the US to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. Those are all political issues. They use religion to attract and recruit people for political ends. We shouldn't fall into the same trap.

There is indeed religious violence in the world. Men killing woman because they aren't wearing hijab, wackos blowing up abortion clinics, etc. are all examples. Perhaps the attackers in Mumbai were indeed personally motivated by religious extremism, but the aim of the operation was to try to cause a conflict in Kashmir.

Here's my bet. I bet that if these people were referred to as Kashmiri separatists instead of Islamic extremists, we in the US would not have heard nearly as much about it. We're more willing to stomach political violence than religious violence. That's why Hitler is so universally reviled while Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il and Mao are not thought about in the slightest.

Whenever we hear the media trumpet religious violence, we should take a step back and ask ourselves if the aim of that violence is actually political in nature. Violence should always be decried of course, but let's blame the right problems, shall we?

Last night, several of my friends and I were being greeted as the newest foreign members of parliament in England. Te dream was mostly about the pomp and newness of being in that sort of position.

Well, that's stupid, right? You're right, my high school and college friends would never be elected... Oh, you mean the bit about foreigners being in a legislative body? I dunno, that doesn't seem too outlandish to me. If you think about it, the reason we don't want to have foreigners in our congress is because they might pursue actions that would be detrimental to the US. How is that different than what our congressmen and senators do every day?

Let's ignore the really big things for a sec. Let's just consider the typical, run of the mill appropriations bills. How often does a senator sponsor a bill that uses federal funds to pay for things in his state? How often do our elected representatives pursue federal policy that would benefit certain businesses? You can be sure that if something is good for a particular business, it's bad for another. And any time federal funds are used for something in one state, all of the others are paying far more than that particular state.

In short, I don't see how foreigners in congress would be any more damaging than the people we already have. As a matter of fact, I can imagine that having a representative of any country that we are about to do something with (invade, trade issues, etc.) could actually help. It'll never happen of course, but trying to see the difference between "them" and our current people we've elected isn't as obvious as you might think...

Sorry I haven't been posting for a while, just haven't been up to it. I have been systematically worn down with all of the crazy economic talk, I just can't deal with it anymore... Imagine my surprise when senators and congressmen didn't rush through bailout legislation for Detroit. I am pleasantly surprised that there is some scrutiny. I'm also amazed that people are now finally realizing that the status quo up there is not sustainable. We don't have to worry about what will happen if they fail, they have already failed. I recently saw a report that essentially said that the amount of money that has been thrown away up there in capital expenditures over the past 15 years could have bought all of the shares of Honda, Hyndai, and several other big automakers. Unbelievable... Anyway, they will have to go through bankruptcy and with any luck they will be able to reorganize enough to make those businesses viable again.

I see that the supreme court of California is going to weigh in on prop 8. I have already written about what I think of that law, that's not what this is about. There are plenty of people that are getting indignant over the court even looking at this. After all, "the people" have spoken, this is a democracy, right? We will hear more about "activist judges" and how they can usurp the will of the people...

It's important to remember that the courts are at their best when they overturn popular laws. One of the basic functions of the court is to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Just because people like a law does not mean that it should be in effect. This is, IMO, one of the basic functions of a government, protecting individual rights.

The classic examples of this in American history were slavery and then later the Jim Crow laws. Slavery was popular across the south, and I'm sure there were fans of it in the north as well. The Jim Crow laws had wide support through the south. In the courts, Brown vs. Board of Education is a prime example of "activist judges." They usurped the law that had been voted into effect by the population. Who's complaining about that now?

I think the prop 8 issue is more complicated from a legal perspective, and I know nothing about the California constitution so I'm not going to guess on the outcome. I do know this; if the courts say that the law is constitutional, it will be on technical legalities buried in the constitution. If they overturn it, it will because they felt that rights that are defined in the constitution are being withheld. If that happens, it will be an example of the courts doing what they are supposed to do, no matter what people think of them...

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.

Obama had some proposals for improving the healthcare situation. Some of them sounded pretty good, like trying to get rid of "anti-competitive activity" in the insurance arena. The way it has been worded, it sounded like they wanted to target anti-competitive practices by the companies, that'll help but they need to take on the big anti-competitive problems that are imposed by governments. Here's a radical idea, allow companies to compete across state lines. Wild, I know. To me, this would be a good use of the commerce clause in the constitution. Right now, every state has it's own insurance board and it's own insurance laws. Get rid of that with a single, nation-wide set of rules and we should see much greater competition. In addition, with all of those people being able to be pooled, the risk sharing arrangements should also help to lower premiums.

So I like that bit of potential reform. What I worry about is the vague exhortations to "protect" businesses from catastrophic health care costs and the push to require the business to offer insurance. He has also talked about a public health care insurance plan that is similar to what the congress has access to. Making businesses take on additional costs is not going to be good for their bottom line. Ultimately, that will make them less able to hire people. SImple enough...

The other two things worry me quite a bit. I have zero confidence in the government's ability to manage an insurance system that works. I also have a feeling I know how he intends to "protect" businesses from high medical costs. There is going to be some sort of government guarantee that will pick up the tab over x amount of dollars. That sound suspiciously like how Fannie May and Freddie Mac were set up. Lenders were encouraged to lend to people with less than stellar credit by telling them that Fannie and Freddie would take care of any mortgages that go into default. We have all seen the results of that policy. Economists have a two word phrase to describe the problem with insurance like that. It's moral hazard. If lenders aren't worried about the loan going into default, they will lend to many more people. The same thing is possible with any sort of government backing of medical costs. If insurers are backed by the government, they will indeed take on anyone and the costs will get out of control quickly. If the government backs businesses to "protect" them, costs will again go through the roof. Clearly, someone has to be the no man, it will either be an insurance company or a government bureaucrat.

My main point is that we should learn out lessons with Fannie May and Freddie Mac. It's a lovely idea that everyone should own their own home, but we can't have a total meltdown in order to insure that. In the same way, it is nice to think that everyone should have access to any medical procedure, but we can't get into the same situation we did with housing. Whatever is proposed for healthcare reform, be on the lookout for moral hazard problems.

I was reading some of the comments about the election on my facebook page from my contacts, and I saw a few things that I had to say something about.

There were a few people expressing pride in the US. I share that feeling. Not only have we loudly proclaimed that the government of the past 8 years was wrong, a black man was elected. What can be more American than that?

I also read some comments that amounted to being proud of the US for the first time. That's a whole different thing... For the first time? Really? This election is what made you proud? I hate to say this, but one day someone else that you don't like will be elected president, what then? Will you be ashamed?

I have been, from an early age, very proud of this country. It wasn't due to any particular thing my parents taught me. I wonder how much of my father's outward expressions of patriotism were dampened by his being drafted? I can think of two things that made me quite proud of this country in my youth.

The first thing has to be my family's history. It's no different than most of the other families here. My ancestors came here on boats. They had left behind everything and started with nothing here. They really did achieve the American dream and were made much better off than they had been through their hard work and the opportunities they took advantage of here. There wasn't any other place in the world where that could have happened, nowhere... To this day, I still get choked up seeing pictures of Ellis Island and Lady Liberty, and as a kid I was deeply impressed by my ancestors and this country.

The second thing that I remember being proud of the US was the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US was instrumental in that collapse. The Soviet Union was the epitome of evil, of power run amok. They killed their own people for having the temerity to want to leave the worker's paradise. The fall of the wall and the later collapse of the Soviet Union made me feel that my country had indeed triumphed over evil.

More recently, my pride has been reinforced. Many people I knew talked about moving to a different country when Bush was reelected. I actually did move, I have an entire blog dedicated to that experience. I went to a place that had every reason to hate the US. I think that I can safely say that every single person I met in Yemen held the US government in utter contempt. And I have every reason to believe that they felt it more deeply than democrats in the US did. Wherever I went, people asked me about Abu Gharib, the invasion of Iraq, Gitmo, bombings, the support of Israel, etc. Nobody over there liked those things. Despite that, almost every person told me that they wanted to live in the US. Think about that.

Many people here were talking about moving to Canada, Europe, Australia, etc. Over there, I heard the occasional desire to move to Europe, but the vast majority wanted to go to the US. Many people called it "The Land of Dreams." Nothing will make you more proud of your country than people that hate our president with every fiber of their beings wanting to move here. What could be more American?

It looks as though prop 8 has passed and will (barring last minute legal wrangling) outlaw same sex marriages in California. This is a law that is clearly about a certain part of the population just not liking another part. In my mind, any law that can be translated to, "Even though it has no effect on anyone else, I do not think that those people should be able to do that," is on very shaky ground. No one has been able to show me any effect on heterosexual couples from a married homosexual one.

Of course all of this is missing the big point. Why is government involved in marriages at all? In point of fact, the government can't stop anyone from being married, they can only deny privileges to the ones that it doesn't approve of. This is a classic case of the government causing problems in something that should really be a private matter. All of the issues involving taxation, visiting rights, insurance, parental rights, etc. do not have to resort to the government giving a blessing on a partnership. This is the real problem. Laws are written that assume that the government must be involved, and no one seems to see the alternative. Instead of forcing your beliefs on others (and that could go either way I suppose), live and let live. Do your own thing and mind your own business. There would be far fewer problems if we allowed people to do their own things that do not involve other people and kept the government out of it, or at least kept the government neutral on it...

BTW, I can't figure out Obama on this. He is clearly not in favor of gay marriages. His opposition to prop. 8 seems an awful lot like partisan posturing. The irony of people voting against prop.8 and voting for Obama was not lost on me. The people in California need to discover the Libertarian party...

It seems to me that most of my friends and family are totally swept away by the symbolism of Obama being elected. Who can blame them really? A black man as president? A switch from neocon philosophy? Big suff indeed. I, along with many other people are a little worried about what happens once the power of that symbolism wears of. What kind of Democrat have we elected? Are going to get another Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter? Are we going to get the guy that helped ink trade agreements (however flawed) and reformed welfare or are we going to get price controls and ill conceived foreign policy?

A commentator on NBC remarked that there seems to be a pendulum swing going on right now in politics. He also brought up the legacy of LBJ as the model of "government as solution" politics. That cuts both ways. LBJ really did help with civil rights issues, but he also helped to create an enormous amount of welfare dependancy and let's not forget Vietnam. Those latter things are part and parcel of a philosophy that government is the solution to all things. Government spending also ballooned, it has been the high water mark for government spending until the current president. That's not accidental, W also believed that government was the solution, but to different problems. The result? All of our money gets flushed away...

The thing to remember is that government is a very blunt instrument. When you use it to correct something, you will also affect a lot of other things and it's impossible to see what the exact effects will be. This effect of government action is one of my primary reasons for wanting government to do as little as possible. The bluntness of government action is also one of the reasons that there seems to be a pendulum swing in political thoughts. One group will do something with all of the resultant effects. There is then a backlash and people like the opposite thing. Of course, that entails that groups blunt force trauma as well.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not unaffected by the symbolism of this election, but I have some serious worries about this upcoming presidency since his party has control of both house and senate. We all feel good about W's philosophy and his party being rebuked, but don't forget that using government power for a lot of complicated things (like the economy, health care, etc.) always has collateral damage. We'll see if Obama will be any better at limiting the damage...

It's easy to see why republicans are disliked so much. During McCain's (very nice) speech, Obama was booed. Real classy guys. No one likes a sore loser... There was general applause when Obama mentioned McCain during the acceptance speech. What is it that makes Republicans so good at being nasty?

I have been pretty clear in my not liking Obama overall. I will say this though, for the first time in 8 years, the prospect of not having Bush and Cheney in the White House feels real. Right now, that is far more overwhelming than Obama's win to me. He does give a good speech, that's also a kind of relief, a president that uses English properly!

I am cautiously optimistic about Obama's foreign policy. If he puts "getting along" as a higher priority than being tough, I will love him. It can go a long way... Some of his comments about Pakistan make me worry a bit, but I think that the change from the neocons will do this country (and almost all others) a world of good. With any luck, he will remember how much trading with other people engenders good feelings.

It is also just now starting to dawn on me how uplifting this could be to people that have traditionally given up on life. He is a great story, there's no getting around it.

I am still worried about the economics that we will be subjected to in the next 4 years. A lot of what he is saying sounds like trouble. Here's my request for Obama; please please please keep the rules simple. People and businesses can deal with just about any (reasonable) rules in the game, as long as they don't vary. I know that legislation will be passed to "fix" the economy. I am inherently distrustful of things like that, but if he knows when to leave well enough alone, I think the downside can be mostly avoided. Do whatever you think you need to do and then stop. Constant fiddling is much more dangerous than anything else, look at FDR for a good history lesson.

There are a couple of obvious downsides to this night. The first I'll only mention in passing but it needs to be said. Obama is the most likely president to be assassinated that we have ever had. I think that the odds are slim, but they are higher than anyone in recent memory. Not only is his skin color an issue to some, but the absolute frenzy his supporters have been whipped into may have the opposite effect on someone that is disposed to hate him...

The other thing to watch out for is high expectations. Right now, he is promising the world and everything in it. Everyone should be ready for the things that he can't do, or does and does badly. I do think he'll have a long honeymoon unless he totally screws something up.

Bush has been so bad for so long. His "legacy" was written all over this election Not only were republicans in general in a bad way, but the voter turnout can be correlated with him as well. It was great to see people so pissed off. Only 2 more months of W, I wonder if I'll be able to take it...

It's called 2008 third party movement. There are some significant differences between the various so-called third parties, but here are some things they have in common:

"The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation. However, alternate candidates Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds."



I only have some small quibbles with the foreign policy, but overall I agree with everything. In addition, I think that all of these things are much more important than anything the big two have been talking about. I wish more people were concerned about this stuff instead of indulging in rooting for and/or against a "side."

Despite everyone's supposed dislike of negative ads, they can be instructive. My current favorite one is from the RNC. In it, they detail how in bed Obama was with both Fannie and Freddie. It talks about how he supported them and how this whole financial collapse is due to people like him.

Of course the RNC can't trumpet McCain too much. Here's my favorite part... You see, McCain may not have accepted as much money from Fannie and Freddie as Obama did, but he has his own skeletons to worry about. McCain was, of course, a star in the whole Keating five messiness. The RNC is walking a fine line and hoping that people's memories don't go back that far. God, politics is dirty...

Bush is only in power for a little longer, did he have to go and piss off Syria? There are already a lot of countries that won't allow Americans in because of our foreign policy, is Syria going to be next? How on earth am I going to get to Damascus now?

What? There was more than my travel plans at stake in that? Pssh, what could be so important? I kid....

I just saw another Obama campaign ad talking about jobs shipped overseas. This one laments that workers in the Carolinas the sewed the American flag had their jobs sent overseas. They lost not only their jobs, but their "dignity" as well.

Where to start? OK, first of all, those people were either going to lose their jobs to increased mechanization or outsourcing. Odds are that the investment in new machinery was too expensive, so the company could either outsource the labor, or go out of business. Would Obama rather have had the company go under? The idea that we can force companies to keep employees when it is not viable and not to have any bad consequences is naive and comical...

Second of all, and this may be what gets me more wound up, is since when are companies responsible for the "dignity" of their workers? More importantly, since when is the federal government responsible? This has to be one of the more obvious examples of the government overstepping it's bounds. Dignity is up to the individual, not their employers and certainly not the government. I wish that there was at least the suggestion that the government cannot do certain things let alone hint that there are things that it shouldn't do....

I keep hearing the ad where he says that companies that "send AMerican jobs overseas" will not get tax breaks. It's an odd thing to say and do really. First off, which tax breaks is he talking about? Why are there tax breaks to begin with? Don't get me wrong, I favor the least amount of taxes n general, but when certain industries or companies get "tax breaks," it's really just a way to pay back the donations that have flowed from them.

What it sounds like he is saying is that we should give tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the US, or at least they don't ship them out. Read the first paragraph again... Any time that companies or industries are given preferential treatment, it means that there is some serious lobbying going on and a fat bonus to the management of that company.

Here's what's going to happen... There will be some companies that it is easier to give jobs to Americans than others. Giving them a tax benefit is going to skew what types of industries and businesses will be profitable to start. Ideally, no government would distort things like that and ideally, companies can be started in whatever industry people can figure out how to make a profit, regardless where the labor is. We want more businesses, not fewer. Even businesses that rely totally on foreign labor do hire some people stateside, isn't that a good thing?

Well, it looks like ALL of the local representatives in the house voted against the bailout. I'd like to thank them for that. Unfortunately for them, their parties (that's right both dems and republicans) were 100% behind the bill, so I'm still not going to vote for their parties...

I've been bitching and moaning for a while about how I don't really like either candidate. This bailout bill is the straw that broke the camel's back. Neither of the candidates even said, "Well, maybe we should think about this..." let alone thought that the bailout was a bad idea. Both parties were all gung-ho to pass this as soon as possible. That is an amazing amount of money that has just been handed over to the federal government and there was only token debate about how much power was being given essentially to one man.

I've had it, but what to do? I, along with everyone else, have been looking at the voting options as a two horse race. It occurred to me today that that isn't so. There are a handful of other parties on the ballot in Virginia, how does this platform sound?

"We defend America's traditional civil liberties and personal freedoms as the foundation of a tolerant society. We believe in the protection of people from dishonest business through liability in the courts. We endorse a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's Founding Fathers. Unlike the two major parties, for whom the only debate is whether the government should be enormous or merely huge, we believe the size and scope of government must be substantially reduced. Individuals should have sovereignty over their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others."

Guess what party that is? It's the Libertarian party. It basically fits my sensibilities to a tee and I'm willing to bet it fits a lot of other people's too, they just don't know about this party. I've known about them, but I never really thought about voting for them. Why not?

Well, there is zero chance that any of their policies will ever get written into law. Zero. Things like real free trade (not what passes for that in all of the trade bills coming out of the congress) and the elimination of all of the unnecessary federal bureaucracy just don't have any political traction and probably won't any time soon. Other things like the abolition of the federal income tax are so big that the idea is a little scary. But that'll never happen either.

As it turns out, that's probably a good thing. Knowing that the huge stuff won't get done is fine. Right now, I'd be happy with resistance to the crazy things that are going on right now. A Libertarian would not have voted to invade Iraq (see Ron Paul) and a libertarian wouldn't have voted for this enormous bailout. it would be nice if someone was fighting for me instead of selling me out.

Of course the big reason I wasn't going to vote for a Libertarian is because they weren't going to win. Especially after the Nadar issue that got W elected, third party votes have been seen as throwing away your vote, at best.

This is the killer, the guy isn't going to win, so why bother? Of course one of the other guys is going to win, so why bother voting for them? Especially if I don't like either of them. Something struck me today, voting for these guys could actually make a difference, even if they don't win. Counting votes is the only way people know that that outlook exists in the population at large. This vote will actually mean more than just another vote for the big two, it will show that someone does care about things that the candidates are ignoring. I believe that most of the people that don't vote are sick of the big two. Politics is stupid, politics is inherently corrupt, etc. If people realize that there is another choice and vote that way, things can be accomplished. Even if I am the only one in my district to vote this way, it might get someone to say, "Libertarians, who are they?" That chance is worth a lot more to me than "throwing away" my vote on Obama or McCain.

So for me, this makes a lot of sense. If you are disgusted by the bailout and Iraq, a libertarian vote makes a lot of sense. A democratic vote may communicate your dislike of the Iraq situation, but it is also tacit approval of Obama's financial largess to very wealthy people. If you want to say no to interventionist wars, bailouts, ever increasing debt, and government intrusions into things like sexuality, vote Libertarian. It's gotta start somewhere, so I'm voting libertarian down the line...

They passed the bailout bill. I'm willing to bet that the one the House passed is actually worse than the one they rejected. SIGH. There wasn't any party opposition at all, both were of the opinion that they needed to get it done RIGHT NOW! The parties are looking more and more alike, and not in good ways. It's really frustrating that both houses were willing to sign away so much money with so little research. Once again, I'm hoping that this is the action that really rouses the ire of a lot of Americans. My biggest fear is that people are going to get away with this. The people that actually ran these banks into the ground are getting a free pass and by the time most of the people that voted on it come up for re-election, everyone will have forgotten about this. What a waste of money...

I just saw an ad on youtube about voting. In it, they were essentially saying that if you don't vote, you don't care about the economy, education, terrorism, civil rights, etc. Using guilt to make people vote is weird. You see, I care about all of those things, but I don't get to vote on them. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic. At the national level, we never get to vote on issues, we can only vote on who our proxy is.

This is the challenge to those people that say that it's vital to vote, it's out most important right... People aren't that stupid. We all know what we can vote for, it's one or the other. For a lot of people, neither choice is worth picking, so why is it worth voting? There's a reason that only half the people who can vote typically do...

The more I think about it, the trip and wait in line may not be worth it to me to vote for president. As I've said before, I don't see a lot of what I consider important in either candidate. On the other hand, this whole bailout mess has me feeling vengeful. If any of my representatives vote for it (Both Obama and McCain voted for it BTW), I will vote against them. On the other hand, if they have the balls to stand up and vote no, I will vote for them. The more local the representative, the more important any individual vote is. Pay attention to the voting on this bill and make sure we tell them what we think of their vote!

In the aptly titled "A Tourniquet for a Hemorrhaging Economy," Andrew Leonard goes through the ridiculousness that is this bailout bill from the senate. What was once a 3 page plan is now 451 pages long. Here are some of the goodies in it:

Sec. 105. Energy credit for geothermal heat pump systems.
Sec. 111. Expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credit.
Sec. 113. Temporary increase in coal excise tax; funding of Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.
Sec. 115. Tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration.
Sec. 205. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.
Sec. 405. Increase and extension of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund tax.
Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.
Sec. 503 Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.


This is for Wall Street? Clearly, it's an attempt to throw enough bones to the House to get them to pass this thing. I'm hoping against hope that they don't fall for it. This bill will cost considerably more than $700 billion after all of the costs are added up.

They passed their version of the bailout bill. Some of the additions are comical. There is a tax benefit for bicycle commuting in there as well as an extension for a renewable energy tax credit... These are clearly needed to help save the economy and help wall street... Gah, this better not pass the house.

My pleasure over the bailout not passing was short lived. There can be little doubt that something will get passed. Companies were making lots of money on morgages, and they spread it around. I have no doubt that many senators benefited from campaign contributions from those companies. For example, over the last decade, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have given over 170 million in lobbying money. Interestingly, Obama is number two on their list of how much money they have given senators over the last 20 years. That's with only one election and 4 years in office... Read about it here. I mention this just to show how common it is, I'm sure McCain is just as dirty...

Anyway, do you think that the senators will be coming to the rescue of such a "generous" special interest group? There's no doubt. The new bill sounds like it is loaded with a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with the bailouts either. All sorts of stuff about alternative energy, tax breaks, etc. In short, it's the same political shenanigans you can always expect from that body... Bleh, our tax dollars, flushed to special interests again...

Technorati Tags:
bailout, obama, freddie mac, fannie mae

I really wanted to watch a baseball game, but it was requested that we switch to the debate during the commercial. So I only caught bits and bobs, but I was predictably unimpressed. To me, it sounded like this:

"You did X!"
"No I didn't!"
"Yes you did!"

"You voted for x!"
"No I didn't!"
"Yes you did!"

MOM!!!! Seriously, it's all back and forth, with no real substance. Check this out to get a feel for the ridiculous back and forth on both sides. And people still take this politics stuff seriously? Like so many other things involving government, it is impossible to take complicated ideas (and even how someone votes is complicated) into a sound bite. These debates are beyond silly, nothing gets explained, nothing gets solved.

I was also reminded of how much I dislike disagreements. As I watched the debate, I found myself getting tenser and tighter. The same thing happens when I witness an argument (or I'm in an argument), I get frustrated and tense. Sometimes you need to argue, but I don't think I'm going to subject myself to that on TV anymore. Why raise my blood pressure?

OK, let's try this again. The point that I was trying to get across in my first post about Palin was not that she was being unfairly criticized. There are all sorts of things that I don't like about her, and there are all sorts of things that many people might not like about her. No, what I was trying to get across was my astonishment at how personally many people on the left are taking the existence of Sarah Palin and people like her.

Seriously, ever since the announcement, I have been getting emails, links, invitations to join facebook groups, etc. all not only in opposition to her, but sneering at her and anyone that may indeed like her. Honestly, I had no idea she was a Pentecostal Christian or is seen as being way off to the right (more on that in a sec) until I made that last post. What I had been made to understand was that she hunted. People seem to be mildly disgusted with that fact, and the fact she hunts moose is seen as ridiculous. I was made to believe, through a series of jokes and snide comments that her daughter is a whore, and that it's funny because her mom is so worthy of contempt.

It's this kind of stuff that I was not prepared for, and there's more where that came from. Not liking her foreign policy experience and worrying that she could become the POTUS is a legitimate concern. What I have been exposed to is not. Usually, it is the republicans getting down and dirty. This time, it is the democrats (and the anti-republicans) that are doing the dissing, and they are dissing a woman!

The theory I put forth in my last post was an attempt to explain this rage. Who knows if it is accurate, but I think it makes some sense. BTW, I keep getting told that Palin is way off the charts right-wing. Of course the people telling me that are from NYC, the DC metro area, LA, etc. Folks, you need to get out of the city once in a while. What you'll find is that there are an awful lot of people that think she's what this nation really needs. She would fit right in where I live, she would be considered mainstream. My hint from the last post stands, if you do not like Palin or are worked up into a rage at the mention of her name, you need to understand that there are a lot of people that like her. I'm willing to believe that a certain number of people voting for McCain will do so because of her. They exist in droves and they are not going away...

OK, right off the bat, I don't know much about her. I know she's not a communist, and she's not a fascist. She sounds like she's a little further to the right than some other republicans, but that's probably why she's in that party.

So why the post? I am amazed at the level of vitriol directed at her. I cannot remember any other vice presidential candidate being on the receiving end of this kind of abuse. Seriously, she's the VP candidate. Historically, ignoring assassinations, Watergate, a 4th term, and Cheny (ahem), the VP has had a rather small impact on the usual business of the president. Why the angst?

I have a theory, and democrats aren't going to like it. BTW, when I refer to democrats, I am also including that much larger group of anti-republicans. I think that most of my friends are actually much more about voting against republicans than voting for any democratic platform. That's the feeling I get anyway... My theory as to why Palin is getting so much hate is because she's a woman. Yes, I am accusing the democrats of being sexist.

Think about it, if she were a man that held exactly the same qualifications and beliefs, (s)he would be seen as just another republican. Seriously, she's not Pat Buchanan, she's not David Duke. Those people are so far right that they are actually dangerous. She seems to be a pretty mainstream republican.

Here's my theory, democrats see female republicans as traitors to the cause. Democrats feel that they, not republicans, are the party that is going to bring women into full "equality." If, as the democratic thinking goes, she would just come to her senses, she would understand that the republican party is the party of old, rich white guys (see McCain, John). This is galling enough, but when millions of women who think like her rally around her, it takes the distaste to a whole 'nuther level. Those people exist. You are going to have to deal with them and their beliefs, they aren't going away.

To all of you democrats out there, it would behoove you to try to understand why people like her. Even better, it would be a good idea not to dismiss them as idiots out of hand. From my vantage point, divisive politics doesn't just belong to the "uncool" party...

Once again, I saw an article extolling the "record" of national safety after 9/11 under W. "There hasn't been another attack since he initiated programs like the Patriot act and Gitmo..." Of course I could also point out that I haven't been mauled by a tiger in that time frame either. Is that a coincidence?

While it is possible that those policies have prevented another 9/11, the identification of cause and effect is far from clear. When you are trying to judge the effectiveness of any given policy, it is important to look at not only if any objective is met, but how likely it is that that particular policy had anything to do with it. You also need to look at the costs involved. That's not just dollars and cents BTW. You have to factor in the loss of civil liberties, the expansion of executive power, and the damage our reputation has suffered world-wide due to these policies.

"But surely the important thing is that he did something!" Remember, just because government is doing something, it doesn't mean that it is the cause of any given nicety. The fallacy of "this came before that, therefore this caused that" is alive and well in the political rhetoric, I hope people can remember to look at claims logically...

I'm still incredulous about those polls. It's difficult to believe how much ground the democrats have given up. Here's a really good podcast on why you should be suspicious about those polls. It's quite in depth, and actually really interesting. I recommend it highly if you want to make some sense about all those numbers that are thrown out there.

Rumors are flying that Kim Jong-Il had a stroke. There's no telling what kind of maneuvering is going on behind the scenes now. He has a couple of sons I think, but neither of them are in line to inherit anything. My guess is that some sort of military group will be the next to come to power. With any luck, this will be the beginning of the end for North Korea's isolation. Down with Kim Jong-Il! Just about anything will be better...

If you had asked me 8 months ago if the democrats could lose this election, I would've said "No way." Without even knowing who was going to run, it was clear that the dems would have the election handed to them on a silver platter. Well, take a look at this.

I treat the elections a lot like the NFL. I don't have a team that I follow, but I do enjoy watching the contest. If the democrats lose this (and let's be clear, this election was theirs to lose), it will be one of the great choke jobs of all time. I'm not loosing any sleep over it, our next president will be a big step up no matter who wins...

As much as I bitch about the political process and politicians in general, I don't want to give the idea that the candidate doesn't make any difference at all. I don't think that they can do most of what they claim that they are going to do. Even if it were all possible, which it never is, they would need congress' help. There's no telling what will come out of the bill that ends up passing through both houses. Inevitably, there are all sorts of things added, and the bill is watered down, it's the only way it can be passed.

So a president isn't as powerful as his campaign makes him sound, but the president does wield significant power in other areas. In many aspects, the president can implement foreign policy unilaterally. He does have to contend with the established bureaucracy of the state department, but the president is going to have his way...

I think this is a weak point of Obama's. He has no real foreign policy experience to speak of. There's no telling how he plans to implement his rather vague ideas about how the US can rehabilitate itself in the world's eyes. On the other hand, we know exactly what McCain has in mind. Call me crazy, but I'll take the lesser evil of the uncertainty of Obama to the known evil of McCain. We already know what McCain's strategy leads to, lots of dead people (on both sides) and people hating us more than when we started.

I think that most of what I heard of Obama's economic plan sounds like a disaster, but I know that there is very little likelihood of it being passed in the way he thinks it should be. Who knows how that'll end up. As much as I hate to say it, I think that Obama could very well "change" things for the better in the foreign policy department. The problem with McCain is that we know what to expect. Some of those things aren't so bad, but the whole warmongering thing has to stop. The American economy is robust enough (despite the doom and gloom you keep hearing, there really isn't any consensus as to whether or not we're actually in a recession. That means that if we are, it isn't much of one) to survive fiddling by politicians. It's done pretty well so far despite the best efforts of the jackasses in power. Waging unjustified wars has no upside. So go Obamaa!

Technorati Tags:
democrats, gitmo, mccain, middle east, obama, republicans, iraq

I didn't really want to watch, I wanted to see the Cubs game but my father and step mother wanted to, so... I hear people raving about his speech, and it was a pretty good one. I did notice a few bones thrown towards those of us with more libertarian outlooks. He talked about personal responsibility, parental responsibility, the importance of reducing parts of the government that don't work, and the freedom to work towards our own goals.

I read a Cato thingy about how the Democrats might be in a position to appeal to libertarians. According to their polling, up to 25% of people in the US have what would be considered libertarian tendencies (defined as wanting smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and strong civil liberties) even if they don't consider themselves as such. That could make for a significant swing vote. Traditionally, libertarians have voted republican. Truth be told, there really hasn't been a libertarian republican since Goldwater. The republicans have held onto the "smaller government" mantra for a while. They did, that is, until this president. I think W. has actually added more to the government than LBJ did, and that's something. Add to that the ongoing social conservatism, and the absolute trampling of the constitution and civil liberties, and it's not hard to to come up with reasons libertarians are a little dissatisfied with the republicans. The Democrats have held the high ground on so called social liberties (especially with gay rights), but have an awful record with other civil liberties like issues of gun control and other, more mundane liberties like what you're allowed to eat (see the NYC ban on transfats and the busting of street vendors in San Jose for selling bacon hot dogs against city ordinance..). I do think those things have been overshadowed by little things like the denial of habeus corpus. So the dems reaching out to that group is, I think, significant. It isn't just trying to look more centrist, they are actively courting the libertarian-minded voters.

I think it will be fun to watch McCain throw W. under the bus in the upcoming convention. It's really his only chance as far as I can see. I'm not sure how the democrats can screw up this election, but we should never underestimate the incompetence of the democratic party...

Just remember this. As good as Obama's speech was, it had no more significance than any other soliloquy given by any actor. Anybody can say anything. Anyone can promise anything. Talk is cheap, talk from politicians is worthless. I think the comparisons to Abe Lincoln are a little premature. Obama has yet to actually do anything, Abe has a pretty significant legacy. The appropriate response to Obama's speech is, "Prove it." He has promised the moon, with no downsides. He has laid out ideas with absolute certainty that he knows what is best and has taken all contingencies into account. In short, he made a very good POLITICAL speech, we should take his ability to do any of this stuff with many heaps of salt. Right now, he is saying what he needs to say in order to get elected, nothing more. Why would you trust him more than any other politician? He is what he is...

Technorati Tags:
democrats, libertarian, obama, republicans

I dreamt that I had come out of something, school, work, something or other and there was a table advertising free pancakes sponsored by the Republican party. I'm no fan of republicans, but PANCAKES! So I wandered over there and sat myself down. There were three older ladies there, very prim and proper, and they looked at me rather circumspectly.

I knew what I was in for, but I waited until the food was there. And like good waiters, they waited until I started eating to start in on recruitment. I don't remember exactly what was said (you know how dreams are) but they amounted to complaining about the moral decay of the nation (an argument I haven't really heard in a couple of years thank God), the importance of protecting America's interests abroad, and the general faith of electing the right people to carry out the right projects.

I couldn't help myself, I had to point out that the Democrats had just as much faith in that last thing as the Republicans. I then asked them what Barry Goldwater would have thought of that. I had fun telling them that I would have voted for Goldwater (especially considering his opponent) but the Republicans hadn't produced another guy worth electing since then.

The ladies didn't have any idea on how to respond since the current republicans (minus Ron Paul) are much more like the democrats than their historic record. Seriously, can you think of too many differences between W. and LBJ? Expanding wars, rapidly growing government, and most of all, an abiding sense that the government can "fix" any problems that came up.

This is the real reason I can't get excited about this election. Both parties sound almost alike to me in most things. It also amuses me when someone bitches about how so and so in office is ruining things by his policies. It never occurs to people that someone they don't like will eventually be in office. It also never occurs to people that the only sure fire way to avoid political policies that they don't like is to make sure that whoever is elected has precious few opportunities to enact policy. Smaller government with less power is the way to avoid corruption and to avoid power creep, especially with the party you don't like in power.

With my little speech over, I woke up. And then I went and made pancakes...

Technorati Tags:
obama, mccain, democrats, republicans, libertarian

It's a little light reading entitled "The Logic of Political Survival." I had heard of this work before and it intrigued me. In it, De Mesquita et. al. tries to explain how bad policy is often good politics and how good policy is actually bad politics.

He takes a rather cynical view of politics (something that I can identify with) but it works rather well for explaining things. It turns out that if you see governments as essentially collecting taxes and then distributing them, you can make sense of what most governments do most of the time. This applies to the worst autocracies and dictatorships as well as to the highest functioning democracies in the world. It's nice to see a theory that applies to all types of governments.

I have never really read any political science work before, but I'm diving into the deep end. Bruce De Mesquita is actually a controversial figure in this realm. As far as I can tell, he has gained this notoriety by actually using mathematics to formalize his theories. Game theory is very well known to economists, but it has come very late to the political science realm. Deep down, I wonder if the people that oppose this approach resist because they can't handle the math. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened...

This is one of two political science books that I have wanted to read for a while. I own the other but have never gotten the chance to read it. "The Calculus of Consent; Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy" by Tullock and Buchanan (Buchanan won the Nobel prize for it) started the entire field of political economy. In short, they had as their premise that politicians are motivated not by altruistic thoughts but by self interest. Their ability to accurately predict how government bodies act pretty much proved that their approach is sound. It turns out that politicians aren't saviors, who knew?

I think that books like this should be mandatory reading, especially during an election year. I'll report back with any amazing things I learn as I read...