ByWord

2003-08-04T20:41:00.000-04:00

THINGS LEFT UNSAID

Colin Powell on radio, as reported by Drudge:

SECRETARY POWELL: It's nonsense. I don't know what they are talking about. I serve at the pleasure of the President. The President and I have not discussed anything other than my continuing to do my job for him, and this is just one of those stories that emerge in Washington that reflects nothing more than gossip, and the gossip leads to a rash of speculation about who might fill a vacancy that does not exist.

So Colin, are you planning on resigning? Or has it just not been discussed? I understand the vacancy doesn't exist, but will it?

2003-07-18T21:09:00.000-04:00

I DON'T NORMALLY DO THESE...

Threat rating: High. The Bush administration is
concerned that it may not get a second term.
Therefore, we are going to change the rules so
that each Democrat vote only counts as 0.2
votes because Democrat is a shorter word than
Republican

What
threat to the Bush administration are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

2003-07-14T22:07:00.000-04:00

BURYING THE LEDE

Eugene Volokh rebuts an argument that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because gay people couldn't possibly reproduce. His correspondent argues that heterosexual infertility is 'accidental' while homosexual infertility is fundamental.

Given this, it seems to me that society is not giving up the principle that marriage is an institution designed to protect the family by allowing infertile heterosexual couples to marry. Everyone sees the differences between the infertile and fertile as small or shallow. On the other hand, allowing the fundamentally infertile to marry damages the principle precisely because everyone sees the difference between a fertile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple as deep. Making exceptions for deep differences throws out the principle. . . .

Eugene replies that he doesn't see how there is intrinsic moral content to 'fundamental' infertility versus 'accidental':

From a biological perspective, labels such as "accidentally" or "essentially" infertile don't really work here: The incapacity to conceive and bear children is just as "essential" an aspect of women who aren't menstruating, or who have had certain surgeries, as it is of men.

So if there is a moral distinction between a heterosexual couple in which the parties are biologically incapable of producing children together, and a homosexual couple in which the parties are biologically incapable of producing children together, it can't just be shown by labeling one cause of incapability "accidental" and the other "essential." One has to explain just why one cause of infertility is morally different from the other.

Eugene has it right, but he went after the wrong part of the argument. It's fine to get into a detailed debate about the precise nature of infertility. But it's important not to lose sight of the bigger picture. The important question to ask when someone tells you that homosexual couples are infertile is not 'but what about infertile straights?' Rather, it is 'so what?'

Is marriage really about fertility? If so, why should it be about fertility? What intrinsic value does that have? Why not make it about, oh, I don't know, love?

How will allowing infertile couples, even 'essentially' infertile ones, harm marriage? Is marriage really that frail an institution? I'm curious about this logic. What does the correspondent imagine happening?

"Two men can't have a baby, so the government should be able to tell me who I can and can't marry."
"Two men can't have a baby, but they can get married, so I'm getting a divorce."
"I do love you honey, but I don't want to marry you, because two women got married, but they can't have a baby."

Yes, we need to defend good traditions (like marriage). But we don't need to defend them arbitrarily. We need to defend those of our traditions we judge helpful against threats.

We don't need to defend marriage from, say, tigers. Because tigers aren't a threat to marriage. Nor do we need to defend marriage against, well, more marriage. Because more marriage isn't a threat to marriage.

Plus, as a heterosexual, I'm frankly insulted that someone would suggest that I might be less committed to a future wife, or less likely to commit to a woman I loved, because of anything anyone else did. Let alone because two people who love each other got married.

It's important to stay on track in these arguments. Opponents of gay marriage need to show that it is demonstrably harmful to society, and that that harm outweighs the harm caused by giving the state a right to deny equal treatment to a group of its citizens, and outweighs the harm caused by giving the state a veto right over all our marriages.

2003-07-11T18:42:00.000-04:00

JOHN KERRY LOSES MY SUPPORT

In the Washington Post, Kerry opines:

I have a belief that marriage is for the purpose of procreation and it's between men and women.

In the linked piece, TNR's &c. does a fine job of quickly finishing off the logic of that bit of foolishness. I have bigger fish to fry.

Five years ago, I supported gay marriage. But I thought then that it was an issue about which reasonable people could disagree. Protect our heritage, and whatnot.

I've come further since then. I've stepped up. I will no longer brook opposition to gay marriage. I can't accept it.

There is a simple fact of the current state of marriage in the United States:

The government of the United States denies equal treatment to an arbitrary group of its citizens.

It's really that simple. If I want to marry a woman, I am allowed. If I want to marry a man, I am not allowed. There need be no other differance between two people for them to receive totally different treatment from their government.

As a matter of fact, the person who wants to marry across sexes could be far worse. A convicted male felon can marry a woman, but an honest and successful male taxpayer cannot marry a man. A female traitor can marry a man, a female patriot cannot marry a woman. Two firemen cannot marry, two firebombers of opposite sex can. The government appears to believe that homosexuality is so awful, so hideous, that homosexuals should be denied a right that is extended to criminals, the mentally ill, even wifebeaters, if you can believe it. That's right. People who have proven empirically to be harmful in marriage - people repeatedly convicted of spousal abuse - are allowed to remarry*, while two gay parents wanting to raise a kid together - a set of people for whom marriage is clearly beneficial - cannot.

This is not a policy issue. It's not a morality issue, even - you could oppose homosexuality, and still believe that the government ought not tell people who they can and can't marry. You could still believe that homosexuality was not so much worse than spousal abuse that convicted wifebeaters are allowed to marry while lesbians aren't. It's a human rights issue, it's a just role of government issue. The state has no business - none - denying equal treatment to its citizens. It has no right defining love to its citizens. It has no right telling its citizens that some of them love more deeply than others. Gay marriage is not negotiable, it's not a place to waver, it's not a place where tradition can outweigh justice. It's just plain right.

Dean? Edwards?

*and should be

2003-07-03T22:27:00.000-04:00

ON FORGETTING

Orin Kerr:

Who would have guessed on 9/11/01 that almost two years later, there would have been no successful terrorists attacks on U.S. soil since then?

Ahem.

I suppose it would be convenient for Republicans, though, if everyone were as forgetful as Orin.

2003-07-02T20:28:00.000-04:00

FROM DRUDGE

Regular cannabis users 'at greater risk of mental illness'.

Or, alternately, Those with mental illness at greater risk of cannabis usage.

2003-06-26T18:14:00.000-04:00

DENOUMENT

Today is the day for me to reveal myself. I have been blogging anonymously hitherto, but here it is:

My name is Michael Savage.

As you may have heard, I am A Homosexual Who Enjoys The Private Company Of Immigrants. Let me tell you how I was turned to this life of indulgent sin.

Many yeras ago, I was at a meeting of the local branch of the VRWC. Lynne Cheney was giving a speech, and we were all very excited. She spoke long, hard, and powerfully, her hands thrusting violently as made each enthralling point. I was enraptured. I was enamoured.

After the show I approached her.

"Mrs. Cheney? Madam, your performance was stunning. Staggering. Luscious. May I buy you a drink, so that I can hear more?"

Well, not only did she accept, she insisted we do so in the accomadating privacy of her hotel suite. As we drank, first wine, then scotch, then whatever was left in the minibar, our passion grew. We fell into one another.

"Oh Lynne," I cried, "make me yours, take me in your arms, let me feel your skin touch mine, let us never be apart!"

She gently laid her hands on my shoulders, pushing me subtly away. I stood back, just a little, and let my eyes feast on her ravishingly powerful body. Its strong square shoulders and powerful forearms drew my eyes in. She undid her dress, and let it fall to the floor. I was awed. But never more so than when she slowly slid her underwear down her legs, and revealed what I must have known was there all along. A huge, throbbing cock. An instrument of pleasure, and pain. Of love.

I knew I should be repulsed. But I couldn't turn away. She commanded me to my knees, and I bent willingly, my skin tingling at what I knew was coming next. My heart was pounding in my ears, but I didn't even need to hear her next order. I took her into my mouth. First a little, then more. I gagged, but I couldn't stop. She was all I wanted.

I knew my destiny, that night. I knew what I was. And ever since I have celebrated my deep love of fellating strong men. Ever since, I have been A Homosexual Who Enjoys The Private Company Of Immigrants.

-MS

This is parody, obviously. Please read the posts below for my real opinions.

2003-06-26T17:55:00.000-04:00

YES!

The Supreme Court just made me very, very happy.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I read Kennedy's decision for 5 judges, the majority this is a watershed. As far as I can tell, they:

- Overturned the Texas anti-sodomy law.
- Established a generalized right to sexual privacy, subject to a rational interest test.
- Overruled moral condemnation as grounds for rational interest in sexual privacy.

The right to sexual privacy was not exclusive to homosexuals. We are all more free this afternoon than we were this morning.

Reading around the legal bloggers (see here for a list), this could:

- End don't ask don't tell. Gays in the military are here.
- End laws against sex toys
- End laws against pornography, where that pornography is used as a part of the sexual conduct of consenting adults
- Provide a basis for gay marriage
- End laws against sex with multiple partners
- End laws against adultery
- End laws against incest between consenting adult brothers and sisters or cousins.

Wow. Breathe deep. That's free air. Long live liberty in America.

2003-06-23T02:18:00.000-04:00

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Read this. Then read this.

Basically, USA Today is flogging a study that shows, as many studies have already shown, that women are nearly as likely to hit their male partners as their partners are to hit them.

This is garbage, and the second link above discusses a whole lot of reasons why.

Mostly, the biggest reason is that these studies don't distinguish between the physical ability to cause harm. I've been slapped by girlfriends, as hard as they could. It hurt. But me slapping them as hard as I could would drop them and draw blood.

Here's Amptoons, from the second link above:

More subtly, the CTS's method of measurement may be overly literal, measuring narrowly-defined actions while failing to consider their context and meaning. As Straton points out, results of violence are ignored: the CTS "equates a woman pushing a man in self-defense to a man pushing a woman down the stairs." Similarly, the context of violence is ignored: playful kicking in bed, considered aggressive by neither partner, is counted as more severe violence than a bone-jarring push against a wall.

The CTS ignores not only different physical impacts of violence, but also different mental impacts of violence. A recent study indicated that violence, "even when both the man and woman participate," leads to significantly worse outcomes for women; women are more frightened by the violence, with a greater sense of loss of personal control and well-being.

As a matter of common sense, there's an enormous difference in mass and physical strength between most women and men, and that can make a big difference in how abuse "feels." An ex-girlfirend of mine - who weighed 100 pounds less than I do - once punched me, as hard as she could, on my chest. It left a bruise and hurt my feelings, but I certainly didn't feel frightened or helpless. Why not? Because I could walk out the room whenever I pleased, and she couldn't stop me.

Now, what if I had hit her? Although the action would have been the same, the dynamic would have been totally different - because she would have been effectively trapped with me unless I chose to let her go.

There's lots more where that came from, including a painfully obvious reminder about sampling (how many massively abusive husbands are going to let their wives participate?), and a run-down of the contradictory social science data. Go read.

2003-06-21T11:32:00.000-04:00

MEDIA BIAS, MEDIA OBJECTIVITY

Let's be clear, there is a difference between an unbiased media and an objective media.

Tim Blair notices a line in his local paper that says

Herald Correspondent Ed O'Loughlin in Gaza meets the Palestinian group that answers Israel blow for blow

and accuses them of bias.

Tim's commenters jumped all over 'Palestinian group', which they didn't think was the best phrase to describe Hamas. The tone of their comments suggests that they'd have preferred 'Palestinian terrorist organisation' or 'Palestinian jew-hating sociopaths'.

But hold on. By any dictionary definition, Hamas is both 'Palestinian' and a 'group'.

So this statement is objectively true. Tim's commentors are criticizing this report not for lack of objectivity, but rather for lack of subjective judgement. Maybe that's right, but please let's not pretend that this an obvious case of horrible media slanting. It's actually a case, if anything, of overly-objective reporting.

This happens to both the right and the left. Often the Bush administration will make a bold-faced lie about some aspect of budget politics ('this will create xxxx new jobs' or 'this will not lead to a long-term deficit'), and the Democrats will reply with the truth ('every economist ever, including your own CBO, says it will create a deficit').

The media, rather than making the judgement between the two cases, and presenting "the dems say X, which is true, and the reps say Y, which is false", instead retain maximal 'objectivity' and treat the two statements as competing claims.

This isn't a partisan issue -- I'm sure my conservative friends can name hundreds of examples of this going the other way.

It's just dumb journalism. The media have adopted a doctrine of objectivity and neutrality, when they should have been adopting a doctrine of fairness and judiciousness.

2003-06-19T21:29:00.000-04:00

And can we all agree to just ignore this?

2003-06-19T21:26:00.000-04:00

You've got to be kidding.

2003-06-19T00:06:00.000-04:00

COUNTERFACTUALS

Reproducing here a comment I made in this Yglesias post:

I think that perhaps causation is best understood as a shorthand for inferred logic:

"When A happens, B tends to happen afterwards".

When I drop the ball, it has, in every experience so far in my life, fallen to the ground. Quantum mechanics tells us that this is not necessarily the case, but is the case in all reasonable probabilities. The claim "dropping the ball causes it to fall to the ground" is a fairly convenient shorthand for that probability.

In more abstract cases, as I think you're [you = Matt] mostly talking about, it gets a little more complex. We don't have a whole lot of inferred knowledge about Gore campaigns for the presidency. We do have inferred knowledge about presential campaigns in general, though, and this is what Kevin [Drum] really means: "In my experience, candidates with simple tax plans tend to be more successful".

If causation is essentially a shorthand for this kind of inference, then we can evaluate counterfactuals on the basis of the size of the body of inferrential knowledge we have.

The counterfactual "Had I not dropped the ball, it would not have fallen to the floor" is pretty secure - we have a lot of experience with dropping things.

The counterfactual "Had Gore used a simpler tax proposal, he would have won" is a bit more tenuous, but still supportable based on the moderately large sample we have of electoral camapaigns.

The counterfactual "Had the Nazis not lost the Second World War..." is way more tenuous, since we have little experience with fascist dictatorships occupying entire continents.

2003-06-06T07:07:00.000-04:00

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

They passed a law banning 'partial birth abortions'.

A partial birth abortion is a procedure in which the fetus is extracted from the uterus intact, and then its skull is crushed. The alternate procedure is one in which the skull is crushed inside the uterus, and then extracted essentially in pieces.

The only reason you would use the later (crush inside the uterus), whihc is obviously more dangerous to the woman, is that the fetus is too large to pull out with a partial dilation. In all other cases, it is safest and best to crush the skull outside the uterus.

In other words, this law bans an abortion procedure that is and can only be used on early-term pregnancies.

From the perspective of the fetus, the two procedures are identical.

2003-06-04T18:27:00.000-04:00

THINGS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CANNOT FIND

Osama Bin Laden
Saddam Hussein
The Anthrax Terrorist
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
A Budget Model Not Predicting Massive Deficits
An Economist Who Likes Their Tax Cut

Add suggestions in the comments

2003-05-27T22:45:00.000-04:00

I LOVE THIS

The NY TImes reports from Iraq that "looters broke into and largely gutted Iraq's national museums."

Instapundit reports from Tennessee that they haven't.

Instapundit gets his facts from LA-based Ken Layne, who is in turn quoting "Col. Matthew F. Bogdanos, a Marine reservist."

Who is, of course, a completely neutral and unbaised source for information about the success of the war.

Look, the Times may be slanted. But for the love of God, don't tell me that a senior Marine Corp officer holding talking points from Don Rumsfeld is your best source for neutral information about whether the Army screwed up in Iraq. Jeebus.

That's like saying the Times is has a pro-Isreali bias because they contradicted facts you got from the PLO.

2003-05-21T19:39:00.000-04:00

SLUMMING AT THE CORNER

So I had some time to waste and decided to provoke myself.

Robert A. George:

I'm not sure that the hiring of Blair without a college degree is a sign of affirmative action. It's somewhat unclear whether the Times people knew that he hadn't graduated when they hired him full-time. Recall that he had worked as an intern the year before and then came back. It's not unusual that a former intern at a company would have a leg up on being hired. While not exactly smart, it's entirely possible that the Times folks saw this former intern, assumed that a year later he had graduated and they put him on full time. It's certainly fair to slap them for sloppy background-checking, but this is one area where the screw-up could be unconnected to racial preference.

As opposed to the other areas, where it is linked to racial preference. For instance, believing him when he said he was out of town. The NYT should have known better! I bet they ask their white reporters for proof that they aren't ingrate liars all the time!

Jonah Goldberg

Hong Kong is certainly free-market and hence non-lefty.

Free market isn't lefty? Yes, damn that Bill Clinton and his socialist ilk! NAFTA is obviously anti-market. And steel tarifs obviously are a strong sign of open markets.

Many cities become great because they aren't liberal and become liberal as the rent-seekers and second-generation professionals take over. As with the West generally, liberal lifestyles are luxuries which can be afforded only after great wealth is accumulated.

Now wealth is a sign of leftism? What?

Widespread literacy is also a luxury which can only be afforded after wealth has been accumulated. Although, I suppose it's not beyond the pale that erudition and liberalism are related. I'm just surprised to hear it from Jonah.

Please don't forget the hypocrisy and crypto-racism of many crunchy-liberal locales.

Please don't forget the hypocrisy and crypto-racism of the Republican Southern Strategy. While you're at it. Surely Jonah's not suggesting that racism is a primarily blue-state phenomenon? Maybe he'd like to visit Georgia.

Maybe these places are great because, well, they are great and, like many other things, liberals make them worse than they could be.

Like New York? Why does Jonah hate America?

Jonah again:

Since liberalism doesn't have good ideas anymore their writing often seems to be cranky defenses of the status quo or continuation of old discredited policies.

Like gay marriage?

(Or does Jonah believe that gay marriage is a bad idea because the state should have the right to tell me who I can and can't marry?)

Andrew Stuttaford:

The World Heath Organisation has now approved the first international treaty against smoking. According to Reuters "it requires countries to ban or set tough restrictions on tobacco advertising, sponsorship and promotion within five years." ... Meanwhile, WHO's Director-General, the reliably ludicrous Gro Harlem Brundtland, has claimed that, in approving this treaty, WHO is acting to save "billions" of lives. Billions?

I just put this one in here in case anyone accuses me of nitpicking.

John Derbyshire:

It must surely be the case that, ceteris paribus, a right-wing writer must produce better prose than a left-wing writer. After all, we have a better grip on reality than they do. You need to put so many qualifications on that statement, though, that it disappears under them. Philip Roth, for example, is a very good writer, in my opinion, though I doubt I have any point of political agreement with him at all. And then there are those Leftist writers from past decades who might or might not have been Left if they had lived in our time: Orwell, obviously, and Sinclair Lewis, as I argued once on this site.

Shorter John Derbyshire:

"I'm right, except for in this whole litany of cases where I'm wrong."

OK, that's enough. But it is fun, isn't it? Try it yourself. Just look at a given post more than 25 words and name all the stupid things about it. You could be there all day.

2003-05-21T18:17:00.000-04:00

BUSH FLAILS AROUND HELPLESSLY FOR A FOREIGN POLICY

USATODAY.com - Bush pushes kinder, gentler foreign policy

Faced by a cadre of critics who see U.S. leadership in the world as arrogant and bellicose, President Bush used a commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy on Wednesday to highlight the kinder, gentler side of U.S. foreign policy and challenge other nations to follow its lead

2003-05-05T22:57:00.000-04:00

ZING!

Eugene Volokh has a funny joke:

American to Frenchman: "Do you speak German?"

Frenchman: "No."

American: "You're welcome."

Hah. Hah. That's just so rich. See how the Americans are so heroic! Those ungrateful Frenchies.

Hey, here's another one:

Frenchman: Do you have a great-grandfather?

American: Sure I do.

Frenchman: I don't.

Russian: So do you have a living grandfather?

American: Sure I do.

Russian: I don't.

Both: Thanks for the help. We sure owe you one.

Or how about this:

Jew: Help! Help!

American: Umm... Hold on a sec.

Gee! Those ones were funny too, right?

So here's a thought. Before accusing the French of being wimpy, just hold on a sec and think about the tremendous suffering that they went through. Think further about how America was able to win the two World Wars in part because they were strong from having avoided the first several years of fighting. It was tremendous and heroic for the US to step in, don't get me wrong. But let's not get too excited about who is so tough and who is afraid of a fight.

America has a history of cowardice of which it should be ashamed, followed by heroism of which it should be proud. France has a history of heroism (The Somme) and cowardice (Vichy) alongside one another. But neither side is clean.

2003-05-03T10:21:00.000-04:00

RETALIATION

So the US threatened retaliation against Canada should Canada decrminalize it. The drug policy spokesman

said if marijuana becomes more widely used in Canada, it could penetrate more widely into the U.S.

So, he's crazy, right? Some psychotic lunatic snuck into the studio and pretended to be a policy rep, right?

Could marijuana conceivably penetrate any more widely in the US? Is there some obscure corner of Idaho where marijuana is not currently available, and decriminalization in Canada will take it there? Apparently it's penetrated the 'US drug policy spokesman' sector, since this bloke must be high as a kite.

No wonder the drug war is going poorly for these guys. When your intelligence in the war sucks so badly that you think marijuana is not widely available in the US, you're gonna lose.

2003-04-29T19:41:00.000-04:00

THINKING IT THROUGH

William Saletan, I think, didn't work hard enough to come to this conclusion about the Kerry - Dean spat:

The political logic of Kerry's attack is obvious. Dean is the only candidate with momentum and excitement, and he's the only big threat to Kerry in New Hampshire. Discredit Dean, win New Hampshire, and nobody else has the gas to pass Kerry.

That it's so obvious should be your first clue that this isn't what really happening. Here's my take:

Kerry is the default frontunner at the moment. Cet. par., The race will come down to Kerry vs. Someone by Super Tuesday. The Kerry campaign right now isn't worried about winning New Hampshire. They're worried about who the Someone is going to be.

If it's Kerry versus Dean, Kerry will win. He will win for the same reasons and by the same method that Gore beat Bradley. Democrats want to win, and they will pick the centrist candidate.

If I was Kerry, I'd rather go man-to-man with Dean than with Edwards (similar centrist electability, from the South), Leiberman (tough on defense, high name recognition), or Gephardt (good on policy, unions, GOTV).

Matthew Gross, writing for the Dean campaign in today's NotePad said:

If your biggest fear is headlines that scream "Kerry vs. Dean," why go out of your way to create headlines that scream "Kerry vs. Dean?"

Easy. Because Kerry's biggest fear isn't those headlines. Matter of fact, those headlines are precisely what he's after. John Kerry started the fight with Howard Dean so that Dean would look like the top challenger in the race. This is because he wants Dean to be the top challenger in the race.

This is why Kerry's my guy. Kerry has been amazing to see. He's aggressive and smart - he picks the fights he wants, and then goes out and starts them.

Like when he spanked Tom DeLay by baiting him with a 'regime change' comment, and then using DeLay's predictable reply to reinforce his Partiotism, his Decorated War Hero-ness, and his Toughness.

He's playing the Democratic Primary game on a different level than anyone else in it. It really is a pleasure to watch him work.

2003-04-29T08:12:00.000-04:00

US TROOPS PULL OUT OF SAUDI ARABIA

Wow.

Reuters News Service reported Tuesday that Washington is pulling 'virtually all' of its forces out of Saudi Arabia, allegedly by mutual agreement. The move followed Riyadh's refusal to allow bombing raids by the 100 U.S. aircraft based in Saudi Arabia during the conflict, and effectively ends a relationship dating back to 1991.

I have to get to work. I'll post my thoughts when I have a few minutes. But Wow.

Update: OK, so I got a few minutes, and decided I need to think this one through just a little harder. I will post comments at some point, though.

Update #2: Tacitus has some thoughts.

2003-04-29T08:06:00.000-04:00

WHO VIOLATES ITS OWN ADVISORY

Apparently, "WHO officials are expected to fly to Toronto on Wednesday.."

Which tells you how seriously they take their claims that Toronto is in some way dangerous, rather than just the source of irrational panic.

2003-04-27T19:58:00.000-04:00

THE FACTS

Eugene Volokh writes (my emphasis):

If most libertarians thought that the government really was likely to ban abortion (libertarians may in theory be pro-life, but most of the ones I know are pretty firmly pro-choice) or send homosexuals to jail, then they might well vote Democrat to prevent that. (Likewise, if they thought the Democrats would decriminalize drugs and the Republicans wouldn't, then they might vote for the Democrats, too.) But right now, they believe that the Republican errors (on matters such as sexual practices or abortion) aren't that likely to be implemented into law; but they think the equally serious Democratic errors -- on matters such as taxes, economic liberty, gun rights, the government-run school monopoly, and so on -- are much more likely to be implemented into law. Therefore, right now, the Democrats seem to many (though not all) libertarians to be more dangerous to libertarian ideals than Republicans are.

From PLA's famous comparisons:

Non-defense Federal Government Employees -1962-2001:
Democrats in White House: Rose by 59,000 (16 % of total rise over 40 years)
Republicans in WH: Rose by 310,000 (84% of total rise over 40 years)

Increase in National Debt - 1962-2001:
Democrats in WH: Total debt increased by $0.72 trillion (20 years)
Republicans in WH: Total debt increased by $3.8 trillion (20 years)

District spending by Congress - 1995 - 2000:
Democratic districts: $3.9 billion in 1995; $5.2 billion in 2001 (34% increase)
Republican districts: $3.9 billion in 1995; $5.8 billion in 2001 (52% increase)

Percentage growth in Total Federal Spending - 1962-2001:
Democrats in WH: 6.96 % per year
Republicans in WH: 7.57 % per year

Indeed. Heh.

2003-04-24T21:52:00.000-04:00

ONE OTHER THING

Just another thought on the 'moving towards 2004' theme. Conventional Wisdom says that one, maybe two Supreme Court justices are due to step down before the end of the Bush Administration. I assume that:

(a) Bush will appoint a conservative, pro-life justice, and
(b) There is at least some back channel communication between conservative justices due to step down and the White House.

That no conservative justice has yet stepped down, even though the election fight is starting, suggests to me that Rove thinks there's an electoral win in a Supreme Court fight. I think he might be wrong, if the justice is scary enough. But if I could have the ears of Hillary Clinton and the strategy folks in the Democratic party, I'd warn them about this. Beware of a trap. There could be something there.

Don't let a radical get on the bench, but be careful keeping him off.

2003-04-24T21:09:00.000-04:00

LET’S PLAY OUR GAME

Time for a round of 'guess the blind quote'. The New York Times ran this today:

A senior White House official, asserted today that Mr. Gingrich's criticism "was seen at the White House as an attack on the president, not an attack on Powell." There was widespread anger at the White House, the official said, but he declined to characterize the reaction of Mr. Bush himself.

Importantly, Drudge linked to it this morning, too.

So what's going on? Who's the 'Senior Administration Official', and why did (s)he give this quote?

My guess is it's Rove.

We’re in a stage right now where we’re moving away from the politics of war, and into electoral politics.

If you're Rove, you have two objectives on any given issue:

(1) Use policy to pacify the right wing of your party, so that they don't give you trouble and can be mobilized in the election.

(2) Do everything in your power to track towards the moderate center on positioning and image.

On foreign policy, the right is pretty damned satisfied at the moment. The hawks won a lot of battles leading up to Iraq, and the war was won quickly and effectively. Moreover, the committed base has been watching closely as those battles went on, and is satisfied that the hawks can win when it matters.

Now comes objective #2: track towards the center. This means tracking towards Powell on foreign policy. There are few people the American people trust more than Colin Powell on foreign policy. So a show of administration solidarity, coupled with a repudiation of the obviously wacko (and highly expendable) Gingrich makes the White House look more moderate.

This is a watershed, as far as I'm concerned. This is a signal that dissent, infighting, and right-wing policy is over for now. The objective from here on in is positioning towards the center for 2004, so that they can get four more years of hard-right policy.

It's on. We are now fighting the campaign. Rove is ready. Are the Dems?

2003-04-23T21:35:00.000-04:00

National Sales Tax

It’s an old saw of conservative think-tanks that the best possible form of taxation is to do away with income tax entirely, and replace it with a national retail sales tax. We’ve been thinking a bit about it recently.

It’s an awful idea. It’s awful because it’s regressive, and it’s awful because it displays an ignorance of the way the economy works.

It’s regressive.

Right now you are taxed more on the 100,000th dollar you make than you are on the 5,000th dollar you make. This is fair, by almost anyone’s estimation. The 5,000th dollar you make goes to pay for food, shelter, diapers, and the like. People who only have 5,000 dollars in income spend almost entirely on strict necessities.

The 100,000th dollar you earn goes to pay for big-screen TVs and trips to Bora Bora. Now, ByWord has no problem with trips to Bora Bora. But we do think that they have a decidedly different moral content than, say, food for your infant child. So if you’re going to tax income, you should consider what it’s spent on. It’s not an economic imperative; it’s a moral one.

We do this. By using tax brackets we tax money that ends up spent on food for baby at less than we tax money that ends up spent on package vacations to Florida, and we tax money that ends up on package vacations at less than we tax money that ends up spent on private jets.

A national retail sales tax would not do this. It specifically taxes trips to Bora Bora the same as it taxes diapers. It taxes your fifth car the same way it taxes your first.

We believe that government would be deeply irresponsible to take from your grocery budget with the same force that it takes from your Patek Phillipe budget.

Conservatives have a few things that they think make this go away. They propose, for instance, a universal tax rebate equal to 15% of the poverty line, say. Or tax exemptions on necessities like diapers. But this is a fudge.

It may help the desperately poor. But the right still needs to explain to the middle class why the money they spend on their Chevy should appropriated at the same rate as the money someone like John Kerry or Ted Turner might spend on an eighth Bentley.

It’s economically illiterate.

A national retail sales tax is what it says it is. It is a massive tax on consumer spending. Everything in the book, every human experience, says that when you tax something, you reduce its occurrence. Taxes recently on driving into London, for instance, have massively reduced inner-city congestion.

Reducing city congestion is not a bad idea. Reducing consumer spending would be catastrophic for the economy.

Conservatives think that they’ve got this one nailed. They say that reducing consumer spending will increase savings and investment, thus leading to economic growth.

Ah, yes. Let’s think this through, as laymen. Capitalism makes ByWord’s life better. It does this by using competition to encourage companies to invest capital in production technology. This investment of capital leads to better products, and more efficient production of current products. So ByWord gets to buy better stuff, cheaper. Even better, the money we spend on those goodies gets kicked back in to the system, and re-invested to make even better products even more efficiently. This is economic growth.

Investment helps economic growth by giving companies a bigger wad of cash to do the “invest capital in production technology” bit, which helps them get even further ahead of the game in giving us goodies to buy.

So what’s the problem? It doesn’t fucking work if nobody’s buying goodies. You idiots. Investment is a catalyst, spurring a faster reaction between consumer and producer. But catalysis only works if both chemicals are present.

Reducing consumer spending by putting a massive tax-based penalty on it may well help the catalyst. But it reduces the amount of the compound being catalyzed.

Surely we don’t need a roomful of economists on this. Massive penalties on the most fundamental economic transaction of all – sales – are harmful to the economy.

We need a real discussion on the best way to manage taxation. The tax code is a mess, I think We actually need a better one, and a clearer one, if for no other reason than so that middle-class taxpayers can see how they’re actually paying more tax than the rich under the Bushies.

But spurious ivy-tower arguments about tax plans that have no relationship to real people’s lives won’t get us there.

There. So that’s my first post. Take that, Cato Institute.

2003-04-22T22:58:00.000-04:00

I link to and quote this post by Matthew Yglesias, without comment, as a test.

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that the hundred years between the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act were an era of slow-but-steady progress toward racial equality that ended in a great big burst of progress. In point of fact, however, many of the gains made in the late 1860s and early 1870s were slowly dismantled during the late-19th and early-20th centuries with the federal government's attitude toward African-Americans reaching something of a nadir during the late date of Woodrow Wilson's administration at which point a bunch of new agencies were segregated and such.

It does seem likely that the progress made so far toward rights for gay and lesbian Americans will continue into the future, but there's nothing inevitable about it and, in particular, it won't happen if people don't have sufficient commitment to the cause to make it a reason not to support candidates who they may like on other grounds.

2003-04-22T22:20:00.000-04:00

...And we're up.