I've Got Issues

2003-07-07T22:45:00.000-04:00

Essay question: Watch the movie Frailty. Explain what Frailty's plot has to do with the philosophy of Soren Kierkegaard.

2003-07-07T22:37:00.000-04:00

Joy: Buy a box (or multiple boxes) of fruit-flavored chiclets. Open said box of fruit-flavored (they must be fruit-flavored) chiclets, and stuff every single one of those chiclets into your mouth. You'll be glad you did.

2003-05-29T18:31:00.000-04:00

Being as deeply concerned with blogdom as I am, I have been remiss in my own blogging. I would like to apologize to my faithful readers for being so involved in participating in (perhaps even advancing) the rugby scrum of knowledge that I have forgotten what is most important...my public. It is you, my fans, that set me apart from the legions of over-educated men with gravy-stained ties. You make me special. Wait, scratch that...I make me special.

2003-05-15T19:29:00.000-04:00

You've got to feel for those poor Texas Democrats holed up in that little hotel in Ardmore, Oklahoma, as they fight the good fight against gerrymandering by dose wascally Wepuwicans. I mean, we all know the Texas Democrats are above that sort of gerrymandering business. Oh, wait. They're not:

"Democrats drew the most effective partisan gerrymander for congressional elections in the nation in 1991. The eight Republican incumbents were put into districts packed with Republican voters. These incumbents won overwhelmingly, but despite the fact that the statewide congressional vote was evenly split, Democrats won 21 of the remaining 22 seats — including the three newly-created seats, each of which were filled by state legislators who had served on redistricting committees. Only one of thirty races was decided by a margin under 10% in 1992." (Click on "Texas" on the left side.)

2003-04-27T11:50:00.000-04:00

One irony of Santorum's remarks is that it almost justifies a very old argument that was itself used to justify anti-Catholic bigotry back in the bad old days. As the old anti-Catholic argument goes, Catholics can't really participate in a free and democratic society because the Pope is their Supreme Authority, so they have more allegiance with a foreign potentate than they do with a free country like America. Past Catholic political leaders have given lie to that argument by strictly separating their religious beliefs from their politics. Now, Santorum wants to allow states to enforce the Church's moral teachings, and borrows the Church's language of "limiting individuals' wants and passions" to argue for his position. That's not good.

2003-04-27T00:29:00.000-04:00

You've gotta be a special kind of stupid to spew the crap that Ricky "the Ayatollah" Santorum let fly. But despite some pretty good commentary from Glenn Reynolds, Josh Chafetz, Virginia Postrel, Dan Savage, and a series of angry but eloquent harangues from Andrew Sullivan, nobody's given the Rick Santorum interview a full frontal fisking. That's where I come in. I'll start at the point when he starts discussing his, er, unique approach to privacy rights:

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

I have no problem with Indian people, as long as they don't ever practice Hinduism. The Japanese? I love 'em, but I better not catch them little fuckers eatin' any rice.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family.

So people having sex the "wrong" way in the privacy of their own homes undermines the basic tenets of our society and the family? How, Rick? Whatever people do with each other in their own homes doesn't stop you from being the sort of husband and father that you want to be. Unless, of course, the mere possibility of gay sex going on somewhere in your town, uh, distracts you from your duties as husband and father, Rick.

And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.

Rick, since marriages are state-regulated contracts, then the right to consensual sex in your own home doesn't imply anything about bigamy, polygamy, and adultery. As for laws against incest, those are there to prevent three-headed babies. But this idea of jailing people for adultery is pretty interesting... adultery is still technically illegal in many states and it is a sexual behavior that definitely undermines marriage and families. So let's get rid of sodomy laws so that we can focus on the REAL family-undermining act of adultery. I say we start with Congress. Let's investigate their sex lives, and arrest and jail all of the adulterers. Rick, I look forward to your bill putting this into action.

But let's say that your nightmare world came true, Rick, and the state permitted bigamy, polygamy, biandry (a woman marrying two husbands), polyandry (a woman marrying multiple husbands), and incest between infertile adults (blech). Not one of those things would stop you, Rick Santorum, from taking your family to church or disciplining your kids in the way you choose. Not one of those things interferes with your marriage or parenting. Even in your worst possible world, nobody is stopping your from making your moral choices. However, Rick, you want to let the state take away others' right to make moral choices.

It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution

Reading is Fundamental, Rick. The 9th Amendment of the Constitution - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion.

Wow, Rick, you're actually bitching about Griswold, where the Supreme Court said a state government cannot outlaw a married couple's use of contraception. So you think that a state government should be allowed to tell its citizens that they can't use birth control. You are on a roll, Rick. Please don't stop now.

And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships.

Rick, you still haven't explained exactly how letting some people do consensual dirty stuff in their own homes makes it harder for other people like you to raise strong families. Rick, here in America, we agree not to bug each other over what we do in our own homes. I mean, if we made people's private lives an issue for the government, then we could end up having US Senators discussing anal sex and bestiality with reporters, which would clearly undermine our precious moral values and the stability of our families. Obviously, Rick, you'd hate to see that.

In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _

Or maybe you wouldn't hate to see that. Okay, Rick.

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

Yeah, I think Rick's got us all a little "freaked out." But once our intrepid reporter gets over it, they'll realize that Rick has just made their career. Of course, maybe the interviewer likes Rick, and is signalling him to SHUT UP NOW. When your interviewer tells you that you're "freaking them out," this is a good sign that you've said some stupid things, and you'd better end this interview ASAP. But not Rick. No, Rick's shootin' the moon on this one...

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately.

Dammit, don't you see??!! I don't want to talk about man-on-dog action, but the wicked and evil world is forcing me to! People might have sex with Fido in their homes, and I must think really hard about that! I must show how letting married people use birth control without state interference leads straight to dog fucking! I'm doing it all for you, America!

The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

No, Rick, the state doesn't have the right to tell people what sort of consensual sex they have in their own homes. The state can only limit wants and passions that cause actual direct harm (and offense is not harm) to others. In this country, we limit the wants and passions of power-hungry government officials who want to use the state to enforce their own religious views on other people. That's what makes us different from the terrorists we're fighting, Rick.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that.

Rick, you're still bitching that, under Griswold, states couldn't tell married couples not to use birth control. Rick, you're still pissed off over the invention of the Pill, aren't you?

So I would make the argument that with president, or senator or congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

Oh, I can't wait to see that: "Today, in a 72%-28% vote in favor of Proposition 69, the citizens of Pennsylvania ordered Rick Santorum's wife to give him a blow job on the grounds that he clearly and desperately requires immediate oral sex. Both Rick Santorum and wife are appealing the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that enforcing this referendum result would violate their privacy rights as established by the Supreme Court under Griswold."

2003-04-26T17:44:00.000-04:00

Irony: For all of our fears about terrorism, traditional Chinese farming practices may turn out to be the bigger threat.

2003-04-22T08:29:00.000-04:00

Brad DeLong writes such a good blog that I usually let him pass on his occasional root-for-the-home-team approach to political economy. DeLong served as Assistant Secretary in Clinton's Treasury Department, so I don't blame him if his tally sheet of Republican vs. Democrat hints of very understandable bias. But now he's crossed the line with this:

One problem for us American liberals is certainly that Republican administrations tend to provide excellent demonstrations of Friedman's claim of governmental incompetence/capture/counterproductive behavior--massive government failure that outweighs probable estimates of market failure and creates a strong case for the shrinkage of the regulatory state. Witness Reagan, Bush II fiscal policy. Witness the Bush II farm bill, steel tariff. ...

Boy, is the good Doctor ever laying it on thick. Not that he's exactly wrong. Reagan and Bush II did turn in less fiscally responsible budgets than Clinton. Bush has betrayed free trade and has continued agricultural subsidies. However, DeLong forgets that Democratic congressmen and interest groups fight pretty hard for those agricultural subsidies and tariffs and always have. DeLong forgets that it was Republican votes in Congress that carried the day for Clinton's NAFTA in 1993. DeLong forgets that Republicans in 1996 were the ones who initiated reform of agricultural subsidies. DeLong also forgets how Clinton betrayed Tim Penny and other fiscally conservative Democrats, doing everything he could to prevent them from proposing spending cuts after he had agreed to let them propose these spending cuts as a condition for their votes in favor of his deficit reduction package. DeLong forgets a lot.

But DeLong's forgetfulness starts to rival Reagan's when DeLong forgets the massively irresponsible move that his former Boss made in 1995, when Republicans proposed cutting the growth of Medicare. Clinton went full-blown demagogue on that one, decrying the Republicans for "balancing the budget on the backs of the elderly" and whatnot. Clinton's strategy was politically successful, but it made any sensible early-term Medicare reform politically impossible. Clinton made it politically impossible to make gradual cuts in Medicare over the long-term, which moved America that much closer to that highly unpalatable future choice between higher taxes, sudden and severe cuts in Medicare/Social Security, or virtual elimination of non-entitlement Federal spending that DeLong outlines so well. DeLong rightly blasts the Republicans with "Oh, the decision to cut your Social Security and Medicare benefits by 1/3 was implicit in those tax cuts you voted for back in the early 2000s. You didn't realize that? Too bad," but somehow forgets to mention that Clinton did the same thing: "Oh, the decision to raise your payroll taxes to 33% (or cut your Medicare and Social Security benefits by 1/3) was implicit in preventing the Republican Medicare cuts in 1995-1996. You didn't realize that? Too bad." DeLong also forgets that later in his administration, Clinton (and later Al Gore) proposed expanding the Medicare program to include a prescription drug benefit for all seniors, a proposal that would exacerbate all of the problems that America faces in the future. DeLong's blind spot is starting to block out that light of economic truth that he likes to shine in the faces of those benighted Bushies.

But the real coup de grace arrives when DeLong, oops, forgets that his former boss, the beloved BC, started the Medicare battle by opposing a policy that he himself had proposed just months before! Under an optional part of Medicare, seniors could buy prescription drug coverage and pay 33% of the costs out-of-pocket. Under prior legislation, this portion covered by seniors out-of-pocket would drop to 25% starting in 1995. Clinton publicly expressed a favorable view on keeping the out-of-pocket share at 33%. When the Republicans arrived in 1995, they proposed that seniors continue to pay 33%. Suddenly, Clinton turned around and opposed the Republicans on this proposal for his political gain. It worked, but it was both shameful and fiscally irresponsible, and it showed the depths to which Clinton would sink. Clinton demonstrated how easy it is to achieve political success by opposing any and all entitlement reform, which is far more costly to our nation than Bush's tax cut.

I don't expect DeLong to agree with that final statement, and I expect him to make a pretty good case against it. But given what I have written, I would like to challenge DeLong to either show me where he has opposed a specific economic policy or proposal by the Clinton administration, or to point out the most irresponsible Clinton economic policy proposal. DeLong gets bonus points if he can point to a specific instance where Congressional Republicans were more responsible than Clinton.

I am going to copy this post and email it to DeLong. I will give DeLong ample time to reply before I diagnose him with Feverus Potomacus, as he is a busy man. I also allow DeLong to designate part or all of his reply email as confidential and not to be publicly shared.

2003-04-17T20:59:00.000-04:00

If Michael "Big Baby" Kinsley would get a snarkectomy, he'd be able to make his points a little better. As it is, his latest article, which deals with possible favoritism in the awarding of contracts to rebuild Iraq, makes a really good point. Some people may argue that contracts to rebuild Iraq should go to American and British companies, since America and Britain fought the war. As Kinsley points out, reserving contracts for American and British companies just screws American and British taxpayers, because then these taxpayers don't necessarily get the most bang for their buck. Kinsley is dead on with this point. We owe it to the American taxpayer, who footed the bill for this thing, and the Iraqi people, who suffered under Saddam, sanctions, and war, to stretch every dollar we spend in Iraq as far as it can go. If that means a German road company gets a contract because they can build a better road for a lower price, then fine. Anything less than that is just crony capitalism. My hope is that Bush will eventually open all rebuilding contracts to competitive bidding, but is holding out on these contracts for now in order to get Russia, France, and China to forgive Iraqi debts. There's a time and a place for settling some diplomatic scores, but Iraq right now is neither the time nor the place.

But I don't really trust that Bush understands the difference between good free-market capitalism and ugly regulatory-string-pulling crony capitalism. Bush's business history does not bespeak of a self-made businessman. Not one of his many, many thin dimes seems to have been made through any sort of business acumen. Worse yet, Bush was general manager of the Rangers when they tried to use the Arlington city government to steal land from Arlington property owners for their stadium. So I'm going to cast a gimlet eye at Dubya until he actually shows that he can distinguish between actual capitalism and tossing money at politically connected firms.

2003-04-17T20:40:00.000-04:00

For a guy who's so sis-boom-bah about freedom for Iraqis, Dubya sure doesn't seem to be a big fan of freedom for Americans. No, I'm not going to go all self-important-lefty and call El Shrubbo a Nazi or claim he wants to see all dissenters jailed. I leave that to celebrity pea-brains like Alec Baldwin.

But I am saying that Patriot II is just pure evil. As the intrepid Matt Welch points out, this god-awful pile of freedom-killing dung lets Federal bureaucrats revoke your citizenship, lets the Federal Government spy on you at the request of any foreign government, lets the Federal Government build a DNA database and take a DNA sample from you without even a court order, permits secret arrests, and lets the government wiretap you and snoop through your email without a warrant. And that's just the highlights, boys and girls. I had some hopes for John "the Anointed" Ashcroft when Bush first selected him for Attorney General. Hell, even them lib'rals at Salon had nice things to say about Ashcroft's record on privacy issues. But hoo boy, now Ashcroft has me yearning for the restraint and cool-headedness of Janet "the Inferno" Reno.

Of course it gets worse. The days when you could count on mainstream Democrats to give a rats ass about civil liberties have gone the way of Billy Beer. First we have Democrat Joe Biden, Senator and noted plagiarizer, sneaking his idiotic burn-the-country-in-order-to-save-it RAVE Act into the Amber Alert Bill. The RAVE Act makes any club owner, concert promoter, even homeowners legally responsible for any harms resulting from drug use at their club, concert, or venue. Intelligent conservatives and liberals oppose this terrible idea, and this act was so obviously stupid that it wasn't even going to pass on its own. Heck, even two of its co-sponsors begged off once their staffers actually read it. So Biden, employing the honesty and decency that characterized his scandal-plagued run for the Presidency, snuck this bad and unpopular law as a rider onto the enormously popular Amber Alert Bill, which is designed to deal with child abductions and kidnappings and has nothing to do with drug policy. And it doesn't stop with Biden. Democrat Chuck Schumer's joining the Domestic Axis of Evil, trying his darndest to let your Federal Government spy on you for countries like France, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and China. All of this is very, very bad.

2003-04-11T00:07:00.000-04:00

Not even a week into my blog, and I took three days off. But can you blame me? Events rendered me speechless with joy. The sight of ecstatic Iraqis tasting freedom and toppling tyrants was just too beautiful for comment. And that the USA's military, along with that of our closest friend and ally, the UK, made it all happen added to the sweetness of the day. There will be time to discuss all of those serious furrow-thy-brow "w" words: Whereas and wherefore and whither and worry. But now, it's time for another "w" word: Wonder. Thank you, W.

2003-04-07T20:36:00.000-04:00

A lot of people are dumping on Iraq's unintentionally comedic 'Information' Minister Mohammed Sa'id al-Sahhaf, even comparing him to Monty Python's Black Knight, but I really don't think that's fair. I mean, it's not like the guy can come out and be honest. We all know what that'd get him. So, as a service to ol' Mohammed (or Mo, as I like to call him), I thought I'd offer the following preface to all of his future statements to America and Britain; the preface that Mo would offer if he wasn't so fond of his tongue:

"Hey, everybody. You know that I'm about to start shoveling the biggest pile of bullshit this side of Robert Fisk. I'm going to spew crap about how the Iraqi army is beating off the infidel, leaving American bones to bleach in the hot desert sun, and how Baghdad will swallow the invaders up and become a tomb for the occupation forces. HA!

You guys are whipping our asses up and down, and it's no wonder. You've got us hopelessely outgunned and outmanned. Let's face it, the Nebraska State National Guard is better armed than we are. When our Soviet Tanks were built, Gabriel Kaplan was actually more famous than John Travolta. And since my boss is (or was) a tyrannical Stalinist asshole, doing sick shit like cutting people's tongues out, torturing children to make their parents talk, and giving people acid baths, well then you better believe that the Iraqi people are going to sit this one out, or maybe even help you guys out against us. How do you fight a war when you've got half your soldiers aiming their guns at the other half just to make them fight? Not very well, chuckie, let me tell you that! Between your military and moral superiority, you guys are making us your bitch. Heck, I might as well roll out here in a dress and have you call me Sally! But see, there's this guy named Nasir behind that curtain riiight over there, and he's got a big-ass rifle, and if I didn't stay "on point" during our little chats, well then he'd be marchin Mo on over to Mr. Plastic Shredder, and there'd be vats of acid for Mrs. Mo and the little Mos. So I just gotta stick to the script, m'kay? But when all of this is over, my fellow Iraqis are gonna want to tear me five brand new assholes for being part of this brutal, evil regime, so I'd really like to emigrate to your great country and start a Blockbuster franchise in Dearborn, Michigan. Please, please, please let me. Please?"

2003-04-06T11:46:00.000-04:00

Why FOX News is not Al-Jazeera: Chris Sullentrop on Slate and some other guy from the LA Times have tried to run with the idea that FOX News is no fairer than Al-Jazeera. Liberal blogger Oliver Willis links to these 'analysis' pieces.

Anyway, the pieces go like this: Al-Jazeera reports news from an Arab perspective, while FOX News reports from an American conservative perspective, so neither one is more biased than the other.
Problems with that argument: First, Slate itself ran a different story about the variety of news channels in the Middle East, and pointed to some news channels that offered a far more fair and balanced perspective than Al-Jazeera, so it's not even certain that Al-Jazeera reflects the Arab perspective. But hey, maybe some desperate liberal could argue that Al-Jazeera is still like FOX News, because it offers a certain type of Arab perspective, just like FOX offers a certain type of American perspective. However, this argument fails because FOX reports setbacks in the coalition's advance and coalition screwups. Flipping through the news channels, I saw FOX mention the incident where coalition soldiers shot civilians in a van. However, Al-Jazeera NEVER reports on Iraqis cheering the American soldiers and welcoming them, or any other news that might make the coalition look good or effective, whereas FOX does actually report news that can make the coalition look bad (though FOX will often put their conservative spin on that news). FOX News is still news, because it reports news that violates FOX's perceived bias. Al-Jazeera is propaganda, because they only include the news that pushes an anti-American point of view. In fact, Al-Jazeera won't even interview American soldiers, because they don't want to be perceived as favoring the invasion. So FOX News is news, and Al-Jazeera is propaganda. Now, if you're still clinging to the FOX-is-bad meme, maybe you could argue that FOX News is more like the right-wing equivalent of the BBC. If you really hate FOX News, maybe you could compare them to the AFP. But Al-Jazeera? Nope.

2003-04-06T11:23:00.000-04:00

John Kerry's an ass, and he needs to fire the adviser who told him to call for "regime change" in the United States. Look, John, it's fine to criticize the President and say that you'd be a better President. That's what you do when you're running against an incumbent. But calling for "regime change" here in the US, especially right after you mention regime change in Iraq, makes you a dumbass, because here in the United States merely changing Presidents does not a "regime change" make, since the fundamental institutions of our nation stay the same. It's called a "peaceful transition of power." (And I won't even go into the complete idiocy of implicitly drawing parallels between Bush and Saddam, which Kerry's statement also does.)

Now, if you wanted to overthrow George Bush in a violent uprising, dissolve Congress and the Supreme Court, declare yourself Maximum Leader for Life, and ditch the Constitution, then THAT would be a regime change. See, Johnny, in your zeal to score some cheap points with your audience, you may have forgotten that the United States is the world's oldest representative democracy, whose governing institutions have proven remarkably resilient in the face of even the harshest adversity. We are a nation that beckons people from all corners of the globe; people who risk their lives to be part of our "regime," and that doesn't change when we elect a new President. You tossed that realization aside (or even worse, never had it) for some cheap political ploy, which disqualifies you in my mind from being the President. If Kerry gets the Democratic nomination, Bush will have my vote.

2003-04-06T01:25:00.000-05:00

For you youngsters out there who want to be good citizens and think seriously about America's role in the world, I thought I'd offer you a compass to guide your thinking about foreign policy. I don't have much for you but this: If you've been thinking long and hard about some tough issue, especially if that issue concerns the US's use of military might, and you're still not sure, simply look to

A. The French
B. Jimmy Carter

and support EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what they advocate. Trust me on this.
Heck, using this rule of thumb all by itself probably guarantees an 80-90% batting average.

2003-04-06T01:14:00.000-05:00

That last bit was just a callout, since I'm now up and blogging for the first time. I was referencing the evil Nazi propagandist Lord Haw-Haw, who always started his broadcasts to Britain with "Germany calling...Germany calling." Lord Haw-Haw's been on my mind because I found snippets of his old broadcasts on the web, and they sounded a lot like some anti-war types today. You know the routine: "How can your country claim to be fighting evil when it's done evil itself in the past?" Or: "See? Your bombs landed on 5 civilians! That makes you terrorists too!" If you find these sort of intellectually sloppy and morally repugnant arguments compelling or interesting in any way, then please never speak to me, because you are clearly a waste of my time.

2003-04-06T01:05:00.000-05:00

DC calling....DC calling.