Independence Day

There are a couple holidays a year that bring out the worst in syrupy-sweet patriotic bathos, Memorial Day, the Fourth, Veterans' Day. This year is no exception. Here's a selection from today: The Fourth of July and Heroes A quote: "The citizens of the small rural community will have the opportunity to get up close and personal with America's bravest and finest on God's green earth" (Note: the author is talking about baseball players). The 4th of July When We Were Still E Pluribus Unum The Fourth of July and The United States of America

Conservative Compassion

In the spirit of Conservative openness to debate, compassion, and intellectual honesty, I offer the following list of book titles on sale at Amazon:

• Godless: The Church of Liberalism
• Unhinged : Exposing Liberals Gone Wild
• How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)
• Do As I Say (Not As I Do) : Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy
• Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right
• Treason : Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
• The Terrible Truth About Liberals
• Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
• Liberalism is a Mental Disorder : Savage Solutions
• The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought
• Slouching Towards Gomorrah : Modern Liberalism and American Decline

Conservative self-delusion

Maybe I'm biased, but it seems to be a cottage industry on the Right to tell us Liberals what we think. For instance, here's a contribution from Bob Webster telling me what motivates my views. It's probably useless for me to go on with this post because Webster tells me that "Ultimately, at the heart of modern liberalism is an astounding ability for self-delusion on a continuing basis." I will, however, press on like the soldier of justice that I am. But in truth, how can we take a conservative seriously who says this "Consequently, liberals are at the forefront of those in denial of Constitutional restraint on government and who must resort to intellectually vapid arguments in any political debate. The modern liberal is a devout believer in the orthodox liberal belief that our Constitution is a document designed to be "reinterpreted" by succeeding generations to suit contemporary whims and should not be interpreted in accordance with its original intent." when liberals are the ones fighting unconstitutional wiretapping, detentions, and search and seizures, when the liberals are fighting the modification of the Constitution to suit the "contemporary whims" against flag burning and homosexual marriage? Who's really self-delusional here? I've said it before: all I ask is a little honesty from the rightwing commentators.

Congress Report Card

No matter where we sit on the spectrum of politics, I think we can all agree with The Heritage Foundation's recent Congressional Report Card. The Senate gets a overall D, while the House gets a C-.

No More Shuttle

Today, Matt Towery says we need to re-evaluate the value of the shuttle program. I heartily agree. Both the Challenger and the Columbia accident investigation boards found the same root causes for the respective tragedies. (A couple years ago, the Atlantic carried a fascinating piece on the backstory of the Columbia accident investigation. You should read it.) Chief among these causes was the whole raison d'etre of the shuttle itself. When the shuttle program was conceived, during the Johnson Administration, the shuttle was touted as "routine space flight." NASA estimated that within a few years, they would have up to 50 launches a year, with a 10-day turnaround, and that the program would be fiscally self-supporting. In fact, the shuttle is officially known as the STS, Space Transportation System, to reflect this idea. After only the 4th launch, Reagan officially declared the STS "operational." Of course, we all know the truth. The shuttle has never lived up to billing. It is anything but routine. For instance, a shuttle requires 1.5 million work hours of inspection and maintenance between launches. By comparison, the equivalent inspection for a Boeing 747, the so-called D inspection, takes about 25,000 hours and occurs once every 8 years. The shuttle program is definitely not fiscally self-supporting. And it is not even needed. The STS is the ultimate make-work project. Today's shuttle is a testament to yesterday's romantic ideas about spaceflight. We need to move on. In the near- and medium-term, space travel will most likely be unmanned rockets and probes. Not sexy, but sensible.

More Freedom of Religion

The California Supreme Court today allowed two Riverside County girls to sue a Christian high school that expelled them because the principal believed they were lesbians. The girls argued that their expulsion violated California civil rights laws, in particular the Unruh Act, which prohibits businesses from discriminating on the basis of a person's actual or perceived sexuality. The school said that it was not a business, and moreover that its Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of religion trumped any state laws. This is a tough one. While I support civil rights laws that protect homosexuals, attendance at a private Christian school is a voluntary act, and I'm quite sure that the girls or at least their parents were aware of the school's policies and attitudes toward homosexuality before they started. The school in its defense referred to the US Supreme Court's 2000 ruling that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude a gay man as a troop leader in New Jersey despite an anti-discrimination law in that state because the Boy Scouts are a private, voluntary organization. In that ruling, while I didn't agree with the Boy Scouts, I did agree with the US Supreme Court. Of course, I don't know the details in this case (I couldn't find the opinion online), I think in this case, I agree with the school.

Hooters and Sexism

If you are like me and believe the sexism is still perniciously present in our culture, then the case of Hooters presents a real conundrum. It's no secret that Hooters appeals to our basest instincts. (No, the buffalo wings at Hooters are not that good). But I think I have to agree with John Stossel on this one that Hooters is not acting in a discriminatory way. What is sexist, though, is statements like this "that there would indeed be a class of disappointed males if the government insisted men do the jobs of Hooters girls. " Notice how on the one hand, it's "men" but on the other, it's "girls," even though in theory these wait people would be the same age. When boys like Stossel call women girls, or when dinosaurs like Dennis Prager or J.D. Morris say that women are just naturally unfit to lead, that's the sexism we need to fight.

Flag Burning is Okay

The Flag Burning Amendment fails. To recap, I agree with Senator Inouye of Hawaii, who said, "I have no patience for those who defile our flag. [But] We should make sure all Americans have the right to express themselves, even those who harbor evil thoughts," and Senator Boxer of California, who said, "There are many things in life that we find offensive, repugnant to beliefs that we hold dear. But we cannot amend the Constitution every time there is something we consider outrageous, offensive or repugnant.''

Styrofoam ban

In keeping with the Nanny State/defer to experts string, take a gander at this: San Francisco mulling Styrofoam ban for restaurants for '07. Is that enlightened despotism, a la my argument about experts and public policy, or blue state meddling at its most heavy-handed? Maybe this is a case for full social cost accounting.

Free Speech

Here's something tangentially related to previous discussions of free speech. David Limbaugh takes the NY Times to task for something it published that supposedly undermines national security. Limbaugh invokes the Supreme Court's statement that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic." The right-wingers have denounced the Times and other media outlets for this sort of thing in the past. But go back to the Supreme Court's statement. The Times is shouting fire, all right, but my question is, is it shouting falsely?

The Bible

Anonymous, who I'm guessing based on the tone is different from the normal contributor of the same name, says in regard to the Brick Testament post from last week: "I'm curious what your point is. The creator of the lego bible is an atheist. Sex, drunkenness, and violence in the Bible would not come as a surprise to those who have read it." I apologize if I was too dry--the facetiousness was obviously lost. Actually, I'm rather familiar with the Bible. So what's my point? Well, to be perfectly frank, my point is that those who claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that its literal (or nearly so) reading can be used to define and support public policy today are just silly. It's no mystery that the Bible is chock full of contradictions and inconsistencies, both within the texts themselves and with the supposed doctrines and dogmas that it is supposed to support. Let's take one of my favorite examples. The destruction of Sodom by a wrathful God (Genesis 19) is one of the most common passages used to denounce homosexuality. Ignoring the fact that the passage doesn't explicitly say "homosexuality"--leaving open to interpretation as to what the Sodomites' actual crime was--doesn't it seem strange that the only person deemed righteous and thus worthy of saving from Sodom's destruction, Lot, first offered his virgin daughters to the unruly crowd so that the girls could be gang-raped, and then immediately after the disaster (and loss of his wife, because she became a pillar of salt), engaged in drunken, incestuous sex with the aforementioned daughters? How are we to apply this lesson to today? My point is that the Bible, as evidenced by all the sex, drunkenness, violence, and contradiction, is best read as exactly what it is: a collection of social documents composed and normalized over a span of 1000 years by a wide group of authors coming from extremely diverse sociopolitical situations with variegated movitations for writing. There is no denying its influence or its value as a moral wellspring. But it is an oh-so-human document, starring man, written by man, anthologized by man, edited by man, translated by man, and interpreted by man (and, finally, lately, woman). There's nothing new about my point. It has been being made as long as the Bible has been being written.

The Bible in Legos

Here's a scene from Exodus 33:11, Moses meeting Yahwey, courtesy of The Brick Testament. And below are Adam and Eve conceiving Cain. Turns out the Bible is filled with sex, drunkeness, and violence. Who knew?

More Nanny State, Flag Burning, and Fighting Sioux

Anonymous is fired up about the mascot/flag-burning paradox. I'll address his points one by one. 1. Littering is freedom of speech in the same way that a political protest is. I don't have the jurisprudence at my fingertips, but I think it's a dead end to call every single human action "freedom of speech." What statement is a litterer trying to make? Meanwhile, littering has definite social costs, including health impacts (despite strenuous protestations to the contrary. Read, for instance, "The Search for the Ultimate Sink," by Joel Tarr for a history of urban waste generation and disposal [I know, I know, only a geeky engineer would read a book about the history of urban waste generation and disposal]). As I've stated earlier, the freedom of speech concept rests on a balance, a balance between the right itself and protecting public welfare (yelling fire in a theater). You can always dig up some social cost for every instance of free speech, but if we do the social calculus, I think we'd find that a political protest comes up a plus, while littering, if it is indeed free speech, would come up a minus. 2. Lack of personal accountability is a big problem in the US. I agree with this statement. I guess I wasn't clear in my Nanny State post. I have a lot of faith in what the "experts" tell me (as long as the topic is within the expert's field). I myself used to be one of those experts (when I worked for the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors as a city planner, my colleagues and I were the city planning experts for those 11 elected officials and thus for city/county policy). So when an expert tells me that riding without a helmet is bad and here's why, I have no problem with that being the basis for public policy. Some might call this deference to experts "liberal elitism." But the truth of the matter is, I know more about city planning and its related topics than most people do, not because I'm smarter or elite, but because I studied and practiced it. Therefore, I feel I am better suited to make city planning decisions for "the people." For an interesting but in my opinion flawed look at this from the other side of the aisle, go here. Disclaimer: I admit I am biased in this whole Nanny State discussion, because city planning as a profession is based on a very Nanny State/anti-free market idea. I can support this, though, by looking at the history of city planning in the US and see that for the most part, it has been a reactionary force for good--though I happen to find our current rigid separation of land uses bad. 3. What we need is tough love. I also agree with this, though in a broader way than Anonymous probably meant. I call it "full social cost accounting." The idea of full social cost accounting (FSCA) is in the grandest free market tradition, but with the added bonus of internalizing all the market-failure externalities. In the motorcycle helmet example, the FSCA principle would have motorcycle riders pay for the privilege of riding without a helmet. Call it an "advance disposal fee." I would have no problem at all with anyone who drives a Hummer--if the price of gas included all the external costs. (I read an article a while ago, though I can't seem to find it now, that explained how insurance companies were cross-subsidizing SUV owners because SUV premiums weren't reflective of the greater damage- and crash potential that SUVs had with respect to passenger cars. That's a big FSCA no-no). 4. Flag burning is the same as offensive sports mascots. First, let me heartily disagree with the statement that "veterans have earned an aggrieved status comensurate (sic) with that of Native Americans." I am a veteran, and I believe this gives me some moral authority in this matter. In fact, as cliche as it sounds, I firmly believe that I "fought"--I put that in quotes because as an engineering officer, I was never on the front lines and was only ever shot at once--to preserve the right to burn the flag. I also don't think that the flag burning issue belongs to veterans alone. So let's put those veterans aside. I had brought up in an earlier post the idea of moral reasoning. By that I meant the deliberate consideration of the moral costs and benefits of a particular sports mascot. What are the moral costs of, say, the Cleveland Indians logo? Well, it's a gross caricature (can you imagine if the logo were a similarly stylized Chinese or black face?). It perpetuates stereotypes of Native Americans (I doubt that the Kickapoo, Miami, or Erie tribal members wore the headband with the feather, if indeed anyone ever did). It glosses over or even celebrates the horrible treatment that Native Americans received. What are the moral benefits of the mascot? It preserves a tradition that goes back to 1914, though a tradition that was embarked upon with very little thought and indeed quite offhandedly. I think that in this case, the costs clearly outweigh the benefits. Now, on to flag burning. What are the moral costs of banning flag burning? It is an indubitable erosion of our First Amendment rights. It sets the stage for amending the Constitution for every possible slight. It undermines what the flag stands for. What are the moral benefits? It avoids the possible offense of groups like veterans. It places a very high value on the flag as a symbol (though the irony here of course is, a symbol of what? Freedom?). You can do your own moral calculation. As I said earlier, if I were the arbiter of sports mascots, I would ask that teams do their own calculations, too. If the Fighting Sioux did that, and, again, the fact that they changed their logo suggests that they did so at least in part, then I'm satisfied. My complaint is that too often, people don't fully consider the effects of their actions, or they lean too heavily on that thing called "tradition." Tradition has value, but it doesn't trump. (This is where we talk about the Confederate flag).

Political Satire

Nathan Tabor produces another piece of fatuous nonsense, in which he claims that among other things: 1. Leftwingers don't represent true Americans--"SUV-driving, church-going, baseball-loving moms and dads?" 2. President Bush is a model of restraint and voice of reason. 3. Democrats are responsible for federal binge spending. Wait. Was this a satire?

The Nanny State

The sport mascot issue definitely gets more complicated as we drill down. And I admit that my stance on it compared to my stance on flag burning may seem contradictory. But I'd like leave that for just a second to talk about something that is related, the so-called rise of Nanny State, the idea that the [liberal] State knows better than we do and must therefore govern our actions, particularly with regard to lifestyle choices. According to CNN, A Florida Today analysis of federal motorcycle crash statistics found "unhelmeted" deaths in Florida rose from 22 in 1998 and 1999, the years before the helmet law repeal, to 250 in 2004, the most recent year of available data. (First, let me address Dave Carroll's, helmet law opponent, stupid statement about helmets. He's against helmet because "What causes most of the crashes is cars," he said. "Usually, it's the car driver turning left at an intersection and causing an accident because they didn't see us coming." This is probably true, but Dave, no one said that helmetlessness causes accidents, and that a mandatory helmet law would reduce accidents. What helmets do do, and the statistics show it, is reduce the lethality of the accidents, however they are caused.) So here we have a situation in which people knowingly engage in dangerous behavior. The consequences of their decisions are plain to see. (I'm assuming, by the way, since it's not stated in the article, that the number of motorcycle riders and the length of motorcycle trips have stayed about the same over the study period). If these motorcycle deaths had no costs to anyone other than the victims, then these people can ride without a helmet all day long. But their actions do in fact incur costs to others, such as the cost of police and emergency responders, higher insurance premiums for everyone, etc. I discuss this in more depth here, but can sum up by saying that a mandatory helmet law saves taxpayer money by eliminating certain externalities. The Nanny State, at least in this instance, is a good thing. So how does this relate to the sport mascot issue? Well, we could say that forcing the elimination of potentially offensive mascots is an example of the meddling Nanny State in action. If people really cared, some argue, the Washington Redskins would quickly change their mascot because of lost ticket or merchandise revenues. I agree that this is probably true. But I also agree with others who say that if people don't care, they should. I also believe that if people gave it a moment's thought, they in the end would care. This gets to the core of the Nanny State question. If we look at the spectrum of what we might call Nanny State issues, such as smoking bans, helmet laws, food content laws, and the like, I think we'll find that for the most part, the State is right. Smoking is bad. Helmetless riding is dangerous. The Washington Redskins name and mascot are offensive to Indians. Further, many of these bad habits create and pass on costs to others. So how do we address what I consider both a social and fiscal equity problem? I have my ideas. When the numbers point clearly to a solution, such as Florida's helmet story, then a law is warranted. Banning littering, which is a public health hazard and a waste collection management headache (read higher collection costs), is another example of an easily defended law. In general, I don't really have a problem with the Nanny State. What do you think?

Monday Science Funnies

Here's a little lighthearted piece about the truth of Creationism. Thinking readers will get a good belly laugh out of it, or raise their eyebrows in amazement.

Liberal Blogosphere

Earlier, I stated that there wasn't much commentary on the Yearly Kos convention from the right wing , which led me to conclude that the right don't really consider the liberal blogsphere much of a force. An article in the Weekly Standard supports this. I guess that all us lefties out here in cyberspace are talking to ourselves.

Moral Authority

As much as I generally dislike David Limbaugh's stuff, I think he did raise an interesting point in this article. He's discussing Ann Coulter's latest book (can I make an aside here the Coulter is one of the most shameless self-promotors I have come across?), where she says that liberals grant absolute moral authority to victims of personal tragedy, such as Cindy Sheehan: "As a result of their status, these individuals are entitled to say anything they want, not just as a matter of free speech, which no one would dispute, but with full immunity from criticism. Their actions and statements cannot be challenged, no matter how ludicrous, no matter how destructive." I thought this was an interesting idea in general. Do the victims of personal tragedy have more moral authority by virtue of their loss? Do the widows and widowers of 9/11 deserve more input into any planned memorials? Do the families of people killed in product liability cases (such as the Ford Explorer/Bridgestone tire case) have more say in the final outcomes? I think that despite Coulter's cries of partisanship, we all think so to some extent.

Burning the Flag

Says Anonymous: "However, I don't agree with the argument that such an [flag desecration] Amendment would be a catastrophic death blow to civil liberties. I mean come now, are you really so horribly oppressed today simply because it is against the law to yell fire in a crowded theater or to mail a letter threatening the life of the President? Would American lives be so much more complete and enriched if they could legally do so?" No one said "catastrophic death blow." I said "erosion." And that is exactly what such an amendment would be: a small, seemingly benign tweak that in reality undercuts ever so slightly our civil rights. There's no argument that it takes away an aspect of our freedom of speech, right? So the question becomes, to what benefit? There must be a cost-benefit trade-off. The benefits of prohibiting the proverbial yelling of fire are obvious: human lives are saved. Illegality of threatening the President is less obviously beneficial but I think justifiable. Benefits of prohibiting flag burning? Besides assuaging some hurt feelings I can't think of one. I doubt that a flag burning amendment if passed would ever remotely impact me. But how do I know? And how do I know that my other potentially offensive forms of protest (which I will not describe) won't one day be similarly outlawed? This issue clearly ties into the sport mascot one. I may seem to be contradicting myself. In the one case, I support distasteful public speech, while in the other, I am calling for soothing special interest groups. The big difference is I'm not asking for a Constitutional amendment against offensive mascots. If the NCAA, a voluntary, private organization, chose to ban flag burning as a condition of entry, so be it. (I also think that the flag is a political symbol and therefore different from a logo that represents a people).

Fighting Sioux

As usual, Anonymous asks some good questions, this time in response to the sports team mascot post from yesterday. Question 1: How far do we take this? For instance, what about mascots like the Fighting Irish? Question 2: If we accept the idea that cultural groups should be contacted with regard to their use as a mascot, how do we assure that we are asking the right and the right amount of people? The Notre Dame Fighting Irish always come up as a counterexample in discussions of this issue. Of course, it's impossible to come up with a bright line between good and bad mascots. What about the Fighting Engineers of Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (whose logo is an elephant!)? Should I as an engineer be offended? But even if we can't come up with a clear division, I think we can apply some moral reasoning to individual circumstances. Obvious slanders are out. If the Notre Dame mascot were really the Fighting Micks, I don't think there'd be any question. I also think it's fair to say that, given the history of Indian relations in this country, any Indian mascot should immediately be suspect. Irish people, despite the prejudice they faced in the early 1900's, were never on the receiving end of a national policy of genocide. I happen to believe that most Irish-Americans are proud of the Notre Dame connection (though interestingly, Notre Dame was founded by French monks and didn't get to be "Irish" until Irish catholics from Chicago started sending their sons there almost 100 years after the school was created). In general, and this goes toward Question 2 as well, if I were the arbiter of mascots, I would simply look for a good faith effort at acknowledging and attempting to remedy any possible offensive aspects of a mascot. Clearly not every Sioux in the world or even North Dakota can be contacted or expected to accept a mascot. That shouldn't stop the university from trying. The fact that the current logo was designed by a Sioux is an important first step. (I happen to like the logo and don't find it offensive. Compare it to the Atlanta Braves or Cleveland Indians cartoonish logos. In fact, I don't think anyone who looks at the Cleveland logo can deny that this issue is indeed an issue. These are the current and old Cleveland logos:. Is one better than the other?)

Yearly Kos

My friend Steve sent me an email about Yearly Kos, the recently-held liberal bloggers convention in Las Vegas. "I'm curious what the conservative bloggers are saying about the supposed power of the liberal blogosphere. Maybe you could look into it and do an entry on it." Actually, I didn't find much conservative commentary out there. And the one piece I did find, from Ben Shapiro (a 20-something conservative wunderkind with two inane books under his belt), suggests that the right haven't really given any thought to the matter. Shapiro's article is mean-spirited and filled with ad hominen attacks very much in the mold of Ann Coulter, but doesn't actually say anything interesting. Meanwhile, there is plenty out there on the Marriage Protection Amendment and the Flag Desecration Amendment. So, does that mean that the supposed power of the liberal blogosphere is just that--supposed? Or that the right wing talking heads don't know their enemy?

Uniting North America

The US Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan research group, has recently released a report, Building a North American Community, that calls for "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter." The rightwingers hate this idea. Undermines US sovereignty and all that. What do you think?

Politically Correct Sport Mascots

We haven't heard from this issue in a while: racist sport team mascots. In today's story, the NCAA has asked the University of North Dakota to change its mascot from the Fighting Sioux. The difference is that the UND has resisted, for which it is applauded by the right wing. Conservatives feel that this issue is an "absurd paean to the God of Political Correctness." I disagree. Think of such mascots as the Washington "Redskins" or the Oklahoma State "Savages." Quite offensive. Really, are those names any different than if we had teams like the "Darkies" or the "Fighting Pickaninnies"? What about the gross caricatures such as the "tomahawk chop"? Surely we can all agree that those are wrong. I admit that it is a slightly different story when the mascot is merely the name of a tribe. Those team names are not necessarily disrespectful. But I feel in these cases, the tribe in question should have a say. Doesn't that seem fair? And in fact, the Seminoles, Chippewas, and Utes are all recent examples of tribes that have been asked and given their consent to use their names as university mascots. Well, in our example here, the Sioux don't like the name. Haven't for a long time, it seems. So UND talks about inclusiveness and respect, but it is all hot air if the Sioux aren't on board. Is this Political Correctness? Yes, but that's a good thing.

Flag Desecration

If you thought that the assault on civil liberty and common sense was over when the Marriage Protection Amendment failed, you are wrong. Next up from the culture warriors is the Flag Desecration Amendment. Let's ignore the fact that of all the issues that face our national leaders today, burning the American flag, no matter one's opinion of it, is or should be very, very low on the priority list. The politics behind this issue show that my cynicism is not deep enough. Let's also ignore the fact that flag burning is exceedingly rare. According to the ACLU, there have been only 45 documented cases of flag burning since 1777. This amendment is most definitely a solution looking for a problem. Let's concentrate on the fact that this amendment will erode our first amendment rights. In that, there is no question. Indeed, if this weren't a reduction to our Constitutional rights, then an amendment to the Constitution woudn't be necessary in the first place. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly explained since 1931 when it first applied the First Amendment to a flag statute, that the non-verbal, peaceful use of the flag to make a political statement, whether it be by flying, saluting, or burning, is fully protected under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression. That is why, since 1931, the Supreme Court has consistently struck down flag statutes requiring students to salute the flag, prohibiting flying a “red flag,” and prohibiting burning the flag. The Court has said that it is a“bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment…that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itselfoffensive and disagreeable.” The First Amendment is designed precisely to protect unpopular forms of peaceful expression and political dissent such as flag burning, although these acts are highly offensive to almost all Americans. Let's also concentrate on the squishiness of the amendment. Here's how it reads: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of theUnited States.” It doesn't actually say "burning." It says physical desecration. What is that? We can all come up with ludicrous examples of someone's idea of desecration. US flag on that shirt you bought at Old Navy? Jasper Johns' famous flag paintings? Someone displaying the flag in the incorrect manner?

Top novels

Some researchers recently surveyed men and women on their favorite novels. The survey also revealed some interesting things about the way men and women perceive novels. The lists are here. I've read 15 of the men's and 7 of the women's. Like most men in the article, I had a hard time coming up with a favorite, but it may have to be one of two John Fowles' novels, The Magus or The French Lieutenant's Woman. How many have you read? What's your favorite? MEN'S LIST 1 Albert Camus The Outsider 2 J.D. Salinger The Catcher in the Rye 3 Kurt Vonnegut Slaughterhouse-Five 4 Gabriel Garcia Marquez One Hundred Years of Solitude 5 J.R.R. Tolkien The Hobbit 6 Joseph Heller Catch-22 7 George Orwell 1984 8 F. Scott Fitzgerald The Great Gatsby 9 Milan Kundera The Book of Laughter and Forgetting 10 Harper Lee To Kill a Mockingbird 11 Vladimir Nabokov Lolita 12 J.R.R. Tolkien The Lord of the Rings and Fyodor Dostoevsky Crime and Punishment 14 Graham Greene Brighton Rock 15 Nick Hornby High Fidelity 16 James Joyce Ulysses 17 Mark Twain The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn 18 Joseph Conrad Heart of Darkness 19 Franz Kafka Metamorphosis 20 John Steinbeck The Grapes of Wrath WOMEN'S LIST 1 Charlotte Bronte Jane Eyre 2 Emily Bronte Wuthering Heights 3 Margaret Atwood The Handmaid's Tale 4 George Eliot Middlemarch 5 Jane Austen Pride and Prejudice 6 Toni Morrison Beloved 7 Doris Lessing The Golden Notebook 8 Joseph Heller Catch-22 9 Marcel Proust Remembrance of Things Past 10 Jane Austen Persuasion 11 Mary Shelley Frankenstein 12 Jeanette Winterson Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit 13 Gabriel Garcia Marquez One Hundred Years of Solitude 14 George Eliot The Mill on the Floss 15 Louisa May Alcott Little Women 16 Gustave Flaubert Madame Bovary 17 C.S. Lewis The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe 18 Margaret Mitchell Gone with the Wind 19 Joseph Conrad Heart of Darkness 20 Harper Lee To Kill a Mockingbird

Estate Tax

Politics is about perception, and perception is about spin. That's the lesson I take away from this press release about the recent estate tax vote in the Senate. The press release comes from TheVanguard.org, a conservative web site. If you read the release, you'll see it is chock full of the fear-mongering, emotional appeals, innuendo, and unsubstantiated assertions that unfortunately characterize too many national debates. The spin? It calls the estate tax the "Death Tax"--an old and sophomoric trick. It says things like, "[Estate tax supporters] honestly believe that family farmers and corner grocers should pay 55% of everything they own to the government when they die. These are old-school socialists: they believe in punishing honest, hard work, and that government bureaucrats are smarter and better than you...." It phrases everything in terms of a righteous struggle against forces of evil. If you want the truth, it's not hard to find. All I ask is that we do our research. You know, an intelligent debate, backed up by facts?

Killing for Christ

Ah, the irony. Left Behind Games, based on the best-selling fundamentalist Christian end-of-the-world book series, has released a new shoot-'em-up video game called Left Behind: Eternal Forces. The purpose of the game? "Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. You are on a mission - both a religious mission and a military mission -- to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state - especially moderate, mainstream Christians. Your mission is "to conduct physical and spiritual warfare"; all who resist must be taken out with extreme prejudice." The ironic elements aside, what do you think the outcry would be if, instead a Christians, the game were about Muslims killing infidels? Or white supremacists killing minorities?

No more FCC regulation

Long-time readers will know that I have been against FCC regulation of TV content. Reason magazine published something yesterday that supports my position.

Native Hawaiians

Yesterday, a couple of readers thought it was a no-brainer that Hawaiians should be considered an Indian tribe, and therefore they should be granted the same quasi-sovereignty that Indian tribes are. But the Supreme Court disagrees. In Rice v. Cayetano, Governor of Hawaii (2000), the Court has already adjudicated on the issues found in the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. First, the Court said that Hawaiians are not an Indian tribe but rather a race. Therefore, second, it said that treating "Hawaiians" or "native Hawaiians" differently violates the 15th Amendment.

Sustainable Cities

Here's an interesting counterpoint to the 10 most conservative cities: The top sustainable cities. I say counterpoint because we all know that "sustainable" is one of those squishy liberal words that means anti-property rights and pro-government regulation.

Native Hawaiians and Self Government

Here's an interesting bill in the Senate right now: the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. This bill was introduced by Sen Akala of Hawaii. According to Akala, the bill does the following:

It establishes the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of the Interior to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the United States. It establishes the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group to be composed of federal officials from agencies which administer Native Hawaiian programs. Both of these provisions are intended to increase coordination between the Native Hawaiians and the federal government. And third, the bill provides a process of reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. I am very proud of the fact that while the bill provides structure to the process, it also provides the Native Hawaiian community with the flexibility to truly reorganize its governing entity.

Admittedly, I don't know a lot about this bill, but at first blush it seems pretty fishy. The Heritage Foundation agrees and so does the Republican Policy Committee. From what I can tell, the bill is intended to extend the rights and protections granted to Native American tribes to native Hawaiians. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights says, "The Akaka Bill is important because unlike other indigenous peoples living in the lands that now constitute the United States, Native Hawaiians currently do not have a process for establishing a government-to-government relationship. " The US Constitution does explicitly mention Indian tribes, most importantly in Section 8, where it says, " Congress shall have the power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" So are Native Hawaiians an Indian tribe?

Empty Marriage Rhetoric

I know that it isn't worth the time to discuss, but I am stupefied by the vacuity of the arguments in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA). Chuck Colson says that the MPA will stem the rising rate of incarceration in this country. How? Well, most inmates are young men who came from broken homes. They lacked moral training during their formative years. So, isn't it obvious that outlawing--no wait, preventing the creation of--same-sex marriage will not only encourage currently or future unwed parents to wed, but it will also ensure that the marriages are happy and morally sound? And this in turn will stem crime rates? And Michael Gaynor has finally provided what was really inevitable: the argument that our founding fathers would support the MPA, would have in fact included it in the original if they had only known that 240 years on, their country would be so morally adrift. Colson's logic is risible. First, we already know why incarcerations are so high in this country, and it has little to do with marriage. But even if it were somehow shown that more marriage = less crime, how could something that will increase the pool of people who can get married actually result in fewer marriages? One thing's for sure, that successful passage of the MPA would not nudge today's marriage rates. Gaynor's argument is just silly. It may be that the Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and the rest of the crowd opposed homosexuality and thus same-sex marriage. But you know what? They also opposed women's right to vote, emancipation of slaves, direct election of senators, and a host of other things that reflect cultural values in the 1780's. But who cares what they thought? Their greatest legacy is not their particular moral code, but the ability to shape our country to fit our present moral code. Really, the MPA is about politics, anyway. As Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said "This proposed constitutional amendment is being used to satisfy the most extreme right-wing supporters and politicians. The Constitution is too important to be used for such a partisan political purpose." Luckily, the MPA will be DOA.

Oil Shortage?

Conspiracy theorists, for all their ingenuity in constructing their conspiracies, always seem to neglect one crucial aspect: the motive for the conspiracy to exist in the first place. For instance, take Rod Martin's "Oil Is Well The Shortage Is A Myth, And Not A New One." According to Martin, there is actually more oil now than ever before. In fact, it could be that "the world is literally floating on a sea of oil deep in the Earth's core." But unfortunately, "environmental extremists" (Jimmy Carter is one, apparently) continue to cry wolf about world oil supplies. Worse yet, they have artificially jacked up prices, "especially [for] the poor northeastern widows and African villagers for whom they endlessly claim 'compassion'". But, Rod, why? What would motivate "environmental extremists" to increase prices thus, which hurts them as much as anyone? Is it their unquenchable thirst for power? Their utter disdain for the lower classes? Their contempt for democracy? Or could it be that maybe they're on to something? I've stated before that we need to start working to decrease our oil dependency. The physical oil supply and its obvious finiteness is one reason. (The so-called abiotic oil theory has been roundly disproved). The environmental impacts of its extraction, processing, and use are another. The geopolitical implications of the petroleum industry are a third. We won't run out of oil tomorrow, but most people agree that we will 60 years from now--even sooner if the rest of the world begins to consume at our present rate. 60 years, you say? Shoot, we've got plenty of time, you say. No, we don't, not if you remember that it took us over 100 years to get where we are now.

Capital Gains Tax and Tax Reform

"Americans got some good economic news last week when President Bush signed legislation that will extend the 15 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains through 2010." Thus says Daniel Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation. Mitchell is a vocal supporter of supply-side fiscal policies, and claims that our recent strong economic performance is due in part to the previous rounds of capital gains tax cuts. The capital gains tax is paid only when the capital gain is realized, which is to say, when a capital asset is sold (unlike a tax on stock dividends, which is paid annually). Therefore, to avoid paying a high capital gains tax, people will forgo selling assets. Mitchell's theory, then, is that a high capital gains tax reduces the total amount of liquid capital in the system, which in turn reduces entrepreneurial activity and hence job creation. Supply-siders say that reducing the tax rate will actually increase tax revenues because the overall tax base will be enlarged by that much more. Mitchell's piece is just the latest salvo in a long-running debate about capital gains tax treatment. There are strong opinions on both sides. Those who want a higher capital gains tax say that there is no evidence that supports the supply-side trickle-down effect. In fact, they say, a low capital gains tax encourages tax sheltering and diversion of capital from productive uses, and, oh yeah, provides a windfall to the wealthy while hurting the lower classes. Of course, there is always more to the story. As Leonard Burman of the Brookings Institution states in this interesting discussion of the capital gains tax, both sides are victim to faulty statistics, anecdotal evidence, and poor reasoning. Burman examines the capital gains tax from what he considers the foundations of public finance: economic efficiency, equity, and simplicity. Efficiency says that a tax should intrude as little as necessary into functioning market, and when it intrudes, it should do so only far enough to restore market efficiency. Equity refers to the level of taxation that different income levels should face. Simplicity refers to a tax system that is easy and inexpensive to administer. Burman says these factors should guide our consideration of a capital gains tax. The article is long but worth reading (if you are interested in this sort of stuff). His conclusions? Well, his first one is that any change to the capital gains tax in isolation is unlikely to have the positive effects that supply-siders hope (It seems that even Mitchell agrees with this. He says, "This does not mean that tax cuts necessarily 'pay for themselves.'"). More general tax reform is needed. He says that the real problem is not the tax rate, but the way in which the capital gains tax is designed. He offers numerous solutions, none of which I will discuss here. But I think the larger point is that it's time for comprehensive tax reform. Okay, not a thunderous insight. But if we use Burman's criteria, we should not be looking at the flat tax but instead at a consumption tax.

Marriage Protection Amendment

The conservative stupidity du jour is the Marriage Protection Amendment, up for vote next Wednesday in the Senate. Luckily, the amendment has almost zero chance of gaining the required 2/3 vote. Regardless of your opinions on gay marriage--and I support it--a constitutional amendment is a bad idea. As this good Reason article makes clear, marriage has been and should remain a state issue. Most states have made their positions clear, either for or against same-sex marriage. I'm surprised that right-wingers, who usually fight the enlargement of federal powers, are so quick to turn to the federal government on this issue. But I'm also still mystified by how a move to expand marriage, to make marriage an even wider institution, supposedly attacks marriage. The slippery-slope arguments are ludicrous. I also happen to believe that many pro-marriage people suffer from a false nostalgia, a longing for days of ideal marriage that have never actually existed. In her book, "The Way We Never Were," Stephanie Coontz exposes all sorts of myths and half-truths about marriage and family values in our history. As she says, American families "have not suddenly and inexplicably 'gone bad.'" The MPA is bad news.

Adoption and Religious Freedom

Yesterday, I discussed an issue that I felt was an erosion of freedom of religion. Because of the State of Massachussett's position on gay marriage, the Catholic Church there is prevented from providing adoption services. Anonymous responded with some good points. In a nutshell, his argument is that providing adoption services is not core to the religion, and that therefore it should not be exempted from civil rights laws as more traditional religious activity is (just as male-only ordination). Further, he says that these Catholic groups, by refusing to place with same-sex couples and thereby restricting the pool of eligible placement homes, are harming the kids in orphanages by making them have to wait longer "in the system." I disagree with both these points. Taking the second one first, we can turn the argument on its head by claiming that the State, by reducing the number of private adoption agencies (without, I'm sure, commensurately increasing its own adoption staff), is actually doing more harm to the kids because it is reducing the total number of kids that can be processed. It's not as if each adoption agency has its own pool of kids to place, so that the Catholic pool will grow stagnant because the Catholics are refusing to place with same-sex couples. All agencies draw from the same pool. Therefore, any increase in the number of agencies drawing from that pool, no matter how limited the production of any individual agency, is a net increase to total production (if you'll excuse the economic language). The State is thus decreasing total production and the welfare of the kids. At any rate, I can almost guarantee you that the State's motivation in this matter is not the well-being of the orphans. Returning to the first point, I can see why Anonymous feels that adoption is not a religious pillar. But neither is adoption a civil right. Adoption agencies are supposed to evaluate the fitness of potentially adoptive parents, which means that they are by definition discrimintory. Here are some of the things that can disqualify a potential parent: household income, career plans, views on discipline, quality of marriage, number of kids, number of previous adoptions, religious faith. Yes, religious faith. Christian organizations don't usually place with non-Christian families, and Jewish groups prefer to place with Jewish families. In their opinion, religious faith is part of the fitness equation. A secular agency may not place with a family that lacks secure employment. Is that illegal discrimination? And let's remember that the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on adoption in Massachussetts. If a same-sex couple wants to adopt, they have a wide range of private adoption agencies to use. (My quick Google search turned up 50 agencies in the state, of which 7 were Catholic, 4 Jewish). As the author in yesterday's article pointed out, "Catholic Charities did not obstruct that [equal rights] effort; it only declined to assist it." I stand by my original post.

Government Regulation

I'm sure it's probably childish, but as a vocal supporter of much-maligned government regulation (as opposed to unfettered free market or libertarian capitalism), I always like the "told-you-so." So here's one. A senior editor at Fortune Magazine, hardly a bastion of pro-regulation thought, is thankful for some recent SEC rules. "Three cheers...for SEC rules on executive-pay disclosure. Without them, we might not know how some executives were robbing their shareholders - and it might still be going on."

Freedom of Religion

Sometimes the left makes itself such as easy target for criticism that I start to understand what the Ann Coulters of the world are railing against. Take this example. Because of the State of Massachussetts' anti-discriminatory stance toward same-sex marriage, it is preventing Catholic charity groups from providing adoption service. These Catholic groups, you see, will not place kids in same-sex marriages. The state requires all adoption agencies to sign a non-discrimination statement in this regard, something the Catholic groups as a matter of belief won't do. I am in support of same-sex marriage. I also support their adopting kids. But I believe the state's actions really constitute an erosion of freedom of religion. As the article's author, a legal scholar, says, "The issue is not whether the Church or the state has the better of the debate over gay families. When freedom is at stake, the issue is never whether the claimant is right. Freedom of the press protects publication of pornography, blasphemy, and personal attacks. Freedom of religion is above all else a protection for ways of life that society views with skepticism or distaste."