Facebook and Politics

I've noticed somthing about Facebook that I think illustrates the way people think in light of their politics. It's election season, and that means a lot of Facebook statuses talking about it. I have friends -- both real friends and the Facebook kind -- on both ends of the political spectrum. Which means that, by definition, my friends and I all don't agree on politics.

But I've noticed that when it comes to Facebook friends, who they plan to vote for informs how they react to others' politics. There's been a solid uptick in statuses lately that hew to some variant of the following: "I can't wait for this election to be over. Some people spend way too much time on Facebook talking about their candidate. Does anyone really think they're going to change anyone's mind in regards to how they vote? Can we all just agree to stop talking about politics and stick to posts about kids, gardens, vacations, and things like that? You know -- important things?"

I've seen some version of that post by four different poeple in the last month and half, by my recollection. That in itself isn't all that interesting. What's interesting is that, based on other posts they've either made, liked, or commented on, it's pretty clear who exactly they'll be voting for in November. In every case I think it is safe to say they'll be pulling the lever for the status quo. Which is fine, of course. Everyone who is eligible to vote has a right to cast the vote for whomever they wish -- even if they're completely wrong.

No, what makes this interesting is not who they're voting for, but rather their preferred reaction to reading -- or presumably becoming aware of the gist of, since I don't think there's a law that says you have to read everything a Facebook friend posts -- political statements that don't gibe with their own views. Let's take a look at the options available to a Facebook user.

When you see that someone has posted a status or link on Facebook that you don't agree with and/or don't want to read, you can:

(A) Read it anyway; since if they're your friend and took the time to post something the least you can do is take the time to read it.

(B) Skip over it and look for more posts about waterskiing cats and lists of reasons why music today sucks.

(C) Wonder why you were ever Facebook friends with that person in the first place and unfriend them.

(D) Attempt to influence what other people feel comfortable posting on Facebook by calling for moratoriums on certain subjects.


Now, I don't think anyone in history has ever chosen option (A), and that's okay. Option (B) is what I usually do, though there are times I will read it if it looks like a useful link (i.e. not say, the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground. I may be an occasionally incredulous reader of Salon, Slate, and the Huffington Post in an effort to keep my horizons broadened, but I'm not crazy). And I will admit there are times when option (C) is sorely tempting.

At no time have I ever seen option (D) taken by a conservative friend though, and I think that's telling. There's a certain air to liberalism that seems to imbue adherents with the feeling that their cause is so just, their ideology so pure and self-evidently right, that it's only natural to try and shut other points of view down. We see it on a large scale when there are concerted efforts by leftwing groups to get Rush Limbaugh off the air. We see it when companies don't have the right viewpoint. And we see it at perhaps its most repugnant point when people don't vote the way people of their ethnic group are expected.

Back on Facebook, this tendency to argue that politics should just be left out of the sphere of acceptable topics is undercut by a simple search of the authors' timelines. In my personal experience, it's not hard to find examples of those same people liking and commenting on statuses and links from people who share their leanings. And hey, that's fine. But it's pretty disingenuous to turn around and play the "can't we just talk about kittehs?" card.

I talked about liberals being imbued with a feeling earlier, and I think that inadvertently got to the heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals feel. They see inequality in the world and think, that's not fair. If people would just work together and sacrifice, we could get rid of hunger/poverty/homelessness/want/need/lack of iPhones for all. The problem is that that deep feeling is always steeped in the same foundation: but not me.

Occupy protesters marched around (then later, when they got tired, camped) shouting out poorly metered slogans about all sorts of injustices: the war in Afghanistan, Wall Street, the bottoming housing market, the inability of people with masters degrees in puppetry to find work. Among the homeless, the criminals and the people with nothing better to do were a lot of people who were spending a lot of time complaining that they wanted more and other people had it and why doesn't somebody make them give it to us? Take a look at this vignette from Occupy Wall Street that aired on the Daily Show. Watch the whole thing, as it's both funny and enlightening. But pay close attention to the 4:15 mark, when a man goes to great lengths to espouse the idea that everyone should have access to all the goodies life has to offer. Private property is evidently wrong because it deprives people of access to "the goods of life". Not his iPad though, because that's his. As he says, "I'm more against private property than personal property." In other words, "my stuff is mine, but other people's stuff should be made available to everyone".

That's not to say that convervatives don't feel, and it certainly shouldn't be taken as gospel that conservatives don't care about the poor or the homeless or the hungry. We just don't think government is the best way to address it, and that in that capacity to which government involvement is necessary, the goal should be to reduce the number of people dependent on aid. Instead, we seem intent on seeing how far the balance between those dependent on government handouts and those expected to pay for them can tilt until the whole thing collapses. The eminent sage Homer Simpson once declared that alcohol was "the cause of -- and solution to -- all of life's problems. Right and Left split that dichotomy when it comes to statism. The Right sees government as the cause, the Left as the solution.

So, to any Facebook friends who might be reading this, let me say, no.

No, I won't stop writing about politics, or posting statuses that make clear in no uncertain terms that I think our current president is far, far worse than George W. Bush on his worst day -- and W. doesn't exactly stand next to Reagan in my personal pantheon.

No, I won't stop posting links that point out all the ugly, horrible, racist things that liberals say and do. Precisely because your side regards it as self-evident that conservatives are racist by definition, as though proclaiming your support for Obama magically cloaks you from racism charges while simultaneously calling Stacey Dash an Uncle Tom (and far, far worse).

No, I won't stop posting links to malfeasence on the part of a press that frets over funding for Big Bird but can't quite bring itself to dig into Benghazi, Eric Holder, or the deliberate attempt to destroy a functioning energy base (coal and oil) for one that doesn't work no matter how much money we flush down the toilet.

If that means we can't be Facebook friends, I understand. I'll just have to figure out a way to overcome the loss of hearing about kids I've never met and cats I don't like (seriously, I don't see the upside to cats). I'll have to muddle through without your invitations to install Facebook apps that invariably infect my computer with viruses. Some of you I would genuinely miss, so I hope you don't dismiss me. But as for others, I'll take solace in the fact that I'll have one less "friend" telling me what is and is not acceptable to post.

Ten Debate Questions I Would Ask Mitt Romney

1. What specific measures will you take to restore small business owner confidence in the economy?

2. What steps will you enact to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon? (NOTE: "no measures are off the table" does not count as an answer.)

3. How can the process of becoming a U.S. citizen be made easier for those immigrants who want to do it legally?

4. Will you sign a bill into law that makes warrantless wiretapping illegal?

5. What specific agencies would you work to eliminate from the federal government?

6. Would you support across-the-board actual cuts to the federal budget (i.e., no outlays excluded)? (NOTE: reductions in increases to budgets do not count.)

7. Would you sign a bill abolishing the current tax code and replacing it with a flat tax?

8. Would you sign a bill repealing the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a."Obamacare"), and if so, what specific measures would you endorse to combat rising healthcare costs?

9. What specific actions will you take to increase transparency in the federal government?

10. Will you pledge to never sign any bill that increases the debt ceiling?

Also see: Ten Debate Questions I Would Ask President Obama

Ten Debate Questions I Would Ask President Obama

1. Would you sign a bill into law that sought to criminalize offensive religious speech?
   


2. Would you support across-the-board actual cuts to the federal budget (i.e., no outlays excluded)? (NOTE: reductions in increases to budgets do not count.)
   


3. What percentage of incomes above $250,000 would you consider to be a tax rate at which those individuals are "paying their fair share"?
   


4. What would you say to people who remember your statement, "If I don't fix this in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition"?
   


5. Considering the United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world and is one of the only countries that taxes corporations on foreign revenue, what would you do to improve the American business climate?
   


6. If sanctions fail, what concrete steps would you take to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?
   


7. When the number of people on welfare rolls increases, do you see this as a success for the program, or a failure?
   


8. Considering the CBO is projecting an 8% annual increase in healthcare costs between now and 2022, what specific steps will you endorse to reverse this trend and cut costs?
   


9. What countries in the Middle East do you see as American allies and how will you utilize those alliances to combat Islamist extremism?
   


10. Why is the prison at Guantanamo Bay still open?
    

Coming on Monday: Ten Debate Questions I Would Ask Mitt Romney

An Instructive Juxtaposition

The Obama administration's views toward free speech with regards to religion seem to be predicated on how violent the proponents of a given religion are willing to get. This is vividly illustrated with a couple of headlines from the end of the week: State Department spending $70G on Pakistan ads denouncing anti-Islam film

The American Embassy in Islamabad, in a bid to tamp down public rage over the anti-Islam film produced in the U.S., is spending $70,000 to air an ad on Pakistani television that features President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denouncing the video. In the ad, Obama is seen talking about America's tradition of religious tolerance and Clinton is seen saying that the U.S. government had nothing to do with the video that contains vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. "We absolutely reject its content and message," Clinton says in the advertisement.

This, on top of earlier outing the filmmaker and an American Embassy's initial response and defense of an apologetic tweet shows an administration incredibly sensitive to the feelings of Muslims. Compare that with a piece of "art" that offends another well-known religion: WH Silent Over Demands to Denounce ‘Piss Christ’ Artwork

Religious groups are blasting President Obama for not condemning am anti-Christian art display set to appear in New York City and one Republican lawmaker said he is “fed up with the administration’s double standard and religious hypocrisy.

Maybe if Christians attacked the gallery where the piece was being shown en masse and killed some people along the way the White House would pay attention. No, that isn't a call to violence. But it is an idea that is being promoted by an administration that bends over backwards to apologize for free speech while ignoring the concerns of the "bitter clingers" to a religion that has done more to earn the moniker "religion of peace" than Islam. For the record, I don't think the administration should publicly denounce either the anti-Islamic film or the "Piss Christ" piece. But it has invested a lot of time and money in bowing and scraping to Islam in order to promote the idea that the United States respects all religions. If that's true, then be consistent. Right now, the message is that the U.S. will respect any religion that is willing to burn and kill.

Define "Everybody"

President Obama was quoted as saying, "If you want to be president, you have to work for everyone." I was wondering, does "everyone" include:

The "bitter clingers" of the midwest?

The non-union plant workers of Delphi?

The voters who don't vote for the right guy?

The shops who don't support the right right candidate?

The donors who don't write the correct name on the pay line?

The states that know how to manage their finances?

The followers of any religion or just the ones that get violent?

The Rich Aren't Rich Enough

After reading an article at Canfield Press (linked below) describing America's slide from a wealth creation nation to a wealth transfer state, I remembered a short piece I wrote a couple of years ago about waiting tables as a method of illustrating the flaw in collectivist thinking. That got me thinking about the whole "fair share" argument when it comes to taxing the rich. Setting aside the fact that our tax base largely comes from a relatively small part of the populaton, I wondered just how much more "just a little more" really was. How much would represent a "fair share"? Short of adding up all the numbers on Forbes' 400 list there was no definitive amoung given for the total wealth of all of America's billionaires. However, using some simple calculations of the data that was readily available, I got some interesting (though not unexpected) numbers.

The total wealth of the world's billionaires as of March 2012 was $4,600,000,000,000 (source). Dividing that by the total number of billionaires in the world (1226), that averages out to roughly $3,752,039,152 per 1%er. There are currently 425 billionaires in the United States, so a decent estimate of the total wealth of American billionaires is about $1,594,616,639,478. That certainly isn't a perfect way of estimating it, and the number could be a bit higher or a bit lower.

Now, back to that wealth transfer thing. In 2010, total spending on entitlements was about $2,200,000,000,000. This means that if we simply confiscated all the wealth of all the billionaires in the United States, it wouldn't pay for one year's worth of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and all the other programs that fall under the Entitlements umbrella. The idea that if we just raise taxes, if we just ask the rich to "pay a little more", our money problems will be solved is fantasy. We're past the point where taxation can solve our debt woes. We're passed the point where we can ignore the reality that we have to spend less money. Slowing the rate of spending growth is no longer an option. Class warfare won't fix anything. The only thing that will work is to cut budgets. All of them.

The federal budget request for 2012 included outlays of over $3,800,000,000,000 and was based on predicted revenues of just over $2,200,000,000,000. In other words, we planned on spending nearly twice as much as we planned to take in. That's not sustainable, and it's not fixable with class warfare.

Four Excuses For An Obama Loss (And Why They Won't Wash)

If the ballots are counted in November and Barack Obama becomes a one-term president, the media will fall all over themselves to explain why. None of those reasons will encompass the simple truth that his policies have been a failure, that he wasted his solid majorites in Congress by focusing laser-like on Obamacare, or that the American people didn't buy into his class war rhetoric.

Admitting to those things would be to admit that the blame lies with the President himself.

Instead, the media will trot out ready-made excuses that place the blame solely on the American people. After all, we're just not smart enough to understand how lucky we are to have him. He is, after all, a lightworker, a man (or is he?) both devine and magical. Some even now refer to him as if he were the messiah.

Obviously someone so perfect can't be held responsible for breaking campaign promises (closing Guantanamo, fixing the economy, restoring transparency, rolling back rights abuses so (rightfully) decried in the previous administration). So certainly there must be some sinister forces at work to explain such a defeat.

1. Racism: Hey, remember when Obama was going to lose because Americans are a bunch of racists? Then remember when Obama won and suddenly Americans had "turned a corner" and we entered a post-racial era? Now Obama is up for re-election and guess what? We'll all be racists again. The race card is getting as played out as zombies-as-plot-device, but the media can't resist throwing it out there with a knowing glance and tut-tutting shake of the head.

The problem here is that for this to be a real cause, it means a lot of people suddenly became racist after voting for a black man for president. Where were these vast multitudes of black-hating Americans in 2008, who plainly should have risen up to vote, ensuring another white guy got to sit in the White House? Does racism exist? Of course it does. Does it explain why Americans may not relect Obama? Only if you ignore the fact that he was elected in the first place.

2. Money: The root of all evil. That stuff the 1% has and you don't. It's a total travesty that Republicans can buy an election just because they have more money to spend. Unless Obama has a good month. Then it's not so bad. Of course, this handwringing over money wasn't necessary in 2008. I wonder why? (Oh, and if you want to play the "pfft, Wikipedia" card, here is the original source. Look it up for yourself.)

3. Republican Obstructionism: Just think what could have been accomplished if Republicans hadn't been there fighting tooth and nail every step of the way. If only Obama had had a friendly Congress. Even for a couple of years. Wait. Well, okay, but if only Republicans had tried to work out a deal with Obama over the budget crisis, we could have... Crap. Well, at least senate Democrats tried to pass budgets as required by law. Maaannnn. Okay, well when the president's budget proposal went to the senate... okay, the House... Let's move on.

4. Dirty Campaigns: That evil Romney is always living in the muck. Accusing his opponent of favoring outlawing all abortions, even in the case of rape or incest. Running ads that purport to show women who are switching parties because of their disgust with their guy. Making up policy positions out of whole cloth. Blaming him for a woman's death. Shameful. Oh wait. Those were all attack ads for Obama against Romney. My bad.

If Obama loses in November, it will be because the American people don't believe he is the right person to lead this country. The media won't see it that way, but you'll know better.


(Crossposted at Say Anything)

TINSTAAFL

A Facebook friend posted a status today cheering on all the "free" benefits that are taking effect for women looking to have their birth control paid for by people other than themselves. After some back and forth about what "free" means when talking about something paid for with tax money, a commenter (who shall remain nameless unless you are mutual friends, in which case you know who to shake your head at) made the following statement:

It has nothing to do with who pays taxes. It is forcing insurance companies to pay for those services out of the premiums that YOU Already pay them!!!! Why is this so hard for people to understand? We are now getting more services for the money that we pay into the insurance company. They make less profits because they have to cover more services for us! This is a very good thing for all of us!!!!!!!!

Note the liberal use of exclamation points, each one adding an order of magnitude to the comment's inherent truthfulness. Exclamation points aside, here was my response (unedited except for the correction of spelling errors):

It has everything to do with who pays taxes. The feds are setting up a national exchange to administer healthcare. Who pays for that? Taxpayers. Set aside for a moment the fact that this will allow the goverment to pick and choose favorites among healthcare companies. While the feds are allowing states to set up their own exchanges (which of course, must meet federal guidelines on how they are set up, which companies can participate, and how money is distributed), most are sensibly opting out. This will increasingly put the decisions in the hands of a federal bureaucracy.

Ever heard of a federal agency that didn't get bigger and succumb to budget bloat? Me neither. This will only increase costs, especially when you consider that by government mandate, people who don't pay federal taxes (and thus don't pay for the upkeep of this behemoth) will still be covered. Who will make up these costs? The insurance companies? No. Economics 101. When costs go up to a supplier, those costs are passed on to the consumer.

One way the goverment will be tempted to combat this is to enforce price controls on what doctors can charge for services. This is how medicare and medicaid work. It has led to an ever-decreasing number of doctors who will accept patients on those plans. A similar effect will occur if the price controls are instead forced upon insurers: fewer companies will enter into the market and many existing ones will drop out. At the same time, more and more people will be forced into this government plan as companies who today pay for healthcare as a fringe benefit decrease coverage or drop it all together, further exploding costs to the taxpayer.

Ask yourself this: are you aware of any government programs which costs has decreased, which budgets have shrunk? No. Because the definition of a budget cut has been changed at the federal level. When you or I think of a budget cut, It looks like this: "our budget was $1000. We cut it 10%. Now our budget is $900". At the federal level, it looks like this: "Our budget was $1000. We wanted to raise it 50%. Instead we only raised it 30%. Therefore, our budget was cut by 20%."

This will not end well.

It never ceases to amaze me that there are still people who believe the following:

1. Businesses don't pass their costs on to consumers.
2. Arbitrarily setting prices for goods will have no effect on the producers of those goods
3. It is somehow a good thing when a business has its profits shrunk or seized.
4. A government that can run up trillions of dollars in debt will have no problem containing costs.
5. The government can ever provide "free" anything to taxpayers.

Of course, my answer above didn't even touch on the other side effect of price controls: rampant fraud and abuse. Some of those doctors who don't stop taking medicare and medicaid patients instead find ways to overbill the system and reap profits off the taxpayer. If oversight and penalties were better enforced, even more doctors would drop entitlement patients.

For taxpayers, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.

Addendum: A later comment brought up the 80/20 rule in the law, that requires insurers to use 80% of revenues on "clinical services" in order to cap costs. Well, that's just another method of price control. And it leads to all the bad things mentioned above. Don't believe me? Then believe the feds, who have seen fit to grant waivers to entities that allow them to ignore the 80/20 rule.

Also, passing laws and then selectively allowing certain entities to ignore them: regardless of your political affiliation, shouldn't you be outraged by that?

If It's True Will I Get Reparations?

UPDATE: I forgot to throw a hat tip out to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit for the link.

An archaeologist at the Smithsonian Instition are championing a "radical" theory about the history of North America. Namely, that the long-held view (the "settled science" if you will) that the continent was first settled by travelers taking advantage of an ice bridge from Siberia about 15,000 years ago is wrong. As it turns out, about 40 years ago some fishermen found a mammoth tusk in Chesapeake Bay that had a blade stuck in it. The tusk was a bit older than 15,000 years.

But the mastodon relic found near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay turned out to be 22,000 years old, suggesting that the blade was just as ancient.

Whoever fashioned that blade was not supposed to be here.

Other relics have been found in the mid-Atlantic region, all found in soil that dates back to over 20,000 years ago.

There are problems with the theory, as even the author points out. Mainly that the dating is of the media in which the artifacts were found (the tusk, the soil) rather than of the artifacts themselves.

“It’s an indirect date,” Dillehay said. “You need a feature like a hearth or something that’s clearly human. But it’s still suggestive.”

It's still way too early to tell if the long-held view of the settling of North America is in any real danger. But wouldn't it be funny if one day the conventional theory is that Europeans had settled North America first and were driven out by (what later came to be known as) Indians?

The Most Offensive Thing I've Ever Read

It suddenly got cold in North Dakota today, with wind chills near zero this morning. So I guess it's as good a time as any to read something to make your blood boil. This article in the New York Times claims that the U.S. Constitution is losing its influence.

In 1987, on the Constitution’s bicentennial, Time magazine calculated that “of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. version.”

A quarter-century later, the picture looks very different. “The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere,” according to a new study by David S. Law of Washington University in St. Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia.

No, that isn't so galling. After all, what difference does it make what constitutional model burgeoning democracies use? No, what's galling are the critiques of our Constitution contained within that supposedly show "what's wrong with it".

The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.

Funny, we always hear how young America is, especially compared to our societal betters in Europe's old democracies. Now suddenly, we're too old. And, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" doesn't seem small to me.

In an interview, Professor Law identified a central reason for the trend: the availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace. “Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1,” he said.

The implication here is that our constitution doesn't work anymore and should be replaced. After all, that's what you do with an old operating system, right? Our constitution is more like a poem by a laureate or a painting by a master. It endures. It's still around because it works so well. It hasn't been replaced because frankly, there isn't anything better.

The rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are parsimonious by international standards, and they are frozen in amber. As Sanford Levinson wrote in 2006 in “Our Undemocratic Constitution,” “the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world today.”

To keep the computer analogy alive, that's a feature, not a bug. If a constitution can be changed at a whim by whatever group manages to get power, it ceases to be a document that enumerates the powers and rights of a citizenry and becomes just another tool for those in power.

Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion. But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care.

We don't protect the presumption of innocence? That statement is so utterly false that there's really nothing else to say. Well, except this. The Constitution may not say "in so many words" that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The law does say that however. And, as we'll see shortly, the author is very enamored with the idea of a judiciary expanding rights that aren't explicitly spelled out in a constitution, at least when Canadians do it.

The rest of that quote gets to the heart of some people's problem with the constitution. It doesn't list things like food, education and healthcare as rights. Well, that's because they're not. To borrow my own words: we have laws to define acceptable behavior in a society and to convey privileges (or restrict said privileges). Rights are things we can never envision or support being taken away.

There's a good reason the our constitution doesn't list every possible right. It's because the framers knew that was an impossible task. The very reason so many "newer" contitutions are easier to amend is because they attempt this impossible task. Just when they think it's perfect, along comes some new technology and, boom! New "right" coming through. Notice that even the NYT article uses the word "entitlement" to describe food, education, and healthcare.

It has its idiosyncrasies. Only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms.

I love that something so fundamental as a right to defend yourself through force of arms is labeled an "idiosyncracy". Guess we know where the author stands on gun control.

The author however, does love the Canadian Charter:

The Canadian Charter is both more expansive and less absolute. It guarantees equal rights for women and disabled people, allows affirmative action and requires that those arrested be informed of their rights. On the other hand, it balances those rights against “such reasonable limits” as “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

"We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal." Sounds pretty expansive (the use of the royal "men" notwithstanding) to me. Also, the author is being disingenuous with the phrase "more expansive and less absolute". What that really means is that the Charter puts far more limitations on things like freedom of speech, religion and assembly than the U.S Constitution and relies on the courts to broaden those rights, which was somehow a problem with the U.S. Constitution.

It should also be noted that the Times author is conflating the Charter with a constitution. The Charter is actually analogous to our Bill of Rights, which makes the next bit especially confusing.

There are, of course, limits to empirical research based on coding and counting, and there is more to a constitution than its words, as Justice Antonin Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee in October. “Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights,” he said.

“The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours,” he said, adding: “We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

The author wants this passage to read as though the Bill of Rights is somehow lessened by the actions of totalitarians in other countries. "Oh, the Bill of Rights," he seems to be saying, "the Soviet Union had one of those!" The Bill of Rights may be just paper, but so is the Canadian Charter. So is every constitution, everywhere.

It's a bit disengenous to try and tie the Bill of Rights' worth to that of the old Soviet Union. Is there really any comparison to how those rights were treated under the U.S.S.R. and the United States?

And, if as the author asserts, these are just pieces of paper, then what purpose does his article serve? Besides making my blood boil, that is.

Artist Depicts Obama Standing On The Constitution

An artist's work depicting President Obama stepping on the Constitution and turning his back on both the Founding Fathers and a figure seated on a bench is making internet rounds.

In front of the White House a man is sitting on a park bench in the throes of depression. He is surrounded by all 43 presidents. In the forefront, purposefully ignoring the depressed man is President Obama, whose right foot is stepping on the Constitution. James Madison is next to Obama, pleading with him to stop.

This tableau is called “The Forgotten Man”, a painting by Jon McNaughton, an artist who is known for his politically-charged work.

The headline of the article is "Controversial Artist Depicts Obama Trampling The Constitution". As soon as I saw this, I figured the left blogosphere would be all up in arms, so in anticipation, I thought I'd go ahead and make their argument for them.

Depicting a sitting president in this manner is wrong, wrong, wrong.

This is okay though. (Really, read the comments.)

And this. (I wonder what the artist thinks now that bin Laden is dead by President Obama's order?)

And this. (A poor effort by the standards of the medium, actually.)

And this. (Points deducted for the duplication of theme.)

And of course, we shouldn't forget the amateur artists out there, just doing their thing.

"Settled" Climate Science Just Got Unsettled

Well, actually it was never settled, but you get the idea. After years of trying to persuade us that we had to stop emitting carbon, like, yesterday or we would all be doomed to heat death -- okay, that's hyperbole. What they really wanted was the U.S. to sharply curb CO₂ emissions (and damn the economic effects) and introduce global food rationing. So, I guess it wasn't that hyperbolic after all.

Anyway, after all the handwringing, it turns out that the warming trend we've heard so much about ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

There's a plaintive cry from some bitter clingers -- where on earth did I get that phrase from? -- that any reduced solar output will more than be compensated for by man-made global warming.

The problem with that argument is that we've been hearing for years that the earth is warming. It turns out that wasn't true. We've been hearing for years that the "science is settled". It turns out that it was only settled to the extent that "scientists" with a political agenda attempted to blacklist any scientists who disagreed with the International Panel on Climate Control and manipulate data that didn't fit those politics.

And of course, it must be asked: if human actions were artificially warming the planet then it must be true that the only reason global temperatures have remained steady since 1997 (rather than dropping) would be due to those actions. So, drastically reducing carbon emissions would precipitate global cooling. Following that train of thought leads to some unexpected and unwanted destinations for certain political factions, I daresay.

Oh also, it isn't global warming; that phrase is so passè. It's global climate change. So, all the handwringing over whether the planet is warming or not isn't important. What is important is that humans are destroying the planet! (Seriously, I see that a lot.)

My reply to that is to ask a couple of questions:

1. At what point in history has the climate of the earth been unchanging? (If you answer anything other than "never", you're wrong.)

2. If humans went back to a period of history before the industrial revolution -- heck, if every human and machine disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow -- do you believe that earth's climate would settle into some ideal state and remain static for eternity? (Because if not, then I'll need more than the word of some obviously compromised "scientists" to work for either the permanent regression of mankind or its complete destruction. Also, you might want to think about question 1 before you answer.)

Now, with the revelation that the trumpted warming trend stopped fifteen years ago, I have another question:

If it turns out that we are headed for another "little ice age", would you support increased CO₂ emissions in an effort to stabilize the climate?

Oh No, That Evil Republican Is Paying Exactly As Much In Taxes As He Is Legally Obligated To!

In the latest installment of The Media Is Trying To Make Me Like Someone Despite My Best Efforts (see previously: Sarah Palin), the gnashing and fainting surrounding the "revelation" that Mitt Romney's tax burden hovers near the 15% range is making me defend the guy behind the inspiration for some of the worst legislation of my lifetime.

Note that no one is claiming that Romney is a tax cheat (which, apparently is not a big deal these days). No, the complaints revolve around the nebulous rallying cry from 2011 that refused to die: he's not paying his fair share! A quick aside: who gets to determine what is fair? Will you be comfortable with that answer when the person or entity wielding the power doesn't share your political views?

Romney pays around 15% in income tax because most of his income is derived from sources that are taxed in the tax code at 15%. So what is the problem with that? Is it that capital gains should be taxed at a high rate? If you immediately answered yes, I bet you don't own any stock. That's too bad; when the economy is tanking it's generally a good time to invest, assuming you can stay in for the long haul. But enthusiastically wanting to raise taxes as long as they don't affect you personally is just so selfish. I can't believe a good liberal would ever be for it. And no self-respecting conservative would push for higher capital gains taxes, so...

Is the problem that Romney has too much money? To which I respond, how much money you make is irrelevant. The only way the amount of a person's wealth could be relevant is if wealth is a zero-sum game. Which frankly, I think a lot of people on the left seem to think. I have bad news for your worldview: this guy having more money doesn't mean that guy has to have less. This should be obvious, but for many it is not. Look at it this way: if wealth was a zero-sum game it would be a true statement that the world is exactly as wealthy now as it was 1000 years ago. Do you think that is a true statement? No, you don’t. So why would anyone make the argument that someone else has too much money? (Note: I could have just as easily used 100 years ago above, but I wanted to invoke that image of civilization at a point where the hot new invention was a bar of soap.)

Okay then, is the problem that Romney is "gaming the system", deliberately structuring his income so that his tax burden is as small as possible? Raise your hand if you don't do the same thing. That's what I thought. I have yet to meet anyone go out of their way to structure their finances with the goal of paying more taxes. That includes Warren Buffett.

Another aside: you should read the whole article at that link. One, because it hilariously talks about Buffet being ready to "take the Republicans tax challenge" by matching any checks Republicans write to the treasury while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the challenge was for Buffet to write his own check. The article tries to twist things around and make it seem like Republicans -- who don't want taxes raised -- should voluntarily write a check in order to not seem like hypocrites while Buffett -- who wants taxes raised -- is a hero for not writing one. The other reason you should read the article is that it's Time, and your last chance to read it could come any day now. (Sorry Canada, you had your chance.)

Back to the whole tax avoidance thing: do people have a duty to pay as much in taxes as they can, or does this moral burden only fall on certain people? People who, say, make "too much money"? If you believe that, then you should be all over people like Warren Buffet, who as we already know, is outraged -- outraged! -- about how little he pays in taxes. Not outraged enough to write that check to the treasury, but you know, outraged!

So, just to be clear: Romney hasn't done anything illegal. He hasn't done anything morally wrong. So just what is the problem here? Besides, you know, Romney having an 'R' after his name.

The Next Guitar I Buy Will Be A Gibson...

...if Gibson is still around. In what may be yet another case of the Obama adminstration trying to bully businesses it doesn't like, the feds raided Gibson's facilities in Tennessee over some wood (I'm not kidding).
What makes this possibly politically motivated? Well look at who gives money to whom:

It has come out that Juszkiewicz is a Republican donor, while the CEO of one of his principal competitors, C.F. Martin & Company, is a Democratic donor. Martin reportedly uses the same wood, but DOJ hasn’t raided them, leading to speculation that the Obama administration is sending a warning to Republican businessmen that they had better not oppose his re-election, lest they face criminal investigations.

Funny how that works out. If there isn't a political component to it, it sure looks like there is. Complicating matters is that a certain high-profile dignitary once gifted a Gibson to a foreign counterpart. Wonder if the investigation will extend that far. Nah, probably not.

All this sort of thing does is make me want to spend my money on a Gibson the next time I'm in the market for a guitar.

Does Everything Have To Be Political?

ESPN long ago went down the same dark, brimstone-paved road that MTV blazed back around the time it decided that music videos were yesterday's news. The sports network -- +1 million internet points if you even know what "ESPN" stood for when it launched -- used to be a nice little channel where you could see sports highlights and live events that centered around Australian Rules Football. It was the Little Network That Could.

Then it got too big and bloated and began breeding networks (did you know there are currently seven networks in the ESPN family, and that only includes the non-internet stuff?) like the last two rabbits on Earth. It started with forays into "serious journalism" as the network made a play for the prestige ostensibly enjoyed by "real" networks. Outside the Lines, The Sports Reporters; these were efforts by ESPN to gain credibility as more than a place for jocks to get their sports fix.

At the same time, ESPN went after various other audiences; it tried to woo the teen demographic by trying to singlehandedly elevate skateboarding, motocross, snowboarding, and other "X-Games" to the status of "real sports" among mainstream America. It went after the fantasy crowd by running stories about how Stephen Strasburg's Tommy John surgery would affect your fantasy rotation. Sure, that he would miss the pro season was news, but so was how that would affect draft strategies for rotissiere leagues. It shows Little League games. College softball. Scrabble. It wants to be everything to every sports fan.

Which makes it more than a little odd that it would jeopardize that in the name of politics, of all things. Why ESPN (or any network that wasn't involved in, you know, politics) would start wearing its politics on its sleeve is beyond me. What possible reason could the network have for announcing to the world that it leans one way or the other when it comes to something so unsporting as politics? Hubris, I guess. ESPN considers itself so big and untouchable that there will never be repercussions for its actions. Or maybe they just think sports fans won't care.

I care though, and when I see that ESPN has begun picking forks in the road of partisanship -- a road it never needed to go down in the first place -- I have to shake my head and wonder why. Oh, and begin to wonder if I need to go elsewhere for my sports.

Trends In Federal Spending

There is no area of the federal budget that couldn't use a little trimming. This includes the sacred cows of the Left (entitlements like welfare benefits and Social Security) and the Right (Defense). The easiest thing would be an across-the-board cut to the budget. Pick a number, something sensible. Five percent, say. That seems to be off the table though, and instead there's a lot of infighting and charges of wanting old people to die and children to go hungry, and so on. Meanwhile, nothing gets cut. Where does all this money go? Well, looked at one way, the biggest chunk goes to Defense ($925.2B). Of course, that includes all defense spending. Entitlements get broken up into subgroups like "Welfare" ($431.5B), "Pensions" ($805.6M), and "Healthcare" ($866.1B). Put together, entitlement spending far outstrips defense spending. That said, there's still room to cut defense spending. Perhaps we could stop building ships that never sail, for example.

But when you look at the historical data around government spending, some interesting trends emerge. First, take a look at Defense spending through the years. Note that I picked 1950 as the cutoff. I picked it because it's a round number and because the immense amount of spending on WWII skewed the chart's y-axis, making it a bit more difficult to read. Suffice to say that at the peak of WWII, defense spending accounted for over 40% of GDP.

(source)

The trend over the last 60 years is clearly a downward one. Even with the "massive" buildup in the 1980's, we're talking about 7% at the peak of the Reagan era. Fiscal Year 2010 projects around 5.8%.

Now look at the trends in Healthcare:

(source)

And Pensions:

(source)

These trends are not sustainable. They just aren't.

(Crossposted at Say Anything)

Fixing Airport Security

After hearing about this story this morning, in which a man used a fake Id and an expired boarding pass to get on a plane in New York, I had some questions.

Olajide Oluwaseun Noibi, a Nigerian-born man who was found with the stolen ID and up to 10 old boarding passes containing various names, was arrested Wednesday after attempting to board a flight from Los Angeles to Atlanta; five days after passing through layers of airport security at New York's JFK airport to board a plane with a day-old boarding pass.

My first question was, how is that so many things that are a potential threat to airline safety get through TSA checkpoints? For example, a man can carry four knives through TSA checkpoints. A well-known myth buster, can get a 12-inch saw blade through TSA checkpoints. Bombs can get through TSA checkpoints. Guns can get through TSA checkpoints.

My second question was, how can so many things that obviously aren't a threat to airline security get caught. The bomb link above notes that a water bottle was confiscated. Toddlers are searched. Old ladies are practically strip searched. Somehow, a man with a fake Id and an old boarding pass got through. When asked, all the TSA spokesperson could say was:

Generally speaking, though, the TSA said in its statement, "Every passenger that passes through security checkpoints is subject to many layers of security including thorough physical screening at the checkpoint. TSA's review of this matter indicates that the passenger went through screening.

In other words, "We checked to make sure he didn't have a water bottle. We don't check to make sure your boarding pass is valid." Great.
I'm thinking that the TSA needs to spend more time checking the validity of Ids and boarding passes and less time worrying about water bottles and nail clippers. I understand that Ids can be hard to check since each state's looks different and very few (if any) agents can -- or should be expected -- to be able to spot a fake.

What if a passport were required to fly? U.S. passports now contain microchips, holograms, and other hard-to-fake features. The biggest argument against this is cost. While a typical driver's license is cheap to obtain, passports can cost over $100 and are almost as expensive to renew. What if they were as cheap to obtain as a driver's license?

Wouldn't it be a more effective security measure to be able to ensure that the person getting on the plane is the person who is supposed to be getting on the plane? That wouldn't ensure that no plane ever gets attacked or blown up ever again, but it would be a lot more sensible than the system we have to day, which focuses on water bottles and shoes rather than on who's getting on the plane. Partnered with metal detectors and bomb-sniffing dogs, we'd be a lot safer with a lot less hassle.

(Crossposted at Say Anything)

A Quick Though Exercise: Applying Government Logic on a Micro Level

Listening to Tim Geithner try to explain how raising taxes is necessary in order to preserve the current size of government was enough to give me a headache. It's like watching someone try to explain to you that the Earth is flat. This fictional person isn't lying; he really believes the Earth is flat. No amount of explanation on your part about mercator maps and telescopes and space shuttles taking pictures and nobody having ever fallen off the edge of the Earth into deep space will convince him otherwise. He just answers in a sanguine fashion, "Yes, I understand all that. But back to my point. The Earth, being flat..."

Geithner (and most of the current administration) appear to take the following as givens:

1. The deficit is unsustainable.
2. Government must not be made to shrink.
3. QED, taxes must be raised.

That may seem an oversimplification, but watch the video at the link above. Geithner says,

"If you don't touch revenues and you leave in place the tax cuts for the top 2% that were put in place by President Bush, if you leave those in place, and you're trying to bring our deficits down over time, then you have to do exceptionally deep cuts in benefits for middle class Americans and you have to shrink the overall size of government programs, things like education, to levels we could not accept as a country."

The problem is, there is no level of cuts that don't get attacked with words like "draconian" any time they are proposed.

The list above could be more broadly deployed thusly:

1. There is no problem that government can't fix.
2. There is no problem that can be fixed by shrinking government.
3. QED, taxes must be raised.

Look at Geithner's argument: we can't shrink government enough (in his opinion) to deal with the deficit. So rather than spend less money, we need to keep more of the money that workers earn. How that is supposed to stimulate the economy I will never understand. But let's do a quick thought exercise:

Frank is unemployed. He hasn't held a steady job in over four years. He gets one just long enough to requalify for unemployment benefits then leaves. He has a cell phone with a nice data plan, a computer, a nice car, cable TV, and all sorts of other amenities.

One day he realizes that his unemployment benefits aren't going to cover his rent, cable, cell phone, car payment, and his active lifestyle (he likes to go to bars). Frank has two choices: he can stop going out to bars, get rid of his cable, maybe sell his car for something cheaper, get a cheaper cell phone plan. Or, he can go to the unemployment office and say, "I can't get my spending in line without exceptionally deep cuts in my lifestyle to levels I could not accept as a layabout. You need to give me more money to cover my bills."

Tim Geithner and the current administration are Frank.

(Crossposted at Say Anything)

President Announces Troop Withdrawal from Afghanistan

President Obama has announced his plan for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. In short, the plan is to recall 5,000 troops this summer, another 5,000 by the end of the year, and an additional 20,000 by September of 2012. Leaders on both sides of the elephant/donkey divide are criticizing the plan.

"It has been the hope of many in Congress and across the country that the full drawdown of U.S. forces would happen sooner than the president laid out and we will continue to press for a better outcome," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., leading a chorus of disgruntled Democrats who took the president to task, albeit politely.

Okay, so the Democrats are unhappy that it's taking so long. What's the Republicans' problem with the plan?

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, warned Obama not to sacrifice the gains the U.S. has made in Afghanistan, while Arizona Sen. John McCain said the drawdown was too rash.

"This is not the 'modest' withdrawal that I and others had hoped for and advocated," McCain said in a statement following Obama's prime-time address to the nation Wednesday night.

So the drawdown is too much, too fast. No surprise there.

I think it's far more likely that the reasoning behind the plan has much to do with the timing; the bulk of the troops will be coming home just before the 2012 election. I think the administration is just hoping that it will give them something positive (from its point of view) to use as a talking point in the late stages of the campaign next fall.

(Crossposted at Say Anything)

Why is the Media Trying to Make Me Like Sarah Palin?

I am not a fan of Sarah Palin. Not that I dislike her as a person -- I don't know her. But she is a politician with possible aspirations of being President of the United States. As such, she suffers from the same terrible flaws that our current president did when he was running. Very little actual time spent in the trenches of government (Obama was a first time senator, Palin was governor of Alaska) and a foreign policy portfolio that is emptier than PNC Park when the Pirates are in town. For me, these were critical flaws that made supporting Obama impossible and should be doing the same for Palin. There's just one major difference: the media is spending an inordinate amount of time trying to make me like her.

The media is absolutely obsessed with making Sarah Palin look bad. Slate has a running feature called Palinisms which chronicles the supposedly dumb things she says (nothing in there about 57 states, near as I can tell). The major media outlets run with any story that may cast her in a bad light, uniformly bypassing the "layers of fact checkers" which supposedly gives them a sense of superiority in their war with bloggers. All this negative press would be enough for me to get over her terrible accent and feel sympathy for her. But it goes beyond that: she keeps being shown to be in the right in these hatchet job stories.

First there was the famous "I can see Russia from my house" line. Actually, Tina Fey said that in a Saturday Night Live sketch. What Palin actually said was, "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." Turns out that she was right. It soon became conventional wisdom however that the Fey quote was really Palin's and a cottage industry in trying to make her out to be stupid was born.

The Left blogosphere erupted when Palin, while addressing a crowd in October 2010, stated it was too early to "party like it's 1773." Media types, including Gwen Ifill of PBS, rushed to point and laugh. Of course, it then dawned on people that Palin was addressing a local Tea Party group and well, the Boston Tea Party happened in... I'm sure you can figure it out.

Later, Palin used the term "blood libel" in reaction to another media uproar: the idea that conservative talk show hosts and politicians were responsible for inciting violence after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. Palin herself was mentioned as a perpetrator after it was revealed that she had used campaign materials that contained crosshairs. This was quite the double whammy: not only was Palin an instigator of violence, but she misused a loaded term while defending herself! There were three problems with this: one, Palin was not the first person to employ crosshairs (or the last). Two, there's a lot more evidence that the Left is responsible for violent acts than the Right. Three, it turns out that Palin not only used the term correctly, but that she wasn't the first. Earlier uses didn't seem to stir up much reaction though. It's like there's an agenda out there or something.

The latest controversy was over Palin's comments during a trip to Boston about Paul Revere's famous ride. In them, she spoke the following words:

He who warned, uh, the ... the British that they weren't gonna be taking away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells and, um, by making sure that as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free ... and we were gonna be armed.

First, let me point out that I love how the writer left all the "uhs" and "ums" in there. Quotes are usually cleaned up to make the speech sound more cohesive) unlike a transcript which is supposed to be verbatim. More importantly however, it turns out that once again, Palin knows more about history than the people mocking her.

I'm sure I'm leaving out all sorts of other episodes in this vein, but this is plenty. All these "Palin moments" are having the effect of making me sympathetic to her. On a basic level I don't like it when I see a bully plying his trade. I root for the underdog. I understand on a gut level that the media doesn't like Sarah Palin. I understand even that they fear her running against Obama in 2012. I get it. I think she's unqualified to be President. If she got the Republican nomination, there's a 98% chance that I would leave the Presidential ballot blank. But there used to be a 100% chance back before the media started working so hard to make me like her.

(Crossposted at Say Anything)