Über die Freiheit / de libertate

Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher included Andrew Breitbart and Michael Eric Dyson as the main panelists.

Breitbart, for the most part is a moronic Republican flack. But he’s not entirely wrong as most people seem to indicate. Though the conversation began by talking about the economy Maher segued into race by stating that “Oklahoma is out of ammo because they’re afraid that Obama and his Negro army are going to come and get you.” While racism certainly does exist, this race needn’t be the explanatory factor here. Substitute “liberal” for “negro” and you’d be more accurate. The fact that the Obama administration is planning on, or talking about reinstating the Federal Assault Weapons Ban seems to validate gun owner’s concerns.

————– 

And the person would is fanning the flames of racism? None other than the leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh.

Breitbart takes exception to the characterization of Limbaugh as a racist noting basically, that “there’s nothing in this country that is a worse accusation” than calling someone a racist. And he’s basically correct. Within the United States to be called a racist is very serious, especially in the Age of Obama. So his plea for Maher to explain his accusation is fully valid. The onus should not be on Limbaugh or whoever to prove their not racist. The proof should be in the affirmative.

To offer proof Dyson asserts that Limbaugh “seems to have a problem with black guys who run things” and because “he was jumping on Donovan McNabb for being a ‘black quarterback’ because he was black” and because “he’s now jumping on Obama.” Essentially, Dyson concludes that Limbaugh is “not saying ‘I hate Negros’…what he’s doing is creating an atmosphere of profound vitriol and hatred”. That’s strong stuff, from some pretty week evidence.

On the McNabb issue what Limbaugh said was: “Donovan McNabb is regressing, he’s going backwards–I’m sorry to say this-I don’t think he’s been that good from the get go. I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there was a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of the credit for the performance of the team that he really didn’t deserve.”

Now I think it’s perfectly legitimate to say Limbaugh’s analysis was flawed or even downright wrong. But to say that it’s “vitriol or hatred” is stretching it. Limbaugh was saying that McNabb wasn’t as good as the media was making him out to be. That is, they wanted a successful black quarterback so they were overselling Limbaugh did not say that McNabb was overrated because he was black. While McNabb would later gain recognition (though many still debate it), Limbaugh was parroting the feeling of many sports writers.

Another area that Rush is accused of being a racist is in his comments about Obama, Wright and Ayers. This belief can be seen in examples from the Young Turks (who, for the record, are insufferable little twats) such as “Rush Limbaugh Proves He Is Racist“. Here they argue that Limbaugh is peddling a racist conspiracy combined of Obama, Ayers et al., despite Limbaugh uttering the word or conflating them. Rather Limbaugh argues that there has been a “movement” going on for the last 30 years which was run by progressives in the black community which advocates a lot of liberal ideas. I don’t really think that’s much up for debate. The real issue here is that Limbaugh rejects these ideas. Now does he do that in a boisterous often offensive way? Yes. But not every disagreement is racist.

Other issues abound such as the “Barack the Magic Negro” parody that Limbaugh played on his show. This probably does fall into the realm of racism, though some debate does surround it. The other, more recent, issue is Limbaugh’s open hope that Obama “fails.” That issue, I would argue is a waste of time. It’s not merely a Republican belief and I don’t see what’s so bad about it. Not everyone’s a utilitarian.

Now I’m not saying that Limbaugh isn’t a racist, I’m merely agreeing that accusing someone on national television of being racist is a serious charge and the burden of proof falls on the accuser.

————– 

The problem with Michael Eric Dyson is that you can’t really debate him because he dominates the conversation. While this makes for entertaining television it doesn’t provide the best venue for discussion. In effect he talks like a preacher, which, as chance would have it, he is. He is fond of interrupting and using nonsensical academic-speak which Breitbart justifiably called him out for. Of course Dyson’s retort was that Breitbart was being anti-intellectual, but criticizing postmodernism and its horseshit subfields is a legitimate and noble pursuit.

————–  

The problem with Bill Maher is his hypocrisy. Maher is quick to criticize all forms of religion but he uncritically defends the aspects of government he likes while discounting the conservative government bullshit. Somehow, in Maher and other progressive’s minds, if only we have the right commander (Obama!!!) the government can be run so smoothly unlike that doofus Bush.

A perfect example of this is Maher’s repeated defense of the government, wherein he usually becomes indignant stating that “Yes, I do want the government to run it. They do such a good job.” Case in point was last the March 6th episode of Real Time where Maher mocked those who oppose nationalization of businesses bay saying “you want them to look like the post office?” To which Maher responded, emphatically, “Yeah!-You mean the place that takes a note in my hand in LA on Monday and gives it to my sister in New Jersey on Wednesday for 42 cents? Well let me be the first to say I would be thrilled if America’s healthcare system was anywhere near as functional as the Post Office. The truth is, recent years have made me much more weary of governments doing the opposite-of stepping aside and letting unregulated private enterprise run things it is plainly too greedy to trust….”

What Bill Maher fails to note in his cute little example is that the post office actually sucks. With private enterprise you could have your letter at your sister’s door overnight. The United States Postal Service is an archaic service that is going the way to the postal service. There is absolutely no reason to send a letter anymore when you can send an email. Likewise the cost of sending a simple letter doubled between 1985 and 2009. The price of mail has increased steadily despite increasing efficiency of transportation. Yes, Bill, that’s just how we should run healthcare. After all Sweden and Germany have both privatized their postal systems, and they’re bastions of conservatism, right?

When Bill credits all the great things government does–police, fire, roads bridges–he is largely talking about state and local government. Even limited government types have fewer objections to local government.

————–  

Also Bill tends to treat people as experts who are not really experts. For some reason yesterday’s episode featured Steven Pearlstein who Maher repeatedly refered to as an expert in economics. That man’s a fucking writer and an inconsistent one at that. Could Maher, for once, get a respectable, opinionated market-economist on the show. Steven Landsburg anyone?

————–

Lastly, Sarah Silverman is terrible guest for a show like Real Time. While I generally find her amusing, Real Time has a modicum of seriousness and she doesn’t fit.

Has Obama turned out to be  the moderate that so many believed he would be?

A small plane carrying more than a dozen people splashed down in the frigid waters of the Hudson River off Manhattan on Thursday and survivors were seen standing on the wings awaiting rescue, Reuters witnesses said.It was not clear what caused the plane to go down. It was floating on the surface of the fast-moving river and ferries were seen approaching to rescue passengers. [Reuters, 3:51]

A U.S. Airways airplane has crashed into the Hudson River, CBS 2 has learned. The plane appears to be in one piece and passengers are being evaucated by rescue teams.

Officials tell CBS 2 the airplane is Flight 1549, an Airbus 380 that took off from La Guardia Aiport. There are reports that there were about 60 people on board. [CBS, 3:54, Emphasis added]

For reference, the Airbus 380 is the largest passenger jet in the world. Props to Reuters for getting it more right.

If Obama really did offer and Clinton did accept the position of Secretary of State, then Barack is dead to me.

Seeing as how my prediction for the Canadian election was pretty far off, I figured I’d give the American election a shot.

Obama: 349 - McCain: 189
Obama: 53% - McCain: 46%

They’re pretty much randomly chosen, though delibertately lower than many other predictions.

See here for Daniel Drezner’s prediction post.

The most important challenges and opportunities that confront any of us derive not from our cultural or sexual identities, not from our ethnic or racial conditions, but from our common human condition. I am a husband, a father, a son, a teacher, an intellectual, a citizen. In none of these roles is my race irrelevant, but neither can identity alone provide much guidance for my quest to adequately discharge these responsibilities. The particular features of one’s social condition, the external givens, merely set the stage of one’s life. They do not provide a script. That script must be internally generated; it must be a product of a reflective deliberation about the meaning of this existence for which no political program or ethnic category could ever substitute. [Boston Review]

Richard Epstein explains the Obama he knows.

My Obama number is one. I know him through our association at the University of Chicago Law School and through mutual friends in the neighborhood. We have had one or two serious substantive discussions, and when I sent him e-mails from time to time in the early days of his Senate term, he always answered in a sensible and thoughtful fashion. And yet, for assessing the course of his likely presidency, I don’t know him at all.

It should come as no surprise that the traditionally liberal Hyde Park community is a veritable hotbed of support for Obama. So my manifest reluctance on his candidacy raises more than a single eyebrow: Loyalty for the home team counts.

The odd point is how his many learned and thoughtful supporters couch their endorsement. Almost without exception, they praise the man, not the program. Their claim is that Obama has proved himself to be a consummate politician who understands that the first principle of holding high office is to get reelected. His natural moderation in tone and demeanor, therefore, translate into getting advisers who know their substantive areas, and listening to them before making any rash moves. The dominant trope is that he will be a pragmatic president who will move in small increments toward the center, not in bold steps toward the left.

But is it all true? The short answer is that nobody knows. Virtually everyone who knows him recognizes that he plays his cards close to the vest, so that you can make your case to him without knowing whether it has registered. At this point, my fear is that the change in office will not lead to a change in his liberal voting record, as reinforced by a hyperactive Democratic platform. My great fear is that a landslide victory will give him solid majorities in both Houses of Congress, so that no stalling tactics by Republicans can slow down his legislative victory procession. At that point his innate pragmatism will line up with his strong left-of-center beliefs on issues that have thus far been muted during the campaign.

Put otherwise, Obama’s vague calls for change that “you can believe in” are, to my thinking, wholly retrograde in their implications. At heart, he is an unreconstructed New Dealer who can see, and articulate, both sides on every question–but only as a prelude to championing the old corporatist agenda with a vengeance.

Ilya Somin adds,

The danger of an Obama presidency is not so much the man himself as the political environment he is likely to have around him.

And earlier,

Obviously, nothing is certain. It could be that Obama’s agenda will be derailed by a massive political blunder on his part or by some unexpected event. It could be that the Republicans will somehow come back strong in the 2010 midterm elections. It could be that the economy will recover very quickly, curtailing Obama’s window of opportunity. I’m not certain that a major expansion of government will actually occur if Obama wins. But I do think it’s a strong possibility - certainly a greater than even chance. 

The New Yorker has two excellent pieces now out.

The Insiders: How John McCain came to pick Sarah Palin. 

Palin’s sudden rise to prominence, however, owes more to members of the Washington élite than her rhetoric has suggested. Paulette Simpson, the head of the Alaska Federation of Republican Women, who has known Palin since 2002, said, “From the beginning, she’s been underestimated. She’s very smart. She’s ambitious.” John Bitney, a top policy adviser on Palin’s 2006 gubernatorial campaign, said, “Sarah’s very conscientious about crafting the story of Sarah. She’s all about the hockey mom and Mrs. Palin Goes to Washington—the anti-politician politician.” Bitney is from Wasilla, Palin’s home town, and has known her since junior high school, where they both played in the band. He considers Palin a friend, even though after becoming governor, in December, 2006, she dismissed him. He is now the chief of staff to the speaker of the Alaska House.

The Third Man: Bob Barr’s Libertarian run for the White House.

For the most part, Barr seems to find the dim limelight of the political fringe uplifting. He is fifty-nine but has the stamina of a college freshman—he consumes up to fifteen shots of espresso a day, typically in five-shot installments. He has a graying mustache, and his hair, which was curly when he had more of it, is white and combed flat across his head. He is trim and compact, but can be expansive in his movements. While making an argument, he often furrows his brow, puts one hand in his pocket, and thrusts the other above his shoulder, in the manner of a prosecutor driving home a point. Throughout his career, aides have struggled to soften his image, urging him to get new glasses—his preferred frames are rectangular and black—or swap his jacket and tie for a sweater. For a political advertisement, a media strategist once had Barr filmed surrounded by bubbles. “There is this sweet little shimmer to the picture, and I think it subtly makes you go, ‘Awww,’ ” the strategist told me. “You have to go to troubles like that with Bob.”

Many Canadians lament, ad nauseum, the influence that the United States cultural machine has on Canada. Personally I find this loathsome and ignorant. I don’t deny the American influence, I merely reject the notion that it is having a detritus effect on Canada.

On Saturday, however, I found an amusing (at least to me) example. While at work I called an elderly lady for the political polling I was doing, she informed me she was unable to complete to poll because she was “watching Notre Dame football.” Even in Canada politics is subservient to NCAA football.

Tonight the Canadian debate overlapped with the American debate. First and foremost the Canadian debate, though less elegant, is much, much more entertaining. Indeed the Canadian debate was largely and interrogation of incumbent prime minister, Stephen Harper. I don’t actually think that is completely unreasonable. The moderator was quite good, though there were times where people talked over each other. At least, however, they actually addressed each other and were expected to put forth actual policy ideas.

The American debate, by contrast, was dry and sterile. It was heavily structured and enabled the candidates (read: Palin) to stick to their talking points, while limiting the opportunity for gaffes. As such I concur with those who considered the debate to be boring.  I would argue, though, that this debate was more entertaining than the first Obama/McCain debate. Yet overall neither debate provided any insight into either campaign that was not already evident.

So while the Canadian debate occasionally lowered itself to a more juvenile level, as one would expect with 3 party leaders with no hope of forming a majority in parliament, it did provide some entertaining and saddening quotes:

[Key: JL: Jack Layton, NDP, GD: Gille Duceppe, Bloc Quebecois, EM: Elizabeth May, Green, SD: Stephane Dion, Liberal]

JL: “The Economy is not fine and if you talk to Canadians today, that’s what they’ll tell you. Now either you don’t care, or you’re incompetent. Which is it?”

“I think Mr. Harper what we’re seeing is a cold and callous side here.”

EM: “And that’s…no that’s not just my opinion…that’s the conclusion-again, I hate to tell you, you really should read the OECD report on Canada’s economy ‘cause it gives you some good advice you’ve seen to ignored.”

EM: “So your government which promises billions of dollars for coast guard vessels should build them in Canada to create jobs here. It is false economics to try to save money by building those ships in South Korea rather than giving people jobs here at home.”

JL:”Absolutely. And not only that, but we shouldn’t be shipping raw logs off to other countries. I can’t think of anything they make with wood we couldn’t make here.”

GD: “Do you know what [is] really astonishing…The only party proposing a Buy Canada Act is the Bloc Quebecois. […] It would let Canada…the possibility to help the clothing and textile industries and for all the uniforms that the RCMP or the armed forces. I mean that’d be easy to do. […] I just don’t see why you don’t do it.”

JL: “I thank the Bloc for that imitative and we fully support the buy Canadian approach.”

EM: “A ‘Buy Canada’ policy makes sense. Even our defense department now is contracting out to get cheaper products from China when better quality products for our military are found right here in Canada.”

JL: “You say you’ve got a plan, where is it? Where’s the platform? Under the sweater? You haven’t presented one in this election. I find that shocking. I can’t remember in history when that’s happened.”

SD: “It’s a lie. Why are you saying that to Canadians? That’s not true at all.”

SD: “I think Mr. Harper considers our artists as enemies. When they are our inspiration.”

JL: “If you can’t do your job as leader of the opposition I don’t know what you’re doing running for prime minister.”

GD: “Well, I know I won’t be prime minister and three of you won’t be prime minister neither. Some of you know it but you don’t say it. But very clearly, I know I won’t be prime minister.”

Notice, if you will, that none of these quotes come from Stephen Harper. To my mind, there is little question that Harper comes across the best in this debate. Jack Layton comes off as an ignorant, spiteful mustachioed man. Nevertheless, Harper has serious deficiencies and I’m not voting for anyone.

Over at the econoblog Division of Labour Tim Shaughnessy has a post about “why libertarians don’t gain much ground”. His basic thesis is that libertarians are intolerant atheists. His post is centered around a post by Nicholas Provenzo of The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism’s blog Rule of Reason. Provenzo’s post has caused quite a stir in intarweb circles. Here is the central idea behind the post:

Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin’s decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

On the surface this seems like inflammatory and perhaps harsh, but I’m not sure myself. One blogger called it “pretty vile stuff” another blogger called him an asshole, repeatedly. The hate mail he received and subsequently posted has even more interesting responses: he’s a Nazi; kill yourself; you should have been aborted, etc.

Most of the backlash comes from the second sentence of the paragraph quoted above: “it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome”. If one looks at this quickly, as many seem to have done, it might appear that he is saying that all Down syndrome babies should be aborted. However, I think people might be misunderstanding the word “morality”. Rather than saying that it is only moral to abort, I believe he is saying that if one chooses so, it is moral to abort, as it is in any situation. Now obviously from the remainder of Provenzo’s post it is clear that be believes the better choice is to abort the child, but I don’t believe he is saying all should. It truly is a matter of choice, but Provenzo is attempting to argue for what he believes is the more moral choice.

Of course this is where the debate really takes off. As callous as it might seem, I think Provenzo’s moral preference has the better argument. While I would never attempt to undermine the individual choice of any woman, I think there is a good argument to be made for abortion in the case of severe disabilities in fetuses. I am uncertain of what moral good comes from bringing a child into the world where they will have no quality of life. Indeed, I think Provenzo might be right when he alludes to the fact that bringing a severely disable child into the world might ultimately be selfish and cruel.

I also cannot agree whatsoever with the standard pro-life/Christian response which attempts to say that bringing such life into the world is a beautiful act. To say that the mentally handicapped are “ambassadors of God” is profoundly misguided. To say that they are “ambassadors of God” is to show how evil the god of Christianity must be. If god would allow a such a hardship upon a innocent child just to show god’s supposed love then god is undeserving of any reverence. Likewise as the National Review article shows, Christians appear to use the disabled as pawns in a disgusting game of self-satisfaction. Take these for example (emphasis added):

• “Their presence, in short, elevates all of us.”
• “It wasn’t until my brother John lost his battle with cancer ten years ago that I truly appreciated how much he influenced those around him.”
• “He made us better people”

In each instance Franc shows that the disabled’s presence is designed to improve our lives. I don’t doubt the genuine love and care that was provided, but it seems that there is little concern for the life of the disabled person. If one person’s life is based around the self-satisfaction that another might get out of it, it seems a little troubling to me. If the primary purpose of disabled individuals is to demonstrate god or teach the rest of humanity a lesson and the comfort and happiness is in the background there is a huge problem with priorities.

All that said, I think I agree generally with Provenzo’s point, however, I think he was unnecessarily terse and probably could have crafted his post more carefully as to better deflect the criticism—though in such debates civility, especially on the anti-abortion side, is generally lacking and based primarily on guttural instinct. I also must point out that I, like most people, don’t like abortion, and wish it were unnecessary, however I believe that it is a fundamental freedom that women (and to a small extent, couples) should always have.

As for Shaughnessy’s response, I don’t much understand it. I don’t know any libertarian who is as openly hostile to religion as he claims. Reason magazine, though cosmopolitan and generally irreligious, isn’t as hostile has he states. There is nothing inherently incompatible about religion and libertarianism. It is only incompatible when religion is applied in as though it were a strict guide for political philosophy. Indeed, I think there is a strong case to me made for Jesus being a libertarian in a basic sense, though this supposes a strong Arminian view of theology. That said, religion, and Christianity specifically, are huge obstacles to a more free society. Looking at abortion, same-sex marriage and other dictated morals one can see how Christianity is, or at least has been portrayed as, the antithesis of libertarianism. The reason that many libertarians are atheists is because libertarianism puts a huge emphasis on human reason, while religion attempts to directly undermine the abilities of humanity.

More specifically, I don’t know how Shaughnessy can think that his argument for a libertarian stance on abortion has much merit. Invoking the non-aggression axiom in the case of a zygote is patently absurd. He states that he doesn’t “see how, after the two haploids become a diploid, this being is anything but human, and thus deserving of the rights any other human has.” I’m sorry, but I honestly don’t understand how one can think that a microscopic ball of cells can logically have the same rights as a rational human being. (I’ll admit this does provide a problem in respect to babies which are not “rational”, however, I think that the birthing process IS important in this respect.) If all things that are potential human beings—a zygote—are worthy of protection, shouldn’t we also include the sperm and egg within the realm of protection?

I don’t know if calling an abortion moral is necessary, but surely forcing a woman to carry to term an unwanted child is immoral. The abortion itself might not be moral (depending on one’s definition of morality) but having the choice to do so certainly is moral and any prevention of this choice is rightfully condemned.

Now I’ll agree with Shaughnessy that Provenzo’s post might not convince “an ideological fence-sitter”, but I don’t think that such fence-sitters really exist. However, in my former life as a fundamentalist Christian I completely rejected abortion and now such posts appeal to me, at least in an intellectually stimulating way. So perhaps posts will help abortion foes to at least reexamine the basis of their beliefs.

I think the strange comment about potheads is also revealing. First off, what’s wrong with potheads wanting to get their drugs cheaper? Additionally, how is calling one’s self a libertarian going to reduce the cost of marijuana? If potheads want to get cheaper drugs they’d be better off attempting to influence members of the Democratic Party. Putting a Bob Barr sign on your lawn isn’t going to accomplish anything. So when Shaughnessy can point out potheads who are calling themselves libertarians for this sole reason, I’d like to see it. Until then, he should work on stopping sounding like a moralist.

The ultimate point of this post seems to be that until the Randians stop insulting is religious faith he will “continue to be slightly embarrassed [sic] to admit my libertarian leanings.” First off, I think “leanings” is accurate since, from at least what he presents in this post, he seems more like a market-oriented conservative, rather than a libertarian. (But I’d have to see his position on same-sex marriage and other cultural issues to make a better judgment of his ‘libertarian purity’.) Secondly, I think it’s odd to be embarrassed to call yourself libertarian because some elements within the ‘movement’ disagree with you. Using this logic he should be embarrassed to call himself a member of Louisiana State University-Shreveport since presumably there are some ultra-leftists on campus or perhaps he should embarrassed to be an American since there undoubtedly some douche bags to be found within the population.

I suppose he’d argue that he’s merely looking for honesty and commenting thusly. However it seems odd that he’s focusing on liberal talking points and not really addressing any falsehoods on the side of conservatives.

First he criticized Obama’s community organizing. Then defended Palin against being a creationist. Then he defended Palin’s “message” from God statement. Then he criticized Obama’s tax plan, twice. Then he defended religion and by association Palin’s evangelicalism. And most recently he defended McCain’s kindergarten sex-ed ad.

I see only two instances where he has spent any time criticizing McCain/Palin. Once on her general false stance on earmarks, which he promptly defended as “what one would expect of a governor” and that “her general style suggests the sort of politician who would be willing to fight, perhaps able to win, against a variety of entrenched interest groups.” Second he uncritically linked the open letter that made the rounds.

Now obviously Friedman is allowed to blog what he wants. Hell, he might even be correct in all of his criticisms, but I wonder why he has expended so much effort on one side of the issue. As a radical libertarian I would assume he finds little to like in either campaign, yet he seems to be focused more negatively on one side. Am I missing something?

I’d also like to focus on his most recent defense of what he calls ‘kiddie sex ed’. Friedman’s argument is basically this: the bill Obama voted for literally says “comprehensive sex education” and that ”K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”

Friedman does point out that “It’s true that the bill also says all instruction is to be age appropriate. Precisely how one provides age appropriate instruction in the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV to kindergartners has not, so far as I know, been explained by either the Obama campaign or anyone else.” Of course, an anonymous commenter promptly comes up with a logical and reasonable response:

Okay. That one is easy (you must not have experience with five year olds). “Children, when someone else is bleeding, don’t lick their blood, use it as finger paint, or touch the blood. You can get sick from touching other people’s blood sometimes.”

The commenter is wrong, Friedman does have experience with children–he has two. Of course they’re long past five, but nevertheless. I see absolutely nothing wrong with introducing such education at kindergarten. Obviously a long winded explanation of HIV is not going to be useful but, keeping in mind the “instruction is to be age appropriate” part that Friedman blithely dismisses, does not mean we can’t introduce public health concepts to young children.

Another commenter at Friedman’s blog points out another issue. Looking at the bill online shows the changes between the old and new bill that was voted upon. The commenter states: ”If this means what it seems to mean, then to vote for the bill is nothing more or less than to vote for the changes.”

If you look further down the bill, rather than merely skimming the top, you can see where the real changes happened. Specifically if you look at section 4 (and two lines up), lines 1-19 you can see exactly what Obama and his defenders are referring to:

33        Course  material  and  instruction  shall
34        teach  pupils  to  not  make unwanted physical and verbal

                            -4-      LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
1        sexual advances and how to  say  no  to  unwanted  sexual
2        advances  and  shall  include  information  about verbal,
3        physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without
4        limitation nonconsensual sexual  advances,  nonconsensual
5        physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The
6        course  material and instruction shall contain methods of
7        preventing sexual assault by an  acquaintance,  including
8        exercising  good  judgment  and  avoiding  behavior  that
9        impairs   one’s   judgment.   The   course  material  and
10        instruction shall emphasize personal  accountability  and
11        respect  for others and Pupils shall be taught that it is
12        wrong to take advantage of or to exploit another  person.
13        The  material  and instruction shall also encourage youth
14        to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and
15        instruction shall inform pupils of  the  potential  legal
16        consequences   of  sexual  assault  by  an  acquaintance.
17        Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful
18        to touch an intimate part of another person as  specified
19        in the Criminal Code of 1961.

Now obviously here you are going to run into the ‘age appropriate’ issue again, but there is no reason that a five year old can’t be taught about appropriate and inappropriate touching in a useful manner.

Thus, I think Friedman is completely and utterly wrong in defending the ad even if he says “I doubt Obama is in favor of explicit sex-ed for small children, which is what the McCain ad implies. But he did vote for the bill, and so is in a poor position to label a truthful description of what was in it as a lie.”

The problem, Dr. Friedman, is that it’s not a “truthful description”. It’s entirely possible to have a disgusting and wrong ad while quoting the wording accurately. If I take a random quote from the Old Testament describing god’s vengeance it might be an accurate ‘description’ but still a lie in regards to the overall message of the Bible. So no, the reporters have it right: the McCain ad is a lie.

I think commenter Joe best sums up Friedman’s recent psychology: “This contrarian game sometimes leads you off into the weeds.”

A few weeks back on August 25th Radly Balko wrote his FOX News column about underage drinking and the Amethyst Initiative, a collection of university administrators who advocate lowering the legal drinking age.

Just today, John Birch Society writer John Fisher attempted to refute Balko’s point. He had this to say:

Balko doesn’t know his facts. Binge drinking is a problem in other countries. In Britain where youth can drink alcohol with their meals in pubs at 16 years old, 53,844 people under 25 were admitted to English hospitals in the last year due to alcohol-related trouble. In Canada where the drinking age is 18 or 19 depending on the province, the recent death of a 20-year-old man serves as a reminder to youth of the dangers of binge drinking.

Huh? You can’t argue against someone for not knowing their facts, then present only two ‘facts’ yourself. First, that 53,844 persons under 25 were admitted to hospital is contextless? Now obviously the optimal number for this issue is zero, but how are we supposed to know whether the British number is high or low when compared internationally? In proportion to the population is that a large number? How many of those admitted where between 21-25?

Second, how on earth does one recent death in all of Canada prove anything? No one–Balko nor the Amethyst Initiative–is arguing that lowering the drinking age to 18 is going to magically stop all binge drinking. They’re arguing that a lower age, combined with responsible alcohol consumption taught by parents and educators is going to reduce the ‘forbidden fruit’ aspect.

For Fisher to argue that “Past history and the experience of other countries shows that lowering the drinking age won’t increase responsible drinking – it just increases the amount of drinking” is quite novel, especially considering that he doesn’t provide data to support such an assertion. However, Will Wilkison is here to back him up:

There’s certainly evidence that if we got rid of age limits, teens would drink more. But drinking more is a drinking problem only in the minds of neoprohibitionists. In a 2003 survey 22% of American tenth graders said they’d had five or more consecutive drinks in the last 30 days. But in Denmark, where there’s no legal minimum to drink (though you have to be 18 to buy), 60% of 15- and 16-year-olds said they’d thrown back five or more in a row within the last couple of fortnights. Maybe you think that’s too much. But the European champion of heavy teen drinking ranks as the world’s happiest country and scores third in the United Nation’s 2007 ranking of child welfare. In the UN listing the U.S. came in 20th out of 21 wealthy countries.

Wilkinson nails it. What people like Fisher are really arguing for is less drinking, completely ignoring that that inself isn’t the issue. As Wilkinson concludes,

In an America without a minimum drinking age, we would shift our focus from demon rum and car crash statistics to creating an environment where parents are expected to supervise their children and alcohol would become for teens just another thing, like bicycles or swimming pools, that can either make your day or take your life.

The American presidential race is officially a farce. John McCain is a spineless weasel and the right-wing needs to be bitch slapped.

My personal ideology is hard-core libertarian that is to say, a radical individualist. (Though David Friedman and Will Wilkinson have convinced me to question the Rothbardian deontological libertarianism and look more closely at the consequentialist approach, though I am too much of a utopian and don’t think I’ve come to the point of joining the “libertarian bargainer” position quite yet.) As Reason magazine sums it up aptly, I believe in Free Minds and Free Markets.

With this in mind, I have no particular love for either major American political party, both are ready and willing to increase and size and scope of government at a moment’s notice. Overall the Republicans are eager to control your life socially: marriage, homosexuality and the like. The Democrats on the other hand, are interested in controlling your economic lives through increased taxation and harmful regulation. Even with this distinction it’s not entirely accurate since both parties continue to regulate both aspects of modern life.

Nevertheless, I think that at this point with all of the lies and distortion that are being pumped out by the McCain campaign, especially about Sarah Palin, it’s time to abandon the Republican Titanic.

With the selection of Sarah Palin McCain’s true nature comes out as does the vile rhetoric of conservatives, especially the religious right. I actually don’t think Palin, when looked at in the abstract, is that bad a pick for vice president. As Radley Balko has said, “Palin is about the best libertarians could hope for from McCain.” I do like the idea that Palin is “outside the Beltway” and that she did take on some corruption. Additionally, Sarah Palin appears to be in support of jury nullification. She’s also basically likeable ignoring her policies (or lack thereof).

 That said, the last two weeks have done more than enough for me to consider her and McCain dishonest and unworthy of support:

1. Reformer/Earmarks: That fact the campaign continues to maintain that she opposed the famous Bridge to Nowhere, despite the fact that she initially supported it only to opposite as political opinion changed, but then took the money anyway.
2. Community Organizing: Rudy Giuliani and Palin’s childish and disgusting mocking of Obama’s three years as a community organizer. Though I agree with Michael Steele on Real Time with Bill Maher that community organizing certainly has a political aspect to it, such as convincing people to vote for liberal causes, that’s not the entire story. The Catholic (!!) organization Obama worked with also assisted with job training and tutoring. Conservatives argue for grassroots, individual help and mocking it shows how shallow the Republicans are.
3. Experience: Palin has none. “Executive” experience is not merely gained by being a governor. Being a mother doesn’t give you extra power. If the McCain campaign hadn’t made such a huge deal out of Obama’s supposed lack of experience, it wouldn’t be a big deal.
4. Book Banning: She asked the librarian “”how she could go about banning books”. Though it appears that no books were ever actually banned, I don’t for a second believe the conservatives talking points which argue she was just asking for ‘information purposes’.
5. Foreign Policy: That people, and McCain himself, would argue that living next to Russia gives Palin foreign policy experience is ludicrous and insulting. Hell I visited Berlin once, I supposed I’m qualified enough to become ambassador to Germany!
6. The Bush Doctrine: Palin’s response to ABC’s Gibson is absolutely ridiculous. Yet I’ve seen two vigorous defenses of Palin’s response. One by phrase originator Charles Krauthammer and one by the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund on Real Time with Bill Maher. Both argue that Palin is ok not to know because the Bush Doctrine has many meanings and has evolved. I don’t deny that the Bush Doctrine is somewhat more complex in totality, as Wikipedia shows. However, if you actually watch the interview, you can clearly see that this is not simply a matter of disputing that “[t]here is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine”. And no Dr. Krauthammer, “In what respect, Charlie” is in no way a “quite sensibl[e response] to a question that is ambiguous.” The video shows a textbook attempt to avoid the question. The way she pauses and says “In what respect, Charlie” is a definite attempt at getting it explained to her. Likewise, she continued afterwards with some generic response about fighting terrorists but admitting mistakes. That is all clearly an attempt to avoid a question she did not know. It’s something I would do in a seminar class when I don’t know the answer. If, as Krauthammer and Fund argue, there are various meanings and Palin just didn’t know to which one Gibson was referring, then it still doesn’t work because she didn’t respond with “which part of the bush doctrine” but rather she rambled on generically exposing her glaring lack of knowledge. Indeed Foreign Policy magazine’s Blake Hounshell’s says in her rambling Palin described pre-Bush Doctrine policy.
7. Sex Education: This perhaps the best example of the McCain campaign’s outright lies and distortion. To take one policy educating children about sexual predators (despite Penn and Teller’s argument that ‘stranger danger’ is Bullshit!) and twisting that into ‘teaching 5 year olds about sex’ is completely abhorrent.
8. Religion: I’m tired of the religious right and their intolerance. The fact the McCain is pretending to be a right-wing Christian shows his complete lack of backbone. I am willing to accept that Palin did not prescribe creationism to be taught in the schools. I also agree that her “mission from God” statement has been misinterpreted . However, she is a member of a pentecostal Assembly of God church which proscribes to the ridiculous theology and instills a belief in creationism and a view that that God’s will is present in all of life, including war. Though I’ve yet to read any truly damning quotes, I don’t doubt for a second that she believes both contested propositions. As for the charge of anti-semitism, I’m not sure. I certainly don’t like the Jews for Jesus movement, but I’m not sure how bad it is. David Berstein has described the sermon at Palin’s church as “midly offensive” and points to Palin’s interactions with the Jewish community in Wasilla. To be fair I should include Ilya Somin’s argument that creationism as compared with other Christian beliefs (eg. virgin birth, the great flood, ressurection) is not that different. All are false, but we focus too much on creationism. Kerry Howley, interestingly, doesn’t care which “fairy tale ought to disqualify Palin” because she “assumed her professed belief system was strategic rather than sincere, but perhaps only male political figures are allowed to operate on more than one level.” Now, obviously it’s impossible to get inside Palin’s mind, but I think this is an unfounded feministic snark. McCain’s “faith” is contrived, no question. Obama’s public faith is most likely highly motivated by politics. But Palin’s definitely seems sincere. To counter the feminist critique I’d say that Nancy Pelosi’s Catholicism is strategic and she’s “allowed to operate on more than one level.”
9. Abortion. I’m most certainly pro-choice, though like 99.9% of people I don’t like abortion. That she is against abortion in cases involving rape and incest is ridiculous and offensive. Likewise McCain arguing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned shows how much he’s sold his soul to…the Christians.
10. Sexism and Hypocrisy. As Balko said, “When did the right become a bunch of politically correct whiners….Either Sarah Palin is a pit-bull, or she’s a fragile woman with delicate sensibilities whom we’ll all need to tiptoe around for the next four years. She can’t be both.” Conservatives have been complaining for the last 4 decades about liberal political correctness and cries of ‘sexism’, yet as soon as it’s politically convenient they hop on the bandwagon. For years Dobson has repeatedly stated that mothers should stay at home or else their children will be ruined. Yet he gleefully supported Palin: “Sen. McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is an outstanding choice that should be extremely reassuring to the conservative base of his party.” Despite having a 5 month old baby and a young child. Likewise Phyllis Schlafly long argued that a woman’s primary role is as mother but she also gleefully accepted Palin.

Obama, by far, is the superior candidate, especially intellectually, which is the most important thing to me. (Interestingly Canada’s election is being headed by three former academics.) There is, in my mind, only one conflict of interest. As Kevin Grier over at KPC has been hammering (here , here, and here) on about, gridlock is good for government. On the other hand, Alex Tabarrok makes a good case:

First, war. War is the antithesis of the libertarian philosophy of consent, voluntarism and trade.

I have no doubt that if Obama is elected there will be significant changes in the United States. Combine a Democratic White House with the Senate and House and there is bound to be a left-ward shift in economic policy-none of which will be in itself beneficial. Regardless I think getting out of Iraq and avoiding confrontation with Iran and Russia is important.

Having lived in Canada my whole life, I can say that a larger government does not mean the end of the world. I would argue that Canadians are nearly as free as Americans. Opening a business is simple, indeed according to the Heritage Foundation it takes only three days to start a business, compared to the United State’s six days. Additionally Canada ranks 7th in economic freedom by their rankings and the Fraser Institute ranks it 5th, tied with the United States. The two main shortfalls of Canada are a less rigidly enforced freedom of speech, though the constitution includes “freedom of expression” it lacks the clout of the First Amendment. Secondly, Canada’s health system fails many citizens despite being universal and tax funded.

Essentially, if the United States was to become somewhat more like Canada, it wouldn’t bother me that much. This is effectively what I see Barack Obama doing if elected. I see a shift towards universal healthcare (though more likely through tax funded health insurance rather than direct government run healthcare as in Canada and elsewhere) and an acceptance of homosexual marriage. I believe that Barack Obama, despite publically claiming otherwise, believes that homosexuals should have the right to marry, not just have civil unions.

But let’s be clear: I would much rather see a freer economy (less regulation, lower taxes, the end of corporate socialism, abolishing the death tax), the end to unjust wars and torture (Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and perhaps even Afghanistan) and expanded personal freedom (marriage, sex and the drug-war). But I’m also realistic (cynical?) enough to realize that I’m not possibly going to get what I want. Thus I think taking a utilitarian and individualist approach requires me to give greater clout to the human death and destruction that the war in Iraq has caused and accept more economic regulation as a trade off.

I pray to Darwin that Obama wins and lives up to expectations.

Does the United States really want a vice-president whose child is so blatantly unpatriotic? She clearly hates America.

(Photo via Yahoo)

“I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing,” said the Rev. John Hagee, John McCain’s ex-BFF, when asked about Hurricane Katrina, which struck New Orleans just before a “massive homosexual rally,” aka an annual street party called “Southern Decadence,” was supposed to take place in the French Quarter. “I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.”

And God got his way: By drowning little old ladies in attics in the Ninth Ward, God prevented that massive gay rally—for one year.

So how does a douchebag like Hagee explain away the tragedy in Iowa last week? A tornado struck a Boy Scout camp, killing four and injuring scores more, and the Scouts are famously antigay and antiatheist. Well, we need only to consult the same interview with Rev. Hagee to learn the answer: While all natural phenomena represent God’s “permissible will,” says Hagee, “it is wrong to say that every natural disaster is the result of sin… No man on Earth knows the mind of God.”

See how that works? Not every natural disaster is the result of sin, you see, because sometimes natural disasters happen to us, not just to them, and when they happen to us, well, the Lord sure moves in mysterious ways, and no man on Earth knows the mind of God. But let a natural disaster strike San Francisco this week, next week, or ever again, and Rev. Hagee will be able to read the mind of God like it was a large-print edition of Highlights for Children. [Savage Love]