2.12.2006
The right against governments to freedom of expression
What is it about the fundamental right to free expression that troubles the world so? There are seldom reasons to qualify the right, except in cases of its criminal abuse (yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no blaze) or very narrow cases of expediency in a time of war (I leave the reader to imagine these examples). Otherwise, I see little to no reason to qualify the right. J.S. Mill thought of it as the most important of freedoms in a liberal democracy, and its supporters of all political stripes have shielded it quite strongly throughout American history (much moreso than European governments, I must say). The right is a near-absolute, despotic and negative claim against government: here thou shalt not pass, here thou shalt not regulate.
But the broad Muslim world has, for the most part, rejected this freedom for its people, preferring instead an autocratic, government-run monopoly on speech and debate. This is the same system that Western Europe went to great pains to extinguish over the centuries running from the English Bill of Rights to the powerful protection of free expression by even the most conservative American Supreme Court Justices (witness Justice Scalia's defense of flag-burning as protected political "speech" in a famous case). On analysis, this country above all others has protected this right fiercely, and that is something to be very proud of...
...which is all the more reason that the Bush Administration's response to the Danish cartoon scandal is so lame. They are appeasing the radical Islamists whose agenda is to link in Western minds their ressentiment and political rhetoric with something that ought to be championed. The Islamists have a very real and articulated goal of convincing the nation with the strongest tradition of speech protection to make an exception for their intolerant anti-liberal views. And they have largely succeeded.
Volokh Conspiracy has a photo of a woman, purportedly from Kenya, protesting the protection of freedom of expression as "Western terrorism." I'm sad to say that this blatantly Orwellian phenomena is eerily similar to the postmodern attempt to redefine all actions as ideological. "Freedom of speech" becomes, in this Continental philosophical analysis, merely clever words for Western imperialism. And so Orwell is spun onto his head... he lies upside down, gasping for air, aghast at what the intellectual class has done. "Tolerance" has now become absolute, and we are asked to tolerate the intolerant. But of course this absolute brand of tolerance is one no liberal democrat would ever fight for -- not one committed to principle, at least.
But the broad Muslim world has, for the most part, rejected this freedom for its people, preferring instead an autocratic, government-run monopoly on speech and debate. This is the same system that Western Europe went to great pains to extinguish over the centuries running from the English Bill of Rights to the powerful protection of free expression by even the most conservative American Supreme Court Justices (witness Justice Scalia's defense of flag-burning as protected political "speech" in a famous case). On analysis, this country above all others has protected this right fiercely, and that is something to be very proud of...
...which is all the more reason that the Bush Administration's response to the Danish cartoon scandal is so lame. They are appeasing the radical Islamists whose agenda is to link in Western minds their ressentiment and political rhetoric with something that ought to be championed. The Islamists have a very real and articulated goal of convincing the nation with the strongest tradition of speech protection to make an exception for their intolerant anti-liberal views. And they have largely succeeded.
Volokh Conspiracy has a photo of a woman, purportedly from Kenya, protesting the protection of freedom of expression as "Western terrorism." I'm sad to say that this blatantly Orwellian phenomena is eerily similar to the postmodern attempt to redefine all actions as ideological. "Freedom of speech" becomes, in this Continental philosophical analysis, merely clever words for Western imperialism. And so Orwell is spun onto his head... he lies upside down, gasping for air, aghast at what the intellectual class has done. "Tolerance" has now become absolute, and we are asked to tolerate the intolerant. But of course this absolute brand of tolerance is one no liberal democrat would ever fight for -- not one committed to principle, at least.
2.09.2006
Military Spending, The U.S. Budget
There's a good explanation of some of the stupid things our current government is spending money on in an article by Fred Kaplan over at Slate, entitled Defense Budget 101 - How much are we really spending?.
I am not one of the leftist "deficits don't matter" types who thinks we should just slash the defense budget to $50 billion from $583 billion (where it stands now when you include all the Iraq and Afghanistan spending). I would however, like to see it trimmed to $200 billion and get rid of a ton of weapons programs that are targeted at nonexistent foes. Kaplan's article does a great job discussing this phenomenon.
What to do with the $383 billion saved? This money would take a big chunk out of the deficit, especially going into the future. But not enough.
The Intractable Budget Deficit
Because voters are mainly foolish and believe fancy, expensive ad campaigns that basically lie to them and oversimplify complicated policy discussions, my hope for Americans, on their own terms, to cut the deficit into the future... well, it's slim at best. The only hope I have is that some members of Congress who vote on principle at least half the time (there are actually a number of them) will eventually restrain two huge areas of spending:
1) Entitlement spending (set to go through the roof in a decade)
2) Military spending (often far too high for our uses)
Obviously we cannot just slash both right away. We have to "finish" the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns first, rather than leaving those regions to be boiled into authoritarian regimes (again). As long as we're promoting liberal democracies (those words subsume "capitalist" as well) we may as well make sure they actually work out.
Entitlement spending is tricky. While social democrats think it is the most important goal of government in the twenty-first century, I think it's safe to say that we cannot afford much of their "prescriptions" for success any time soon. The costs of transitioning to a more ambitious universal coverage system in healthcare are enormous, no matter what you think of the post-transition costs of maintaining it (which might be lower than our current system due to scale efficiencies, price controls, etc). Furthermore, social security is in a bad, bad way now, no matter how many articles Paul Krugman writes rejecting its incipient demise. Part of the problem is political, and part of the problem is historical. Since the "trust fund" has been raided ever since it began, there is basically no money in it, only government IOUs from one branch to another (legislative --> executive agency). Furthermore, while the system is sustainable until 2038 or something by its own estimates, the word "sustainable" hides some pretty draconian tax measures that will be required to sustain it. That is, we'll see massive income tax increases, and slashes in other areas of the budget (transportation, education, etc).
What's wrong with this picture? Economic growth, ceteris paribus, isn't going to happen at levels we need it to if we tax the hell out of everyone. When I say "ceteris paribus" I mean without more; I mean that we have had growth at other times in history while having huge taxes but that was short-lived and due to other extraneous factors. The fact is, if we jack up taxes, capital will leave out country over time -- that's the "problem" of a globalized economy. Tax rates drive away investment -- hence the Irish miracle of the 1990s (where they slashes income taxes across the board and experienced phenomenal growth). Why do we need economic growth? Without growth, or in the face of economic decline, NO ONE will be able to pay into social security at levels high enough to pay out the benefits we've "guaranteed" baby boomer seniors. We are implicitly relying on continuous economic growth to fund the wealth transfer that is social security!
So we cannot severely raise taxes to fund SSI -- or even go further to fund a universal healthcare transition, and we're also "starving the beast" on all of our social policy goals by deficit spending on the military. What to do?
That's tough. My instinct right now is to say: jack up taxes now on income, investment income, and eliminate favorable tax benefits and subsidies for a whole host of industries and groups of people; gradually cut all new weapons programs unless they can be shown to be important for our missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and as "world cop"; get out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP as they move to more stable governmental systems; slash defense spending generally by $100s of billions; lower the promises social security benefits by means-testing more aggressively and raising retirement age to 70 or 73; slash education spending and allow states and local governments to fund their damn schools and choose their curriculums.
Any dissent on those ideas? There oughtta be...
I am not one of the leftist "deficits don't matter" types who thinks we should just slash the defense budget to $50 billion from $583 billion (where it stands now when you include all the Iraq and Afghanistan spending). I would however, like to see it trimmed to $200 billion and get rid of a ton of weapons programs that are targeted at nonexistent foes. Kaplan's article does a great job discussing this phenomenon.
What to do with the $383 billion saved? This money would take a big chunk out of the deficit, especially going into the future. But not enough.
The Intractable Budget Deficit
Because voters are mainly foolish and believe fancy, expensive ad campaigns that basically lie to them and oversimplify complicated policy discussions, my hope for Americans, on their own terms, to cut the deficit into the future... well, it's slim at best. The only hope I have is that some members of Congress who vote on principle at least half the time (there are actually a number of them) will eventually restrain two huge areas of spending:
1) Entitlement spending (set to go through the roof in a decade)
2) Military spending (often far too high for our uses)
Obviously we cannot just slash both right away. We have to "finish" the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns first, rather than leaving those regions to be boiled into authoritarian regimes (again). As long as we're promoting liberal democracies (those words subsume "capitalist" as well) we may as well make sure they actually work out.
Entitlement spending is tricky. While social democrats think it is the most important goal of government in the twenty-first century, I think it's safe to say that we cannot afford much of their "prescriptions" for success any time soon. The costs of transitioning to a more ambitious universal coverage system in healthcare are enormous, no matter what you think of the post-transition costs of maintaining it (which might be lower than our current system due to scale efficiencies, price controls, etc). Furthermore, social security is in a bad, bad way now, no matter how many articles Paul Krugman writes rejecting its incipient demise. Part of the problem is political, and part of the problem is historical. Since the "trust fund" has been raided ever since it began, there is basically no money in it, only government IOUs from one branch to another (legislative --> executive agency). Furthermore, while the system is sustainable until 2038 or something by its own estimates, the word "sustainable" hides some pretty draconian tax measures that will be required to sustain it. That is, we'll see massive income tax increases, and slashes in other areas of the budget (transportation, education, etc).
What's wrong with this picture? Economic growth, ceteris paribus, isn't going to happen at levels we need it to if we tax the hell out of everyone. When I say "ceteris paribus" I mean without more; I mean that we have had growth at other times in history while having huge taxes but that was short-lived and due to other extraneous factors. The fact is, if we jack up taxes, capital will leave out country over time -- that's the "problem" of a globalized economy. Tax rates drive away investment -- hence the Irish miracle of the 1990s (where they slashes income taxes across the board and experienced phenomenal growth). Why do we need economic growth? Without growth, or in the face of economic decline, NO ONE will be able to pay into social security at levels high enough to pay out the benefits we've "guaranteed" baby boomer seniors. We are implicitly relying on continuous economic growth to fund the wealth transfer that is social security!
So we cannot severely raise taxes to fund SSI -- or even go further to fund a universal healthcare transition, and we're also "starving the beast" on all of our social policy goals by deficit spending on the military. What to do?
That's tough. My instinct right now is to say: jack up taxes now on income, investment income, and eliminate favorable tax benefits and subsidies for a whole host of industries and groups of people; gradually cut all new weapons programs unless they can be shown to be important for our missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and as "world cop"; get out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP as they move to more stable governmental systems; slash defense spending generally by $100s of billions; lower the promises social security benefits by means-testing more aggressively and raising retirement age to 70 or 73; slash education spending and allow states and local governments to fund their damn schools and choose their curriculums.
Any dissent on those ideas? There oughtta be...
2.08.2006
CNN.com - Bush urges end to cartoon violence - Feb 8, 2006
CNN's headlines are frequently atrocious -- and hilarious. They can never seem to figure out how to write one...
For example, consider the following story, headlined, "Bush urges end to cartoon violence." And here I thought Bugs Bunny was the least of our problems...
CNN.com - Bush urges end to cartoon violence - Feb 8, 2006
For example, consider the following story, headlined, "Bush urges end to cartoon violence." And here I thought Bugs Bunny was the least of our problems...
CNN.com - Bush urges end to cartoon violence - Feb 8, 2006
Cartoon Debate - The case for mocking religion. By Christopher Hitchens
Cartoon Debate - The case for mocking religion. By Christopher Hitchens
Indeed. I almost completely agree with Hitchens in teh above article. Being free means being free to be offended by others' publications and speech.
Indeed. I almost completely agree with Hitchens in teh above article. Being free means being free to be offended by others' publications and speech.
2.03.2006
Napalm in the Morning Speech
I love Robert Duvall's speech in Apocalypse Now, as Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore.
Kilgore: You smell that? Do you smell that?... Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...
[walks off unhappily]
