Author ArchiveBill Quick over at DailyPundit has been on fire lately. He’s pretty much nailed my own current views on both George W. Bush and the Iraqi Campaign. Read ‘em both. Lastango’s posts on the collapsing housing bubble and its consequences are also worth reading, e.g. here. My own ARM doesn’t start floating for another 4 years, I have a reasonable equity cushion in my home, and I’m otherwise debt-free. This sort of thing still concerns me. I pity the folks who are in debt up to their ears, because it’s all going to come crashing down. (And, courtesy of Congress, declaring bankruptcy is a lot harder than once it was.) No, not me, you nitwits. (But thanks for the compliment.) B-) Anne and I went to see SUPERMAN RETURNS earlier in the week. Overall, a decent effort — certainly better than the last two Superman films, although that isn’t too high a bar to clear. I’m pleased to be able to relegate SUPERMAN III and SUPERMAN IV to the trashbin of ‘movie sequels that never existed’, tucked neatly behind HIGHLANDER 2. Bryan Singer knows his source material, both from earlier films (”Do you know what my father used to say to me?”) and from the comics (”These pictures are iconic.”). (Am I correct in thinking that those two photos are reproductions of famous panels from Superman #1? I’m pretty sure I recognized the shot of Superman lifting the tail end of the car. But I digress…) Starting with the opening credits, and carrying through to the final shot, this movie sends the message that the Superman movie franchise has ‘come home’, back on track. That said, the movie does have some flaws. Other commentors have made a big deal out of Perry White’s “Truth, Justice… all that stuff” line, wondering what happened to the American Way, but I find it difficult to get lathered up about that. The people who think this is a sign of Hollywood corrupting the ultimate American hero need to go pick up a copy of “Superman: Red Son”. It’ll either give them a sense of perspective or make their heads explode. I thought the film suffered somewhat from pacing issues, being too slow at times and too quick at others. Lex Luthor’s evil plan didn’t make much sense to me either — surely there would be better ways to make a quick buck using Kryptonian technology than building a new and unappetizing mini-continent in the Atlantic Ocean? This guy is supposed to be a genius, and this is the best he can come up with? I’m neither impressed nor convinced. Perhaps it’s time for the Superman franchise to move on to another villain. Superman has plenty, and Luthor is starting to (literally) repeat himself. How about Brainiac? John Ottman’s score also left something to be desired; the only memorable parts were those that reused parts of John Williams’ original theme. Wisely, Ottman reused it a lot, but still… There’s one other gaping plot hole that bugs me, but since it’s a honking great spoiler I’ll push it into the extended entry. Net conclusion: it’s definitely worth the nine bucks for admission, assuming you like superhero films. This isn’t a top-flight example of the genre, but it’s a cut above generic efforts like FANTASTIC FOUR and several cuts above the bottom-feeders like CATWOMAN. I look forward to the next installment. Like Jane Galt and a lot of others on the right side of the political spectrum, I’m not particularly happy with the way the Bush administration and the GOP have been acting of late. So, does that make me liberal? I doubt it, but let’s check. Atrios, via Kevin Drum, has a list of items that the port side of the blogosphere apparently agrees would be good policy. Let’s see how I stack up. Undo the bankruptcy bill enacted by this administration I’m hardly an expert on bankruptcy law, so I don’t have a strong opinion on this one way or the other. I have the impression that the lending industry pushed for the new law pretty hard, but that doesn’t automatically make it rent-seeking. (That’s the way to bet, though.) I’d have to know the details of what the law would be replaced with. This isn’t an issue that would lead me to vote for or against a given candidate, so I guess it’s a wash as far as I’m concerned. Repeal the estate tax repeal No. The basic argument in support of taxing people is that it pays for the government services they consume. Once I’m dead, I’m not consuming any more services, so why should I have to pay for them? Moreover, estate taxes make it difficult for families to accumulate wealth over generations, and accumulating wealth is good. More generally, I’ve noticed that the tax code seems to be structured not to soak the already-rich, but to prevent the upper-middle class from becoming rich. The income tax is easily avoidable by the extremely wealthy; they can invest their assets in ways that produce tax-free revenue streams (e.g. municipal bonds) and live off them. Upper-middle class folks don’t have the assets to do this and sustain their lifestyle. They get socked by the progressive income tax schedule, AMT and the phase-out of deductions. Similarly, the extremely wealthy can do things like set up trusts to reduce the impact of estate taxes, but the estates of the upper-middle aren’t big enough for that to be viable. So they get socked by the estate tax. People don’t get rich by having their money taxed into the hands of government officials; they get rich by being able to keep the money they earn. This is true both for individuals and families across generations. Increase the minimum wage and index it to the CPI No, no, and hell no. Price controls are bad. They’re bad in the market for commodities, they’re bad in the market for real estate, they’yre bad in the market for services, and they’re (surprise) bad in the market for labor. I’m pretty sure Frederic Bastiat nailed this one somtime in the 1850’s; I can’t belive we’re still arguing about it now. Universal health care (obviously the devil is in the details on this one) No. There is no such thing as a right to health care. The current health care regimen in the United States is clearly broken, but the way to fix it is with more freedom, not less. Increase CAFE standards. Some other environment-related regulation In general, no. Pro-reproductive rights, getting rid of abstinence-only education, improving education about and access to contraception including the morning after pill, and supporting choice. On the last one there’s probably some disagreement around the edges (parental notification, for example), but otherwise. This is a mixed-bag. I definitely support first and second trimester abortions, and the morning-after pill. I also think Roe was badly-decided and should be overturned, as long as it’s overturned for the right reasons. Abortion probably should be a constitutionally-protected right, but I’m not convinced that it actually is, and trying to twist the Constitution into saying something it doesn’t opens the door to a whole raft of pernicious shenanigans. The question of abstinence-only sex education is only an issue because of public schools. Expand vouchers, education choice tax credits, work towards long-term privatization of the schools, and let parents decide how they want their children educated. Simplify and increase the progressivity of the tax code Simplify, yes. Increase the progressivity, no. Kill faith-based funding. Certainly kill federal funding of anything that engages in religious discrimination. The question here is what constitutes “religious discrimination”. I would agree that a program that specifically excludes secular organizations is a problem and should be halted. But a program that is open to both secular and religious organizations equally, but which the secular choose (for whatever reason) not to take advantage of, is not a problem. So, to take a specific example, a program of school vouchers that was legally restricted to parochial schools would be wrong. But a program of school vouchers that is open to both secular and sectarian schools is fine, even if the vast majority of currently-existing private schools are sectarian. If you want more such funding to flow to secular private schools, go and found some. Similar logic applies to charity work. I don’t think the government should be funding religious or secular charities, but if it must do so it should do so in an ideologically-neutral manner. Discussions with liberals have lead me to conclude that this is not what they mean when they talk about religious discrimination. Reduce corporate giveaways Yes. (Although I can’t help echoing the snarky comment of another responder to this list asking whether universal health care would be considered a corporate giveaway.) Actually, I’d go farther than ‘reduce’, all the way to ‘eliminate’. I support the full and complete separation of state and economics. While we’re at it, can we stop giving money away to non-corporate entities as well? Defunding the United Nations would be a good move, for example — I don’t see that they’re any more deserving of my tax dollars than Archer Daniels Midland or Northrop-Grumman. Have Medicare run the Medicare drug plan No. Kill the Medicare drug plan. For that matter, kill Medicare. Force companies to stop underfunding their pensions. Change corporate bankruptcy law to put workers and retirees at the head of the line with respect to their pensions. Let’s talk about forcing companies to fully fund their retirement plan obligations as soon as the federal government is fully funding its retirement plan obligations. End the Social Security Ponzi scheme. Leave the states alone on issues like medical marijuana. Generally move towards “more decriminalization” of drugs, though the details complicated there too. Here I can agree fully. Paper ballots I’m not wedded to paper ballots as such, but I think recent years have demonstrated an erosion in the quality of our voting system and a corresponding decline in public trust that needs to be corrected. We need a way for voters to verify that their vote was counted and counted correctly. We also need to clean up the voter rolls and keep them clean, and we need to ensure that the people who vote are actually entitled to do so. (I have to show photo ID when I buy beer; why don’t I have to do the same thing when I’m voting? What possible justification is there for treating the foundational process of our democracy more lightly than getting hammered on Saturday night?) Given their almost hysterical opposition to things like photo ID voting requirements, I don’t think that the sort of comprehensive voting system cleanup I want to see is what liberals want. But I’d be happy to be wrong. Democracy only works when the side that loses is confident that their support was counted accurately and fairly. Improve access to daycare and other pro-family policies. Obviously details matter. This is too vague to assess objectively. If it means government-funded childcare, I’m out. Given how screwed up the public schools are, why would I want to let the government near my hypothetical child for several more hours a day? Raise the cap on wages covered by FICA taxes. No. Privatize Social Security. Marriage rights for all, which includes “gay marriage” and quicker transition to citizenship for the foreign spouses of citizens. I’m torn here, but I think I come down against in the end. Reviewing the above, out of 16 points I find only one point where I can agree completely (on drug legalization). There are a few other points where I can find partial agreement. Overall I’d say it comes to about 3/16, which would make me just under 19% liberal. I wonder if there’s a similar set of ‘points of agreement’ on the starboard side? Zacarias Moussaoui does not get the death penalty. Although I would not have been the least bit disturbed had the jury decided otherwise, in some ways I consider this a better outcome than an execution. Moussaoui is a religious nut pining for martyrdom. Instead of giving him what he wanted, he gets to spend the rest of his life in a maximum security prison — hopefully as the close friend of someone named ‘Bubba’. I just wish we had the stones to update the prison menu so that every night was pork & beans night. Burning a Mexican flag: constitutionally protected political speech or constitutionally unprotected hate speech? Apparently there is some controversy in blue states about the airing of the trailer for the upcoming film UNITED 93, about the 9/11 hijacking of (surprise!) United Flight 93. People have been complaining that (after 5 years), it’s ‘too soon’ for such a movie. Revisiting these events is apparently too emotionally traumatizing for these people. They’re trying to get movie theaters to pull the trailer. Well, this is the 21st century, and I don’t need a theater to watch a trailer. Neither do you. I suggest going and watching it now. This trailer isn’t exploitative, it isn’t sensationalist, it isn’t traumatic. It’s tasteful and, if anything, extremely understated. Comparing the trailer to the complaints that have been made about it, I can only draw one conclusion: leftists are pussies, and hypocritical pussies to boot. For years, conservatives complaining about media they found objectionable were met by liberals with the (absolutely correct) rejoinder that “if you don’t like it, don’t watch it.” Well, turnabout is fair play. Now the left has met a piece of media they find objectionable, and they should be met with the same response. Perhaps with the additional admonition to grow the hell up. I‘m saddened by the failure of most American newspapers to reprint the editorial comics that triggered the so-called “Cartoon Jihad” among Muslims. The typical excuse rendered by the papers is that reprinting the comics would be ‘offensive’ to Muslim sensibilities. This treats not giving offense as a kind of ethical primary or commandment — “Thou Shalt Not Give Offense”. The obvious rejoinder to this is the observation that the papers are engaging in a double-standard, being willing to print items that offend some groups and not others. But there is a deeper question as well: since when is it always wrong to offend people? The classical definition of a gentleman is someone who never gives offense unintentionally. This definition acknowledges that there are times when being offensive is not only justifiable, it is obligatory. Politeness is a two-way street; the rude are not in a position to demand treatment from others that they will not themselves grant. This is why I’m not particularly moved by concerns that reprinting these cartoons might be offensive to Muslims. Muslims are not exactly well-known for their respectful treatment of the symbols and icons of other belief systems. (Recall, for example, the then-lamented-but-now-largely-ignored destruction of Buddhist statues in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime — or the innumerable cartoons with anti-Semitic elements published in various Middle-Eastern newspapers.) As a general rule, it is acceptable to treat people under the same principles that they adhere to themselves in dealing with others. If a criminal uses force against others, he cannot claim wrongdoing when others respond to him with force. A rude person cannot invoke the principles of etiquette should others treat him poorly in response. And Muslims are not in a position to complain when their religious icons are treated with the same (lack of) respect they show to the icons of others. Indeed, granting people the protections of principles they reject through their actions just undermines the principles. You don’t encourage the acceptance of a principle by rewarding people for not following it. Giving deference to Muslim feelings of offense at satire of their religious symbols, while not calling them on their myriad of similar offenses directed at non-Muslims, simply feeds into the preexisting sense of Muslim exceptionalism. Islam already incorporates a systematic double-standard, with certain actions permitted to believers but banned to infidels. Confirming and reinforcing this double-standard by acquiescing in its application (as most American newspapers have been doing) just makes it harder to integrate Islam into modern, pluralist societies. There is no such thing as a legal right not to be offended. But, more importantly, there is no moral requirement to avoid giving offense to those whose own behavior is offensive. Justice, in fact, requires the opposite. A number of blogs have been buzzing about the recent exchange between Paul Mirengoff and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) on the topic of FISA and the NSA intercept program. The Bush administration argues that the post-9/11 congressional authorization of force provides statutory authority under FISA for the intercept program. Democrats disagree. This is therefore in part a dispute over the intent of the legislature when it passed the authorization of force. Mirengoff asks the obvious question: if the intent of Congress has been misinterpreted, why not pass a clarifying resolution? That would seem to settle the issue one way or the other. Durbin’s reaction to this idea can be compared to that of a Frenchman to a bar of soap, or perhaps a vampire to a clove of garlic. I understand why the Democrats wouldn’t want to put such a clarifying resolution up for a vote. It would require them to take a clear stand on the underlying issue of whether this kind of surveillance is desirable or not. If they vote to deny the authority, they look like they’re more concerned about the alleged civil rights of terrorists than they are about the security of law-abiding Americans. That plays right into the Republican electoral strategy for the mid-term elections. Being perceived as siding with terrorists equals the political kiss of death. But if they vote to support the authority, they’d be validating the Bush administration’s position, acknowledging that the NSA intercept program was always legal under existing law. That would make them look like feckless, unprincipled opportunists who spent months attacking the President for something they wound up admitting was never a problem. It would also infuriate their left-wing activist base, which is already pretty torqued with them for failing to halt the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. The end result would also be very politically damaging. So I understand why the Democrats don’t want to push this line. The question in my mind is, given the above, why don’t the Republicans do it themselves? I can come up with some speculations, e.g.:
Right now, I’m inclined to go with reason (1), because I know it’s true. (As an aside, I’d note that the conservative glee over Durbin’s flustered reaction to getting an actual hardball question can cut both ways. I know a number of Republicans who wouldn’t fare too well if faced with similar hard questions from equally well-informed interlocutors with differing political views. And I expect such will happen with increasing frequency in the future. Glenn Reynolds’ Army of Davids fights for more than one side.) |
|
